8 ms·

But if the whole world adopted this kind of regulatory stance, there would be much less incentive to invent that better cable because you now have huge regulato

But if the whole world adopted this kind of regulatory stance, there would be much less incentive to invent that better cable because you now have huge regulatory bodies that may block its adoption and thus mean most of that work was money and time wasted. This kind of thing may tilt the risk / reward of research towards the riskier end of the spectrum. I’m not saying it’s a bad thing— just that it’s not without consequences.

viraptor 4y ago
It's not the regulatory bodies deciding. It's the industry agreeing on when to move on. If they co-operate and design the new version in the open, there's no risk of wasted time. If they don't... it's a good lesson I guess.
- revelio 4y ago
  Of course it's the regulatory bodies deciding. What do you think they're doing right now, what this article is about? There is no mechanism for "industry agreeing" that the rule should be discarded.
  - viraptor 4y ago
    If only there was a specific document which talks about the consolations with industry experts to ensure future developments update the requirements... (There may be a more recent version of that doc available) https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/46755/attachments/3/translations/en/renditions/native https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/46755/attachments/3/...
    - revelio 4y ago
      In other words the regulatory bodies decide. They might, if they feel like it, ask some people who actually know something in the process of making that decision, but that doesn't mean they'll listen or care. Why are you denying this basic reality?
      - viraptor 4y ago
        If you have a jaded view of the EU out to get you by (checking notes) ignoring the directive and not consulting with the experts so that they can force you to use a specific connector even when better options get created... Sure, I don't think we see the same reality.
        davorak 4y ago
        I am interested in examples of similar legal systems working as expected/desired. I live in the USA and the trope that I am exposed to here is that of bureaucracy slowing things down unnecessarily, special interests capturing regulatory[1] bodies and having undue control to the detriment of progress or society as a whole while benefiting said special interests. > Sure, I don't think we see the same reality. Possibly exposure to different governments acting different ways. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture#:~:text=Regulatory%20capture%20refers%20to%20the,primarily%20for%20its%20benefit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture#:~:text=Reg......
        Auracle 4y ago
        First the bureaucrats would need to care. That’s a pretty big hump - people don’t like change. Instead of people going “yay, we’ll all finally be on the same connector” you’re going to have people going “no, I already have all of these cables and USB-C is good enough!” You’ll also need the various players on the other side to invest in development for something new with absolutely no guarantee that the EU will approve it. Honestly, if they wanted to mandate this they should have at least just said it’s in effect for ___ number of years and no longer.
        kklimonda 4y ago
        But this seems like a perfectly valid argument to have. I hate that I currently have at least 5 different "usb-like" cable types in my household: usbc to usbc, usbc to lightning, usba to usbc, usba to lightning, usba to microusb, and I probably still have some mini USB cables in some boxes. I'd really hope that if something new is proposed it will be only once every player have decided to put their weight behind it to propose and push for a change.
McDyver 4y ago
I feel this argument is like saying there's no point in developing free and open software because there are already other pieces of software that were adopted, and are de facto standard. In my opinion, this actually promotes the development of technology to be shared for the benefit of everyone, not just to help with vendor lock-in.
- Pamar 4y ago
  If you are talking of MS Office... I am afraid that yes, the various free/open alternatives (especially to Word) were a wasted effort (of course, it could be that MS made their products more affordable in part because they were worried by the possibility that Open Office etc. could become "good enough" to make people switch, but honestly, this March I got a perfectly legal copy of Office for Mac for less than 75 USD... and I bought it because I was asked to prepare some slide for a professional group and I preferred to buy the whole packet out of my pocket than risking issues with "export to Powerpoint" from Keynote).
  - commoner 4y ago
    LibreOffice and other free and open source alternatives to Microsoft Office are definitely not a "wasted effort". LibreOffice is able to handle just about all of the home and small business use cases of Microsoft Office, and many people are able to skip buying Microsoft Office licenses because this free alternative is available to them. Also, Microsoft Office still does not support Linux outside its feature-limited web app edition, while LibreOffice does.
