4 ms·

This law does not carve the USB-C into stone. There is a review mechanism and a mechanism for monitoring the market and approving another port in the future whe

This law does not carve the USB-C into stone. There is a review mechanism and a mechanism for monitoring the market and approving another port in the future when it's time to do so. This is done through the USB Implementers Forum. All this law really, truly does is force manufacturers to sit around a table and work out a single solution for the whole electronics market. EU doesn't really care about USB-C or USB-D or USB-Whatever, they just require industry to set aside pettiness and work out a solution.

diebeforei485 4y ago
That's a bit strange. The USB Implementers Forum people are partly why we're in this mess. What if someone comes up with something just better, and doesn't want to deal with the cruft and backward compatibility requirements of USB?
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  For charging, the spec is tiny. For slow to medium data, USB 2.0 is baked in to so many chips that it's hard to imagine wanting anything else. For fast data, maybe you want a new port in some situations, but does that also have to be your only charging port?
  - MrBuddyCasino 4y ago
    > For charging, the spec is tiny. Have you ever looked at the horror that is USB-PD? The reason you've never seen v1 devices in the real world is because the spec was impossible to implement so they had to fix it in a v2.
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      I'm aware it vastly changed between 1 and 2, but I'm talking about using the current version, the fixed one. "Tiny" probably isn't the best word but it's straightforward enough. It can be put into tiny chips.
      - MrBuddyCasino 4y ago
        If "written in a way that sort of make sense if all you can do is turn XML into Java code and is absolutely horrible to actually implement", then yes its straightforward. Compare with PCIe, which is actually sane.
- rasz 4y ago
  micro USB is 15 years old, mini 17. Just after introduction of mini everyone and their dog tried pushing their own slightly tweaked proprietary variant. There were at least 6 separate incompatible shapes. Sony had one (afair different shield bend on the mini connector), Nikon, Canon etc. It gets better, sometimes same connector had different pinouts depending on the brand https://connector.pinoutguide.com/8_pin_UC-E6_like-mini-usb_proprietary/ https://connector.pinoutguide.com/8_pin_UC-E6_like-mini-usb_... thats 8 different pinout for same non standard connector. Nowadays only one brand is against interoperability.
  - dwaite 4y ago
    micro and mini USB both had three variants - A, B, and A/B - as part of USB OTG (On the Go). This is because they wanted you to be able to connect a computer to a camera, but also to be able to connect that camera to a printer.
- dwaite 4y ago
  > The USB Implementers Forum people are partly why we're in this mess. IMHO it really is. For the first releases of power delivery, the IF decided to _not_ go with Apple's existing system that they developed to negotiate charging levels for iPods, iPhones and iPads. Instead they standardized another new, incompatible mechanism. If you ever wondered why so many Apple devices and cables don't have USB logos, it is because they were left with little way to be compliant with PD 1.0 and still support literally a billion previously shipped devices and chargers at the time. This caused a market with incompatibilities between Android and iDevice charging ecosystems, which (again IMHO) was what caused the last round of EU mandates in the first place. Qualcomm and others capitalized on various gaps with their own proprietary charging protocols, which then created a need for their chips in chargers as well. Things really didn't even start to get fixed until rather recently, with Power Delivery 3.0 and PPS.
olliej 4y ago
How does that work though? No one can put a new device on the market without first getting approval from the USB-IF. It means that companies for which the only thing that matters is the fractions of a cent they can save on the production have much more control over the entire industry. It also means that no one can put a product out that requires _anything_ beyond what the current connector can do, because step 1 is going to the IF and detailing what you are planning to do in a future product, and then wait while your competitors implement your feature and get to ship at the same time as you.
- viraptor 4y ago
  It already worked before. The micro-usb charging was also an EU change because everyone was using their very special connector. (https://www.engadget.com/2009-06-29-nokia-apple-rim-and-others-agree-on-micro-usb-phone-charger-st.html https://www.engadget.com/2009-06-29-nokia-apple-rim-and-othe...) Yet now we have USB-C. (I don't know exactly "how" in this case) Also it's extremely unlikely we'll need that for decades. USB-C as a connector supports absurd bandwidth and power. If you can pull 120W and drive 2x 4k displays from your phone... what would be the reason for the next upgrade? (and those are likely not the physical limits yet)
- kaba0 4y ago
  It is only about form factor and the power part, nothing is mandated of data pins. It’s not like the (mostly) unified electric plug has been keeping us from innovation, let’s be realistic here, electricity flowing through a cable won’t change any time soon as the basis for most of our infrastructure, even from a simple physical point of view. Also, wireless charging is not affected, but that will always be less efficient, at least in the foreseeable future.
1123581321 4y ago
That committee can easily hold the standard hostage unless the EU allows innovative manufacturers to prove new connectors in the real world.
- josefx 4y ago
  Then lets hope that Apple doesn't get a vote, because they have been the only ones who have stubbornly kept fucking it up after the ultimatum was declared.
  - midoridensha 4y ago
    They can have a vote, just don't give them veto power like the way the UN Security Council works. Let's be real here: the only problematic manufacturer these days in this regard is Apple. Everyone else is happy to use USB these days and work with each other on further iterations of the USB spec. One vote from a bad actor out of many isn't going to affect anything.
    - rhaway84773 4y ago
      Also, Apple is also happy to use USB-C for so many products.
  - 1123581321 4y ago
    That’s a different problem. I also didn’t say Apple would be advancing a new connector. I could see Apple holding the standard back to their benefit as well as supporting an upstart manufacturer. It’ll probably depend on what MFI looks like from 2024 onward.
midoridensha 4y ago
>they just require industry to set aside pettiness and work out a solution.\ The problem isn't "the industry" being petty, it's Apple, and Apple alone. Everyone else got over their idiotic pettiness and attempts at proprietary connectors many, many years ago and jumped on the USB bandwagon.
- snehk 4y ago
  To be fair, they all tried their own crappy adapters that were the same as everything else but simply incompatible due to the design of the thing. Apple's lightning connector was simply better than what others offered. They had a data connector that worked upside down. They solved an annoyance users had, which is why the thing was so popular. It then took other cell phone manufacturers three years to implement that.
  - kaba0 4y ago
    Apple also is part of that group and also accepted USB-C. It’s not like their ipads for several years now wouldn’t be using it.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- robin_reala 4y ago
  In the phone world, yes, but this legislation doesn’t apply to just phones. The ruling[1] says: The interoperability between radio equipment and accessories such as chargers is hampered as there are different charging interfaces for certain categories or classes of radio equipment that use wired charging such as handheld mobile phones, tablets, digital cameras, headphones or headsets, handheld videogame consoles, portable speakers, e-readers, keyboards, mice, portable navigation systems, earbuds and laptops. It basically applies to anything that is portable (but not so small that it can’t fit a USB-C socket), battery powered, and has some sort of radio in it. For example, this is presumably why the new Kindle now has USB-C.[2] [1] https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-10713-2022-INIT/x/pdf https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-10713-2022-... [2] https://www.theverge.com/23409106/amazon-kindle-2022-e-reader-review-test-price-specs-features https://www.theverge.com/23409106/amazon-kindle-2022-e-reade...

