Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
It is exactly analogous, wireless standards serve a very similar function to a charging/data/video port. They provide a standardized way for different products to interoperate, that is exactly the point of the port on phones, keyboards, laptops etc... ports serve a simple function. Yes you can imaging that some magical future port might allow Apple to offer some future tech but there really isn't any evidence to support the idea that the ports on a device are somewhere Apple has provided unique innovation that would be stifled by a common port.

So long as the port falls back to standard USB-C they can even layer whatever proprietary tech they want over top.

Again I'll reiterate another point though, if Lightning is the better connector, why didn't Apple try to make it the standard when helping design the USB-C port?
I work in the wireless industry, developing new wireless products and technology. I stand by the opinion it's not the same as a hardware vendor picking which port to use vs. mandating which port they use.

Lightning can be better for mobile devices/phones. USB-C can be great for many things, I use it every day on dozens of devices.
 
Wow, so this is soviet style communism is it? It's a tiny regulation, there has been little innovation in the space since USB-C was released, I actually think that USB-C should have used the lightning connector (Apple had a large hand in the USB-C design) but that would have required Apple to give up on their licensing fees and lock in. Anyway, this is not a giant overreach, it is a small attempt to make sure that electronics are easily interoperable with a common standard. The improvements to the ports are all coming with the same port style lately (TB3 to 4, USB3 to 4).

If iPhones don't need the advanced features of USB-C/TB why is innovation such an argument in favour of resisting this regulation? Why has lightning not gained at least full TB-3 support if its important for Apple to innovate? Apple has barely even started to standardize on 10Gbps speeds over lightning, hardly an example of consistent innovation in the space.
No, this is only the worst parts of Soviet style central planning-- it's the application of government regulation to R&D minutia. It's giving bureaucrats the power over technical decisions.

Innovation doesn't mean "MAX SPECS ALWAYS", it means finding a solution that best balances the technical and user requirements. In this case it could mean there's an ecosystem of peripherals and a large population of existing cables for iPhone and no strong technical need to replace them. It could mean that locking users into USB-C will slow the adoption of USB-D, or the next super special Apple connector if some thing were to come along.

Leaving business room to innovate means not assuming some lawmaker, or forum commenter, can anticipate the future or that they truly understand the market beyond their own personal experience and the angry letters they receive from voters. Every psychologist has learned that if you want to know what people really think, you have to put money on the table-- if you ask them to make decisions without taking a personal stake, they give you their fantasy view. If they have to trade something for a decision you can see how firmly they believe it.

Let consumers vote with their dollars and you'll find a better solution than some committee making laws based on what the Internets taught them.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: dysamoria
1) Lightning is more compact. (The MagSafe Duo Charger really highlights how thin Lightning is.)
2) Lightning is a strict standard, while USB-C has multiple variations that are not all the same. (e.g. Not all USB-C cables are Thunderbolt 3.)
3) USB-C has a center piece in the middle of the connector that makes it more fragile, while Lightning is more in line with regular input connectors with the connector being open. (And it has an audible click, so you know it actually went into the device.)
4) There is an audible click when a Lightning cable goes into a connector, while USB-C has no feedback to tell if it went in all the way. (Incidentally, it is the cause of my monitor's USB-C connector breaking since it was saying my computer wasn't detected, so I tried adjusting it until the connector detached from the monitor's motherboard with no way of reattachment...which brings me to...)
5) Apple can easily replace / repair a device's Lightning port. (e.g. My dad's iPhone 7 wasn't charging for some reason a couple years ago. So, he was able to take it in and got it working again while he was still in the Apple Store.)

TL/DR: Apple has been providing its customers a state of the art connector for years.
I do agree that Lightning is mechanically superior to USB-C.

But USB-C is electronically superior. And as a standardized interface is needed, ideally with the abilities of USB-C, and with USB-C being the factual standard for almost any device except iPhones (all tablets, all notebooks, all non-Apple smartphones, HomePods, ... support USB-C), Lightning has become a nice-product and will get obsolete quickly.

(Yes, I'd wish we had USB-C abilities in the shape of Lightning connectors - but Apple missed the opportunity for making this happen.)

Regarding 2): I'm bloody glad that the USB-C specification is more flexible! I don't want to pay for Thunderbolt 3 ability just to charge my power bank, bicycle light, reading light, blood pressure meter, bike computer, bike gear shifter, alarm clock, head phones, you name it...
 