    - Pamar 4y ago
      In my experience, the moment you bring a non-MS Office document to a meeting with people who pay you for the content of your document you are always risking to have problems/complains about one or more images going missing, the fonts acting strange, the print (either on paper or as a PDF) coming out wrong. Granted, the latest episode was more than 5 years ago, but at 75USD for a local (i.e. non-cloud) licence I prefer not to take any chances. Maybe "wasted" is too harsh a word, but I cannot say that in more than 30 years of work I ever found any real use case for non-MS documents. If I am writing personal letters or putting together a few slides for, I dunno, my TTRPG campaign, everything goes, even Google or Apple stuff (both are free, the latter is free because it comes with the HW itself, if you use a Mac). But when I know that there is a chance to get money for my document, the expectation on the customer's side is to get something that works with their Microsoft stuff, and I will comply. YMMV of course, and I have surely missed any advance in Libre/Free Office for years. But as I said, I prefer to play it safe, and the cost of a licence is not really low.
jzb 4y ago
If the whole world adopted this stance maybe I wouldn’t an overflowing box of useless, obsolete cables. Maybe I wouldn’t need separate chargers and cables for my phone, tablet, ebook reader, and other assorted devices. The amount of waste produced because companies are incentivized to produce incompatible devices like charger cables is staggering. The additional cost burden on users is unnecessary. The theoretical benefit of a better cable is not worth it.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- sharedbeans 4y ago
  Can you help me understand what you're saying? It comes off as so over the top that I find it absurd, but maybe we just have different backgrounds/experience. 1) Companies are not incentivized to produce incompatible cables, the industry has done a remarkably good job of settling on basically a single standard, so the incentives seem to run counter to what you say. The major hold out introduced their own cable standard 2 years _before_ USB-C even existed, and even they were rumored to be moving to USB-C anyways. (I'm sure people will credit the law with this even if it had nothing to do with it.) Would it have been good if they had switched to USB-C earlier? Sure, but that would mean... people throwing out their old cables that worked perfectly fine. 2.) Would the amount of charging cables you have purchased in your lifetime even fill up one regular-sized (13 gallon-ish) trash bag? I don't know how many charging cables you are buying or what your uses are, but I'm struggling to see how it's a "staggering" amount of waste. I'm a somewhat avid electronic geek, I own multiple Raspberry Pis and other hobbyist electronics. No way would I even come close. When I do buy new cables, 90% of the time it's for reasons like the old ones have worn out, or I have a new device that needs to be permanently plugged in. ~~~Edited to add~~~ All my consumer electronics devices have stopped needing their own charger for years now. I use the same charger and swap out a cord.
  - skeletal88 4y ago
    This happened because the EU forced them to agree on a single charger/cable standard and it happened to be micro-usb for a while. Before this every mobile manufacturer had their own version of a charging AND data cable, separately..
nirvdrum 4y ago
I may be recalling it incorrectly, but wasn't the EU's stance on chargers the reason phones stopped shipping with proprietary chargers and started using USB? Accessories were big money for phone manufacturers so I don't think they would have done it without regulatory intervention. I think the adoption of Micro USB (and now USB C) was a huge improvement for consumers and the environment.
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> if the whole world adopted this kind of regulatory stance, there would be much less incentive to invent that better cable because you now have huge regulatory bodies Imagine you didnt have law on shape and voltage of ordinsry power plugs in a house, and if you buy a samsung power socket to ibstall in your house, you mist buy samsung fridge and samsung washing machine and samsung hair dryer
- sokoloff 4y ago
  That brings up an interesting question: “Is NEMA 5-15 in fact standardized by force of law?”
  - dijit 4y ago
    No, you can have receptacles of any shape in the USA, at least at the federal level. However it's not uncommon for this to be enforced by law, for example it is a legal requirement that in the UK all goods sold must adhere to the BS 1363-1 standard.
    - CydeWeys 4y ago
      Ok, how about at most state levels then? I seriously doubt you could wire up new construction in a completely nonstandard way and then expect to pass inspection.
      - riskable 4y ago
