The end of lightning is nigh, possibly.

[mr moose]

3 hours ago, Sakkura said:

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.

That give me an internal server error. 

 

I have a question for you,   are you also in favor of article 13?  it is supported with evidence from the EU and the industry say it will work.  

[Sakkura]

5 minutes ago, mr moose said:

That give me an internal server error. 

 

I have a question for you,   are you also in favor of article 13?  it is supported with evidence from the EU and the industry say it will work.  

Try via this page then.

 

... actually nevermind, I think their server is just down at the moment.

 

No, article 13 isn't a good idea. There's plenty of evidence against it, unlike here. Moreover, that directive is much more up to national implementation details, so we can't really say quite how it will play out in practice.

[mr moose]

8 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

Try via this page then.

 

... actually nevermind, I think their server is just down at the moment.

 

No, article 13 isn't a good idea. There's plenty of evidence against it, unlike here. Moreover, that directive is much more up to national implementation details, so we can't really say quite how it will play out in practice.

 

I'll try again tomorrow.  If it is anything like their other reports and the interpretation is as you have presented with regard to article 13 then I suspect this is going to be a very long thread.

[TechyBen]

21 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.  

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

So it's the type of request, not just that there is one? That's fair.

As many have said, those in charge (corporate or government) often don't understand the finer details (as you say, that is might be product churn, not product type, that is the problem).

[mr moose]

10 hours ago, Sakkura said:

Try via this page then.

 

... actually nevermind, I think their server is just down at the moment.

 

No, article 13 isn't a good idea. There's plenty of evidence against it, unlike here. Moreover, that directive is much more up to national implementation details, so we can't really say quite how it will play out in practice.

 

So I started reading, did you see the disclaimer at the very start of this article?  They absolutely do not take any responsibility for the accuracy of the data within it, yet people are happy to use it to argue for mandating regulation. 

[Bombastinator]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

 

So I started reading, did you see the disclaimer at the very start of this article?  They absolutely do not take any responsibility for the accuracy of the data within it, yet people are happy to use it to argue for mandating regulation. 

How inaccurate?  Are we talking like “the onion” here?

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Bombastinator said:

How inaccurate?  Are we talking like “the onion” here?

I don't know how accurate it is, but it certainly isn't accurate enough for them to take responsibility for the content nor put their name to.

[Sakkura]

8 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

So I started reading, did you see the disclaimer at the very start of this article?  They absolutely do not take any responsibility for the accuracy of the data within it, yet people are happy to use it to argue for mandating regulation. 

That's because it was compiled by experts who are not otherwise employed by the Commission. If anything that makes it a little more trustworthy (less likely the political leadership made the technical staff brew up a report to fit their agenda).

[Bombastinator]

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

I don't know how accurate it is, but it certainly isn't accurate enough for them to take responsibility for the content nor put their name to.

Ah.  So possibly so accurate it’s dangerous for them, or possibly not accurate at all but not the “we were just joking” stuff various political leaders seem to fall for.

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, Sakkura said:

That's because it was compiled by experts who are not otherwise employed by the Commission. If anything that makes it a little more trustworthy (less likely the political leadership made the technical staff brew up a report to fit their agenda).

It makes it nothing, if they are not willing to put anything to it they should not be using it to regulate,  As I said before, they can mandate and regulate based on demonstrable evidence,  but if they can't take responsibility then this is not it.

 

1 hour ago, Bombastinator said:

Ah.  So possibly so accurate it’s dangerous for them, or possibly not accurate at all but not the “we were just joking” stuff various political leaders seem to fall for.

It is a nothing is what it is,  the whole thing is a scapegoat from the onset. 

 

 

EDIT: just as an addendum to this post, I have spent the last 20 minutes looking for something even remotely like that disclaimer in any of our parliament  repositories. The closest I came was this forward to a book that was published by the senate on behalf of a deceased writer.  Where the senate basically say they do not endorse all of the writers conclusions however have published it as close to the original writers work as possible for it's interest and value to the community.

