The European Union is planning to require uniformity in phone cord chargers.
The European Union announced plans Thursday to require the smartphone industry to adopt a uniform charging cord for mobile devices, a push that could eliminate the all-too-familiar experience of rummaging through a drawer full of tangled cables to find the right one.
The European Commission, the bloc’s executive arm, proposed legislation that would mandate USB-C cables for charging, technology that many device makers have already adopted. The main holdout is Apple, which said it was concerned the new rules would limit innovation, and that would end up hurting consumers. iPhones come with the company’s own Lightning charging port, though the newest models come with cables that can be plugged into a USB-C socket.
I am a user of Apple products and am often irritated by the fact that the chargers and other peripherals for my old devices can no longer be used when I buy a new one, requiring the purchase of dongles if I want to continue using them. It raises the suspicion that this is being done for commercial reasons, to force people to spend more. So on one level, I am pleased by this move.
But on the other hand, I can see the argument that forcing all manufacturers to adopt the same standard can inhibit innovation. The question is at what point widespread interchangeability provides more benefits than what is lost by eliminating individual differences. Plenty of devices now have to conform to a uniform standard. Car batteries, for example, all come in the same size. A car brand that used batteries that were different and thus required owners to only buy the company’s own batteries would face howls of outrage, however good those batteries might be,
Have phone chargers reached that same level of ubiquity, where the benefits of standardization outweigh the limits placed on innovation?
Apple is lying, it does not inhibit innovation. You must bear in mind that even apparently simple components such as charging cables and data transfer cables are the product of industry-wide collaboration, with many companies and other bodies involved in the engineering decisions that go into coming up with each generation of data transfer protocol, and the cables and in/out ports that they use. Every generation sees improvement, and the consumer benefits from those improvements and also for the interchangeable nature of the ports and cables. Apple stands alone for exactly the reason you suspect.
Apple would need to explain how putting a USB-C connector for standard recharging on their phones would prevent them from adding a second, proprietary port for their “innovation.” Would it cost extra? So does having to buy a new charger because the old one is no longer supported.
Think beyond the primary owner/user. Hotels, conference centers, rental cars, etc. would probably wish to accommodate their patrons with charging ports. Having multiple ports in each room, conference desk, rental car, etc. would be a costly nuisance.
Yes. The answer to the posed question is yes.
Well, to begin with, there are many sizes of car batteries. But we get your point.
From an engineering perspective the question is not innovation but does the USB-C connection meet the needs of the device?
Can it handle all the current a cell phone is likely to draw to charge it? Yes. No concern there.
Can USB handle the data transfer to move cell-phone data to other peripherals? And in this case Holms @1 is absolutely correct. Standard data formats, rates, and packet sizes are not defined by Apple. The only real purpose to have an Apple unique protocol is to prevent the Apple phone from connecting to any peripheral other than an Apple developed/licensed one. If you want your phone to be able to transfer data to non-Apple hardware, the phone must use an industry-defined transfer protocol, like USB.
Of course, if Apple is harvesting other information from their proprietary data format, there may be some innovation involved. And converting to a USB format would reveal that information, or Apple would have to stop collecting it. I think that form of innovation we are better off without.
Type C and Type Micro-B are sufficient for the future and wouldn’t limit innovation. Both are small, thin, and capable of USB3.0 transfer rates.
Apple is garbage, full stop. They intentionally try to make third party replacements and repairs impossible, to make their phones unusable if you don’t use their overpriced and irreparable parts. If they weren’t the dominant company in the industry, they wouldn’t survive with their tactics.
Equally annoying is proprietary cables. Very few T9 or low end phones use a USB connector. Replacing cables is difficult, especially if it’s an older model. For those who ask, “who would use a dumbphone?” it’s people who can only afford a US$50 phone and not US$500. Low income forces choices out of necessity, not preference.
If such a law had been passed 15 years ago, maybe every phone today would have a USB-type-A connector, such as the iMac introduced in 1998. But maybe Apple would have every modern iPhone have the connection it currently has, but would have to include a dongle to connect it to USB-A, which we would all curse or throw away.
That is, I think uniformity would be a good idea if it isn’t too rigid on future changes.
