The end of lightning is nigh, possibly.

[Bombastinator]

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

It is different.  in this example vastly different.

 

Or the government could stick to regulating only what they need to.    I implore you to read over the last several pages before you continue, as you are starting to raise arguments that have already been addressed.

 

 

Oh the government only ever does.  There are many even critical things they can’t afford to do anything with.  Which is part of what is making me wonder why.

[Kawaii Koneko]

On 1/16/2020 at 10:25 PM, mr moose said:

Removing any right to make or sell a product thus reducing the options a consumer has  is unjust in the eyes of many people.

Funny how many people who complain about things such as video game exclusives or a refund policy they disagree with as being "anti-consumer" end up supporting government regulation which ends up restricting consumer choice and freedom.

[Donut417]

15 hours ago, sof006 said:

Pretty sure Apple already has plans to move their devices to type C in the future anyway. Pointless of the EU to enforce this.

The iPad Pro uses USB-C. So they are moving that direction. I know a new USB standard is in the works that kinda merges USB and Thunderbolt. My only guess is Apple is waiting for the standard to be ratified. This could very well be why they havent moved over all of their devices. OR it could be that as rumors go, Apple might be trying to kill off all the ports on the iPhone. Making it wireless charging only. But we all know Apple moves at the speed of turtle when it comes to changes to devices. 

[Bombastinator]

11 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

The iPad Pro uses USB-C. So they are moving that direction. I know a new USB standard is in the works that kinda merges USB and Thunderbolt. My only guess is Apple is waiting for the standard to be ratified. This could very well be why they havent moved over all of their devices. OR it could be that as rumors go, Apple might be trying to kill off all the ports on the iPhone. Making it wireless charging only. But we all know Apple moves at the speed of turtle when it comes to changes to devices. 

It has been something that has worked extremely well for them it is true.  When they move fast bad stuff happens like the butterfly keyboard.

[Kisai]

36 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

The iPad Pro uses USB-C. So they are moving that direction. I know a new USB standard is in the works that kinda merges USB and Thunderbolt. My only guess is Apple is waiting for the standard to be ratified. This could very well be why they havent moved over all of their devices. OR it could be that as rumors go, Apple might be trying to kill off all the ports on the iPhone. Making it wireless charging only. But we all know Apple moves at the speed of turtle when it comes to changes to devices. 

It's likely Lightning couldn't push 29W (though Apple suggests otherwise, Lightning to USB-C cables only), and good luck marketing a "Pro" product that still only communicates at USB2.0 speeds.

 

USB-C is on all of Apples desktop and laptop equipment, the only reason Lightning has stuck around is because it was because USB-C wasn't a thing at the time, and the 30-pin dock connector was keeping them from making the iphone thinner. In the case of the iPad, the lightning connector is actually super-stupid to have since they require much more power to charge, and thus it takes all day (6 hours) to charge, even on the 10W chargers they come with. The USB-C PD 29W charger reduces that to 2.5hours.

 

 

https://www.macstories.net/ios/testing-apples-29w-usb-c-power-adapter-and-ipad-pro-fast-charging/

 

 

[Donut417]

6 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Lightning

Again the rumor on the street is they are planing on killing ports on the iPhone all together. Making it charge wireless only. That might be why they choose not to include type C on iPhones. OR it might be due to the fact they have a surplus of Lightning ports possibly, I mean they did move the iPad to type C, as you pointed out due to Lightning having limitations. It could also be they take forever to make changes. It took what 2 or 3 Generations of Macbooks for them to replace that god awful keyboard. 

 

I feel its because they are waitng on USB4. Its going to merge USB and Thunderbolt and generally just be better. Again they only included type C on the iPad pro due to Lightnings limitations. If they didnt have those limitations they might have not included it. It could very well be they are waiting on this new standard and then they will move everything over. OR it could just be Apple being Apple and them thinking they know best. 

[Sakkura]

12 hours ago, mr moose said:

Or the government could stick to regulating only what they need to.    I implore you to read over the last several pages before you continue, as you are starting to raise arguments that have already been addressed.

That's exactly what happened here. The EU told the companies to get their act together so they wouldn't have to step in and regulate. Some companies refused, so now the EU has to act.

[Bombastinator]

4 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

That's exactly what happened here. The EU told the companies to get their act together so they wouldn't have to step in and regulate. Some companies refused, so now the EU has to act.

This is not impossible.  I haven’t seen any such previous warnings, which should be popping up.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Sakkura said:

That's exactly what happened here. The EU told the companies to get their act together so they wouldn't have to step in and regulate. Some companies refused, so now the EU has to act.