 

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/~/link.aspx?_id=2AD2F4DF9FDE4508ACA6137849BBA0FB&_z=z

 

[George.]

I see a bigger problem lying in the non-removable batteries from a waste standpoint.

Also screens that break from the wind changing directions and costing millions to repair so instead you throw the phone away and buy a new one even tho the rest is working...

I see the point of having multiple standards increases the waste, however I think they should instead of limit technological advancements of the different standards, they should probably focus on the control of quality - make sure the cables last longer and are tougher, instruct people how to handle cables to further reduce waste, increase their price so that lazy people don't just buy a new one when they are bored or can't lift their pizza boxes up to find their "lost" cable and also make sure they are made the cleanest way possible.

Waste will be reduce, technology won't be inhibited.

Generally cheap crap increases waste. Economics 101...

[mr moose]

13 minutes ago, George. said:

I see a bigger problem lying in the non-removable batteries from a waste standpoint.

Also screens that break from the wind changing directions and costing millions to repair so instead you throw the phone away and buy a new one even tho the rest is working...

I see the point of having multiple standards increases the waste, however I think they should instead of limit technological advancements of the different standards, they should probably focus on the control of quality - make sure the cables last longer and are tougher, instruct people how to handle cables to further reduce waste, increase their price so that lazy people don't just buy a new one when they are bored or can't lift their pizza boxes up to find their "lost" cable and also make sure they are made the cleanest way possible.

Waste will be reduce, technology won't be inhibited.

Generally cheap crap increases waste. Economics 101...

Or even just force them to sell the cables separately, watch how many people cheap out and reuse the old one to save $10.

 

EDIT: which would not only have a bigger impact on ewaste but would  probably be much easy to get through without complaints because the phone companies would make more money selling less cables for $10 a pop than giving them away free with every phone.

 

[RejZoR]

If Apple sticks with Lightning for years, how is that producing "more e-waste"? Them sticking with Lightning now means the e-waste baseline is at zero for as long as users remain with Apple (which is sort of main point of every company, to have users that stick with you). Forcing Apple to change to USB-C means everyone using iPhones now will produce fuck ton of e-waste coz Lightning won't be usable anymore and there are you know, fuck ton of iPhone users...

 

If anything, microUSB should die already and be replaced with USB-C in a long term effort to everything be USB-C only and new devices shouldn't come with microUSB anymore. Then we can start barking at Apple too.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, George. said:

I see a bigger problem lying in the non-removable batteries from a waste standpoint.

Also screens that break from the wind changing directions and costing millions to repair so instead you throw the phone away and buy a new one even tho the rest is working...

I see the point of having multiple standards increases the waste, however I think they should instead of limit technological advancements of the different standards, they should probably focus on the control of quality - make sure the cables last longer and are tougher, instruct people how to handle cables to further reduce waste, increase their price so that lazy people don't just buy a new one when they are bored or can't lift their pizza boxes up to find their "lost" cable and also make sure they are made the cleanest way possible.

Waste will be reduce, technology won't be inhibited.

Generally cheap crap increases waste. Economics 101...

Right to repair helps there. I can easily buy a new screen or batter and fit it to my phone, I have done so many times for family and friends. Those items are not too much of a problem bar screens needing to be stronger. However many parts are simply not available except to the OEM. For instance the infamous iPhone fingerprint button on the 7. If you damaged the cable on that £2 part the phone was bricked simply because of a restriction on the programming software to re-pair the new part. To me that was criminal.

[Sakkura]

10 hours ago, mr moose said:

It makes it nothing, if they are not willing to put anything to it they should not be using it to regulate,  As I said before, they can mandate and regulate based on demonstrable evidence,  but if they can't take responsibility then this is not it.

Nonsense. They are using a more reliable source. That's more responsible than cooking up your own numbers to fit your predetermined opinion.

