EU Competition Commisioner wants to force Apple and others to switch to USB-C industry standard for charging phones

[Trixanity]

Just now, Morgan Everett said:

I'm not sure why it would be wrong for the EU (or any other state body) to require companies to maintain certain environmental standards. That just seems a basic part of any sensible regulatory framework. 

Because if you can't dump your trash in the woods or pour chemical waste in the lake, you don't have freedom.

 

Likewise if companies aren't free to make proprietary chargers it's government meddling.

[Morgan Everett]

2 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

Yeah, but what if you invent a better standard that works better for your own products only, because of the specifics of the design of your products?
Nope - you still have to use what EU told you because it's the law until they decide it's time to change it. Who decides when it happens? How do you determine that those people are qualified to do that? - Many unanswered questions arise with that solution.

You can't choose what you want to use in your own designs and this is the problem here. I understand that they (the EU) can give guidelines for companies to follow but they can't be obligations forced by law.

This is all my concern about laws like that

Sure you can choose: you just need to abide by the regulatory framework of the jurisdiction you're operating in when you come to sell your products. These are, indeed, enforceable by law, both in the EU and elsewhere. Again, I can't think why this would be a bad thing: preventing companies from e.g. damaging the environment seems like a sensible goal of any regulator. 

[LAwLz]

2 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

Because if you can't dump your trash in the woods or pour chemical waste in the lake, you don't have freedom.

It's true though.

Every single law in existence restricts freedom in some way.

 

For example the law that it's illegal to rape someone restricts the freedom of people who want to rape.

The drunk driving law restricts the freedoms of drunk people from driving.

And so on.

 

Absolute freedom would be devastating to society. But I think restricting freedoms which has a bigger detrimental effect on society (particularly those who harm others) than the positive effects is fair to do.

[Trixanity]

4 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

It's true though.

Every single law in existence restricts freedom in some way.

 

For example the law that it's illegal to rape someone restricts the freedom of people who want to rape.

The drunk driving law restricts the freedoms of drunk people from driving.

And so on.

 

Absolute freedom would be devastating to society. But I think restricting freedoms which has a bigger detrimental effect on society (particularly those who harm others) than the positive effects is fair to do.

Of course it's true and my comment was satirical in nature but the laws exist for a reason: people need to be held accountable. Since in some jurisdictions companies are considered people, we'll just say people period - for brevity's sake.

 

I do like how people assume that if a law was passed requiring a universal standard, it would mean it would be impossible to invent new things or new standards cannot replace it.

[Mihle]

35 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Does the EU have nothing better to do than vastly overstep the boundries of government?

That's a blatant lie. The EU is a good deal left, and getting further left as time goes on.

It's not.

The EU has become less and less left like most governments inside EU compared to what it was.

 

[Brooksie359]

5 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

And all the tax revenue that would be lost also gives Apple bargaining power. When you're that big, you get to make some of your own rules. 

The taxes they pay are very small compared to their revenue.  They use loopholes in the tax code and deals to decrease their taxes significantly so I wouldn't be so sure about that. 

[Doobeedoo]

We should seriously start seeing everything with Type C already. Mobos with multiple ports etc. Lame slow transition. 

[Morgan MLGman]

50 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

It's true though.

Every single law in existence restricts freedom in some way.

 

For example the law that it's illegal to rape someone restricts the freedom of people who want to rape.

The drunk driving law restricts the freedoms of drunk people from driving.

And so on.

 

Absolute freedom would be devastating to society. But I think restricting freedoms which has a bigger detrimental effect on society (particularly those who harm others) than the positive effects is fair to do.

I wholeheartedly agree that some restrictions are helpful and necessary. However if this one, according to you, is a good one from the perspective of a government infringing on the freedom of design for companies like Apple, answer this example:

59 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

what if you invent a better standard that works better for your own products only, because of the specifics of the design of your products that leverage features of this new standard?
Nope - you still have to use what EU told you because it's the law until they decide it's time to change it. Who decides when it happens? How do you determine that those people are qualified to do that? - Many unanswered questions arise with that solution.

