Eu standard for type c

[tamehah2]

I saw on the tik tok that with the EU forcing smaller eletronics to be type c will force less inovation for these ports is this true. 

[Levent]

15 minutes ago, tamehah2 said:

force less inovation for these ports

If you considering having to own multiple cables to charge devices, then yes it will force less innovation. Other than that, if everything used the same port for charging it will surely reduce cable clutter. Imagine charging your laptop, your phone, your wireless headphones, your mouse etc all with just one cable.

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20220930IPR41928/long-awaited-common-charger-for-mobile-devices-will-be-a-reality-in-2024

[Poinkachu]

47 minutes ago, tamehah2 said:

I saw on the tik tok that with the EU forcing smaller eletronics to be type c will force less inovation for these ports is this true. 

Eh well, when the time comes where type-c can't handle the speed / power delivery for new more powerful stuffs, pretty sure there will be a new kind being proposed by then.

Until that time comes, I really prefer just having everything with same type of port. Less hassle.
Right now I have a box filled with all sorta cables, micro-usb, mini-usb, type-c, lightning, micro-b, etc <_>

I wish my country implements this kinda law already.

[Lurking]

must have been a video made by Apple...

 

There is nothing preventing the USB consortium to progress power and speed ratings as long as it is backwards compatible. There also is nothing preventing moving to wireless charging (what Apple may do instead of using USB-C). 

 

I remember the time when you had devices with one of the 100 different barrel type or completely proprietary plugs. Even if you could find out the correct plug, voltage may have differed. You wouldn't have been able to have a power supply in your car, office and home. I hardly call that progress and innovation. And if a cable broke (which they do) or you wanted a longer one, it was soldering time. 

 

Like in your house, you have standardized electrical receptacles and don't need to get a Whilrpool receptacle for the dishwasher, and a Sony receptacle for your stereo. 

 

 

[Kronion]

Standardization can hamper innovation to a certain degree, yes. But in general it makes life a little easier to agree to a common standard in some areas.

 

3 hours ago, Poinkachu said:

Right now I have a box filled with all sorta cables, micro-usb, mini-usb, type-c, lightning, micro-b, etc <_>

Oh yes, me too. And I do own devices I still use with pretty much ALL of the USB standard connectors. I fear so much ending up without a fitting cable that I simply keep all cables and toss them in the box - not entirely rational, I know...

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, Lurking said:

There is nothing preventing the USB consortium to progress power and speed ratings as long as it is backwards compatible. There also is nothing preventing moving to wireless charging (what Apple may do instead of using USB-C). 

There is also nothing preventing anyone from developing a new port and submitting it to the EU, asking them to include it in the law.

The "problem" for some companies, which is actually a good thing for consumers, is that the EU probably won't approve the new charging port unless basically everyone wants to swap to it, and that will only happen if it is truly better than USB-C and if it's free or extremely cheap to use.

If Samsung, Apple, Google, Microsoft and a bunch of other companies all asked the EU "please, can we use this charger instead?" then I am sure they would consider it and probably include it in the legislation".

 

"But nobody will want to develop a new charging port standard if they don't know if they will be allowed to use it!".

Yes they will. Companies make prototypes of stuff all the time. This is how most standards are developed. For example when the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) wanted a new video codec standard for web video, they announced essentially a competition to develop "NETVC". They published a list of criteria and asked companies to develop a video codec that fulfilled those criteria, and several companies did submit codecs for that "competition". The same could happen with a potential successor to USB-C as well.

 

Besides, if they announce their plans to the EU before they start development they will be able to get feedback which greatly increases the chances of it being approved. Hell, if they communicate with the EU they might even get the port approved before it is finished being developed. 

 

 

Apple is mad that they won't be able to force people to use their Lighting cable, which they charge companies to use.

The only companies that gets harmed by this legislation are those that are trying to profit from charging and don't want to collaborate. Right now, basically the only company that fits that description is Apple.

[Erioch]

1 hour ago, Lurking said:

There also is nothing preventing moving to wireless charging (what Apple may do instead of using USB-C).

People everywhere will lose their minds when they can't attach one of those idiotic gripper things on the back of their phones since they don't work with wireless charging.

[Imbadatnames]

Definitely. USBC is a very poor connector for things like phones and essentially creates a monopoly for USB. Why would any other manufacturer spend time and money on R&D for a port they cannot use?

