18 ms·

Superior functionality exclusively in the EU — USB-C, side-loading — is a good thing. It will remind US folks that the law is a powerful mechanism for making si

by leoh 4y ago

Superior functionality exclusively in the EU — USB-C, side-loading — is a good thing. It will remind US folks that the law is a powerful mechanism for making simple, non-controversial changes that improve everyone’s quality of life; but which corporations would otherwise refuse to accept. BTW — LAAS (lobbying-as-a-service) should probably exist.

dagorenouf 4y ago
Usb-c sounds cool for now. But what about when a new port comes out and Apple can’t use it because the EU still mandates to use the old one?
- herbstein 4y ago
  You mean like when everyone moved from mini-USB to USB-C? It's also good to remember that lightning connectors are USB2 in a different form factor - outdated and slow.
  - candiodari 4y ago
    Oh you're giving lightning connectors too little credit. They also come with a LOT of logic to prevent people from charging their Apple devices with unapproved chargers. All added on top of USB 2 (and definitely against the standard, one might add) Like a lot of Apple and huge company stuff in general, it's a flimsy reason to change something and introduce many limitations the huge company thinks will make them more money. It sure as hell is not about reversible connectors.
    - evilduck 4y ago
      What? I've plugged lightning cables into pretty much any imaginable sort of USB-A socket over than last decade and have never encountered one that wouldn't supply a charge specifically to a lightning cable. Please, be specific with what limitations you're referring to because this is counter to all evidence I've ever been witness to.
      - candiodari 4y ago
        They supply a charge fine, but no standards-based fast charging.
        evilduck 4y ago
        Oh, so you're moving the goal posts to avoid discussing your lie. Got it. But please, reference a USB2 or USB3 standard over a type A connection that enables fast charging too. This will be fun.
        illiarian 4y ago
        What you mean to say is: USB Power Delivery as a standard didn't even appear until after Lightning was launched. Any fast charging didn't appear until USB-C specs that only became finalized in 2014. And Lightning has been charging my iPhones pretty fast
        mrguyorama 4y ago
        There have been many fast charging standards that are available on way cheaper chargers that apple just ignored. It's not that big a deal, but it did force apple consumers to buy expensive "official" chargers to actually charger quickly.
        illiarian 4y ago
        > There have been many fast charging standards "Many different standards" means "no standard". > that apple just ignored. Apple ignored them because none of them were standards until very, very late
        dwaite 4y ago
        They support Power Delivery 2 and higher just fine. I believe the new phones will use 3.0 PPS as well to more aggressively tune for charging speed vs heat. USB Power Delivery 1 was a disaster, launched years after Apple had moved beyond 7.5W charging. Android phones typically also ignored it, using Qualcomm's proprietary charging tech. If you want fast charging, use the bundled USB-C cable to charge your iPhone rather than the USB-A ones from years ago. To flip it around, what advantage do you think one gets with official Apple iPhone chargers? Do you know of any evidence that Apple promotes their chargers working better than others? And if none exists, why would they sabotage customers who were never educated that hypothetically only Apple chargers charge fast?
  - dahfizz 4y ago
    There wasn't a law mandating the use of the old micro-B port. The EU issued a memorandum asking companies nicely to use micro-B, but obviously it wasn't enforced (Apple never complied). This situation is different. Apple and others are completely unable to upgrade to USB-D when it comes around.
    - crote 4y ago
      No, they are not. They will be able to use USB-D in parallel with USB-C until USB-D becomes industry standard, at which point it will be adopted by the EU as the new mandatory standard port.
      - lttlrck 4y ago
        And during that transition, exactly like now with the Lightning to USB-C transition there will be a lot of e-waste generated... unless the connector is identical
- tiedieconderoga 4y ago
  They add another common standard, probably allowing manufacturers to choose between "old" and "new" for a little while. Similar to the switch from microUSB-B to USB-C. Budget phones kept using the cheap option for awhile, but eventually costs came down and people settled into the new standard. Not sure how it's done in the EU, but their legislature could delegate authority to make such decisions to an executive agency if the process of passing an amendment or new law is too slow.
  - roblabla 4y ago
    > Not sure how it's done in the EU That's how it's done, is my understanding. The actual articles of the "usb-c" law[0] doesn't even mention usb-c. Here's what Article 1 states: > With respect to radio equipment capable of being recharged by means of wired charging, the Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts [...] in order to ensure a minimum common interoperability between radio equipment and its charging devices, as well as to improve consumer convenience, to reduce environmental waste and to avoid market fragmentation, by: > (a) modifying, adding or removing categories or classes of radio equipment; > (b) modifying, adding or removing technical specifications, including references and descriptions, in relation to the charging receptacle(s) and charging communication protocol(s), for each category or class of radio equipment concerned. > [...] > The Commission shall submit a report on the assessment referred to in the third subparagraph to the European Parliament and to the Council, for the first time by 28 December 2025 and every 5 years thereafter, and shall adopt delegated acts pursuant to the second subparagraph, point (a), accordingly. So the Commission (which is part of Europe's executive branch) can enact delegated acts to add new technical specifications for wired charging. USB-C is not "hardcoded in law". What's hardcoded in law is the Commission's authority to mandate the use of certain ports. [0] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32022L2380#d1e304-30-1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...