diebeforei485 4y ago

That's a bit strange. The USB Implementers Forum people are partly why we're in this mess. What if someone comes up with something just better, and doesn't want to deal with the cruft and backward compatibility requirements of USB?

Dylan16807 4y ago
For charging, the spec is tiny. For slow to medium data, USB 2.0 is baked in to so many chips that it's hard to imagine wanting anything else. For fast data, maybe you want a new port in some situations, but does that also have to be your only charging port?
- MrBuddyCasino 4y ago
  > For charging, the spec is tiny. Have you ever looked at the horror that is USB-PD? The reason you've never seen v1 devices in the real world is because the spec was impossible to implement so they had to fix it in a v2.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    I'm aware it vastly changed between 1 and 2, but I'm talking about using the current version, the fixed one. "Tiny" probably isn't the best word but it's straightforward enough. It can be put into tiny chips.
    - MrBuddyCasino 4y ago
      If "written in a way that sort of make sense if all you can do is turn XML into Java code and is absolutely horrible to actually implement", then yes its straightforward. Compare with PCIe, which is actually sane.
rasz 4y ago
micro USB is 15 years old, mini 17. Just after introduction of mini everyone and their dog tried pushing their own slightly tweaked proprietary variant. There were at least 6 separate incompatible shapes. Sony had one (afair different shield bend on the mini connector), Nikon, Canon etc. It gets better, sometimes same connector had different pinouts depending on the brand https://connector.pinoutguide.com/8_pin_UC-E6_like-mini-usb_proprietary/ https://connector.pinoutguide.com/8_pin_UC-E6_like-mini-usb_... thats 8 different pinout for same non standard connector. Nowadays only one brand is against interoperability.
- dwaite 4y ago
  micro and mini USB both had three variants - A, B, and A/B - as part of USB OTG (On the Go). This is because they wanted you to be able to connect a computer to a camera, but also to be able to connect that camera to a printer.
dwaite 4y ago
> The USB Implementers Forum people are partly why we're in this mess. IMHO it really is. For the first releases of power delivery, the IF decided to _not_ go with Apple's existing system that they developed to negotiate charging levels for iPods, iPhones and iPads. Instead they standardized another new, incompatible mechanism. If you ever wondered why so many Apple devices and cables don't have USB logos, it is because they were left with little way to be compliant with PD 1.0 and still support literally a billion previously shipped devices and chargers at the time. This caused a market with incompatibilities between Android and iDevice charging ecosystems, which (again IMHO) was what caused the last round of EU mandates in the first place. Qualcomm and others capitalized on various gaps with their own proprietary charging protocols, which then created a need for their chips in chargers as well. Things really didn't even start to get fixed until rather recently, with Power Delivery 3.0 and PPS.