[Imbadatnames]

6 hours ago, NastyFlytrap said:

Why dont you think about that? 

Like, i'll answer your question, no it wont, thats corporate brainwashing, but you should think for yourself sometimes, instead of asking others for what the answer is.
 

How does forcing everyone to use the same cable not limit innovation? Maybe you are the one that’s been brainwashed. 

[LogicalDrm]

5 hours ago, Imbadatnames said:

Definitely. USBC is a very poor connector for things like phones and essentially creates a monopoly for USB. Why would any other manufacturer spend time and money on R&D for a port they cannot use?

5 hours ago, Imbadatnames said:

How does forcing everyone to use the same cable not limit innovation? Maybe you are the one that’s been brainwashed. 

Poor how? Monopoly how? With monopoly, I think you don't understand the meaning of the word. Or you haven't looked up how USB licensing works.

 

As for innovation, there's difference between having superior connector and admitting it as alternative. And having equal or lesser connector and using is because it creates monopoly and more per-company revenue. This overall doesn't even effect that much. Company could still have their own thing. They just need to add adapter to comply. Which will most likely be the case for manufacturers of some smaller or obscure devices where profile of USB-C just doesn't work.

 

Its also bit funny whenever something like this comes from governmental side of things. People whine about it. Then, when something isn't using standards (like RGB for example), people whine about why someone can't force standard.

 

 

[Imbadatnames]

8 minutes ago, LogicalDrm said:

Poor how? Monopoly how? With monopoly, I think you don't understand the meaning of the word. Or you haven't looked up how USB licensing works.

 

As for innovation, there's difference between having superior connector and admitting it as alternative. And having equal or lesser connector and using is because it creates monopoly and more per-company revenue. This overall doesn't even effect that much. Company could still have their own thing. They just need to add adapter to comply. Which will most likely be the case for manufacturers of some smaller or obscure devices where profile of USB-C just doesn't work.

 

Its also bit funny whenever something like this comes from governmental side of things. People whine about it. Then, when something isn't using standards (like RGB for example), people whine about why someone can't force standard.

 

 

You literally are not allowed legally to use anything other than USB which is by definition a monopoly. No one else can develop a connector and legally have it on a device. 
 

I would also like to remind you that USBC design  is actually a shit rip off of lightning. There also won’t be any development of a new connector pretty much ever now. Look how long they were stuck with the mini and micro “B” spec, which were some of the worst connectors ever and what we would have been stuck with if this passed earlier 

[LogicalDrm]

5 minutes ago, Imbadatnames said:

You literally are not allowed legally to use anything other than USB which is by definition a monopoly. No one else can develop a connector and legally have it on a device.

No. Monopoly is when single body has exclusive right or method to control markets. USB-IF, the foundation in control of patent, has $5k yearly licensing fee. After that, anyone can use the patent without extra fees. Which is quite cheap, unlike with competitions $4 per connector piece.

 

The thing with calling something "monopoly" is you need to know who would be the holder of monopoly and the benefit from this. USB-IF with more annual membership fees? Considering they already have 1000 companies in the leash, thats not very big thing. What I think you are trying to say, is that USB-C will become cartel. Which would be several benefiting companies setting pricing and terms.

 

5 minutes ago, Imbadatnames said:

I would also like to remind you that USBC design  is actually a shit rip off of lightning. There also won’t be any development of a new connector pretty much ever now. Look how long they were stuck with the mini and micro “B” spec, which were some of the worst connectors ever and what we would have been stuck with if this passed earlier 

In design and tightness, perhaps. But otherwise, according to quick read, you need to dig up some reference to back your claims. As for development and implementation. There's couple of things. First, since you are using Apple as example. Apple could have become the "USB-C" here. As they were indeed first on the market. But that would have meant applying for standardization and so opening the spec for more broad audience and with lesser licensing fees. They still could become the new standard, if they actually wanted that. In fact, anyone could become new standard and then be the new "USB-C". The fact that its used is because its standard. For good and for bad.

 

PS. Trashing connectors like micro-B and mini is bit sad. They are still good connectors. Most issues I've seen relating to them are because of users. Or maybe you would have preferred that we used FireWire instead? I can give you the durability, but not the form factor considering the alternative of that time.

We can agree that you don't like things being standard. But please don't try to claim things something that they aren't just to get your narrative more believable. You don't like standards. Simple as that.

