> I have no expectation, for example, that these same regulators will stay on top of this and revise it when USB-C stops being the preferred or best choice.
They didn't write the law as "you must use USB-C" They wrote the law as "The industry experts need to pick A standard for charging, and all manufacturers should respect that choice"
They are welcome to change it going forward, they just have to agree and consolidate.
> Hand-held mobile phones, tablets, digital cameras, headphones, headsets, handheld videogame consoles and portable speakers, in so far as they are capable of being recharged via wired charging, shall:
> (a) be equipped with the USB Type-C receptacle, as described in the standard EN IEC 62680-1-3:2021 ‘Universal serial bus interfaces for data and power - Part 1-3: Common components - USB Type-C TM Cable and Connector Specification’, which should remain accessible and operational at all times;
To switch to a new charger type would require legislative action, not just industry experts changing their mind. That said, I actually strongly prefer this approach to allowing an industry self-regulating group to make these decision.
[1] https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/46755/attachments/4/...
It seems like wireless charging still falls into that category (they require some form of interoperability by 2026, but do not state the exact form).
Why? No idea. It's a much slower standard, and puts the wearing parts in the port instead of the cable. USB-C is designed by committee, sure, but the port itself is better than lightning in nearly every consumer metric there is.
Beyond that, the springloaded contacts are on the cable end with type-c, with lightning it's inside the phone. I don't think it's a particularly common failure mode, but having less moving parts in the expensive bit is generally a good idea.
USB-C exists because Apple was in the process of creating Lightning. Also, in my experience, you seem to have the fragility point backward: the nub on lightning cables may break, but the port is fine, while the reverse is true for USB-C, where the fragile bit is in the port.
"Any technological developments in wired charging can be reflected in a timely adjustment of technical requirements/ specific standards under the Radio Equipment Directive. This would ensure that the technology used is not outdated."
"At the same time, the implementation of any new standards in further revisions of Radio Equipment Directive would need to be developed in a harmonised manner, respecting the objectives of full interoperability. Industry is therefore expected to continue the work already undertaken on the standardised interface, led by the USB-IF organisation, in view of developing new interoperable, open and non-controversial solutions."
> With respect to radio equipment capable of being recharged via means other than wired charging, the Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 44 in order to amend Annex Ia in the light of technical progress, and to ensure the minimum common interoperability between radio equipment and their charging devices, by: (a) introducing, modifying, adding or removing categories or classes of radio equipment; (b) introducing, modifying, adding or removing technical specifications, including references and descriptions, in relation to charging interface(s) and charging communication protocol(s), for each category or class of radio equipment concerned.’;
So the commission can adopt new standards trough a much lighter executive process. It does not require new legislation to update the standard.
It's still not clear that having this be regulated is better.
We don't have a port problem. We used to have one, but it went away. It sure LOOKS like Apple will, eventually, transition away from Lightning on its own anyway.
So why have regulators weigh in here at all? What's the point? What value is added?
That's not how innovation works. What motivation would they have to change it if all your competitors will change it step? This only hurts consumers.
Yes, exactly, this is how standardization works.
Who cares about innovation in charging plugs form factor?
Innovations should be innovative enough to get around the plug.
Light bulbs have been the same for at least 80 years and it didn't stop innovation.
Why do people are so scared about things that are only hypothetical, while this solves a real issue?
But it was pretty good for many decades.
Having a retro compatible socket drove the adoption of more energy efficient bulbs.
Every time I rented a place with MR16, like 1/3 of all sockets in the ceiling were dead, the power supply was inside the false ceiling and it was not possible to fix without making a hole. Needless to say lardlord need much motivating to fix anything.
Also, it;s not illegal to install random non-standard bulbs -> my last apartmentblock was built with some special, great, proprietary and patented LED-spesific socket. Guess what happened? 15 years on, the lamps started failing, and the manufacturere dropped production of anything for that socket!
Now they need to replace like a thousands light fittings across the entire block, there is no way to get replacements. Some of them are in awkward places and will require a special vehicle to reach.
Do we believe given the track record of a new connector being introduced more frequently than once every 5 years just within the USB standardization process, that we've somehow reached the end of that road in practical terms? If we've reached the end of the road, by all means we could standardize and say "you have to use the pinnacle of USB connector type".
I still use Ethernet at work, it's connected to the thunderbolt port through an adaptor.
https://www.mouser.it/images/qualtek/hd/703W-00_SPL.jpg
It has been working quite well in many electronic devices for decades...
I don't see the usefulness of discussing things that have not happened.
Is USB-C bad?
That's the question you should be interested in.
“The best is the enemy of the good.”
Saying that choices should never be made because we don't know what the future brings, is the same of saying that there's no point in living, because we are all going to die.
Of course they did not settle on USB-B in 1999 because there weren't billions of devices using it and it was relatively new technology.
Now it's a de facto standard already.
Perhaps I'm at least equally interested in "when something better than USB-C is available, do I think that should be allowed instead?"
> Now it's a de facto standard already.
That’s all the more reason to not make it a de jure standard.
what about "USB C is here to stay so why bother to worry about something that will change in a distant future, if it will change at all?"
Cui prodest?
> That’s all the more reason to not make it a de jure standard.
on the contrary
that's all the more reason to do it.
imagine if we used your mentality where we would be now
hundreds of different de facto standards for light bulb sockets, power plugs, gas pumps, road size, traffic light colors. etc etc
basically the definition of hell
Not all that many companies are doing work for cable standards to begin with, and personally - as a consumer - I very much welcome the standardization on usb-c.
The companies that are doing work on communication standards aren't normally selling the kind of devices covered here to consumers. It's more business to business and military applications. Further, charging in particular is a different beast than communication in general - you're not doing anything other than sending current down the line to fill a battery. there's only so many ways to do that, and I think it makes sense to consolidate them.
Finally - the requirement only states that the device must include a usb-c port for charging. It makes no limitations on manufacturers including additional ports. So even if a direct to consumer device wanted to include a new port - they absolutely could, they just still have to allow filling the battery from usb-c.
In the vast majority of devices you accept what the manufacture gives you or you are out of luck, especially when everything these days is protected by some kind of intellectual property.
This excuse is old and tired and tends to ignore that large manufactures purposefully make the customer experience worse for higher profits.
B: "You should buy a phone with USB-C charging."
A: "But I don't want anyone else to be able to buy a phone that doesn't have USB-C charging."
B: "You should petition the government to make that illegal, I guess."