        I'm pretty sore 100% of all US states mandate that all new construction adhere to the National Electrical Code (NEC). Specifically, NFPA 70. They just delegate the authority as to what's "standard" to that non-governmental body. Every few years the National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA)--which is a non-governmental nonprofit--publishes an updated standard and then it's up to all the state legislatures to update the laws to require the new standard. The problem is that the NFPA doesn't just post the NEC for free on the Internet. You have to pay for it (which is ridiculous) and it's copyrighted and as such, illegal to just give away. There was a lawsuit in Georgia that was supposed to determine whether or not that situation was OK (having laws that require expensive fees to view may be unconstitutional since that's like having secret laws). I don't know what the outcome was of that though.
cassepipe 4y ago
Come on, there can't be that much better of a cable in the future. You already have speeds that are instantaneous on one file and I bet the transfer time to transfer all your pictures an videos from your phone is under an hour, for an operation you are maybe doing once a year ? Time for a full charge is also probably under an hour, that's not unreasonable. Being standard is a better feature than speed. Event if they double the speed, it can wait ten years and who knows in the speed may have quadruple by that next window.
- seanmcdirmid 4y ago
  Connectors are dying anyways. I rarely plug my iPhone in to anything, since I’ve moved to wireless charging. I wouldn’t be surprised if an iPhone is released eventually with no port at all.
  - eastbound 4y ago
    Wireless charging loses 30% of the energy. It looks bad on the carbon sheets of the products, and Europe is also moving towards regulating carbon a lot.
    - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
      Depending on the source you read, wireless charging is 75% efficient while wired charging is 85% efficient. MagSafe (the phone kind) should be even more efficient since the magnet focuses charging and so doesn’t create as much heat. I notice my phone getting hot on normal qi chargers, but not on a MagSafe charger.
    - xeyownt 4y ago
      i doubt that wireless charging makes any difference on carbon footprint.
      - 8note 4y ago
        Wireless charging has all the components from non-wireless charging, then some extra pieces to handle the wireless parts. Where are you getting the manufacturing carbon savings to offset the loss of efficiency?
s3p 4y ago
This would not happen. HN users love to dream up scenarios that are confusingly out of touch with reality..
Aeolun 4y ago
> there would be much less incentive to invent that better cable because you now have huge regulatory bodies that may block its adoption Or the other way around, that will mandate it’s adoption.
GuB-42 4y ago
If your connector really is better, so much as to obsolete USB-C, then you may be able to get the authorities to make your connector the new standard. So there is still incentive, and an incentive to make something that is genuinely better, not just for vendor lock-in. Also to keep in mind that this regulation is a consequence of how the market developed in the last 20 years. The EU gave the industry a chance to sort out the situation before regulation, to which it mostly did with USB-C, but Apple refused to play along, also, cables haven't improved since USB-C, 9 years ago. So with a lack of substantial progress both in terms of standardization and technical improvement, the EU took the decision to regulate.
- sammax 4y ago
  > cables haven't improved since USB-C, 9 years ago Not to distract from your point, which I agree with, but that is just plainly untrue. A USB-C cable from 9 years ago almost certainly doesn’t support current standards for power delivery and data transfer.
  - vetinari 4y ago
    > A USB-C cable from 9 years ago almost certainly doesn’t support current standards for power delivery and data transfer. Neither do most of the current chargers or devices :-(
csomar 4y ago
Of course. Regulators know this and like this. It moves innovation from companies/entrepreneurs to them.
lelanthran 4y ago
> But if the whole world adopted this kind of regulatory stance, there would be much less incentive to invent that better cable because you now have huge regulatory bodies that may block its adoption and thus mean most of that work was money and time wasted. Actually, the only incentive left is to make significantly better cables; the incentive to make marginal "improvements" in order to achieve vendor lock-in is removed.
- pif 4y ago
  Thank you for exposing my thoughts in better words than I could.
- adhesive_wombat 4y ago
  It's USB-C but we reformulated the cable plastic for slightly longer release so it's now USB-Cxr. New patent, double the price but we're going to reuse the certification.
canadianfella 4y ago
[dead]
vidarh 4y ago
There is already very much reduced need to invent a better plug that isn't backwards compatible because USB-C is extremely flexible in that you can negotiate what will go over the pins. E.g. USB power delivery has already been ramped up several times to the point where it can deliver up to 240W (USDB PD 3.1) That doesn't require any regulatory body to agree, just the USB Implementers Forum. While there may well eventually be a reason to upgrade the actual plug, there should be resistance to that to encourage people to try to find ways to make it work that's backwards compatible with current equipment first.

