Bye bye lightning.... HELLO USB-C || Long-awaited common charger for mobile devices will be a reality in 2024

[AlTech]

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Honestly though, the design of the lightning connector beats out USB-C in regards to practicality though.

 

Data rates aside, the fact that lightning cables are designed to break before the phone connector...if you get twigs/dirt etc stuck inside a lightning connector it's by far easier to clear out than USB-C.  Super fast charging only really matters if you are in a need for a charge quickly, I think there have been only a few scenarios where I have run across that (and in those cases as well, what are the changes you have the fast charger with you).  Full 100% charge the numbers sort of equalize over time...better for the battery anyways with a slower charge rate.

 

I dislike Apple, but honestly I sort of wish the USB-C went more of the Apple connector type of approach than USB-C....I've seen lots of lightning cables that need replacing, more so than USB-C cables...but it's a lot more rare to have the connector being plugged in the iPhone (or rather it's so much easier to clean)...USB-C if you get something stuck in the cable without realizing you can have users who break the internal plastic on the USB-C...and at that point there isn't a cheap repair.

 

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

I haven't watched the video but I'm assuming the main point is the fragmentation of USB-C charging standards by different companies.

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

 

USB-C isn't as universal as people make it out to be.

Well there's the USB PD spec including a PD quick charging spec.

 

All Qualcomm phones that aren't ancient have a form of quick charging from Qualcomm.

 

All MediaTek and Exynos phones that aren't ancient also have their own respective forms of quick charging from MediaTek or Samsung.

 

And then some OEMs build out their own quick charging solution beyond that like Oppo and Oneplus who use Vooc and SuperVooc, and whatever other OEMs use for their proprietary design.

 

It would be fairly difficult, verging on almost impossible, for anybody to try to buy a modern USB-C phone without some form of quick charging. The exceptions are non smartphone chips being used in smartphones like the Linux phones (Pinephone (Pro) and Librem 5) and any other phone using an Allwinner, NXP, or Rockchip SOC.

[Arika]

"But this with stifle innovation!!!"

 

Ah yes, because I'm sure Apple was just about to release the best cable after clinging to lightning for the last 10 years. 

 

I would also love for someone to come up with something that usb-c couldn't do in say, 5 years time that would actually matter for phones and isn't just "this number is smaller"!!!

[wanderingfool2]

20 minutes ago, Arika S said:

"But this with stifle innovation!!!"

 

Ah yes, because I'm sure Apple was just about to release the best cable after clinging to lightning for the last 10 years. 

 

I would also love for someone to come up with something that usb-c couldn't do in say, 5 years time that would actually matter for phones and isn't just "this number is smaller"!!!

Well I mean I do think that the lightning cable was better for mobile devices than USB-C (as I noted in my previous post).

 

I do think that it does stifle competition (and innovation).  If you want an example, according to this law it's required on devices that are 100W and less.  If you were designing a laptop that you expect low end variants to draw 50W, but you wanted higher variants that could draw over 100W you now have a real issue.  Instead of designing a single system where the chips are switched out you now have to create two separate system.

 

If you wanted a full waterproof device, instead of using a simple magnetic system with two metal connectors on the outside to deliver power you are now forced to utilize USB-C.  There was actually one rugged device I use to use that would be in violation of this, but their design for the connector was really well thought out.

 

So yes, it will stifle innovation, but not necessarily in the way people might always think of.

[Arika]

32 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

designing a laptop that you expect low end variants to draw 50W, but you wanted higher variants that could draw over 100W you now have a real issue

how many laptop makers are creating the same laptop at 50w and 100+w?

 

but also

https://www.theverge.com/23053867/first-240w-usb-c-4-power-delivery-cables-20-40-gbps

USB-C can already do up to 240w

 

34 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

If you wanted a full waterproof device, instead of using a simple magnetic system with two metal connectors on the outside to deliver power you are now forced to utilize USB-C.

incorrect, you CAN have other charging capabilities, you just also have to have USB-C. waterproof devices have existed for a long time, well before magnetic or wireless charging. plugs, sealed flaps and doors have been the standard for rugged devices for ages

[Moonzy]

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

If you wanted a full waterproof device, instead of using a simple magnetic system with two metal connectors on the outside to deliver power you are now forced to utilize USB-C. 

i used a gopro before

to me, it wasnt that hard to take it out of a casing to charge

[wamred]

Yeah, I just hope that they put it on all the iPhones. Might have to VPN to Germany to buy my next iPhone lol

[Belgarathian]

Weird that they won't accept Qi charging as a universal standard

[Kisai]

6 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Well I mean I do think that the lightning cable was better for mobile devices than USB-C (as I noted in my previous post).