  - dagorenouf 4y ago
    I don’t know why everybody trusts government bodies to act fast and delegate authority as needed when it’s clearly not how things happen in the real world. The nature of government is to be slow, safe and long-term, not enable technological disruption. For example the cookie law has made most websites significantly less enjoyable and everybody hates it and yet it has been stuck for years, no hope of improvement in sight.
- xenadu02 4y ago
  There will never be another one. Who would put R&D into something the EU might not approve?
  - iSnow 4y ago
    The next one is actually already on the horizon and it's called Qi2
  - layer8 4y ago
    USB-C is only mandatory for specific classes of devices. Presumably, if some new technology would have a good chance to provide a substantial improvement, it would also make sense to develop it for other devices. In addition, it’s possible to develop compatible extensions to USB-C, meaning technical progress isn’t “frozen” at the current USB-C version.
- DannyBee 4y ago
  Ah yes, that magic new port that dose something we can't do, but nobody can pinpoint what it is or why we need it. It's been a decade since a new port (lightning was 2012, usb-c is 2014). So apparently, they are doing pretty well! I think my answer here would "enjoy the next decade of benefits and worry about it then?"
  - eecc 4y ago
    Except that’s exactly what Lightning was in the world of (mini, micro, nano) USB2. Try again
  - nickpp 4y ago
    USB-C itself was that "magic" new port 10 years ago. EU at the time was recommending standardization on the abomination that was micro-USB. Luckily they didn’t make alternatives illegal, like now, or you’d never have seen your much beloved USB-C.
    - selfmodruntime 4y ago
      Instead of mandating the standard to be used, they should've mandated that phone vendors agree on one standard, with a revision every x years or so.
      - crote 4y ago
        Luckily, that is exactly what happened! The law explicitly states that it will be reviewed every few years to determine whether USB-C is still the best choice.
        nickpp 4y ago
        And why would a better choice magically appear though when it’s illegal to put it on the market to let it prove itself? Why would anybody who is actually innovative pay to research and risk such a better choice in the first place? To wait for its review in a few years?!
- wiseowise 4y ago
  The issue with lightning is not that it is old, but because it is available only on Apple devices.
- johndisko 4y ago
  Here's a crazy idea. USB-C can coexist with the new port until the new port proves its worth standardizing to the same degree (as USB-C). But somehow we have decided that small computers (aka phones) must only have 1 port.
  - illiarian 4y ago
    > But somehow we have decided that small computers (aka phones) must only have 1 port. Because, you guessed it, they are small. And any port you add requires a not insignificant amount of space
- leoh 4y ago
  Good point. Laws are immutable and can never be changed.
  - least 4y ago
    It doesn't really matter if laws can or can't be changed, the question is whether or not regulations imposing a standard on manufacturers on what kind of connector they put on their phone should exist at all.
    - Moldoteck 4y ago
      Yeah, they could just impose additional tax for nonstandard phones, like +30% the price. This way if a company really wants a fancy port, they technically can do this, but likely will loose market share because of a big price compared to companies that follow standards
- adam_arthur 4y ago
  Then industry players would build consensus around a new standard and adopt that into law? Would you prefer a world where browser vendors are all designing their own HTML and JS features independently rather than working off a common spec too? At a certain scale of adoption/societal impact, having a common set of agreed standards is much more important than fragmented "innovation". I would argue having a general and common way to charge devices qualifies for that level of importance. The incentive on Apple's side to stay off of USB-C can only be one of profit driven customer hostile design... as there's really zero technical or otherwise reason to have stayed on lightning this long. One of the biggest annoyances in my daily life is having to swap back and forth between USB-C and lightning cables. These lightning cables being sold today are effectively trash to be thrown away in a year or two. Completely unnecessary, and hard to have any respect for the intelligence of people who defend it. There is no slippery slope here. If Apple wants to build a next gen port, then they do it alongside other industry players rather than monopolizing the technology so they can charge 10x markup on cables/accessories/licensing... which imparts zero benefit to the consumer.
  - lttlrck 4y ago
    That exact same waste/annoyance is going to happen during the USB-C to USB-next transition. And as it is it seems extremely unlikely that Apple wasn't already planning Lightning for iPhone...
    - Moldoteck 4y ago