So where is the evidence that regulating a connector on the device will reduce e-waste?  When I say regulate only what they have to,  I expect some demonstrable evidence that the regulation is necessary.  Like consumer protections, electrical safety or product safety.   With this it seems quite arguable that what they want to regulate won't actually have an impact on e-waste and there are other things they can do that will have a bigger impact.

[leadeater]

18 minutes ago, mr moose said:

So where is the evidence that regulating a connector on the device will reduce e-waste?  When I say regulate only what they have to,  I expect some demonstrable evidence that the regulation is necessary.  Like consumer protections, electrical safety or product safety.   With this it seems quite arguable that what they want to regulate won't actually have an impact on e-waste and there are other things they can do that will have a bigger impact.

Just require minimum expected life under consumer protection acts, require serviceability for anyone willing to try and require reclaiming of the device after end of life through customer returns and diversions from refuse centers (at their cost). These 3 alone I would expect to have a meaningful impact, not that the last 2 would happen easily.

[Sakkura]

19 minutes ago, mr moose said:

So where is the evidence that regulating a connector on the device will reduce e-waste?  When I say regulate only what they have to,  I expect some demonstrable evidence that the regulation is necessary.  Like consumer protections, electrical safety or product safety.   With this it seems quite arguable that what they want to regulate won't actually have an impact on e-waste and there are other things they can do that will have a bigger impact.

In the 2014 impact assessment report on the 2009 memorandum of understanding, for starters. There'll be more reports as the legislative process unfurls. The EU doesn't just enact things overnight, there's a lengthy process of studies and stakeholder input and negotiations and so on and so on.

 

The expected e-waste reduction with very low uncoupling between chargers and devices was 300 tons per year, with high uncoupling it was 7600 tons per year. This in addition to saving consumers about half a billion euros over a 4-year period.

[TechyBen]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

So where is the evidence that regulating a connector on the device will reduce e-waste?  When I say regulate only what they have to,  I expect some demonstrable evidence that the regulation is necessary.  Like consumer protections, electrical safety or product safety.   With this it seems quite arguable that what they want to regulate won't actually have an impact on e-waste and there are other things they can do that will have a bigger impact.

So corporations should be allowed to do whatever they please, because "competition", but governments are not? Where is the concrete proof from the corporations that this will stifle innovation?

 

I did see mentioned that multiple cables to meet multiple regulations actually increases e-waste. That's a fair argument, over "rulez bad!".

[Guest]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

Just require minimum expected life under consumer protection acts, require serviceability for anyone willing to try and require reclaiming of the device after end of life through customer returns and diversions from refuse centers (at their cost). These 3 alone I would expect to have a meaningful impact, not that the last 2 would happen easily.

Under the current consumer protection acts goods must last a reasonable length of time. It is oddly worded but consumers can, and do, use this to get a refund or replacement. The issue I think we have in the EU, at least here in the UK, is that a lot of people do not know their rights and that goes for both consumer and retailer. Should more people become aware, and bodies were put into place to assist consumers, then it follows that more people will complain. If that were to happen then manufacturers will have to act and improve their products. So maybe rather than trying to legislate on almost every tiny detail, current rules could be both promoted and enforced.

[leadeater]

24 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

Under the current consumer protection acts goods must last a reasonable length of time. It is oddly worded but consumers can, and do, use this to get a refund or replacement.

We have that here but it's based off of expected consumer expectations so it's rarely used outside of home appliances. That's why even though retailers try and sell extended warranties few bother because they are worthless cost additives we don't need because if for example a fridge fails in less than 5 years warranty is irrelevant because that is our established standard and expectation so you can get it fixed under that law. However when it comes to phones there is no established expectation and if there were one it would be very short as many replace phones very quickly due to factors that should not exist or would be different if those 3 things I mentioned were a thing.

 

It's hard to set specific limits and it's also flawed to go off just consumer expectation because that can be influenced by the manufacturers themselves however no electronic device should be rendered functionally incapable to it's original standard in as little as 2 or 3 years irrespective of price.

 

Currently the only reason manufactures of such devices can say making parts generally available is too costly is because they are not doing it. For years and years household appliances have had readily available parts even as they got more high tech and logic board controlled they are still repairable and for less than the cost of replacement. If you have to or are expected to make part available then you will do it as cheaply and efficiently as possible, no company is going to do otherwise. However it is currently cheaper to not do it and they are not required or expected to so it's not a thing, change that you'll change entire design principals of devices.