Then use your iPad. Or buy a non-iPhone smart phone. You have a choice. Do you think it's the government's role to step in to force Apple to change the iPhone so you can use it exactly how you want to? That's the issue here as I see it. I have no problem with people debating about USB-C vs. lightning, but that should be Apple's decision to make, not the EU's.
Well said.
 
It’s my extensive knowledge of economics, and other things that allows me to see this. I understand that most people lack the cognitive ability, educacation and overall awareness to reach this correct conclusion. That’s why I’m happy to help shine a light on this for you.
And yet for decades people claiming knowledge of economics have predicted the collapse of the EU (or the US, or Japan) and yet the world keeps on turning and hasn't fallen down around our heads yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dysamoria
I fully support this. Everything else in the house uses USB-C, even my damn iPad. There's zero good reason for Apple not to do this other than being greedy for the accessory dollars. If they won't do the right thing, let the EU force them.
They'll just go portless.
 
If Apple had constantly been improving Lightning transfer data speeds and charging speeds for Lightning-only chargers/cables/ports, creating a standard that, year-after-year, offers higher speeds and higher quality connectors, wires, etc., all-around better than any other cable/port out there, then absolutely I would agree that EU is hurting Apple and likeminded competitors when forcing adhere to one standard.

But Lightning ports on iPhones HAVE NOT IMPROVED since Apple put them in iPhones in 2012.

Apple has improved and innovated several things about smartphones and the various consumer tech you might use together with your iPhone.

But Lightning has not changed or improved in almost 10 years.

Apple didn't even implement it's USB 3.0 Lightning port into iPhones that it created for 2015 iPads Pro.

Where is all this innovation from Apple in regards to charging and transfer speeds that the EU is so definitely about to cripple?

Could it possibly be that Apple is holding onto Lightning for iPhones because of its (mega cash cow) MFi certification program and not because its a better solution for consumers?

Hmm. Let's see. Would a business hold onto old tech that's raking in billions year after year with no consequences legally or financially? Or would it offer consumers the best and least expensive solution (for the consumer) if it had to give up all of these billions? Gee, I don't know. What could be the answer?
 
Freedom of choice (in technology) requires standardization. With USB-C, I can choose between thousands of displays, chargers, mass storage solutions, projectors, power banks, audio systems, networking technology, ...
If the market cannot achieve the standardization, regulation is required - to finally enable the freedom of choice and to enable innovative developments.

Remember the early days of engineering - when every single screw, nut and bolt was custom made? And once they were mass produced, nuts from manufacturer A were still not compatible with screws from manufacturer B? Or the pain today when trying to find a metric or an inch Allen key (whatever you don't have in your toolbox)?

But after the EU required MicroUSB (just for charging - at a time when phones required nothing else), this standard took off: suddenly, everybody had a charger, creating new types of devices or making existing types convenient to use or cheaper to purchase: Rechargeable bicycle lights, headphones, torches, car navigation systems, portable devices, reading lights, clocks, safety lights, ... Effectively, the standardization created the market for devices that would have been too cumbersome (and too expensive!) when each one required it's own, specific charger. But regulation made the market.

Now, we have seen no significant evolution in devices since the introduction of the iPhone - and we know that USB-C will be sufficient for Power and Data for some time to come. So, it's time for regulation - to support consumer choice, convenience and to avoid waste (chargers).
If, however, there will ever be another ground-braking category of personal devices (like the original iPhone was), which cannot use USB-C for some unforeseeable reason, then this unheard of class of device will be hardly affected by this mentioned EU regulation.

So, no government overreach - just good governance.
And just what Apple needs to finally transition its remaining Lightning devices to USB-C without upsetting its customers. (iPads and Notebooks did this transition a while ago already).
That is a well thought out, lengthy and articulated falsely applied argument.
 
Don't pretend every USB-C cable is the same.