      I would agree, but i really don't know if this happens. top usbc can endure 120-240W and 40gigabits/s and I am not sure we've even hit the limits, some Chinese brands had mock phones with abnormal charging speeds (at least I'm about sure 120w). Like I can't imagine what new features some port could bring, that we'll want in a phone that fits in our pockets. The only thing changin imo is maybe a new fancy more durable form factor, but I can't say usb-c is that bad in this direction
  - zamnos 4y ago
    Lightning is a better physical connection than USB-C for phones. It's still reversible, but more importantly, it's more durable as there isn't a tongue inside to get broken. Before you reply saying that you've broken a lighting port, read carefully - I'm not claiming they're indestructible, just more resilient to needing to be cleaned out. If you work near metal and dirt or even just missoportune bits of fluff, they'll get stuck inside the port. Solution is to take a paperclip and jam it in and try pulling out the metal shavings or other foreign debris. USB-C's internal tongue is too breakable and in-the-way. Now, not everybody works in or near a metal shop or a saw mill, but all the people I know with phones wear clothes, which sometimes has lint, especially in pockets where phones are kept, and so aren't totally immune from this problem. Thankfully there's wireless charging, and it's decently powerful/quick these days, so the whole port can be taped off - when you remember before you go into the workshop, which hopefully is every time.
DocTomoe 4y ago
I do not see USB-C coming. Apple will rather remove the jack altogether and go full Qi (and make the device 100$ more expensive because wireless loading adapter).
atyppo 4y ago
I think you greatly overestimate the importance the average American assigns to "superior functionality" on an iPhone. As important as it is to you or me, the average person doesn't know or care why they should have these features.
- illiarian 4y ago
  I'm a programmer with 22 years of experience, and a member on HN... and even I don't care :)
  - Temporary_31337 4y ago
    Why so shallow? Don’t care for this particular feature, maybe but the broader fight is about ownership and control of the things you paid for. Sideloading is going to be nice for programmers as it will have to allow for more flexibility in what apps are allowed to execute
    - illiarian 4y ago
      > Why so shallow? It's called being pragmatic > will have to allow for more flexibility in what apps are allowed to execute Of course it won't. There will be 1% of apps that do something that HN crowd will perhaps care about. The rest will be apps that try to circumvent privacy and security, and/or chase their own goal. Note how much speculation there is about Meta going the side-loading route.
      - FrozenSynapse 4y ago
        You underestimate the size of alternative stores. I bet there's more than 1% of users that use alternative stores on Android. That lightning cable on iOS is stupid, it only benefits Apple. Both changes are more than welcome, although I don't use iPhones (precisely for this reasons - closed ecosystem, lighting)
        illiarian 4y ago
sunshinerag 4y ago
Superior Functionality? That is subjective POV.
- spartanatreyu 4y ago
  Hardly. Apple made their app store incredibly restrictive and took a massive cut of any profits that anyone was making. Not just app sales, any profits. (This happened to hey.com, they wanted a cut of the subscription that users were getting outside of their app). Sometimes apple would just outright steal developer's apps by making their own version, then blocking the original developers by claiming that they were making rip offs of Apple's apps (you'll find a few stories of that happening here on HN). Then to really rub salt in the wound, they started telling developers in essence: "If you don't like the way we run our app store then you can always make a web app", despite the fact that they had purposefully hampered web functionality on their devices to force developers to use the app store. It's really strange how their browser only started getting better all of a sudden when they were getting sued for their anticompetitive behaviour and the EU said they were drafting up legislation to break their monopoly. It is directly due to the efforts of the EU that Apple has been dragged kicking and screaming to add functionality to their own ecosystem that is objectively demonstrably superior to what was available before.
  - philistine 4y ago
    sideloading will not mean sidestepping the 30% cut for developers. Mark my words. If you need an example, look at what happened with the Netherlands and dating apps.
    - spartanatreyu 4y ago
      How so? As soon as you have sideloading, you have developers who can't get kicked off the app store for not giving a 30% cut because they're not on the app store.
      - lttlrck 4y ago
est31 4y ago
The EU is at the side of the customers as long as the companies making the product are not in the EU. Had the EU a strong phone manufacturer industry that didn't use USB-C, we still wouldn't have that requirement. Companies always maintain closest lobbying ties to the governments they reside in (at least if both economies are equally developed), and countries care less about companies that don't give many jobs to their residents or taxation revenue.
- iSnow 4y ago
  I would like to see some solid proof on this, as I don't buy this claim. The EU has squeezed telcoms on roaming charges which created a lot of howling. The EU also has rather strict regulation concerning gas use of cars, ICE emissions and so on, probably second only to California. The EU approach to food and pharma security is fundamentally different to that of the USA, and it impacts EU companies. Regulations around green GMOs are so strict they basically killed the European market for GMOs.
  - tough 4y ago
    Just look at how german banks or car manufacturers are treated in EU
    - dfee 4y ago
