5 ms·

Isn't the regulation now different for usb-C than it was for microusb? In that, Apple could ignore microusb, and still sell their phones in Europe? What if Appl

Isn't the regulation now different for usb-C than it was for microusb? In that, Apple could ignore microusb, and still sell their phones in Europe? What if Apple now comes out with a new standard much better than usb-c for their newest iPhone? They could not ship it now in Europe. So, all these examples referring to microusb are just really sloppy thinking. Which is exactly what I would expect from a huge bureaucracy.

viraptor 3y ago
Yes, the regulation is different now, a custom dongle won't be allowed this time. > What if Apple now comes out with a new standard much better than usb-c for their newest iPhone? Then they go to other manufacturers and say "we have a new, much better idea. we should collaborate on it, so that it's standardised and we can all use it next year". Then they all ship it in Europe and we all have a much better connector. Win win win unless you want very proprietary connectors.
- revelio 3y ago
  Apple will certainly jump at the chance to spend money and time subsidizing its competitors research costs, in return for absolutely no competitive advantage. That's definitely what motivates people in the real world. Reality check: this approach means the rest of the world will have better tech whilst what's sold in the EU remains frozen in time.
  - viraptor 3y ago
    Check the companies involved in any standardised connector/protocol currently used. For example USB implementers forum includes HP, NEC, Microsoft, Intel and... Apple. HDMI forum includes... Apple. NVMe contributors includes... Apple. The times of one company doing their own proprietary thing are close to gone.
    - auggierose 3y ago
      In Europe those times are indeed gone now. If that's the natural way of things, why force anyone in the first place? Forcing a company to throw away their battle-tested technology? And all the equipment and cables with it? What kind of a huge bureaucratic fuck-up is this? This is not helping anyone, not the environment, not people. Well, it is helping some bureaucrats to justify their existence.
      - viraptor 3y ago
        You'll find the answers to most of your questions here https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/46755/attachments/3/translations/en/renditions/native https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/46755/attachments/3/...
        auggierose 3y ago
        > However, the MoU also allowed for the use of proprietary charging interfaces, and one such solution continued to be used (and still is) by a major mobile phone manufacturer, thus preventing full interoperability. In addition, the MoU never addressed the environmental issues arising from the continued existence of those different charging interfaces and charging communication protocols. So the reasons are: 1. We want everyone to do the same, no exceptions. In particular, we don't like Apple and the lightning standard. 2. It's better for the environment. Now, 2. is clearly wrong, as now just all the people already in the Apple ecosystem need to switch their lightning equipment to USB-C equipment, adding tons of waste. And 1., well, is no reason at all. It's how you successfully stop innovation.
        viraptor 3y ago
        If you say 2. is clearly wrong, what are your numbers specifically that disagree with the research summarised in the "Impact" section? Or do you disagree with some part of the linked study? (Which does already take the forced replacement into account)
        3y ago
  - mort96 3y ago
    Apple has been known for doing a whole bunch of R&D which affects the industry. Hell, they were heavily involved in USB-C, and got no competitive advantage from that R&D spending – they just got the opportunity to make better products. Same with WebGPU and other web standards (and, well, there's the freely available WebKit!). "Companies won't invest R&D into making freely available standards because if it's freely available it's not a competitive advantage" is clearly not something which bears out in the real world.
- troad 3y ago
  > Then they go to other manufacturers and say "we have a new, much better idea. we should collaborate on it, so that it's standardised and we can all use it next year". Then they all ship it in Europe and we all have a much better connector. Win win win unless you want very proprietary connectors. You somehow smoothly glossed over the part where Apple (and friends) have to convince a bureaucrat to allow them to do any of this. Where political imperatives ('we're gonna crack down on [foreign] big tech companies!') might incentivise a regulator to say no. Where the new cable no longer uses metal X, and all the manufacturers of metal X successfully lobby to 'save jobs' by protecting the old standard. And so on and so forth.

viraptor 3y ago

Yes, the regulation is different now, a custom dongle won't be allowed this time. > What if Apple now comes out with a new standard much better than usb-c for their newest iPhone? Then they go to other manufacturers and say "we have a new, much better idea. we should collaborate on it, so that it's standardised and we can all use it next year". Then they all ship it in Europe and we all have a much better connector. Win win win unless you want very proprietary connectors.

revelio 3y ago
Apple will certainly jump at the chance to spend money and time subsidizing its competitors research costs, in return for absolutely no competitive advantage. That's definitely what motivates people in the real world. Reality check: this approach means the rest of the world will have better tech whilst what's sold in the EU remains frozen in time.
- viraptor 3y ago
  Check the companies involved in any standardised connector/protocol currently used. For example USB implementers forum includes HP, NEC, Microsoft, Intel and... Apple. HDMI forum includes... Apple. NVMe contributors includes... Apple. The times of one company doing their own proprietary thing are close to gone.
  - auggierose 3y ago
    In Europe those times are indeed gone now. If that's the natural way of things, why force anyone in the first place? Forcing a company to throw away their battle-tested technology? And all the equipment and cables with it? What kind of a huge bureaucratic fuck-up is this? This is not helping anyone, not the environment, not people. Well, it is helping some bureaucrats to justify their existence.
    - viraptor 3y ago
      You'll find the answers to most of your questions here https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/46755/attachments/3/translations/en/renditions/native https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/46755/attachments/3/...
      - auggierose 3y ago
        > However, the MoU also allowed for the use of proprietary charging interfaces, and one such solution continued to be used (and still is) by a major mobile phone manufacturer, thus preventing full interoperability. In addition, the MoU never addressed the environmental issues arising from the continued existence of those different charging interfaces and charging communication protocols. So the reasons are: 1. We want everyone to do the same, no exceptions. In particular, we don't like Apple and the lightning standard. 2. It's better for the environment. Now, 2. is clearly wrong, as now just all the people already in the Apple ecosystem need to switch their lightning equipment to USB-C equipment, adding tons of waste. And 1., well, is no reason at all. It's how you successfully stop innovation.
        viraptor 3y ago
        If you say 2. is clearly wrong, what are your numbers specifically that disagree with the research summarised in the "Impact" section? Or do you disagree with some part of the linked study? (Which does already take the forced replacement into account)
        3y ago
- mort96 3y ago
  Apple has been known for doing a whole bunch of R&D which affects the industry. Hell, they were heavily involved in USB-C, and got no competitive advantage from that R&D spending – they just got the opportunity to make better products. Same with WebGPU and other web standards (and, well, there's the freely available WebKit!). "Companies won't invest R&D into making freely available standards because if it's freely available it's not a competitive advantage" is clearly not something which bears out in the real world.
troad 3y ago
> Then they go to other manufacturers and say "we have a new, much better idea. we should collaborate on it, so that it's standardised and we can all use it next year". Then they all ship it in Europe and we all have a much better connector. Win win win unless you want very proprietary connectors. You somehow smoothly glossed over the part where Apple (and friends) have to convince a bureaucrat to allow them to do any of this. Where political imperatives ('we're gonna crack down on [foreign] big tech companies!') might incentivise a regulator to say no. Where the new cable no longer uses metal X, and all the manufacturers of metal X successfully lobby to 'save jobs' by protecting the old standard. And so on and so forth.