[tikker]

34 minutes ago, Imbadatnames said:

You literally are not allowed legally to use anything other than USB which is by definition a monopoly. No one else can develop a connector and legally have it on a device. 

The requirement this mandate sets is that you need to offer at least a USB-C port for charging. They don't forbid you from including other ports.

34 minutes ago, Imbadatnames said:

I would also like to remind you that USBC design  is actually a shit rip off of lightning. There also won’t be any development of a new connector pretty much ever now. Look how long they were stuck with the mini and micro “B” spec, which were some of the worst connectors ever and what we would have been stuck with if this passed earlier

They've had a decade to come up with breakthrough alternatives, but Apple stuck with Lightning and most others with some form of USB. Where did all the innovation go while they had free reign to come up with whatever connector they wanted?

[whispous]

6 hours ago, Imbadatnames said:

Definitely. USBC is a very poor connector for things like phones and essentially creates a monopoly for USB. Why would any other manufacturer spend time and money on R&D for a port they cannot use?

What makes C a "poor" connector?

And USB is already a monopoly. But it's currently delivering on required capabilities.

[Eigenvektor]

8 hours ago, Imbadatnames said:

How does forcing everyone to use the same cable not limit innovation? Maybe you are the one that’s been brainwashed. 

USB is a standard that's open to everyone to use/implement (yes, it does cost licensing fees). Calling it a monopoly doesn't make much sense. The whole point of a standard is people agreeing on doing the same thing the same way.

 

Looks like you didn't experience/don't remember the nightmare of early mobile phones where everyone had their own charging cable and you had to hope someone had a compatible model if you forgot yours. Being able to charge my phone everywhere is, imho, worth a lot.

 

What kind of innovation do you hope to see that's held back by chargers being standardized to USB-C?

[Salv8 (sam)]

22 hours ago, Arika S said:

What feature do you need on a device that this law affects that usb-c doesn't already have that could have been resolved by a brand new port and cable?

my typec doesn't have analog RGB and it can't uhh transfur 20,000 volts is bad i no want.

 

the day type-c can't handle the average user's needs is the day i will kick the bucket.

unless the average user starts transferring muti-terabyte sized files regularly or is trying to power some behemoth sized laptop with a 4090 maxq, they aren't gonna care.

[Poinkachu]

1 minute ago, Salv8 (sam) said:

my typec doesn't have analog RGB and it can't uhh transfur 20,000 volts is bad i no want.

 

the day type-c can't handle the average user's needs is the day i will kick the bucket.

unless the average user starts transferring muti-terabyte sized files regularly or is trying to power some behemoth sized laptop with a 4090 maxq, they aren't gonna care.

Pretty sure at that time we'll be more concerned by how thick of a cable it will be though.
I mean, I just bought a 20gbps 100w Type-C to Type-C, and geebuz it's thick.

[Coaxialgamer]

The EU directive is basically just a message to the various phone, laptop and cameras manufacturers operating within the EU saying "hey guys, get your sh*t together and start using the same cables". More specifically, it's a message to Apple, given how USB-C is now ubiquitous among modern android phones.

 

It isn't even forcing these companies to use USB-C specifically, just some industry-standard cable. That's more or less what was already happening with the USB spec prior to this directive, with companies not named Apple using these industry-standard ports on their devices. If the industry as a whole adopted a hypothetical "USB-D" port down the line, that would also be fine by the EU, as far as I can tell.

 

What does this mean for innovation? 15-20 years ago, most phones and cameras had their own proprietary connectors. Unless a friend of yours also happened to own the same brand of phone, borrowing a charger was not something you could typically do. Was this innovation? We also had a similar situation prior to the adoption of the ATX standard, with a whole host of power supply standards out there.Again, I would not call this innovation on anyone's part: if anything, companies often exploited their closed ecosystems to force consumers into buying their stuff, rather than actually making their products better. Besides, most companies were already using USB-C anyway, and there's only so much "innovation" you can do on a charging port: it's not like Samsung or Xiaomi is going to break off and magically start making their own far-superior ports. 

 

For my part, this will help ensure even wider cross-compatibility across devices, which is something that I can get behind as a consumer. It should also help reduce ewaste, which is always good. I've seen people reflexively go "EU mandate = inherently bad", but I can't really thing of any real downside here.