viraptor 4y ago

It's not the regulatory bodies deciding. It's the industry agreeing on when to move on. If they co-operate and design the new version in the open, there's no risk of wasted time. If they don't... it's a good lesson I guess.

revelio 4y ago
Of course it's the regulatory bodies deciding. What do you think they're doing right now, what this article is about? There is no mechanism for "industry agreeing" that the rule should be discarded.
- viraptor 4y ago
  If only there was a specific document which talks about the consolations with industry experts to ensure future developments update the requirements... (There may be a more recent version of that doc available) https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/46755/attachments/3/translations/en/renditions/native https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/46755/attachments/3/...
  - revelio 4y ago
    In other words the regulatory bodies decide. They might, if they feel like it, ask some people who actually know something in the process of making that decision, but that doesn't mean they'll listen or care. Why are you denying this basic reality?
    - viraptor 4y ago
      If you have a jaded view of the EU out to get you by (checking notes) ignoring the directive and not consulting with the experts so that they can force you to use a specific connector even when better options get created... Sure, I don't think we see the same reality.
      - davorak 4y ago
        I am interested in examples of similar legal systems working as expected/desired. I live in the USA and the trope that I am exposed to here is that of bureaucracy slowing things down unnecessarily, special interests capturing regulatory[1] bodies and having undue control to the detriment of progress or society as a whole while benefiting said special interests. > Sure, I don't think we see the same reality. Possibly exposure to different governments acting different ways. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture#:~:text=Regulatory%20capture%20refers%20to%20the,primarily%20for%20its%20benefit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture#:~:text=Reg......
      - Auracle 4y ago
        First the bureaucrats would need to care. That’s a pretty big hump - people don’t like change. Instead of people going “yay, we’ll all finally be on the same connector” you’re going to have people going “no, I already have all of these cables and USB-C is good enough!” You’ll also need the various players on the other side to invest in development for something new with absolutely no guarantee that the EU will approve it. Honestly, if they wanted to mandate this they should have at least just said it’s in effect for ___ number of years and no longer.
        kklimonda 4y ago
        But this seems like a perfectly valid argument to have. I hate that I currently have at least 5 different "usb-like" cable types in my household: usbc to usbc, usbc to lightning, usba to usbc, usba to lightning, usba to microusb, and I probably still have some mini USB cables in some boxes. I'd really hope that if something new is proposed it will be only once every player have decided to put their weight behind it to propose and push for a change.

McDyver 4y ago

I feel this argument is like saying there's no point in developing free and open software because there are already other pieces of software that were adopted, and are de facto standard. In my opinion, this actually promotes the development of technology to be shared for the benefit of everyone, not just to help with vendor lock-in.

Pamar 4y ago
If you are talking of MS Office... I am afraid that yes, the various free/open alternatives (especially to Word) were a wasted effort (of course, it could be that MS made their products more affordable in part because they were worried by the possibility that Open Office etc. could become "good enough" to make people switch, but honestly, this March I got a perfectly legal copy of Office for Mac for less than 75 USD... and I bought it because I was asked to prepare some slide for a professional group and I preferred to buy the whole packet out of my pocket than risking issues with "export to Powerpoint" from Keynote).
- commoner 4y ago
  LibreOffice and other free and open source alternatives to Microsoft Office are definitely not a "wasted effort". LibreOffice is able to handle just about all of the home and small business use cases of Microsoft Office, and many people are able to skip buying Microsoft Office licenses because this free alternative is available to them. Also, Microsoft Office still does not support Linux outside its feature-limited web app edition, while LibreOffice does.
  - Pamar 4y ago
    In my experience, the moment you bring a non-MS Office document to a meeting with people who pay you for the content of your document you are always risking to have problems/complains about one or more images going missing, the fonts acting strange, the print (either on paper or as a PDF) coming out wrong. Granted, the latest episode was more than 5 years ago, but at 75USD for a local (i.e. non-cloud) licence I prefer not to take any chances. Maybe "wasted" is too harsh a word, but I cannot say that in more than 30 years of work I ever found any real use case for non-MS documents. If I am writing personal letters or putting together a few slides for, I dunno, my TTRPG campaign, everything goes, even Google or Apple stuff (both are free, the latter is free because it comes with the HW itself, if you use a Mac). But when I know that there is a chance to get money for my document, the expectation on the customer's side is to get something that works with their Microsoft stuff, and I will comply. YMMV of course, and I have surely missed any advance in Libre/Free Office for years. But as I said, I prefer to play it safe, and the cost of a licence is not really low.