      Here you are: https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-takes-the-eu-hostage-on-cars/ https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-takes-the-eu-hostage...
    - iSnow 4y ago
      That is hardly the fault of the EU, but one member state. Everyone points to the evil bureaucratic EU, but in reality, member states frequently get in the way of the EU to protect their industry. In both cases, Germany had to accept rules they would have never accepted if they were outside of the EU - even if they sadly were able to soften them up.
      - 4y ago
mantas 4y ago
Side-loading may bite back in nasty ways. Tiny but locally required apps may use it to work around legit limitations. Pay-for-parking apps, shop loyalty systems etc. Yay for more spyware and api exploiting.
- asm0dey 4y ago
  But if it's my choice to take these risks?
  - mantas 4y ago
    What if I don't want to sideload, but some app I really want to use it says screw appstore and sideloading is the only way? For example to pay for parking or use a loyalty scheme in some shop. Of course, technically I could use other means or avoid such businesses altogether.
rychco 4y ago
Regulatory capture is so pervasive in the US that I’m afraid there’s little chance that the law will ever change to benefit consumers in a meaningful way.
hailwren 4y ago
But they’re also stuck with physical sims because of those same laws. I vastly prefer the esim in the US iphone to the tray.
- asm0dey 4y ago
  eSIMs are totally available here in Germany! Für example https://www.telekom.de/unterwegs/esim https://www.telekom.de/unterwegs/esim
- selfmodruntime 4y ago
  I googled but I couldn't find anything about this. Source?
- Sayrus 4y ago
  eSIM is available in France [1] on many brands and devices, including iPhones. [1] https://assistance.orange.fr/objets-connectes/installer-et-utiliser/montres/apple/apple-watch/debuter-et-prendre-en-main/activer-votre-montre/esim-presentation_271341-738518# https://assistance.orange.fr/objets-connectes/installer-et-u...
- golergka 4y ago
  I've travelled across Europe with eSims bought from Mobimatter, and I've also bought local Vodaphone eSim in Italy and some other operator Montenegro. In fact, I'm writing this from a eSim in my iphone while I wait for Airbnb to resolve issues with check-in on Cyprus. What are you talking about?
  - hailwren 4y ago
    oh, maybe you have both? US iphones don’t have sim trays. Euro iphones do.
    - golergka 4y ago
      Yes, and I can have two sims active at the same time. Physical and eSim or two eSims.
lumb63 4y ago
Let’s suppose you’re right that USB-C and side-loading are “superior functionality”. There must be some value to that superior functionality; consumers should be willing to pay extra for it if they value it. It seems logically like Apple ought to offer a USB-C iPhone if there is enough demand for it to generate more profit, except that it lowers the cost for customers to switch phones, which likely costs them more than they’d make in additional profit by having a USB-C version. This puts their interests at odds with the customer’s interests. There are a lot of other similar situations, e.g. most people would rather have cars that last longer, not have to deal with advertising, farmers want repairable equipment, etc., but the economics don’t work out well for the company. How does a market economy rectify that? I’d argue that in theory, new upstarts ought to be able to enter the market and satisfy the demand if it exists. However, in many fields, there are substantial barriers to entry that prevent this. For instance, in the auto industry, it takes huge amounts of capital to reach the necessary scale, gain enough experience and reputation, etc., to be able to compete with existing companies. Similarly, it would be a monumental engineering effort to produce “iPhone with USB-C” due to the amount of intellectual property, goodwill, Silicon deals, integrations, etc., that Apple provides. It would be impossible, really, due to iMessage and FaceTime being proprietary. There could be new cable providers that don’t run ads, but they wouldn’t be able to compete on cost, and they would have trouble dealing with the regulatory environment for infrastructure, striking deals with networks, etc. Banning companies from engaging in practices that benefit them once they become sufficiently adversarial to consumers isn’t a scalable solution. There are many instances of this across many industries; regulating them all would be like playing Whack-A-Mike. It also provides no recourse to the group of market participants who don’t care if their phone has Lightning or USB-C, and probably prefer Lightning since they already have a charger. It also leaves less room for innovation since companies will have to comply with standards, possibly preventing superior technology from being developed (that’s how we got Lightning to begin with). I’d love to hear other/better solutions. I’ll throw one idea/observation out myself. A lot of these misalignments are because providing a better consumer experience today reduces the likelihood they will be a customer tomorrow. Either they will leverage the lower switching cost to switch, or they will be more loyal but purchase less in the future due to the increased quality. What’s a way to manipulate company economics to favor shorter-term views of the company, and disregard higher-growth plans? Higher interest rates. Maybe a higher interest rate environment could mitigate some of these issues by ensuring companies care about the business they have today, more than the one that they could have tomorrow.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deltree7 3y ago
No Thanks. Can you tell me how GDPR has made EU life better than US? It's a hot mess. Criminals of EU can now easily hide from the internet, while the innocent click through hundreds of cookie popups

