5 ms·

Best similar case I can think of is the EU regulating charging cables (and mandating USB-C for a lot of devices). It was a common consumer good with a problem

by dguest 2y ago

Best similar case I can think of is the EU regulating charging cables (and mandating USB-C for a lot of devices). It was a common consumer good with a problem that really annoyed some people so much that they made a law to "fix" it. Others said it would stifle innovation. To me how people feel about that probably says something about what chances this proposal has. How do people feel about the USB-C mandate? Are there other similar recent examples?

sssilver 2y ago
I do not like the mandate because I prefer the lightning connector as the objectively better connector. I’m always amused when people say they don’t see a difference. The difference to me is significant.
- Tade0 2y ago
  How is it better?
  - ForOldHack 2y ago
    1. It's proprietary. · 2. It's more expensive. · 3. It's slower. · 4. It doesn't support fast-charging. ·
    - ThatPlayer 2y ago
      My favorite is that it doesn't have enough pins for native HDMI. Those Lightning to HDMI adapters have a proper controller chip that takes compressed video and decodes it to output HDMI.
  - arrakeen 2y ago
    the flimsy, breakable part is on the cable rather than the expensive device
  - sssilver 2y ago
    Most importantly, I find it easier to plug into the device without looking.
- martsa1 2y ago
  I hold the opposite perspective, to me personally, the USB-C feels objectively better. I own phones with both connectors and I've hit issues with two lightning cables over the last ~6 years where dropping the cable onto something metallic shorts out a couple of the connectors rendering the cable useless. Thus far I've not managed to do similar with USB-C. Both cables ultimately wind up being replaced after fatiguing to failure in roughly comparable time IME. Both adapters are pleasant to use compared to predecessors, but USB-C I can share between devices, so the 100W laptop charger will happily charge my phone etc which I find quite convenient. I'm curious what you find preferable about the lightning adapter?
- toolslive 2y ago
  iirc the EU did not mandate usb-c. It merely forced the industry to pick a standard (the industry reached consensus on usb-c)
- jwueller 2y ago
  Apple didn't manage to convince the rest of the industry that it's the better connector, so USB-C came out ahead. That was not the mandate. The mandate just told them to collaborate and standardize around one connector.
  - consteval 2y ago
    Apple charges money on a license for lighting cables. And it's not cheap. Surprise, their competitors don't want to pay out millions to Apple for some crappy charging cables. People have this idea lightning stuck around because it was good. No, it was a money printing machine that required no lubrication from Apple. Even the dumbest of the dumb MBAs wouldn't have killed lightning. From a business perspective it's gold.
- hot_gril 2y ago
  Lightning is the only charging cable that manages to stop working after a while, plus it has some kind of DRM bs. It can rest in pieces, in many cases literally.
vkazanov 2y ago
I feel that usb-c mandate is the best thing in the world of consumer electronics since mobile phones were invented. I need 1-2 cables instead of a battery of connectors. In fact, i normally just have 1 on me - my laptop's, which I use for everything.
- rawbot 2y ago
  The USB-C mandate is good, but the actual USB-C spec is not, with how confusing it became because now the USB-C connector doesn't tell you whether the cable is charge-only, USB 2.0, USB 3.1, USB 3.2 or USB 4.0. So everytime I grab a cable I need to test it and label it accordingly. With USB-A and B, you knew at a glance at least which speeds it supported.
  - SAI_Peregrinus 2y ago
    There's no such thing as a charge-only USB-C cable that's compliant with USB standards. So if it's got a USB logo, and isn't a counterfeit, then it's not charge-only. Of course there are plenty of counterfeits. Otherwise entirely correct, the marking requirements for USB-C are terrible. And the ports don't have any good way to show which alternate functions they support. You can have 40Gib/s USB-4.0 without the DisplayPort alternate mode supported, for example.
    - dghlsakjg 2y ago
      The fact that they don't meet a standard doesn't negate the fact that they exist, are for sale, and that most people do not understand the very technical specifications, or even what the USB logo represents.
      - acdha 2y ago
        No, but it means there’s a consumer safety issue rather than a problem with the standard just as someone selling contaminated meat does not mean that the food safety labeling laws are broken.
hengheng 2y ago
The RoHS directive is the better analogy.

by dguest 2y ago

sssilver 2y ago

I do not like the mandate because I prefer the lightning connector as the objectively better connector. I’m always amused when people say they don’t see a difference. The difference to me is significant.