But many Apple chargers have compatible cords and wall warts, but of invisibly different wattages, such that a device can easily be plugged in to power that is lower or higher than optimal. Apple chargers have circuitry to prevent overcharging, but charging with lower wattage just wastes time. And third party chargers save money by not bothering with protective circuitry, which works fine until it doesn’t. Maybe there should be laws requiring charger makers worldwide to clearly display their wattage and their level of charging protection circuitry. And display can’t be tiny white on white lettering, either. I’ve got a big wish list.
Maybe it sounds intuitively right in the abstract. I don’t know why it would. But anyway, that’s all it is: just a bunch of abstract apologetics from monopolists.
Concrete examples to the contrary are extremely easy to find, in recent history, or really as far back as you want to go. Televisions, telephones, computers, the internet, VHS, CD, DVD, AA/AAA/9V batteries, and on and on and on. The electrical grid itself, which of course we all use and is very much standardized, has not been inhibiting innovation either. What we got out of it was very much the opposite of that. And that’s only picking from examples specifically related to consumer electronics, never mind all sorts of other examples.
So where do they come up with that? What gives them the idea that this is any different? Nothing. It’s just a talking point.
I can tell you that in music, MIDI standards have been wildly successful in terms of enabling/supporting innovation. So much has fundamentally changed about the music world since MIDI was first introduced, which only happened because it was introduced.
There’s been lots of talk for a long time about MIDI 2.0, which sounds fine. No reason to oppose that. And of course, there are (can be more) extensions or alternatives too. But at a bare minimum, there must be backwards compatibility. It makes no difference at all what they think they’re offering you; that is absolutely critical to the success of anything that could pretend to be “next gen” technology.
The expectation is and ought to be that you should be able to use devices which have been around for decades and no matter who the manufacturer was. (After all, that manufacturer might go belly up in 10 years, for all you know, and we’ve got no reason to give them the “too big to fail” treatment like Apple). Monopolists just want you to be stuck using their overpriced junk, not for you to have something that’s genuinely “useful” or allows for “innovation.” They just want to secure all of the profits for themselves, permanently.
But why is it that people seem so eager to buy that line, when it’s about smarphones and the like? I don’t get it.
Power over USB is sufficient for phones. My current fast charger is 18 W, and I hardly ever use it. Generally I just plug my phone into the USB port of a nearby computer.
Just did some googling. I knew things were bad but never realized how bad….
Business Insider headline from August, 2017: Apple makes 23 different dongles — and it would cost you $857 to buy them all
As an engineer -- standardisation is self evidently better. Apple are scum.
I had a Mac once and really liked the user interface; but I won’t get anywhere Apple hardware anymore because of incompatibility with, basically, everything else.
In software, this is called the “vendor lock-in anti-pattern,” which means exactly what it sounds like.
Would anybody like to try and argue that establishing the “RJ’ modular connector standards back in the mid 70s has impeded innovation in telephony and computer networking since then?
But look, you can hardly imagine where we’d be by now, if it hadn’t been for that. Michael tried to spread the word before it was too late, but nobody would listen.
I suppose it’s vaguely possible there’s some space for innovation with chargers but only if you get to do something different from everyone else. But I can’t really imagine that working very well. And it goes against a very considerable body of evidence in computing specifically. Minor physical variations in computer components and how they attach were used to add a multiplier to prices on many different occasions. Whether you’re talking about proprietary bus attachments for internal components or RAM or just about anything else, the only area of innovation ends up being about fishing more money out of your bank account. And on top of that, all of those other efforts inevitably failed. Apple is really the only standout in that respect but that doesn’t mean they aren’t just fishing for money. Because they absolutely are.
My impression from glancing at specs over the course of a few generations of USB and Lightning connector was that they’re converging on similar capacities rather than innovating separately. At this point it might as well just be a differently shaped plug for all the difference a consumer will see.
It’s responsible for the demise of TPC’s CC (The President’s Analyst (video)), albeit blowing up TPC’s HQ probably also helped… except the animatronic TPC executives know better, RJ is simply a distraction…
I can find a long list of Android smartphones on Amazon for less than US$50.
There are other reasons than cost for avoiding smartphones
khms (#16) --
Are there any large button android phones for the elderly with limited vision or finger dexterity, with dedicated flashlight and alarm buttons? I haven’t looked, but I doubt it.
Many of these have a low price. I bought a Taiwanese large button phone as a backup. It cost US$100 because it’s 4G.
“But on the other hand, I can see the argument that forcing all manufacturers to adopt the same standard can inhibit innovation.”
You’re falling into their trap, Mano.