by leoh 4y ago

dagorenouf 4y ago

Usb-c sounds cool for now. But what about when a new port comes out and Apple can’t use it because the EU still mandates to use the old one?

herbstein 4y ago
You mean like when everyone moved from mini-USB to USB-C? It's also good to remember that lightning connectors are USB2 in a different form factor - outdated and slow.
- candiodari 4y ago
  Oh you're giving lightning connectors too little credit. They also come with a LOT of logic to prevent people from charging their Apple devices with unapproved chargers. All added on top of USB 2 (and definitely against the standard, one might add) Like a lot of Apple and huge company stuff in general, it's a flimsy reason to change something and introduce many limitations the huge company thinks will make them more money. It sure as hell is not about reversible connectors.
  - evilduck 4y ago
    What? I've plugged lightning cables into pretty much any imaginable sort of USB-A socket over than last decade and have never encountered one that wouldn't supply a charge specifically to a lightning cable. Please, be specific with what limitations you're referring to because this is counter to all evidence I've ever been witness to.
    - candiodari 4y ago
      They supply a charge fine, but no standards-based fast charging.
      - evilduck 4y ago
        Oh, so you're moving the goal posts to avoid discussing your lie. Got it. But please, reference a USB2 or USB3 standard over a type A connection that enables fast charging too. This will be fun.
      - illiarian 4y ago
        What you mean to say is: USB Power Delivery as a standard didn't even appear until after Lightning was launched. Any fast charging didn't appear until USB-C specs that only became finalized in 2014. And Lightning has been charging my iPhones pretty fast
        mrguyorama 4y ago
        There have been many fast charging standards that are available on way cheaper chargers that apple just ignored. It's not that big a deal, but it did force apple consumers to buy expensive "official" chargers to actually charger quickly.
        illiarian 4y ago
        > There have been many fast charging standards "Many different standards" means "no standard". > that apple just ignored. Apple ignored them because none of them were standards until very, very late
      - dwaite 4y ago
        They support Power Delivery 2 and higher just fine. I believe the new phones will use 3.0 PPS as well to more aggressively tune for charging speed vs heat. USB Power Delivery 1 was a disaster, launched years after Apple had moved beyond 7.5W charging. Android phones typically also ignored it, using Qualcomm's proprietary charging tech. If you want fast charging, use the bundled USB-C cable to charge your iPhone rather than the USB-A ones from years ago. To flip it around, what advantage do you think one gets with official Apple iPhone chargers? Do you know of any evidence that Apple promotes their chargers working better than others? And if none exists, why would they sabotage customers who were never educated that hypothetically only Apple chargers charge fast?
- dahfizz 4y ago
  There wasn't a law mandating the use of the old micro-B port. The EU issued a memorandum asking companies nicely to use micro-B, but obviously it wasn't enforced (Apple never complied). This situation is different. Apple and others are completely unable to upgrade to USB-D when it comes around.
  - crote 4y ago
    No, they are not. They will be able to use USB-D in parallel with USB-C until USB-D becomes industry standard, at which point it will be adopted by the EU as the new mandatory standard port.
    - lttlrck 4y ago
      And during that transition, exactly like now with the Lightning to USB-C transition there will be a lot of e-waste generated... unless the connector is identical
tiedieconderoga 4y ago
They add another common standard, probably allowing manufacturers to choose between "old" and "new" for a little while. Similar to the switch from microUSB-B to USB-C. Budget phones kept using the cheap option for awhile, but eventually costs came down and people settled into the new standard. Not sure how it's done in the EU, but their legislature could delegate authority to make such decisions to an executive agency if the process of passing an amendment or new law is too slow.
- roblabla 4y ago
  > Not sure how it's done in the EU That's how it's done, is my understanding. The actual articles of the "usb-c" law[0] doesn't even mention usb-c. Here's what Article 1 states: > With respect to radio equipment capable of being recharged by means of wired charging, the Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts [...] in order to ensure a minimum common interoperability between radio equipment and its charging devices, as well as to improve consumer convenience, to reduce environmental waste and to avoid market fragmentation, by: > (a) modifying, adding or removing categories or classes of radio equipment; > (b) modifying, adding or removing technical specifications, including references and descriptions, in relation to the charging receptacle(s) and charging communication protocol(s), for each category or class of radio equipment concerned. > [...] > The Commission shall submit a report on the assessment referred to in the third subparagraph to the European Parliament and to the Council, for the first time by 28 December 2025 and every 5 years thereafter, and shall adopt delegated acts pursuant to the second subparagraph, point (a), accordingly. So the Commission (which is part of Europe's executive branch) can enact delegated acts to add new technical specifications for wired charging. USB-C is not "hardcoded in law". What's hardcoded in law is the Commission's authority to mandate the use of certain ports. [0] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32022L2380#d1e304-30-1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...
- dagorenouf 4y ago
  I don’t know why everybody trusts government bodies to act fast and delegate authority as needed when it’s clearly not how things happen in the real world. The nature of government is to be slow, safe and long-term, not enable technological disruption. For example the cookie law has made most websites significantly less enjoyable and everybody hates it and yet it has been stuck for years, no hope of improvement in sight.