 

I do think that it does stifle competition (and innovation).  If you want an example, according to this law it's required on devices that are 100W and less.  If you were designing a laptop that you expect low end variants to draw 50W, but you wanted higher variants that could draw over 100W you now have a real issue.  Instead of designing a single system where the chips are switched out you now have to create two separate system.

 

If you wanted a full waterproof device, instead of using a simple magnetic system with two metal connectors on the outside to deliver power you are now forced to utilize USB-C.  There was actually one rugged device I use to use that would be in violation of this, but their design for the connector was really well thought out.

 

So yes, it will stifle innovation, but not necessarily in the way people might always think of.

If people wanted this, it would exist and be popular. There is no demand for rugged phones, the demand doesn't exist. While I may not like the design of USB-C itself, it is the VHS to the BETA that is lightning.

 

As it is, waterproof and ruggedized devices use the same ports, they just incorporate port covers, and you would be making that compromise in size and weight already.

 

See Panasonic Toughbook

 

 

Ruggedized phones are pretty much identical to other smartphones with an otterbox on them.

 

[wanderingfool2]

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

If people wanted this, it would exist and be popular. There is no demand for rugged phones, the demand doesn't exist. While I may not like the design of USB-C itself, it is the VHS to the BETA that is lightning.

That's not exactly true.  Rugged phones are still a thing, they aren't "popular" but they 100% exist, and some of the designs will have to now change.  It also what I'm using as a way to express that it literally is stifling certain products (because now they have to adapt, even if it could potentially make less sense for the product to be like that).  Also, to the cheaper products that still use things like micro...because on the grand scheme of things USB-C connectors still cost more than the older connector types...so expect price increases on those "cheap" products

 

7 hours ago, Arika S said:

how many laptop makers are creating the same laptop at 50w and 100+w?

 

but also

https://www.theverge.com/23053867/first-240w-usb-c-4-power-delivery-cables-20-40-gbps

USB-C can already do up to 240w

It was a generalized example, to indicate that there could be areas where usb-c might not be the best implementation (yet this law will force people to).

 

7 hours ago, Arika S said:

incorrect, you CAN have other charging capabilities, you just also have to have USB-C. waterproof devices have existed for a long time, well before magnetic or wireless charging. plugs, sealed flaps and doors have been the standard for rugged devices for ages

It won't always be practical, and in that case as well you are now adding additional technology to it (which is what they are trying to avoid).

 

If they truly wanted it to save on the landfills, make it so you can recycle cables...that way you aren't throwing out the cables when they break or aren't used. 

[suicidalfranco]

3 hours ago, Belgarathian said:

Weird that they won't accept Qi charging as a universal standard

It would hypocritical of them if they would.

Go on multi decade long tirade about "mAh cArBoN EmIsSiOnS" , and then use as a standard one of the most wasteful ways to transmit power

[Mihle]

11 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Well I mean I do think that the lightning cable was better for mobile devices than USB-C (as I noted in my previous post).

 

I do think that it does stifle competition (and innovation).  If you want an example, according to this law it's required on devices that are 100W and less.  If you were designing a laptop that you expect low end variants to draw 50W, but you wanted higher variants that could draw over 100W you now have a real issue.  Instead of designing a single system where the chips are switched out you now have to create two separate system.

 

If you wanted a full waterproof device, instead of using a simple magnetic system with two metal connectors on the outside to deliver power you are now forced to utilize USB-C.  There was actually one rugged device I use to use that would be in violation of this, but their design for the connector was really well thought out.

 

So yes, it will stifle innovation, but not necessarily in the way people might always think of.

There is already laptops like some Lenovo Yoga models, that the lower models have 65/95W USB C, but the top end one has 110W with Lenovo plug.

[RedRound2]

16 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

This sounds like its for EU only, but still good news for using a standardized port instead of proprietary junk that uses USB 2.0 speeds.

Clearly, you had no idea that most USB C on phones are indeed USB 2.0. Learn about some of these things before commenting on it. And nowhere in the law it states the minimum protocol that needs to be supported. Just that it needs to be USB C.