 

Regulation can be used to guide innovation, it can also slow it down, increase cost, decrease cost. There's so much flow on that can and does happen and innovation will not stop but there is always balance and there is more than one way to achieve the outcome desired. If e-waste is a problem then look at ways to solve that, unifying devices to a common charging port won't actually do that. Face value it might but it won't, like all the past universal standards and connectors and protocols they have done anything but unify. Every device might end up with a common physical port but that doesn't mean they will actually be the same.

 

If a boat is sinking you can bail water out but you can also find the hole and plug it, you can't bail forever and you might not be doing it fast enough. You may have to do both, or jump ship. Just don't try and bail with a coffee mug, what this regulation will ultimately amount to.

[cj09beira]

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

Just require minimum expected life under consumer protection acts, require serviceability for anyone willing to try and require reclaiming of the device after end of life through customer returns and diversions from refuse centers (at their cost). These 3 alone I would expect to have a meaningful impact, not that the last 2 would happen easily.

what do you mean by this?

[thechinchinsong]

Hopefully, even if this thing is passed, there will never be a significant need to enforce this as Apple seems to already move toward the type C charger. Regardless, I will wait with baited breath to see if this regulation with stimulate innovation or suppress it.

[leadeater]

5 hours ago, cj09beira said:

what do you mean by this?

They don't go in to a landfill they go back to who made it for recycling. When you actually have to deal with your own mess you tend to think harder about how it can be reused and reclaimed when it reaches end of life and also how long that will take.

[Bombastinator]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

They don't go in to a landfill they go back to who made it for recycling. When you actually have to deal with your own mess you tend to think harder about how it can be reused and reclaimed when it reaches end of life and also how long that will take.

Landfills are actually a pretty recent invention.  Like 1950’s.  Before landfill there was the tag man who came by once a week and bought your trash.

[ARikozuM]

16 minutes ago, leadeater said:

They don't go in to a landfill they go back to who made it for recycling. When you actually have to deal with your own mess you tend to think harder about how it can be reused and reclaimed when it reaches end of life and also how long that will take.

Socialized losses... 

 

We used to do something like that in NJ where you were paid for glass and cans (I think a nickel per can and dime per glass), but that was stopped even though it was pretty popular. It also helped to keep streets cleaner since homeless people would take advantage of it. 

[cj09beira]

25 minutes ago, leadeater said:

They don't go in to a landfill they go back to who made it for recycling. When you actually have to deal with your own mess you tend to think harder about how it can be reused and reclaimed when it reaches end of life and also how long that will take.

is that even implementable, outside of current trade in options while purchasing a new one, people would have to give their phones, which many will just keep in draws and forget about it, or give to other family members, my family for example hasn't trown away a single phone that i am aware of,

making the life time of the product more specific, say 5 years would be simpler, still that wouldn't prevent people from changing phones each year which is the main problem, 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, cj09beira said:

is that even implementable, outside of current trade in options while purchasing a new one, people would have to give their phones, which many will just keep in draws and forget about it, or give to other family members, my family for example hasn't trown away a single phone that i am aware of,

making the life time of the product more specific, say 5 years would be simpler, still that wouldn't prevent people from changing phones each year which is the main problem, 

Something must change. Product life is far too short, often shorter than the length of the contracts people sign to get the product in the first place. Currently outside of industry there is little responsibility on any manufacturers to make recyclable and long lasting products. When the product reaches its end of life either through damage, built in redundancy, wear or failure the responsibility of disposal is on the end user, and the cost of recycling is placed upon the tax payer. In industry here there is a responsibility on the manufacturers to provide recycling. They build in costs upfront. The same could be done for consumer kit. Sure, the cost would be built in but the burden would not be on the tax payer as a whole. It would also focus manufacturers, if they have to recycle their wares then they will probably adjust their business model in a greener way. Many companies already see the writing on the wall and are working on making a lot of their profit from the digital arena rather than the physical. They will need to provide products that last so they can keep their subscribers. So to me it already looks like market forces are beginning to drive this. We can all move on and finds other ways of being wasteful and destroying our planet.

[mr moose]

9 hours ago, Sakkura said:

In the 2014 impact assessment report on the 2009 memorandum of understanding, for starters. There'll be more reports as the legislative process unfurls. The EU doesn't just enact things overnight, there's a lengthy process of studies and stakeholder input and negotiations and so on and so on.

 

The expected e-waste reduction with very low uncoupling between chargers and devices was 300 tons per year, with high uncoupling it was 7600 tons per year. This in addition to saving consumers about half a billion euros over a 4-year period.