xenadu02 4y ago
There will never be another one. Who would put R&D into something the EU might not approve?
- iSnow 4y ago
  The next one is actually already on the horizon and it's called Qi2
- layer8 4y ago
  USB-C is only mandatory for specific classes of devices. Presumably, if some new technology would have a good chance to provide a substantial improvement, it would also make sense to develop it for other devices. In addition, it’s possible to develop compatible extensions to USB-C, meaning technical progress isn’t “frozen” at the current USB-C version.
DannyBee 4y ago
Ah yes, that magic new port that dose something we can't do, but nobody can pinpoint what it is or why we need it. It's been a decade since a new port (lightning was 2012, usb-c is 2014). So apparently, they are doing pretty well! I think my answer here would "enjoy the next decade of benefits and worry about it then?"
- eecc 4y ago
  Except that’s exactly what Lightning was in the world of (mini, micro, nano) USB2. Try again
- nickpp 4y ago
  USB-C itself was that "magic" new port 10 years ago. EU at the time was recommending standardization on the abomination that was micro-USB. Luckily they didn’t make alternatives illegal, like now, or you’d never have seen your much beloved USB-C.
  - selfmodruntime 4y ago
    Instead of mandating the standard to be used, they should've mandated that phone vendors agree on one standard, with a revision every x years or so.
    - crote 4y ago
      Luckily, that is exactly what happened! The law explicitly states that it will be reviewed every few years to determine whether USB-C is still the best choice.
      - nickpp 4y ago
        And why would a better choice magically appear though when it’s illegal to put it on the market to let it prove itself? Why would anybody who is actually innovative pay to research and risk such a better choice in the first place? To wait for its review in a few years?!
wiseowise 4y ago
The issue with lightning is not that it is old, but because it is available only on Apple devices.
johndisko 4y ago
Here's a crazy idea. USB-C can coexist with the new port until the new port proves its worth standardizing to the same degree (as USB-C). But somehow we have decided that small computers (aka phones) must only have 1 port.
- illiarian 4y ago
  > But somehow we have decided that small computers (aka phones) must only have 1 port. Because, you guessed it, they are small. And any port you add requires a not insignificant amount of space
leoh 4y ago
Good point. Laws are immutable and can never be changed.
- least 4y ago
  It doesn't really matter if laws can or can't be changed, the question is whether or not regulations imposing a standard on manufacturers on what kind of connector they put on their phone should exist at all.
  - Moldoteck 4y ago
    Yeah, they could just impose additional tax for nonstandard phones, like +30% the price. This way if a company really wants a fancy port, they technically can do this, but likely will loose market share because of a big price compared to companies that follow standards
adam_arthur 4y ago
Then industry players would build consensus around a new standard and adopt that into law? Would you prefer a world where browser vendors are all designing their own HTML and JS features independently rather than working off a common spec too? At a certain scale of adoption/societal impact, having a common set of agreed standards is much more important than fragmented "innovation". I would argue having a general and common way to charge devices qualifies for that level of importance. The incentive on Apple's side to stay off of USB-C can only be one of profit driven customer hostile design... as there's really zero technical or otherwise reason to have stayed on lightning this long. One of the biggest annoyances in my daily life is having to swap back and forth between USB-C and lightning cables. These lightning cables being sold today are effectively trash to be thrown away in a year or two. Completely unnecessary, and hard to have any respect for the intelligence of people who defend it. There is no slippery slope here. If Apple wants to build a next gen port, then they do it alongside other industry players rather than monopolizing the technology so they can charge 10x markup on cables/accessories/licensing... which imparts zero benefit to the consumer.
- lttlrck 4y ago
  That exact same waste/annoyance is going to happen during the USB-C to USB-next transition. And as it is it seems extremely unlikely that Apple wasn't already planning Lightning for iPhone...
  - Moldoteck 4y ago
    I would agree, but i really don't know if this happens. top usbc can endure 120-240W and 40gigabits/s and I am not sure we've even hit the limits, some Chinese brands had mock phones with abnormal charging speeds (at least I'm about sure 120w). Like I can't imagine what new features some port could bring, that we'll want in a phone that fits in our pockets. The only thing changin imo is maybe a new fancy more durable form factor, but I can't say usb-c is that bad in this direction
- zamnos 4y ago
  Lightning is a better physical connection than USB-C for phones. It's still reversible, but more importantly, it's more durable as there isn't a tongue inside to get broken. Before you reply saying that you've broken a lighting port, read carefully - I'm not claiming they're indestructible, just more resilient to needing to be cleaned out. If you work near metal and dirt or even just missoportune bits of fluff, they'll get stuck inside the port. Solution is to take a paperclip and jam it in and try pulling out the metal shavings or other foreign debris. USB-C's internal tongue is too breakable and in-the-way. Now, not everybody works in or near a metal shop or a saw mill, but all the people I know with phones wear clothes, which sometimes has lint, especially in pockets where phones are kept, and so aren't totally immune from this problem. Thankfully there's wireless charging, and it's decently powerful/quick these days, so the whole port can be taped off - when you remember before you go into the workshop, which hopefully is every time.