In that regard, Apple already follows USB-PD standard, while others still have their proprietary fast charging standards (although i believe Google is enforcing PD on newer phones iirc).

 

Also, if you didn't know, which I'm pretty sure you did not, Lightning has the capability to be upgraded to USB 3.0 speeds (as seen on the first iPad Pro). And as a charger, I do find Lightning superior, due to its smaller size, and solid block of metal construction, but of course USB C was the one that was co-developed and hence I accept that it is the industry standard.

16 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

But if this is EU only it sounds like what Apple did with the iPhone 14, North American models are e-SIM only and got a silly plastic block where the SIM slot goes, instead of something useful like a microSD card slot.

Are you like a 14-year-old kid who can't afford to get an iPhone? Can you not think with logic? Do you think its feasible and cost effective to make two separate iPhone PCB board designs for the US and rest of the world. The eSIM only move from Apple was only to force the industry to adopt eSIM and free that massive amount of space that can be utilized for so many other things on a smartphone. Just like floppy drives, CD drives, headphone jack, etc. Except getting rid of physical SIM and having legislation to make eSIM transfers easy cross devices (already easy with iPhones) will actually lead to a better future 

17 hours ago, darknessblade said:

As for phones, With apple being the only one to still not use USB-C. and trying their hardest to make it impossible to use any other charger than a "Apple" Certified charger

 

The only downside would still be Apple, using software to block/ {try and void your warranty} if you use a 3rd party charger. [they are already giving near useless warnings if you use a "Unofficial" charger with your Iphone.] So I hope the next step will be the banning of such warnings/blocks, Just to fool people into buying a "Official" charger they do not need, if they already own a "100W charger"

What is this nonsense anti Apple rambling, ffs

 

One, I can use any brick with my iPhone/iPad and it does not give me any warning. What you are talking about is cheap incorrect cables, which ALL phones should give a warning about. Apple already uses an open standard USB PD for fast charging on all devices. Meaning you can actually already use your MacBook charger to charge your iPads and future iPhones at full speed. I cannot say the same with Android and Windows devices. USB C is still a glorified mess on non-Apple land (try plugging in USB C power to laptops in store, probably only half of them will be able to charge)

 

Apple has never been anti USB C. Literally they were the first ones to mass adopt and force people into USB C ecosystem with their Macs and iPads. With changing iPhones, they would be dropping support of vast lightning eco system - which is the problem. They had faced such a backlash when they changed from 30 pin to Lightning. 

 

I'm sure switch to USB C on iPhones was somewhere there in Apple's horizon, and they just didn't know how to change. With this I guess, they are forced to, so they can just blame it on the EU

 

 

Also, post 2024, you all can say goodbye to getting charger bricks and cables with all new phones, tablets, laptops etc. Better get yourself a new good quality USB C cables capable of 100W and a GaN charger for future

[Dracarris]

22 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

And nowhere in the law it states the minimum protocol that needs to be supported. Just that it needs to be USB C.

Hm true it only states the physical connector. Could even be charing only with no USB whatsoever or as you mentioned only the legacy USB 2.0 with the other data pins left unsued.

[mike_seps]

14 hours ago, tikker said:

I don't think surface mount will matter when they specifyc "the charging receptacle in the case of radio equipment charged via wired charging". The surface mount thing I would count as receptacle, there's a wire involved ergo wired charging.

If surface mount counts as wired charging, then all headphones, watches, headsets, every small electronic (>100w PD) would have to have USB-C. Biggest issue here would be watches having a [relatively] massive charging port somewhere on the body. 

[LAwLz]

14 hours ago, Arika S said:

"But this with stifle innovation!!!"

 

Ah yes, because I'm sure Apple was just about to release the best cable after clinging to lightning for the last 10 years. 

 

I would also love for someone to come up with something that usb-c couldn't do in say, 5 years time that would actually matter for phones and isn't just "this number is smaller"!!!

And as we all know, these regulations are written on stone tablets so it is impossible to change them.

But hey, as we all know, charting ports standards are so fast evolving that we surely can't afford the slow process that may be brought forth by this regulation...

 

But if we are being honest here, the people against this either don't like regulations period (even when it benefits everyone), or they are pissed that Apple can't have their own connector anymore that realistically only benefits them.

For everyone else, this is not an issue. Worried about the USB-IF not being able to develop "USB-D" because of this regulation? Don't worry, it takes many years for such standards to be developed, and I am sure the EU would be onboard with amending the regulation if USB-D shows meaningful improvements and an industry consensus.

