4 ms·

> enforcing a standard charger on phones. Given that the world was going to USB-C all on their own, I don't think it's fair to give credit to the EU for this o

> enforcing a standard charger on phones. Given that the world was going to USB-C all on their own, I don't think it's fair to give credit to the EU for this one. Let's talk about it again in a decade when we're all still stuck on USB-C because going to something better would violate the law.

PrimeMcFly 3y ago
They enforced micro-USB first IIRC. And without them doing that it's unlikely manufacturers all would have switched to it. > Let's talk about it again in a decade when we're all still stuck on USB-C because going to something better would violate the law. Laws can be updated, quite quickly sometimes.
- nvm0n2 3y ago
  They can only be updated to reference things that exist. But there's no point creating a new thing now, because it'd be automatically illegal. Escape hatch: the rest of the world isn't as stupid as the EU bureaucracy is, so there will still be innovation in power chargers (hopefully). But the principle is busted. Fixing tech in place via law is anti-progress.
  - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
    > But there's no point creating a new thing now, because it'd be automatically illegal. Come on. That's just silly. Nothing stopping manufacturers working together on a new standard and hiring lobbyists to amend whatever bill is needed. The EU bill doesn't stifle innovation at all. It stifles vendor lock-in and a bunch of other negative bullshit.
    - jmye 3y ago
      Why would I bother building something new that there’s no guarantee I can ever use, that provides no competitive advantage whatsoever, when I can just use the existing standard, no matter how outdated or inferior it might be? Legislating a specific tech standard is short-sighted and stupid, and you badly overestimate how quickly legislation can be updated, especially if there’s resistance.
      - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
        If it provides no competitive advantage why would you build it indeed? If there is something better, they will build it to sell newer phones. > you badly overestimate how quickly legislation can be updated, especially if there’s resistance. I think you underestimate how quickly legislation can be updated when there is a desire to do so.
        jmye 3y ago
        > If there is something better, they will build it to sell newer phones. Why would they incur the expense of building it, lobbying for it, working through a new standard with the entire industry, only to not even be able to market it as a feature enhancement over competitors? There’s literally no profit-benefit to doing any of it. > I think you underestimate how quickly legislation can be updated when there is a desire to do so. Ok. We should definitely assume 100% alignment, because that’s definitely the direction governments are currently trending. Good call. There would definitely be zero entrenched interests defending the status quo, so that’s a super smart, reasonable assumption for you to base your argument on.
        PrimeMcFly 3y ago
        > Why would they incur the expense of building it, lobbying for it, working through a new standard with the entire industry, only to not even be able to market it as a feature enhancement over competitors? There’s literally no profit-benefit to doing any of it. Why was USB 3 invented? Or USB4? > Ok. We should definitely assume 100% alignment, because that’s definitely the direction governments are currently trending. Good call. There would definitely be zero entrenched interests defending the status quo, so that’s a super smart, reasonable assumption for you to base your argument on. lol. If newer standard are developed, and they certainly will be, it will be in the manufacturers interests to get them approved so they can sell newer devices, to get people to replace their older devices.
        nvm0n2 3y ago
        > Why was USB 3 invented? Or USB4? To compete with Thunderbolt and Lightning?

PrimeMcFly 3y ago

They enforced micro-USB first IIRC. And without them doing that it's unlikely manufacturers all would have switched to it. > Let's talk about it again in a decade when we're all still stuck on USB-C because going to something better would violate the law. Laws can be updated, quite quickly sometimes.

nvm0n2 3y ago
They can only be updated to reference things that exist. But there's no point creating a new thing now, because it'd be automatically illegal. Escape hatch: the rest of the world isn't as stupid as the EU bureaucracy is, so there will still be innovation in power chargers (hopefully). But the principle is busted. Fixing tech in place via law is anti-progress.
- PrimeMcFly 3y ago
  > But there's no point creating a new thing now, because it'd be automatically illegal. Come on. That's just silly. Nothing stopping manufacturers working together on a new standard and hiring lobbyists to amend whatever bill is needed. The EU bill doesn't stifle innovation at all. It stifles vendor lock-in and a bunch of other negative bullshit.
  - jmye 3y ago
    Why would I bother building something new that there’s no guarantee I can ever use, that provides no competitive advantage whatsoever, when I can just use the existing standard, no matter how outdated or inferior it might be? Legislating a specific tech standard is short-sighted and stupid, and you badly overestimate how quickly legislation can be updated, especially if there’s resistance.
    - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
      If it provides no competitive advantage why would you build it indeed? If there is something better, they will build it to sell newer phones. > you badly overestimate how quickly legislation can be updated, especially if there’s resistance. I think you underestimate how quickly legislation can be updated when there is a desire to do so.
      - jmye 3y ago
        > If there is something better, they will build it to sell newer phones. Why would they incur the expense of building it, lobbying for it, working through a new standard with the entire industry, only to not even be able to market it as a feature enhancement over competitors? There’s literally no profit-benefit to doing any of it. > I think you underestimate how quickly legislation can be updated when there is a desire to do so. Ok. We should definitely assume 100% alignment, because that’s definitely the direction governments are currently trending. Good call. There would definitely be zero entrenched interests defending the status quo, so that’s a super smart, reasonable assumption for you to base your argument on.
        PrimeMcFly 3y ago
        > Why would they incur the expense of building it, lobbying for it, working through a new standard with the entire industry, only to not even be able to market it as a feature enhancement over competitors? There’s literally no profit-benefit to doing any of it. Why was USB 3 invented? Or USB4? > Ok. We should definitely assume 100% alignment, because that’s definitely the direction governments are currently trending. Good call. There would definitely be zero entrenched interests defending the status quo, so that’s a super smart, reasonable assumption for you to base your argument on. lol. If newer standard are developed, and they certainly will be, it will be in the manufacturers interests to get them approved so they can sell newer devices, to get people to replace their older devices.
        nvm0n2 3y ago
        > Why was USB 3 invented? Or USB4? To compete with Thunderbolt and Lightning?