DocTomoe 4y ago

I do not see USB-C coming. Apple will rather remove the jack altogether and go full Qi (and make the device 100$ more expensive because wireless loading adapter).

atyppo 4y ago

I think you greatly overestimate the importance the average American assigns to "superior functionality" on an iPhone. As important as it is to you or me, the average person doesn't know or care why they should have these features.

illiarian 4y ago
I'm a programmer with 22 years of experience, and a member on HN... and even I don't care :)
- Temporary_31337 4y ago
  Why so shallow? Don’t care for this particular feature, maybe but the broader fight is about ownership and control of the things you paid for. Sideloading is going to be nice for programmers as it will have to allow for more flexibility in what apps are allowed to execute
  - illiarian 4y ago
    > Why so shallow? It's called being pragmatic > will have to allow for more flexibility in what apps are allowed to execute Of course it won't. There will be 1% of apps that do something that HN crowd will perhaps care about. The rest will be apps that try to circumvent privacy and security, and/or chase their own goal. Note how much speculation there is about Meta going the side-loading route.
    - FrozenSynapse 4y ago
      You underestimate the size of alternative stores. I bet there's more than 1% of users that use alternative stores on Android. That lightning cable on iOS is stupid, it only benefits Apple. Both changes are more than welcome, although I don't use iPhones (precisely for this reasons - closed ecosystem, lighting)
      - illiarian 4y ago

sunshinerag 4y ago

Superior Functionality? That is subjective POV.

spartanatreyu 4y ago
Hardly. Apple made their app store incredibly restrictive and took a massive cut of any profits that anyone was making. Not just app sales, any profits. (This happened to hey.com, they wanted a cut of the subscription that users were getting outside of their app). Sometimes apple would just outright steal developer's apps by making their own version, then blocking the original developers by claiming that they were making rip offs of Apple's apps (you'll find a few stories of that happening here on HN). Then to really rub salt in the wound, they started telling developers in essence: "If you don't like the way we run our app store then you can always make a web app", despite the fact that they had purposefully hampered web functionality on their devices to force developers to use the app store. It's really strange how their browser only started getting better all of a sudden when they were getting sued for their anticompetitive behaviour and the EU said they were drafting up legislation to break their monopoly. It is directly due to the efforts of the EU that Apple has been dragged kicking and screaming to add functionality to their own ecosystem that is objectively demonstrably superior to what was available before.
- philistine 4y ago
  sideloading will not mean sidestepping the 30% cut for developers. Mark my words. If you need an example, look at what happened with the Netherlands and dating apps.
  - spartanatreyu 4y ago
    How so? As soon as you have sideloading, you have developers who can't get kicked off the app store for not giving a 30% cut because they're not on the app store.
    - lttlrck 4y ago

est31 4y ago

The EU is at the side of the customers as long as the companies making the product are not in the EU. Had the EU a strong phone manufacturer industry that didn't use USB-C, we still wouldn't have that requirement. Companies always maintain closest lobbying ties to the governments they reside in (at least if both economies are equally developed), and countries care less about companies that don't give many jobs to their residents or taxation revenue.

iSnow 4y ago
I would like to see some solid proof on this, as I don't buy this claim. The EU has squeezed telcoms on roaming charges which created a lot of howling. The EU also has rather strict regulation concerning gas use of cars, ICE emissions and so on, probably second only to California. The EU approach to food and pharma security is fundamentally different to that of the USA, and it impacts EU companies. Regulations around green GMOs are so strict they basically killed the European market for GMOs.
- tough 4y ago
  Just look at how german banks or car manufacturers are treated in EU
  - dfee 4y ago
    Here you are: https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-takes-the-eu-hostage-on-cars/ https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-takes-the-eu-hostage...
  - iSnow 4y ago
    That is hardly the fault of the EU, but one member state. Everyone points to the evil bureaucratic EU, but in reality, member states frequently get in the way of the EU to protect their industry. In both cases, Germany had to accept rules they would have never accepted if they were outside of the EU - even if they sadly were able to soften them up.
    - 4y ago

mantas 4y ago

Side-loading may bite back in nasty ways. Tiny but locally required apps may use it to work around legit limitations. Pay-for-parking apps, shop loyalty systems etc. Yay for more spyware and api exploiting.

