Hacker News Reader

Comment by andrewla | Hacker News Reader

This is not correct so far as I can tell -- the amendment to directive 2014/53/EU [1] says

> 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/...

View on HN

Well they asked everyone to agree on a standard 10 years ago, but that didn't happen (just because of Apple). So now they forcefully decided.

This is the truth of the matter. Apple has been dragging their feet on switching away from lightning.

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.

USB-C is perfectly fine, and I'm happy to switch, but let's not go overboard. Lightning is still arguably better than USB-C.

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.

Apple gets a patent license fee on every lightning cord. If they switch to a standard they didn't patent, they lose a revenue stream.

That is one of the reasons for Apple. Another one is to be able to sell their own cables to consumers at a premium price.

Isn't USBC more fragile because of the middle piece that lives in the port? Lightning has always felt sturdier to me, though not enough to warrant carrying different types of cables..

The middle piece is thin and does look fragile, but you can't put any real side load on it. The outer wall of the connector takes that force before you can put any real force on the middle. Unless you're jamming a flathead screwdriver or something in it.

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.

Apple has repeatedly said their phones are so thin that they don't have room for a USB-C port. This of course is total bullshit because many phones as thin or thinner than iPhones have USB-C ports.

Yep. Apple came out with their own connector because USB Mini (where everyone else wanted to go) sucked. We got a robust, flippable connector. All in all, using only two kinds of connectors over 14 years (so far) seems far better than the industry average (proprietary, mini, micro, C)

10 years ago USB 3 wasn't really a thing yet, and so it would be a significant downgrade compared to Lightning.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/QANDA_...

"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."

I don't see how this is relevant -- this is a statement of principle. The fact remains that to update the standard, the "timely adjustment" would be made by the legislative body. Don't let the passive voice fool you here; this is not some dynamic industry-led process, it's just a non-binding commitment to update the regulations if the technology advances.

Interesting, I may be out of date then. Previously all the RED proposals called for a common charger, but did not directly specify the charger required.

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).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com