 

[Imbadatnames]

18 hours ago, LogicalDrm said:

No. Monopoly is when single body has exclusive right or method to control markets. USB-IF, the foundation in control of patent, has $5k yearly licensing fee. After that, anyone can use the patent without extra fees. Which is quite cheap, unlike with competitions $4 per connector piece.

 

The thing with calling something "monopoly" is you need to know who would be the holder of monopoly and the benefit from this. USB-IF with more annual membership fees? Considering they already have 1000 companies in the leash, thats not very big thing. What I think you are trying to say, is that USB-C will become cartel. Which would be several benefiting companies setting pricing and terms.

 

In design and tightness, perhaps. But otherwise, according to quick read, you need to dig up some reference to back your claims. As for development and implementation. There's couple of things. First, since you are using Apple as example. Apple could have become the "USB-C" here. As they were indeed first on the market. But that would have meant applying for standardization and so opening the spec for more broad audience and with lesser licensing fees. They still could become the new standard, if they actually wanted that. In fact, anyone could become new standard and then be the new "USB-C". The fact that its used is because its standard. For good and for bad.

 

PS. Trashing connectors like micro-B and mini is bit sad. They are still good connectors. Most issues I've seen relating to them are because of users. Or maybe you would have preferred that we used FireWire instead? I can give you the durability, but not the form factor considering the alternative of that time.

We can agree that you don't like things being standard. But please don't try to claim things something that they aren't just to get your narrative more believable. You don't like standards. Simple as that.

It’s literally a monopoly dude. 

 

I don’t see how you’re not connecting that your own definition is literally what’s happened by making USBC the ONLY available connector for most devices. 

[Imbadatnames]

18 hours ago, tikker said:

The requirement this mandate sets is that you need to offer at least a USB-C port for charging. They don't forbid you from including other ports.

They've had a decade to come up with breakthrough alternatives, but Apple stuck with Lightning and most others with some form of USB. Where did all the innovation go while they had free rein to come up with whatever connector they wanted?

Why would they when lightning is still better than USBC?

[Imbadatnames]

18 hours ago, whispous said:

What makes C a "poor" connector?

And USB is already a monopoly. But it's currently delivering on required capabilities.

Durability and size. Lighting for example is smaller and more durable, it’s also designed to break on the wire side not the device side like USBC

[whispous]

8 minutes ago, Imbadatnames said:

Durability and size. Lighting for example is smaller and more durable, it’s also designed to break on the wire side not the device side like USBC

Hahaha Lightning is not more durable, and the cable being designed to break first is a cable manufacturer decision.

 

 

[Imbadatnames]

11 minutes ago, whispous said:

Hahaha Lightning is not more durable, and the cable being designed to break first is a cable manufacturer decision.

 

 

Um I’m talking about the actual port not the cable? If the actual connection fails on lighting it snaps and you get the end stuck inside the phone which you can fish out. If USBC fails it’s the tab on the device that fails so you need to replace the whole port on the device, if you’re able to at all. 
 

Lightning = broken cable 

USBC = broken device. 

[LogicalDrm]

21 minutes ago, Imbadatnames said:

It’s literally a monopoly dude. 

 

I don’t see how you’re not connecting that your own definition is literally what’s happened by making USBC the ONLY available connector for most devices. 

Sure, whatever floats your boat. But don't try to shove that bs to others.

 

Also, its just EU and couple of other larger countries. They could do what car manufacturers already have. Make separate models for EU and other markets.

 

20 minutes ago, Imbadatnames said:

Why would they when lightning is still better than USBC?

Besides durability and size, how? If its just durability and size, and otherwise inferior, you don't have very good arguments.

[Imbadatnames]

Just now, LogicalDrm said:

Sure, whatever floats your boat. But don't try to shove that bs to others.

 

Also, its just EU and couple of other larger countries. They could do what car manufacturers already have. Make separate models for EU and other markets.

 

Besides durability and size, how? If its just durability and size, and otherwise inferior, you don't have very good arguments.

What BS, it’s literally the truth. You’ve even stated a definition proving me right.

Which is alright for car manufacturers but for electronics you’re creating a bunch more tooling which ramps up costs. 

 

What else is there to a connector? Ubiquity maybe but that’s the only thing USBC has. I don’t know many people who would rather have a broken phone costing around 1,000 to replace rather than a cable that costs 10 to replace.