asm0dey 4y ago
But if it's my choice to take these risks?
- mantas 4y ago
  What if I don't want to sideload, but some app I really want to use it says screw appstore and sideloading is the only way? For example to pay for parking or use a loyalty scheme in some shop. Of course, technically I could use other means or avoid such businesses altogether.

rychco 4y ago

Regulatory capture is so pervasive in the US that I’m afraid there’s little chance that the law will ever change to benefit consumers in a meaningful way.

hailwren 4y ago

But they’re also stuck with physical sims because of those same laws. I vastly prefer the esim in the US iphone to the tray.

asm0dey 4y ago
eSIMs are totally available here in Germany! Für example https://www.telekom.de/unterwegs/esim https://www.telekom.de/unterwegs/esim
selfmodruntime 4y ago
I googled but I couldn't find anything about this. Source?
Sayrus 4y ago
eSIM is available in France [1] on many brands and devices, including iPhones. [1] https://assistance.orange.fr/objets-connectes/installer-et-utiliser/montres/apple/apple-watch/debuter-et-prendre-en-main/activer-votre-montre/esim-presentation_271341-738518# https://assistance.orange.fr/objets-connectes/installer-et-u...
golergka 4y ago
I've travelled across Europe with eSims bought from Mobimatter, and I've also bought local Vodaphone eSim in Italy and some other operator Montenegro. In fact, I'm writing this from a eSim in my iphone while I wait for Airbnb to resolve issues with check-in on Cyprus. What are you talking about?
- hailwren 4y ago
  oh, maybe you have both? US iphones don’t have sim trays. Euro iphones do.
  - golergka 4y ago
    Yes, and I can have two sims active at the same time. Physical and eSim or two eSims.

lumb63 4y ago

Let’s suppose you’re right that USB-C and side-loading are “superior functionality”. There must be some value to that superior functionality; consumers should be willing to pay extra for it if they value it. It seems logically like Apple ought to offer a USB-C iPhone if there is enough demand for it to generate more profit, except that it lowers the cost for customers to switch phones, which likely costs them more than they’d make in additional profit by having a USB-C version. This puts their interests at odds with the customer’s interests. There are a lot of other similar situations, e.g. most people would rather have cars that last longer, not have to deal with advertising, farmers want repairable equipment, etc., but the economics don’t work out well for the company. How does a market economy rectify that? I’d argue that in theory, new upstarts ought to be able to enter the market and satisfy the demand if it exists. However, in many fields, there are substantial barriers to entry that prevent this. For instance, in the auto industry, it takes huge amounts of capital to reach the necessary scale, gain enough experience and reputation, etc., to be able to compete with existing companies. Similarly, it would be a monumental engineering effort to produce “iPhone with USB-C” due to the amount of intellectual property, goodwill, Silicon deals, integrations, etc., that Apple provides. It would be impossible, really, due to iMessage and FaceTime being proprietary. There could be new cable providers that don’t run ads, but they wouldn’t be able to compete on cost, and they would have trouble dealing with the regulatory environment for infrastructure, striking deals with networks, etc. Banning companies from engaging in practices that benefit them once they become sufficiently adversarial to consumers isn’t a scalable solution. There are many instances of this across many industries; regulating them all would be like playing Whack-A-Mike. It also provides no recourse to the group of market participants who don’t care if their phone has Lightning or USB-C, and probably prefer Lightning since they already have a charger. It also leaves less room for innovation since companies will have to comply with standards, possibly preventing superior technology from being developed (that’s how we got Lightning to begin with). I’d love to hear other/better solutions. I’ll throw one idea/observation out myself. A lot of these misalignments are because providing a better consumer experience today reduces the likelihood they will be a customer tomorrow. Either they will leverage the lower switching cost to switch, or they will be more loyal but purchase less in the future due to the increased quality. What’s a way to manipulate company economics to favor shorter-term views of the company, and disregard higher-growth plans? Higher interest rates. Maybe a higher interest rate environment could mitigate some of these issues by ensuring companies care about the business they have today, more than the one that they could have tomorrow.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deltree7 3y ago

No Thanks. Can you tell me how GDPR has made EU life better than US? It's a hot mess. Criminals of EU can now easily hide from the internet, while the innocent click through hundreds of cookie popups