3 ms·

Because we already know what happens when a common port is not mandated. Seriously, before this law was put in place, Europe had been asking companies to agree

Because we already know what happens when a common port is not mandated. Seriously, before this law was put in place, Europe had been asking companies to agree on a common charging port for more than a decade. The first Memorandum of Understanding on the subject was signed in 2009. Amusingly Apple did sign it before deciding to simply ignore it. That was followed by a directive in 2014 and an impact assessment in 2018. Despite these repeated warnings, Apple spent the decade lobbying against a common port while collecting a tidy sum with the Made For Iphone initiative. The EU didn’t mandate by hubris. It just had to. We need a law because if we don’t have one there will always be companies reverting to proprietary ports. They just can’t resist the easy money.

realgeniushere 4y ago
I reckon it takes the market power of an Apple to hold out on proprietary charging ports. Only reason they held out is 1) keep their accessory licensing revenue stream and 2) introduce friction with Android users (see iMessage). Almost no one else has the kind of market power to do that without pissing users off to their detriment. Aside from Apple, the voluntary standards process was working. No one else was still resisting USB-C. Can you name some examples?
- anony999 4y ago
  There are still laptops with various charger types not to mention digital cameras and other electronics that could use usb-c pd but refuse to adopt it. I think the law should be expanded to any kind of electronic device that whose power requirements can be satisfied by the usb-c specifications.
  - btbuilder 4y ago
    Laptops are also covered, but by 2026.
  - Robotbeat 4y ago
    Isn’t USB-C at high power kind of expensive per watt? USB-C is not royalty-free, either.
    - anony999 4y ago
      >> Isn’t USB-C at high power kind of expensive per watt? I don't think it's too expensive if you consider the environment impact not to mention the bad user experience caused by multiple chargers. I also believe at certain point the economies of scale should make it less expensive.
- speleding 4y ago
  Actually there were some solid arguments against USB-C, most importantly that it's not IP rated and therefore is not allowed to be used in kitchen or bathroom equipment. It would be so much nicer if we got one standard that covers everything.
  - marsokod 4y ago
    How so? I can find IP67 micro-USB and USB-C connectors on digi-key. Is it a matter of USB-C not having the IP rating as part of its spec? And my latest trimmer is actually using micro-USB, though with an additional plastic plug preventing the use of the charger on another device. But I can charge the trimmer with any other Micro-USB charger.
speleding 4y ago
In its first incarnation the industry proposed micro USB as a charging standard. I think we can agree that's a pretty poor choice, connectors that break easily, only go in one way, and low power. So Apple was right to ignore it. We would have been stuck with micro USB for eternity if it wasn't for Apple. I realise they may not have objected out of the kindness of their hart, but good thing they did.
- ahartmetz 4y ago
  > We would have been stuck with micro USB for eternity if it wasn't for Apple Amending laws takes much less time than eternity. Lawmakers are people, they can process information and make changes when appropriate. You can be sure that the industry will not forget to remind them when a change seems sensible.
  - nfin 4y ago
    true, but what you then loose is “natural selection”. Why? Because either a new standard is not allowed. Or it is allowed, but then highly probably just one… and the central planning way. One standard/product is worked on, one is accepted as the successo. No selection in the wild of the one that survives (depending of what we talk about, the survivor is sometimes the one that is technically better, sometimes it is the one that is cheaper, or faster in bandwith or latency or prettier, or …). This sometimes work ok for 1-2 successors, but the more times pass by, the more central planing (or lack of free market) fails. If one is very honest it has to see both sides of it. Both has their pros and cons (not equally weighted though). The regulated way has to be done as rarely as possible (very hard to decide when it is a good idea…)
    - WastingMyTime89 4y ago
      There are no “natural selection” of charging ports. It’s simply not part of what people consider when they buy appliances. Customers are mostly at the whim of manufacturers when it comes to these technical details.
  - speleding 4y ago
comfypotato 4y ago
To piggyback on this excellent response: USB C is very good. There is no foreseeable reason to have to change anything for a long long time. Implemented with durable materials and good machining practices, USB C can last a lifetime of plug cycles. The standard lends itself to extremely durable design relative even to the tank that is USB A. The C standard is for 10,000 cycles, but this is only technically a minimum. USB A only specifies 1,500 technically, but A connectors have been manufactured that last 20,000. This all alludes to the idea that USB C is just a standard, and it doesn’t indicate exactly how the connector is designed. The situation with bandwidth is similar. Bandwidth has many other bottlenecks. The speed with which data is written to a flash drive, for example, has nothing to do with the port itself anymore. Similarly to the durability issue, it’s going to be a long long time before the functionality of USB C is associated with more than 80 GB/s.