olliej 4y ago

How does that work though? No one can put a new device on the market without first getting approval from the USB-IF. It means that companies for which the only thing that matters is the fractions of a cent they can save on the production have much more control over the entire industry. It also means that no one can put a product out that requires _anything_ beyond what the current connector can do, because step 1 is going to the IF and detailing what you are planning to do in a future product, and then wait while your competitors implement your feature and get to ship at the same time as you.

viraptor 4y ago
It already worked before. The micro-usb charging was also an EU change because everyone was using their very special connector. (https://www.engadget.com/2009-06-29-nokia-apple-rim-and-others-agree-on-micro-usb-phone-charger-st.html https://www.engadget.com/2009-06-29-nokia-apple-rim-and-othe...) Yet now we have USB-C. (I don't know exactly "how" in this case) Also it's extremely unlikely we'll need that for decades. USB-C as a connector supports absurd bandwidth and power. If you can pull 120W and drive 2x 4k displays from your phone... what would be the reason for the next upgrade? (and those are likely not the physical limits yet)
kaba0 4y ago
It is only about form factor and the power part, nothing is mandated of data pins. It’s not like the (mostly) unified electric plug has been keeping us from innovation, let’s be realistic here, electricity flowing through a cable won’t change any time soon as the basis for most of our infrastructure, even from a simple physical point of view. Also, wireless charging is not affected, but that will always be less efficient, at least in the foreseeable future.

1123581321 4y ago

That committee can easily hold the standard hostage unless the EU allows innovative manufacturers to prove new connectors in the real world.

josefx 4y ago
Then lets hope that Apple doesn't get a vote, because they have been the only ones who have stubbornly kept fucking it up after the ultimatum was declared.
- midoridensha 4y ago
  They can have a vote, just don't give them veto power like the way the UN Security Council works. Let's be real here: the only problematic manufacturer these days in this regard is Apple. Everyone else is happy to use USB these days and work with each other on further iterations of the USB spec. One vote from a bad actor out of many isn't going to affect anything.
  - rhaway84773 4y ago
    Also, Apple is also happy to use USB-C for so many products.
- 1123581321 4y ago
  That’s a different problem. I also didn’t say Apple would be advancing a new connector. I could see Apple holding the standard back to their benefit as well as supporting an upstart manufacturer. It’ll probably depend on what MFI looks like from 2024 onward.

midoridensha 4y ago

>they just require industry to set aside pettiness and work out a solution.\ The problem isn't "the industry" being petty, it's Apple, and Apple alone. Everyone else got over their idiotic pettiness and attempts at proprietary connectors many, many years ago and jumped on the USB bandwagon.

snehk 4y ago
To be fair, they all tried their own crappy adapters that were the same as everything else but simply incompatible due to the design of the thing. Apple's lightning connector was simply better than what others offered. They had a data connector that worked upside down. They solved an annoyance users had, which is why the thing was so popular. It then took other cell phone manufacturers three years to implement that.
- kaba0 4y ago
  Apple also is part of that group and also accepted USB-C. It’s not like their ipads for several years now wouldn’t be using it.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
robin_reala 4y ago
In the phone world, yes, but this legislation doesn’t apply to just phones. The ruling[1] says: The interoperability between radio equipment and accessories such as chargers is hampered as there are different charging interfaces for certain categories or classes of radio equipment that use wired charging such as handheld mobile phones, tablets, digital cameras, headphones or headsets, handheld videogame consoles, portable speakers, e-readers, keyboards, mice, portable navigation systems, earbuds and laptops. It basically applies to anything that is portable (but not so small that it can’t fit a USB-C socket), battery powered, and has some sort of radio in it. For example, this is presumably why the new Kindle now has USB-C.[2] [1] https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-10713-2022-INIT/x/pdf https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-10713-2022-... [2] https://www.theverge.com/23409106/amazon-kindle-2022-e-reader-review-test-price-specs-features https://www.theverge.com/23409106/amazon-kindle-2022-e-reade...