Link? I do not believe that report actually has any evidence regarding the outcome of making all connectors the same on all devices.  We already have every phone/tablet with a USB A charger.  What are they hoping to uncouple?  As I said quite a few pages ago, I have a personal preference that permits companies to use whatever design they want, live and die by their choices I say.  But also, if their choices are leading to a demonstrable environmental issue then they should be coerced into better options.  And what I said on page 1, we have to tackle e-waste and seeing as these companies aren't doing a great deal themselves (by making products that are worse for the environment because they are not made to last as long as they can) then a little bit of coercion is needed. 

 

It really seems to me making companies accountable for their products would do this much better, Hell even a rating system that gives consumers an idea how green a product is based on it's longevity, recycleability and materials sourcing practices would have a larger impact on e-waste.  

 

8 hours ago, TechyBen said:

So corporations should be allowed to do whatever they please, because "competition", but governments are not? Where is the concrete proof from the corporations that this will stifle innovation?

 

I did see mentioned that multiple cables to meet multiple regulations actually increases e-waste. That's a fair argument, over "rulez bad!".

 

What do you mean by trying to compare competition in the market space with governments being allowed to do certain things?  Why do you think concrete proof is required in this discussion?  None of what I said or am implying requires there to be concrete proof in order not to do something (that is a stupid way to move forward). I am asking for there to be proof a new regulation will have an effect before applying it, especially seeing as there is plenty of concern such regulation will have a negative effect.   What multiple cables to meet regulations did you see? 

 

I posted a anecdotal statement that I see thousands of power cables (jug cords which are standard and on quite a lot of appliance) come through e-waste They get thrown out with every device.    If this is even remotely true then regulating won't stop e waste because it is tied to device obsolescence not the type of power connector it uses.  They're better off regulating that power cords get sold separately from all devices,  you watch how many people elect to re-use their old one (should it still work, see my earlier statements on product longevity) than buy a new one unnecessarily.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, cj09beira said:

is that even implementable, outside of current trade in options while purchasing a new one, people would have to give their phones, which many will just keep in draws and forget about it, or give to other family members, my family for example hasn't trown away a single phone that i am aware of,

making the life time of the product more specific, say 5 years would be simpler, still that wouldn't prevent people from changing phones each year which is the main problem, 

You don't have to do anything, you could take it in or trash it but when it gets to a sorting center electronic goods are already separated, difference here is that they would get shipped back to the manufacture at their cost.

 

Who pays can be revisited later but essentially while it is at the cost of the manufacturer this is an incentive to invest not just in better designs and repair programs but also in methods of recycling which is nearly non-existent today or archaic and hazardous to those that are doing it.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

You don't have to do anything, you could take it in or trash it but when it gets to a sorting center electronic goods are already separated, difference here is that they would get shipped back to the manufacture at their cost.

 

Who pays can be revisited later but essentially while it is at the cost of the manufacturer this is an incentive to invest not just in better designs and repair programs but also in methods of recycling which is nearly non-existent today or archaic and hazardous to those that are doing it.

Yep,  even companies in Australia are starting to use recycling as a way to get better PR with coles having soft plastic recycling pickup in all their stores.   If phone companies become responsible for recycling their obsolete devices they will either work out how to do it and spin a profit from the process or work out how to reduce the cost to themselves by building a better product. 

 

 

A better but product has more value in resale than recycling, a better quality product lasts longer to the point it is a future recycling problem that can be dealt with from interests on funds set up to deal with the problem (thus not creating an immediate burden on company).  We can think of that  in the same way companies set up funds that are to pay out workplace health issues like asbestos illness.  They are funds setup where the interest accrued pays for the damages rather than draining the companies resources.    Better product will be sources from more sustainable resources.

 

 

[Sakkura]

10 hours ago, mr moose said:

Link? I do not believe that report actually has any evidence regarding the outcome of making all connectors the same on all devices.  We already have every phone/tablet with a USB A charger.  What are they hoping to uncouple?  As I said quite a few pages ago, I have a personal preference that permits companies to use whatever design they want, live and die by their choices I say.  But also, if their choices are leading to a demonstrable environmental issue then they should be coerced into better options.  And what I said on page 1, we have to tackle e-waste and seeing as these companies aren't doing a great deal themselves (by making products that are worse for the environment because they are not made to last as long as they can) then a little bit of coercion is needed. 

 

It really seems to me making companies accountable for their products would do this much better, Hell even a rating system that gives consumers an idea how green a product is based on it's longevity, recycleability and materials sourcing practices would have a larger impact on e-waste. 

https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/7432/attachments/1/translations

 

That kind of report is the best evidence available. It's worth noting that the companies already conceded that efforts like this will reduce e-waste.