Best Android-powered cell phones for seniors
The Jitterbug Smart2 might be suitable. Also, there are Android apps for big buttons that should run on any Android phone.
Yes, it is absolutely a good idea. It’s a power connector, for crying out loud! Just how much “innovation” is there to be stifled by everyone having to use the same connector on all their devices, anyway? The purpose of it is simply to get Joules into batteries. And unless there is a sudden change in the laws of nature, there is no compelling reason to use anything different from what we already have. So let there be a standard that can be enforced by law, that does nothing fancy, and that anyone can implement without paying royalties (or working around schemes designed as backdoor gouging). Then everyone can compete on a level playing field, and nobody can pretend their offering is special just because it has a fancy connector you cannot buy anywhere else.
Before smartphones, there almost was a single unified charging connector anyway; Nokia was the best-selling brand and their barrel connector was more or less unchanged from the ones used on their analogue offerings, so there was reasonably certain to be a Nokia charger anywhere.
I believe it was the city of Baltimore that once decided to encourage innovation amongst fire hydrant suppliers. Maybe ask them how it went?
“Plenty of devices now have to conform to a uniform standard. Car batteries, for example, all come in the same size.”
Sorry, no. That is not correct. A fair majority of vehicles, even just considering cars, have batteries that seem roughly similar from a distance but there are a whole lot of variations. Small cars, with small engines, and/or a lesser need for an electrical reserve can have small batteries. Heavier engines and heavy electrical loads may see a battery three times the physical size and many times the electrical capacity.
The basic case size is determined by Group size:
https://shop.advanceautoparts.com/r/advice/car-maintenance/car-battery-size-chart
There are differences in how the battery is connected. Are they large posts on top, or are they more compact studs on the side. There are batteries with both but vehicles generally only accept one type or the other. There are even a few proprietary designs. Rarely seen but they are out there.
There are differences in mountings: wedge, strap, band, bolts. Some batteries allow multiple options but checking to make sure to buy a compatible model as it greatly simplifies installation.
Generally not effecting battery geometry:
Chemistry: Lead-acid, AGM, wound, lithium batteries are rare now but expect them to become more common.
A simple division between starting, deep cycle, or a compromise.
Grade differences that determine cold-cranking amps and reserve capacity.
Vent/ drain provisions -- Common in earlier European cars we are starting to see more batteries from US manufacturers moved into the passenger compartment. Which means gasses, fumes, potentially acid in there with Aunt Polly. So some batteries come with provisions for installation of a plastic nipple and connection to a hose that vents to daylight.
I inherited a 2009 Buick Lucerne that has the battery under the passenger seat. The specified battery has a plastic nipple that connects to a hose.
As for charging connectors -- It is nice that the EU authorities are thinking about consumers but I think standardization by regulation may be a bit much. I suspect that under pressure from a single externally imposed solution the industry will come up with a compromise solution. I’m thinking, wireless. No mechanical wear and tear. Less opportunity for dirt and water to get into the case. Place the phone on a charging pad and it works. Inductive coupling and transformer effect handles the connection. Simple, and easy. It has limitations but everything is a compromise.
Funny that Apple is claiming this is inhibiting innovation seeing how much innovation Apple is going to apply to wireless charging to ensure that you still need their proprietary solution to put electricity in your Apple gear. Wireless charging on which the EU decided not to apply standards on since it is still considered an immature technology as opposed to how to efficiently put electricity through a cable into a device.
lorn (#22) --
If we’re using cars as analogies, then perhaps gas pump nozzles would have been a better, especially since recharging is refueling.
Imagine Volkswagen and Shell conspired to create a proprietary fuel nozzle that fits only VW cars, Shell raised their gas prices, and VW buyers find out they can’t fill up anywhere else. Sales would plummet. But with apple holding nearly half the cell phone market, they can get away with “proprietary” nonsense like that.
“I can see the argument that forcing all manufacturers to adopt the same standard can inhibit innovation.”
For some reason European electric sockets haven’t suffered from this at all. In Suriname however I have three different versions: European, American and Trinidadian. That didn’t stimulate innovation.
I look forward to re-reading this thread when USB 4 is common.
USB 4 and Thunderbolt 3 use the exact same USB-C connector, but it becomes impossible to tell whether the cable fully supports the two devices on either end. That applies both to power and data.
This thread will look calm, objective, and well-informed in comparison.