7 hours ago, RejZoR said:

If Apple sticks with Lightning for years, how is that producing "more e-waste"? Them sticking with Lightning now means the e-waste baseline is at zero for as long as users remain with Apple (which is sort of main point of every company, to have users that stick with you). Forcing Apple to change to USB-C means everyone using iPhones now will produce fuck ton of e-waste coz Lightning won't be usable anymore and there are you know, fuck ton of iPhone users...

 

If anything, microUSB should die already and be replaced with USB-C in a long term effort to everything be USB-C only and new devices shouldn't come with microUSB anymore. Then we can start barking at Apple too.

Whenever someone buys a phone, they also get a charger with it. The point here is to make it possible to buy a phone without a charger, because your old one will work.

 

Also, the mandated charging port would almost certainly be USB-C.

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, Sakkura said:

Nonsense. They are using a more reliable source. That's more responsible than cooking up your own numbers to fit your predetermined opinion.

Whenever someone buys a phone, they also get a charger with it.

What's the more reliable source?

1 minute ago, Sakkura said:

The point here is to make it possible to buy a phone without a charger, because your old one will work.

Hold on a second - is the EU actually mandating this or not? Sure I get the idea, but are they actually doing it?

 

Frankly, them doing this, and this alone, without mandating a specific port, would be a vastly superior way to tackle e-waste reduction, and would avoid over regulation, and would still allow companies to invest in R&D for new port standards independently, and thus preserving innovation.

1 minute ago, Sakkura said:

Also, the mandated charging port would almost certainly be USB-C.

And?

[Sakkura]

3 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

What's the more reliable source?

 

Hold on a second - is the EU actually mandating this or not? Sure I get the idea, but are they actually doing it?

 

Frankly, them doing this, and this alone, without mandating a specific port, would be a vastly superior way to tackle e-waste reduction, and would avoid over regulation, and would still allow companies to invest in R&D for new port standards independently, and thus preserving innovation.

 

And?

The expert consultants they hired to write a report.

 

No, the EU isn't mandating decoupling, but they are laying the groundwork for decoupling to even be viable.

 

And? They were talking about MicroUSB for some reason. This initiative would almost certainly eliminate MicroUSB.

[Bombastinator]

36 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

The expert consultants they hired to write a report.

 

No, the EU isn't mandating decoupling, but they are laying the groundwork for decoupling to even be viable.

 

And? They were talking about MicroUSB for some reason. This initiative would almost certainly eliminate MicroUSB.

If they pull MicroUSB2 a different effective and cheap power standard will be needed.  The reason microUSB2 is still around is that it serves a purpose even though it has problems. One of them is straight power no data at low cost.  A single standard might also shoot wireless power in the face which could be stupid.  
I have yet to see evidence that there isn’t a “something else” going on here as well.  One interesting option might be to kill microUSB2 and mandate wireless power, while ignoring  data port form factors like lightning and USBC.  Then all goofy minor stuff like game controllers and powered speakers would have to have wireless power as would phones.  Most of them already have it though.  Good for airports and other public places.  Wireless charge points are easy to clean.

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, Sakkura said:

The expert consultants they hired to write a report.

Which report, specifically? The one that has the massive disclaimer on it?

1 minute ago, Sakkura said:

No, the EU isn't mandating decoupling, but they are laying the groundwork for decoupling to even be viable.

How so? You're conflating two different things. There's absolutely no need to force a government mandated regulation for a specific charging port in order to decouple chargers from devices.

 

Every phone manufacturer already sells spare chargers and cables. Every store that sells phones that's worth a damn already carries at least one charger and cable for each type (mainly, USB-C, Micro USB, and Lightning). The infrastructure for decoupling chargers from a new phone box already exists.

 

All you would need to do is mandate that Phone manufacturers don't include a charger and cable inside the box, and mandate that retailers carry compatible chargers and cables for any phones that they sell (which they are almost certainly already doing anywhere). And lastly, you'd just need to ensure that at the retail level (whether in-person or online), there's a clear disclaimer that the box doesn't include a charger or cable - and for online stores, there could be an easy "checkbox" to simply add-on a charger and cable if you need them.