Also, who chooses people that will judge that? Politicians can't make conscious choices about that because it's a technical matter.

[JCBiggs]

if you want to "reduce the number of chargers thrown away every year"  how about disallow importing of shit cables.  I have anker cables that have been around for years, while my 6 month old Samsung USB C is in the trash. its not the port, its the product. 

[Commodus]

Folks, to reiterate what seems to keep getting lost: most likely, this won't force Apple to ditch Lightning on the phone's end.  It'd just have to include a standardized USB-C charger in the box, and it might not even have to look the same as everyone else's.  It's not some sinister plan to dictate the minutiae of product design.

[cj09beira]

47 minutes ago, JCBiggs said:

if you want to "reduce the number of chargers thrown away every year"  how about disallow importing of shit cables.  I have anker cables that have been around for years, while my 6 month old Samsung USB C is in the trash. its not the port, its the product. 

you can't even imagine how much money the poorest people in places like africa and india waste because of counterfeit products / shity ones, coming from china and dubai

[Morgan MLGman]

31 minutes ago, Commodus said:

Folks, to reiterate what seems to keep getting lost: most likely, this won't force Apple to ditch Lightning on the phone's end.  It'd just have to include a standardized USB-C charger in the box, and it might not even have to look the same as everyone else's.  It's not some sinister plan to dictate the minutiae of product design.

Yeah, the maximum outcome I can see is the fact that Apple might be forced to include Lightning to USB-C dongle with all of their products that feature this connector.

[orbitalbuzzsaw]

The EU doing something good for tech for a change. Dafuq?  Nice move though, EC

[orbitalbuzzsaw]

Just now, Morgan MLGman said:

Yeah, the maximum outcome I can see is the fact that Apple might be forced to include Lightning to USB-C dongle with all of their products that feature this connector.

phone >> lightning >> lightning-usbC adapter >> USB-C to headphones adapter >> headphones

[Brooksie359]

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

It's true though.

Every single law in existence restricts freedom in some way.

 

For example the law that it's illegal to rape someone restricts the freedom of people who want to rape.

The drunk driving law restricts the freedoms of drunk people from driving.

And so on.

 

Absolute freedom would be devastating to society. But I think restricting freedoms which has a bigger detrimental effect on society (particularly those who harm others) than the positive effects is fair to do.

Yep because using a lightning port instead of a standardized usb type c port is on the same level as rape? There are law for a reason like protecting people in the case of rape but a law to mandate the use of type c port? It seems like a overstep and an unnessisary one. It's not a huge issue that apple uses the lightning port and especially not big enough to force them to not use it through government means. 

[Jtalk4456]

2 hours ago, Morgan Everett said:

I'm not sure why it would be wrong for the EU (or any other state body) to require companies to maintain certain environmental standards. That just seems to be a basic part of any sensible regulatory framework. 

because in order to take the stance you're referring to, we would have to tackle regulation on every single product made of non-biodegradable materials sold anywhere. keychains on amazon, guitar picks on ebay. There would be no end. While waste is a large environmental issue we are facing, the energy crisis and use of fossil fuels in energy and transportation is far bigger. plastic WILL break down, it just takes a long long long time. Climate change from emissions may be irreversible if it goes too far. Regulating car emissions doesn't affect the consumer's rights very much, but regulating the whole of waste would affect every part of a consumer's life, making them unable to buy basic things, heck all things that use plastic packaging. freedom of choice is far more involved when regulating materials vs just making sure it doesn't emit too much crap.

 

TL;DR standards on product that may become waste in the future is too complicated to make and enforce

 

Overall My two cents on this are that I like the idea of standardizing usb c for phones, but i don't think it should necessarily be a law. No one has done the same for laptop chargers. The companies should be able to have some decision making there to provide freedom of choice to the consumer. Having said that, the consumer has a responsibility to not accept crap from companies they are essentially investing in by buying product from. If apple users stopped buying until iphones used a type c, how quickly do you think apple would change? Immediately. The company should have the freedom to make a crap product, but in turn the consumer should exercise their freedom to buy a quality product and not let companies get away with crappy product that inevitably cause waste

[Drak3]

57 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

because using a lightning port instead of a standardized usb type c port is on the same level as rape?