 

The only time this might be an "issue" is if some company developers their own standard that they try and profit from by for example charging a license fee or keep it to themselves *cough* Apple *cough*, and that is a situation we don't want anyway. We don't want random companies making their own chargers. Even if it is technically superior in some way, it still most likely won't outweigh the drawback of having it be a special charger that only they use.

 

 

All of these scenarios are very big IFs as well. It doesn't make sense to say "no, I don't want this good thing today because in the future we might discover that it has a slight drawback".

I find the entire concept bizarre, but then I remember that we have people who say no to vaccines because they might have side effects as well (even those who have decades of studies backing them up as very safe with no serious side effects).

[Helpful Tech Witch]

18 hours ago, FakeKGB said:

So, do y'all remember when iPhones switched from 30-pin to Lightning?

Back then there were 5 models of iPhones in the world and they were relatively new.

Now there's been almost 10 years worth of time to produce buttloads of Lightning accessories, plus iPhones are a lot more popular and more widespread.

 

Do we really want to kill all those off?

Yes

lightnings is an annoying proprietary connector. It’s slow, and it’s expensive to buy new cables

[Commodus]

31 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

And as we all know, these regulations are written on stone tablets so it is impossible to change them.

But hey, as we all know, charting ports standards are so fast evolving that we surely can't afford the slow process that may be brought forth by this regulation...

 

But if we are being honest here, the people against this either don't like regulations period (even when it benefits everyone), or they are pissed that Apple can't have their own connector anymore that realistically only benefits them.

For everyone else, this is not an issue. Worried about the USB-IF not being able to develop "USB-D" because of this regulation? Don't worry, it takes many years for such standards to be developed, and I am sure the EU would be onboard with amending the regulation if USB-D shows meaningful improvements and an industry consensus.

 

The only time this might be an "issue" is if some company developers their own standard that they try and profit from by for example charging a license fee or keep it to themselves *cough* Apple *cough*, and that is a situation we don't want anyway. We don't want random companies making their own chargers. Even if it is technically superior in some way, it still most likely won't outweigh the drawback of having it be a special charger that only they use.

 

 

All of these scenarios are very big IFs as well. It doesn't make sense to say "no, I don't want this good thing today because in the future we might discover that it has a slight drawback".

I find the entire concept bizarre, but then I remember that we have people who say no to vaccines because they might have side effects as well (even those who have decades of studies backing them up as very safe with no serious side effects).

I'm onboard with this, but it will be slightly sad that there's no potential for a rapid turnaround. Lightning was great early on precisely because it beat USB-C on key features years in advance. The problem, of course, is that Apple decided that it was in no rush to replace Lightning and let the port to the point where it became a serious bottleneck. That's where the EU's move is helpful, as it can force companies to move on even if they'd rather not.

 

I have a pet theory that Apple was going to unveil a successor to Lightning within the next couple of years if it wasn't being pushed toward USB-C.  The company took just under 10 years to replace the Dock Connector, and Lightning only recently hit that decade mark.

[Doobeedoo]

Neat. Now for laptops it seems it will take a while. Not sure how much barrel plug is rated max but USB C can do up to 240W so laptop with it would be amazing.

Also I'd like to see USB-C also be pushed more for PCs in general. Cool that peripherals are somewhat doing it, but come on having C only on one end is not it. Motherboards should offer more C ports than older ones by now. It's been years. Sucks when everyone is wating for others to start.

[Winterlight]

That  change is good but imagine now gaming laptops that can draw 300W+ so you need 3-4 x USB C just too power up that laptop couse USB C is max can deliver 100W.

[tikker]

20 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

 

USB-C isn't as universal as people make it out to be.

  This video could've been a lot better honestly. I think he clearly understands the current issue, as he says: "just because you see that it uses a USB-C port for charging, does not mean that it's actually going to charge with your five or nine volt charger" at the end, but it feels like he's just argueing against USB-C while completely ignoring that is why the EU started this mandate.

 

The charging standards/requirements and chargers varying between devices as he describes is the problem this EU mandate was made for, which is about more then just a USB-C port. He should've used this issue to better highlight that getting a common charging protocol implemented is as important as a connector. He also doesn't mention if any of those devices are or claim to be USB-PD compliant or even any universality, so there is no reason to assume they will all play nice together (just like barrel jacks). The point of the mandate is to ensure that they will. Indeed as you say:

20 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

It brings back to the issue though that using a standard doesn't mean that it's really all that universal if companies are not going to comply by the standard. 

which is why it is now being turned into a mandate: to force manufacturer's hands such that the targeted devices implement and adhere to the set standard and such that the desired compatabiliy can be achieved.

