3 ms·

Alright, so before more folks freak out even more at this, there are a number of knee-jerk reactions that could be mitigated by reading up on this a bit before

Alright, so before more folks freak out even more at this, there are a number of knee-jerk reactions that could be mitigated by reading up on this a bit before tossing thunderbolts. The main reasoning for this is to cut down on waste from incompatible chargers. This will bring charging more in line with other standardized products such as AC power cords, twisted pair networking, SD cards, M.2 SSDs, and all of those wonderful things that come from standards that everyone follows. Can no one continue to sell charging products for stuff that's already out there? Obviously you can continue to support existing stuff. This rule applies to power drawing products, not the chargers (products sold in 2024 must charge from USB-C, but you can continue selling non-USB-C chargers for older stuff already in consumer hands). Will it stop innovation? Of course not. New innovations can be brought forth in the same way they are with the other standards mentioned above: developed in a harmonised manner, respecting the objectives of full interoperability (in this case led by the USB-IF organisation). Is USB-C a complicated standard? Yep, but then again most companies manage to produce working and interoperable stuff just fine. Are there companies that break the standard? Yes of course - there are always bad actors and careless implementations. But consumer laws will prevent them from selling their crap in the European market. This is what standards enforcement is for (the CE marking, for example). Are HNers going to look for extreme and unlikely cases and anecdata to ride their hobby horses on this? It wouldn't be HN without it!

theptip 4y ago
I think your analogy isn’t right. None of those standards are mandatory. Would M.2 have come out when it did if you needed to change the law to permit it to be used over SATA? USB-C is already a standard just like all your other examples. This law forbids using other standards. > New innovations can be brought forth in the same way they are with the other standards mentioned above: developed in a harmonised manner I think you are confused about how consumer product innovation happens in the real world. You don’t form a committee and convince them that your new product is better. You bring something new to market and if it succeeds, you make money and gain market share; like Apple did when they brought out Lightning. Even if you are building a new standard like M.2, you are still competing with other standards, all of which can be chosen by your customers as they deem appropriate. By definition it is now harder to innovate on charging cables simply because you can’t try something new. It is perfectly fine to say “I don’t think we need to prioritize innovation in this sector any more; eWaste is more important than innovation”. I wouldn’t even argue with that claim in the short term. But it’s not credible to deny that this will have a negative effect on innovation. That is always the impact of regulation like this. If nothing else, startups are now forbidden from experimenting with this variable.
- kstenerud 4y ago
  > None of those standards are mandatory AC power cord standards ARE mandatory. The other standards don't require enforcement because the industry has already converged on the standards and didn't need a push. This will be the equivalent power cord standard for DC devices. However, unlike AC power cords, USB-C also transmits data, and will thus require further innovations (much like the innovations in twisted pair networking). Will there be less innovation? In a small way, yes, because nobody can unilaterally push some new power cable standard by leveraging their market dominance. But then again, market dominance usually results in protectionism instead of openness (lightning cable, memory stick, Beta, etc), so such innovation would have been a dead-end e-waste producer anyway. What big players CAN do now is influence the newer standards to adopt their (free and open) innovations, like they do with all other standards out there. The great thing about open standards is that the rising tide lifts all boats.
- geraneum 4y ago
  This is an unrealistic view of how current standards are introduced, approved and adopted. Interesting that you mentioned Apple, when they are using their significant market share to push lightning down their customers throats. The standards mentioned, are approved mostly by consortiums of big enterprises. So in a sense, there’s already a committee that evaluates and passes them. You also find the usual suspects among them i.e. Apple, IBM, HP, Google, etc. there’s no small startup there.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- pydry 4y ago
  >But it’s not credible to deny that this will have a negative effect on innovation. Why? What consumer friendly innovations in charging have we had since USB C came out that this law would have made illegal if it were introduced from the start? >That is always the impact of regulation like this. I think it would be fair to say that if we could point to examples of useful innovation in the past that would have been killed by this legislation. But can we?
- 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

theptip 4y ago

I think your analogy isn’t right. None of those standards are mandatory. Would M.2 have come out when it did if you needed to change the law to permit it to be used over SATA? USB-C is already a standard just like all your other examples. This law forbids using other standards. > New innovations can be brought forth in the same way they are with the other standards mentioned above: developed in a harmonised manner I think you are confused about how consumer product innovation happens in the real world. You don’t form a committee and convince them that your new product is better. You bring something new to market and if it succeeds, you make money and gain market share; like Apple did when they brought out Lightning. Even if you are building a new standard like M.2, you are still competing with other standards, all of which can be chosen by your customers as they deem appropriate. By definition it is now harder to innovate on charging cables simply because you can’t try something new. It is perfectly fine to say “I don’t think we need to prioritize innovation in this sector any more; eWaste is more important than innovation”. I wouldn’t even argue with that claim in the short term. But it’s not credible to deny that this will have a negative effect on innovation. That is always the impact of regulation like this. If nothing else, startups are now forbidden from experimenting with this variable.

kstenerud 4y ago
> None of those standards are mandatory AC power cord standards ARE mandatory. The other standards don't require enforcement because the industry has already converged on the standards and didn't need a push. This will be the equivalent power cord standard for DC devices. However, unlike AC power cords, USB-C also transmits data, and will thus require further innovations (much like the innovations in twisted pair networking). Will there be less innovation? In a small way, yes, because nobody can unilaterally push some new power cable standard by leveraging their market dominance. But then again, market dominance usually results in protectionism instead of openness (lightning cable, memory stick, Beta, etc), so such innovation would have been a dead-end e-waste producer anyway. What big players CAN do now is influence the newer standards to adopt their (free and open) innovations, like they do with all other standards out there. The great thing about open standards is that the rising tide lifts all boats.
geraneum 4y ago
This is an unrealistic view of how current standards are introduced, approved and adopted. Interesting that you mentioned Apple, when they are using their significant market share to push lightning down their customers throats. The standards mentioned, are approved mostly by consortiums of big enterprises. So in a sense, there’s already a committee that evaluates and passes them. You also find the usual suspects among them i.e. Apple, IBM, HP, Google, etc. there’s no small startup there.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
pydry 4y ago
>But it’s not credible to deny that this will have a negative effect on innovation. Why? What consumer friendly innovations in charging have we had since USB C came out that this law would have made illegal if it were introduced from the start? >That is always the impact of regulation like this. I think it would be fair to say that if we could point to examples of useful innovation in the past that would have been killed by this legislation. But can we?
4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]