Tade0 2y ago
How is it better?
- ForOldHack 2y ago
  1. It's proprietary. · 2. It's more expensive. · 3. It's slower. · 4. It doesn't support fast-charging. ·
  - ThatPlayer 2y ago
    My favorite is that it doesn't have enough pins for native HDMI. Those Lightning to HDMI adapters have a proper controller chip that takes compressed video and decodes it to output HDMI.
- arrakeen 2y ago
  the flimsy, breakable part is on the cable rather than the expensive device
- sssilver 2y ago
  Most importantly, I find it easier to plug into the device without looking.
martsa1 2y ago
I hold the opposite perspective, to me personally, the USB-C feels objectively better. I own phones with both connectors and I've hit issues with two lightning cables over the last ~6 years where dropping the cable onto something metallic shorts out a couple of the connectors rendering the cable useless. Thus far I've not managed to do similar with USB-C. Both cables ultimately wind up being replaced after fatiguing to failure in roughly comparable time IME. Both adapters are pleasant to use compared to predecessors, but USB-C I can share between devices, so the 100W laptop charger will happily charge my phone etc which I find quite convenient. I'm curious what you find preferable about the lightning adapter?
toolslive 2y ago
iirc the EU did not mandate usb-c. It merely forced the industry to pick a standard (the industry reached consensus on usb-c)
jwueller 2y ago
Apple didn't manage to convince the rest of the industry that it's the better connector, so USB-C came out ahead. That was not the mandate. The mandate just told them to collaborate and standardize around one connector.
- consteval 2y ago
  Apple charges money on a license for lighting cables. And it's not cheap. Surprise, their competitors don't want to pay out millions to Apple for some crappy charging cables. People have this idea lightning stuck around because it was good. No, it was a money printing machine that required no lubrication from Apple. Even the dumbest of the dumb MBAs wouldn't have killed lightning. From a business perspective it's gold.
hot_gril 2y ago
Lightning is the only charging cable that manages to stop working after a while, plus it has some kind of DRM bs. It can rest in pieces, in many cases literally.

vkazanov 2y ago

I feel that usb-c mandate is the best thing in the world of consumer electronics since mobile phones were invented. I need 1-2 cables instead of a battery of connectors. In fact, i normally just have 1 on me - my laptop's, which I use for everything.

rawbot 2y ago
The USB-C mandate is good, but the actual USB-C spec is not, with how confusing it became because now the USB-C connector doesn't tell you whether the cable is charge-only, USB 2.0, USB 3.1, USB 3.2 or USB 4.0. So everytime I grab a cable I need to test it and label it accordingly. With USB-A and B, you knew at a glance at least which speeds it supported.
- SAI_Peregrinus 2y ago
  There's no such thing as a charge-only USB-C cable that's compliant with USB standards. So if it's got a USB logo, and isn't a counterfeit, then it's not charge-only. Of course there are plenty of counterfeits. Otherwise entirely correct, the marking requirements for USB-C are terrible. And the ports don't have any good way to show which alternate functions they support. You can have 40Gib/s USB-4.0 without the DisplayPort alternate mode supported, for example.
  - dghlsakjg 2y ago
    The fact that they don't meet a standard doesn't negate the fact that they exist, are for sale, and that most people do not understand the very technical specifications, or even what the USB logo represents.
    - acdha 2y ago
      No, but it means there’s a consumer safety issue rather than a problem with the standard just as someone selling contaminated meat does not mean that the food safety labeling laws are broken.

hengheng 2y ago

The RoHS directive is the better analogy.