6 hours ago, mike_seps said:

If surface mount counts as wired charging, then all headphones, watches, headsets, every small electronic (>100w PD) would have to have USB-C. Biggest issue here would be watches having a [relatively] massive charging port somewhere on the body. 

Hmm, good point. The proposal focuses on phones, tables, cameras and later laptops though and not all electronics, so watches etc. will be fine (for now, are there watches that charge at over 15 W?).

6 minutes ago, Winterlight said:

That  change is good but imagine now gaming laptops that can draw 300W+ so you need 3 x USB C just too power up that laptop couse USB C is max can deliver 100W.

It can do 240 W max currently.

[Winterlight]

3 minutes ago, tikker said:

It can do 240 W max curently.

Still it not enough for gaming laptop you need at least 2 x USB C too power it.

[tikker]

2 minutes ago, Winterlight said:

Still it not enough for gaming laptop you need at least 2 x USB C too power it.

Sure, but they can make it a two-plug one, as you say, or they can include a different "high-power" port for heavy load if they want. You don't need more than 240 W just to charge the laptop. It would be great if there was no need for a second different port or an additional USB-C though.

[Ultraforce]

On 10/4/2022 at 1:33 PM, Blademaster91 said:

But if this is EU only it sounds like what Apple did with the iPhone 14, North American models are e-SIM only and got a silly plastic block where the SIM slot goes, instead of something useful like a microSD card slot.

It's only iPhone 14 models for the USA that are e-SIM only Canadian models have physical SIM slot.

[wanderingfool2]

5 hours ago, LAwLz said:

And as we all know, these regulations are written on stone tablets so it is impossible to change them.

But hey, as we all know, charting ports standards are so fast evolving that we surely can't afford the slow process that may be brought forth by this regulation...

They have been attempting to do this for the last 13 year...yes once it's written it's effectively written in stone because now they have to write a new ammendment if new technology comes out, but you don't want to create new technology as you aren't allowed using it until the law gets changed...but the law won't change until there is a good competitor...they have effectively given a monopoly to the USB consortium (which has what, something like a $5000/product/year fee associated to it).

 

i.e. They have now created a chicken and egg scenario.  You don't want to use a new connector (even if it makes sense/more cost effective) as it's against the law, but the law won't change until there is a new connector.

 

1 hour ago, tikker said:

which is why it is now being turned into a mandate: to force manufacturer's hands such that the targeted devices implement and adhere to the set standard and such that the desired compatabiliy can be achieved.

I doubt this will actually change those companies mentalities...and if it does, it will mean they now have to likely sign up and license.  So congratulations, we have a more expensive product.  The other factor being, it will give an excuse for companies to no longer provide any charger...because "everyone has a charger" mentality.

 

The only thing that effectively changes on a large scale is it makes it so that lightning cords are no longer a thing.  The cord, that's all the e-waste they would realistically save...a cord which if they wanted to they could just setup a recycling program.  The lightning connector was a better solution (aside from the speed...but that's more about the iPhone not supporting it..they could effectively still implement USB-C USB 2.0 version).  The lightning connector was just the better version for mobile devices...the cable breaks instead of the phone.

 

1 hour ago, tikker said:

Sure, but they can make it a two-plug one, as you say, or they can include a different "high-power" port for heavy load if they want. You don't need more than 240 W just to charge the laptop. It would be great if there was no need for a second different port or an additional USB-C though.

Adding second ports or adding a second high power port (while working with USB)...that's going to create more e-waste.

 

Some of the devices I have even utilize USB-A cables to be more robust...that is no longer a thing according to this standard.

 

Overall, I'm against them forcing companies to utilize the USB-C cabling.  I'm okay if they allow for USB-PD under the concept that if their connector is powered by USB they need to conform to it, but never restricting even the connector type.

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, Winterlight said:

That  change is good but imagine now gaming laptops that can draw 300W+ so you need 3-4 x USB C just too power up that laptop couse USB C is max can deliver 100W.

This mandate only applies to devices that uses 100 watts or less.

Your 300+ watt laptop is still free to use proprietary charging connectors.