jzb 4y ago

If the whole world adopted this stance maybe I wouldn’t an overflowing box of useless, obsolete cables. Maybe I wouldn’t need separate chargers and cables for my phone, tablet, ebook reader, and other assorted devices. The amount of waste produced because companies are incentivized to produce incompatible devices like charger cables is staggering. The additional cost burden on users is unnecessary. The theoretical benefit of a better cable is not worth it.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
sharedbeans 4y ago
Can you help me understand what you're saying? It comes off as so over the top that I find it absurd, but maybe we just have different backgrounds/experience. 1) Companies are not incentivized to produce incompatible cables, the industry has done a remarkably good job of settling on basically a single standard, so the incentives seem to run counter to what you say. The major hold out introduced their own cable standard 2 years _before_ USB-C even existed, and even they were rumored to be moving to USB-C anyways. (I'm sure people will credit the law with this even if it had nothing to do with it.) Would it have been good if they had switched to USB-C earlier? Sure, but that would mean... people throwing out their old cables that worked perfectly fine. 2.) Would the amount of charging cables you have purchased in your lifetime even fill up one regular-sized (13 gallon-ish) trash bag? I don't know how many charging cables you are buying or what your uses are, but I'm struggling to see how it's a "staggering" amount of waste. I'm a somewhat avid electronic geek, I own multiple Raspberry Pis and other hobbyist electronics. No way would I even come close. When I do buy new cables, 90% of the time it's for reasons like the old ones have worn out, or I have a new device that needs to be permanently plugged in. ~~~Edited to add~~~ All my consumer electronics devices have stopped needing their own charger for years now. I use the same charger and swap out a cord.
- skeletal88 4y ago
  This happened because the EU forced them to agree on a single charger/cable standard and it happened to be micro-usb for a while. Before this every mobile manufacturer had their own version of a charging AND data cable, separately..

nirvdrum 4y ago

I may be recalling it incorrectly, but wasn't the EU's stance on chargers the reason phones stopped shipping with proprietary chargers and started using USB? Accessories were big money for phone manufacturers so I don't think they would have done it without regulatory intervention. I think the adoption of Micro USB (and now USB C) was a huge improvement for consumers and the environment.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

> if the whole world adopted this kind of regulatory stance, there would be much less incentive to invent that better cable because you now have huge regulatory bodies Imagine you didnt have law on shape and voltage of ordinsry power plugs in a house, and if you buy a samsung power socket to ibstall in your house, you mist buy samsung fridge and samsung washing machine and samsung hair dryer

sokoloff 4y ago
That brings up an interesting question: “Is NEMA 5-15 in fact standardized by force of law?”
- dijit 4y ago
  No, you can have receptacles of any shape in the USA, at least at the federal level. However it's not uncommon for this to be enforced by law, for example it is a legal requirement that in the UK all goods sold must adhere to the BS 1363-1 standard.
  - CydeWeys 4y ago
    Ok, how about at most state levels then? I seriously doubt you could wire up new construction in a completely nonstandard way and then expect to pass inspection.
    - riskable 4y ago
      I'm pretty sore 100% of all US states mandate that all new construction adhere to the National Electrical Code (NEC). Specifically, NFPA 70. They just delegate the authority as to what's "standard" to that non-governmental body. Every few years the National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA)--which is a non-governmental nonprofit--publishes an updated standard and then it's up to all the state legislatures to update the laws to require the new standard. The problem is that the NFPA doesn't just post the NEC for free on the Internet. You have to pay for it (which is ridiculous) and it's copyrighted and as such, illegal to just give away. There was a lawsuit in Georgia that was supposed to determine whether or not that situation was OK (having laws that require expensive fees to view may be unconstitutional since that's like having secret laws). I don't know what the outcome was of that though.