 

The vast majority of people already own the cables they need. And if they're switching to a new platform with a new cable for the first time (eg: moving from Android to iPhone), that's not really a big deal (and doesn't happen that frequently anyway).

 

The vast majority of consumers buy the same style of phone, using the same kind of charger, as their previous phone. Android users tend to buy more Android phones. Apple users tend to buy more Apple phones. The cycle continues.

1 minute ago, Sakkura said:

And? They were talking about MicroUSB for some reason. This initiative would almost certainly eliminate MicroUSB.

People are talking about MicroUSB because if this initiative was mandated back when MicroUSB was the norm, we might still be stuck with MicroUSB - the industry drive to create USB-C might not have existed, had there been a massive regulatory hurdle in adopting a new standard.

 

And Lightning might never have been developed either - and while it's a lot less good now, it was clearly superior to Micro USB in every single way when it first came out.

[Sakkura]

29 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

All you would need to do is mandate that Phone manufacturers don't include a charger and cable inside the box

That would cause massive inconvenience in the absence of other measures. Out of the question.

[dalekphalm]

16 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

That would cause massive inconvenience in the absence of other measures. Out of the question.

How so? Please elaborate.

 

As I already stated, every single store that sells smartphones already sells and keeps stock of additional chargers and cables. Literally all that would need to change is:

 

1. You walk up to the clerk "I want this phone"

2. The clerk "To cut down on e-waste, phones no longer come with chargers. This one uses USB-C. Did you need to add a charger or do you have one already?"

3. You: "I had an iPhone, so I guess I'll need one?"

4. The Clerk: "Yep. Here I'll just add it to your order"

 

The end.

 

You're jumping to the conclusion that it's out of the question but you haven't justified why.

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, Sakkura said:

Nonsense. They are using a more reliable source. That's more responsible than cooking up your own numbers to fit your predetermined opinion.

Whenever someone buys a phone, they also get a charger with it. The point here is to make it possible to buy a phone without a charger, because your old one will work.

 

Also, the mandated charging port would almost certainly be USB-C.

What report is reliable, if it is sooooooo reliable why are they telling everyone they can't guarantee anything about it.

36 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

That would cause massive inconvenience in the absence of other measures. Out of the question.

Nope, not even in the slightest,  before printers became wifi it was common to for them not to ship with a USB cable.  They did this not for the environment but because USB cables were so prolific they could save the cost of a cable and not effect their sales/reputation.

[dalekphalm]

22 minutes ago, mr moose said:

What report is reliable, if it is sooooooo reliable why are they telling everyone they can't guarantee anything about it.

Nope, not even in the slightest,  before printers became wifi it was common to for them not to ship with a USB cable.  They did this not for the environment but because USB cables were so prolific they could save the cost of a cable and not effect their sales/reputation.

Most printers still don't come with USB cables (even ones without WIFI).

 

This is literally a non-issue. They could decouple chargers from phone boxes right now and, while it would be a mild hassle to retailers for training purposes (and ensuring potential stock levels for chargers), it would be a very short term problem that they would work out in a matter of weeks or months.

[Bombastinator]

5 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Most printers still don't come with USB cables (even ones without WIFI).

 

This is literally a non-issue. They could decouple chargers from phone boxes right now and, while it would be a mild hassle to retailers for training purposes (and ensuring potential stock levels for chargers), it would be a very short term problem that they would work out in a matter of weeks or months.

This is a variation of the whole “batteries not included” thing from many years ago.

[dalekphalm]

5 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

This is a variation of the whole “batteries not included” thing from many years ago.

Ehh kind of.

 

Batteries - especially if you're talking like AA's, etc - are consumables. Most people use disposables (despite the fact that rechargeables work great) anyway so adding in batteries in the box isn't that big of a downside.

 

It's kind of sort of vaguely similar, but definitely not the same.