Now show us on the doll where the lighting cable touched you.

 

1 hour ago, OrbitalBuzzsaw said:

The EU doing something good for tech for a change

Except this isn't good for tech. 

[orbitalbuzzsaw]

Just now, Drak3 said:

Except this isn't good for tech. 

How? It's making the biggest scam tech company in the world adopt a sensible standard

[Drak3]

Just now, OrbitalBuzzsaw said:

How? It's making the biggest scam tech company in the world adopt a sensible standard

They already have a sensible standard.

[orbitalbuzzsaw]

Just now, Drak3 said:

They already have a sensible standard.

No, they don't. Literally nobody else uses Lightning

[TacoSenpai]

Ok look I'm not particularly fond of Apple but this regulation is stupid.  I like USB C but what do I care if Apple decides to use a lighting cable instead?  This is almost equivalent to the format wars when say Blu ray was competing against HD DVD and a government arbitrarily said ok those Blu Rays gotta go we have to have a single standard and all use HD DVDs because you know "consumer protection" and waste. 

[Drak3]

Just now, OrbitalBuzzsaw said:

No, they don't. Literally nobody else uses Lightning

Doesn't matter that no one else uses it. Apple does, for their entire iProduct stack and accessories.

 

It does what's asked of it, it's readily available, and it provides competition in the port space.

[orbitalbuzzsaw]

Just now, Drak3 said:

Doesn't matter that no one else uses it. Apple does, for their entire iProduct stack and accessories.

 

It does what's asked of it, it's readily available, and it provides competition in the port space.

So what you're saying is that interoperability is a bad thing...

[Drak3]

Just now, OrbitalBuzzsaw said:

So what you're saying is that interoperability is a bad thing...

It's neither bad not good.

 

Nor are all USB-C devices interoperable.

[LAwLz]

2 hours ago, Morgan MLGman said:

I wholeheartedly agree that some restrictions are helpful and necessary. However if this one, according to you, is a good one from the perspective of a government infringing on the freedom of design for companies like Apple, answer this example:

Well like I said, I think a law is valid if the benefits outweighs the drawbacks.

In this case, the only one negatively affected is Apple (and to some extent, people who bought into the Lightning ecosystem, but an adapter can solve that).

The ones who are positively affected is basically everyone else.

 

2 hours ago, Morgan MLGman said:

Also, who chooses people that will judge that? Politicians can't make conscious choices about that because it's a technical matter.

I am not sure what you mean.

The EU will appoint experts to validate the different options and determine what the effects would be, and what would be the best option for a universal standard, which will probably be USB type C.

 

1 hour ago, Brooksie359 said:

Yep because using a lightning port instead of a standardized usb type c port is on the same level as rape? There are law for a reason like protecting people in the case of rape but a law to mandate the use of type c port? It seems like a overstep and an unnessisary one. It's not a huge issue that apple uses the lightning port and especially not big enough to force them to not use it through government means. 

I never said using a Lightning port is the same as rape. Do you not understand what an analogy is?

Actually, this is something I have noticed a lot of on this forum.

 

Analogies are not 1:1 equivalences. Analogies are tools to explain some concepts when applied to different situations. In this case, I was saying that all laws restricts freedom of someone. I was in no way, shape or form saying that the situations I presented were the same except for precisely the point I was making (which was "all laws restrict freedom").

 

An analogy is when you transfer information or meaning from one subject to another. It does not mean subject A and subject B are equal in every regard, but it must be equal in at least one for it to be an analogy.

 

Analogies are two things which resemble one another in some sense. They are not equal signs.

 

I wasn't saying driving drunk is equal to raping someone else.

 

 

 

32 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Except this isn't good for tech. 

How is it not "good for tech"?

It increases interoperability and potentially lower waste of natural resources.