cassepipe 4y ago

Come on, there can't be that much better of a cable in the future. You already have speeds that are instantaneous on one file and I bet the transfer time to transfer all your pictures an videos from your phone is under an hour, for an operation you are maybe doing once a year ? Time for a full charge is also probably under an hour, that's not unreasonable. Being standard is a better feature than speed. Event if they double the speed, it can wait ten years and who knows in the speed may have quadruple by that next window.

seanmcdirmid 4y ago
Connectors are dying anyways. I rarely plug my iPhone in to anything, since I’ve moved to wireless charging. I wouldn’t be surprised if an iPhone is released eventually with no port at all.
- eastbound 4y ago
  Wireless charging loses 30% of the energy. It looks bad on the carbon sheets of the products, and Europe is also moving towards regulating carbon a lot.
  - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
    Depending on the source you read, wireless charging is 75% efficient while wired charging is 85% efficient. MagSafe (the phone kind) should be even more efficient since the magnet focuses charging and so doesn’t create as much heat. I notice my phone getting hot on normal qi chargers, but not on a MagSafe charger.
  - xeyownt 4y ago
    i doubt that wireless charging makes any difference on carbon footprint.
    - 8note 4y ago
      Wireless charging has all the components from non-wireless charging, then some extra pieces to handle the wireless parts. Where are you getting the manufacturing carbon savings to offset the loss of efficiency?

s3p 4y ago

This would not happen. HN users love to dream up scenarios that are confusingly out of touch with reality..

Aeolun 4y ago

> there would be much less incentive to invent that better cable because you now have huge regulatory bodies that may block its adoption Or the other way around, that will mandate it’s adoption.

GuB-42 4y ago

If your connector really is better, so much as to obsolete USB-C, then you may be able to get the authorities to make your connector the new standard. So there is still incentive, and an incentive to make something that is genuinely better, not just for vendor lock-in. Also to keep in mind that this regulation is a consequence of how the market developed in the last 20 years. The EU gave the industry a chance to sort out the situation before regulation, to which it mostly did with USB-C, but Apple refused to play along, also, cables haven't improved since USB-C, 9 years ago. So with a lack of substantial progress both in terms of standardization and technical improvement, the EU took the decision to regulate.

sammax 4y ago
> cables haven't improved since USB-C, 9 years ago Not to distract from your point, which I agree with, but that is just plainly untrue. A USB-C cable from 9 years ago almost certainly doesn’t support current standards for power delivery and data transfer.
- vetinari 4y ago
  > A USB-C cable from 9 years ago almost certainly doesn’t support current standards for power delivery and data transfer. Neither do most of the current chargers or devices :-(

csomar 4y ago

Of course. Regulators know this and like this. It moves innovation from companies/entrepreneurs to them.

lelanthran 4y ago

> But if the whole world adopted this kind of regulatory stance, there would be much less incentive to invent that better cable because you now have huge regulatory bodies that may block its adoption and thus mean most of that work was money and time wasted. Actually, the only incentive left is to make significantly better cables; the incentive to make marginal "improvements" in order to achieve vendor lock-in is removed.

pif 4y ago
Thank you for exposing my thoughts in better words than I could.
adhesive_wombat 4y ago
It's USB-C but we reformulated the cable plastic for slightly longer release so it's now USB-Cxr. New patent, double the price but we're going to reuse the certification.

canadianfella 4y ago

[dead]

vidarh 4y ago

There is already very much reduced need to invent a better plug that isn't backwards compatible because USB-C is extremely flexible in that you can negotiate what will go over the pins. E.g. USB power delivery has already been ramped up several times to the point where it can deliver up to 240W (USDB PD 3.1) That doesn't require any regulatory body to agree, just the USB Implementers Forum. While there may well eventually be a reason to upgrade the actual plug, there should be resistance to that to encourage people to try to find ways to make it work that's backwards compatible with current equipment first.