realgeniushere 4y ago

I reckon it takes the market power of an Apple to hold out on proprietary charging ports. Only reason they held out is 1) keep their accessory licensing revenue stream and 2) introduce friction with Android users (see iMessage). Almost no one else has the kind of market power to do that without pissing users off to their detriment. Aside from Apple, the voluntary standards process was working. No one else was still resisting USB-C. Can you name some examples?

anony999 4y ago
There are still laptops with various charger types not to mention digital cameras and other electronics that could use usb-c pd but refuse to adopt it. I think the law should be expanded to any kind of electronic device that whose power requirements can be satisfied by the usb-c specifications.
- btbuilder 4y ago
  Laptops are also covered, but by 2026.
- Robotbeat 4y ago
  Isn’t USB-C at high power kind of expensive per watt? USB-C is not royalty-free, either.
  - anony999 4y ago
    >> Isn’t USB-C at high power kind of expensive per watt? I don't think it's too expensive if you consider the environment impact not to mention the bad user experience caused by multiple chargers. I also believe at certain point the economies of scale should make it less expensive.
speleding 4y ago
Actually there were some solid arguments against USB-C, most importantly that it's not IP rated and therefore is not allowed to be used in kitchen or bathroom equipment. It would be so much nicer if we got one standard that covers everything.
- marsokod 4y ago
  How so? I can find IP67 micro-USB and USB-C connectors on digi-key. Is it a matter of USB-C not having the IP rating as part of its spec? And my latest trimmer is actually using micro-USB, though with an additional plastic plug preventing the use of the charger on another device. But I can charge the trimmer with any other Micro-USB charger.

speleding 4y ago

In its first incarnation the industry proposed micro USB as a charging standard. I think we can agree that's a pretty poor choice, connectors that break easily, only go in one way, and low power. So Apple was right to ignore it. We would have been stuck with micro USB for eternity if it wasn't for Apple. I realise they may not have objected out of the kindness of their hart, but good thing they did.

ahartmetz 4y ago
> We would have been stuck with micro USB for eternity if it wasn't for Apple Amending laws takes much less time than eternity. Lawmakers are people, they can process information and make changes when appropriate. You can be sure that the industry will not forget to remind them when a change seems sensible.
- nfin 4y ago
  true, but what you then loose is “natural selection”. Why? Because either a new standard is not allowed. Or it is allowed, but then highly probably just one… and the central planning way. One standard/product is worked on, one is accepted as the successo. No selection in the wild of the one that survives (depending of what we talk about, the survivor is sometimes the one that is technically better, sometimes it is the one that is cheaper, or faster in bandwith or latency or prettier, or …). This sometimes work ok for 1-2 successors, but the more times pass by, the more central planing (or lack of free market) fails. If one is very honest it has to see both sides of it. Both has their pros and cons (not equally weighted though). The regulated way has to be done as rarely as possible (very hard to decide when it is a good idea…)
  - WastingMyTime89 4y ago
    There are no “natural selection” of charging ports. It’s simply not part of what people consider when they buy appliances. Customers are mostly at the whim of manufacturers when it comes to these technical details.
- speleding 4y ago

comfypotato 4y ago

To piggyback on this excellent response: USB C is very good. There is no foreseeable reason to have to change anything for a long long time. Implemented with durable materials and good machining practices, USB C can last a lifetime of plug cycles. The standard lends itself to extremely durable design relative even to the tank that is USB A. The C standard is for 10,000 cycles, but this is only technically a minimum. USB A only specifies 1,500 technically, but A connectors have been manufactured that last 20,000. This all alludes to the idea that USB C is just a standard, and it doesn’t indicate exactly how the connector is designed. The situation with bandwidth is similar. Bandwidth has many other bottlenecks. The speed with which data is written to a flash drive, for example, has nothing to do with the port itself anymore. Similarly to the durability issue, it’s going to be a long long time before the functionality of USB C is associated with more than 80 GB/s.