Just in my own collection, I have the following USB-C cables, that do things "differently"
  • Supports USB 2.0 data, only about 20w charging
  • Supports USB 2.0 data, 60w charging
  • Supports USB 2.0 data, 100w charging
  • Supports USB 3.1 Gen 1 5Gbps and 60w charging
  • Supports USB 3.1 Gen 2 10Gbps and 60w charging
  • Supports TB3 20Gbps and 60w charging
  • Supports TB3 40Gbps and 60w charging, but only up to 0.8m and not >USB 2.0
  • Supports TB4 40Gbs and 100w charging
Honestly that's all I have time to type out, but I'm sure I have another 3+ variations.
Well lucky with your example of a messy USB standard. They all still can charge any iPhone, iPad, headset, trinket etc without you needing to care of the type of cable.

Remember the iPad Pro and iPhone 13 uses only 20w
 
Every psychologist has learned that if you want to know what people really think, you have to put money on the table-- if you ask them to make decisions without taking a personal stake, they give you their fantasy view. If they have to trade something for a decision you can see how firmly they believe it.
Well, the world has put its money in USB-C. All laptops and tablets (including Apples), almost all phones and most periphery (if not using MicroUSB) is using USB-C. The few Lightning-connect iPhones have become a niche product now.
It's unlikely that any developer of an innovative product would afford to bet on Lightning any longer - in particular since even Apple as been expected to move iPhones to USB-C for some time.
Let consumers vote with their dollars and you'll find a better solution than some committee making laws based on what the Internets taught them.
I think you're mixing up how consumers and expert committees acquire their information.

You also seem to miss that it's the interface (e.g. the connector) that must be standardized to let the consumers freely choose the products they want to purchase - on either side of the interface.
 
The people who make those lists favor socialist societies. So they’re meaningless. Economically, the EU is in decline, and now terrified of Russia’s next move. The cracks will show much more as the Europeans are forced to lay more for their own defense, as opposed to the US picking up their slack in NATO. Which will leave far less. Money for their invasive nanny state spending. Which might continue to spur more pushback for them to reclaim their lost freedom.
Ha! Gimme a break with the Socialist Societies BS. You do realize that Republicans are for Socialism, but ONLY for the rich. Corporate welfare. Billionaires paying ZERO in taxes. MLK said it 60 yrs ago, “It’s Socialism for the rich & rugged individualism for the rest of us.” The whole Socialism scare tactic is so the right can keep angering their base against the left while they cut the very programs that would actually help them as they give all that money to their rich buddies. It’s a scam. Ya been duped. Or drinking the cool aid. I dunno. But Democratic Socialism is NOT Socialism. The right just wants the Socialism reserved for the 1% who don’t need it. Cops & Fire Fighters are Socialism. You against that? Also with AI & automation replacing more & more jobs, a UBI will be a necessity in the future. Giving money to regular people actually stimulates the economy more than giving it to the rich.
 
What does this mean for future advancements in tech? If they're forced to use USB-C.. how will the next iteration of tech ever get into the hands of consumers? Because let's be realistic, USB-C will not be the be-all end-all for ports.
Don’t ask obvious questions! Just celebrate some random company is being forced to do something you think is best. It’s not possible that there are negatives to the force of violence being applied to what connector our phones uses. As long as it goes my way there is no downside!
 
  • Haha
Reactions: itsthenewdc
No, this is only the worst parts of Soviet style central planning-- it's the application of government regulation to R&D minutia. It's giving bureaucrats the power over technical decisions.

Innovation doesn't mean "MAX SPECS ALWAYS", it means finding a solution that best balances the technical and user requirements. In this case it could mean there's an ecosystem of peripherals and a large population of existing cables for iPhone and no strong technical need to replace them. It could mean that locking users into USB-C will slow the adoption of USB-D, or the next super special Apple connector if some thing were to come along.

Leaving business room to innovate means not assuming some lawmaker, or forum commenter, can anticipate the future or that they truly understand the market beyond their own personal experience and the angry letters they receive from voters. Every psychologist has learned that if you want to know what people really think, you have to put money on the table-- if you ask them to make decisions without taking a personal stake, they give you their fantasy view. If they have to trade something for a decision you can see how firmly they believe it.

Let consumers vote with their dollars and you'll find a better solution than some committee making laws based on what the Internets taught them.

I don't care about MAX SPECS ALWAYS, I don't even really care about the port used, but I can see the benefits of a common port on all small rechargeable devices, if the EU wants to regulate this I fail to see any argument in your long post about how Apple is somehow going to be prevented from trying to invent the next port. What Apple may be prevented from doing is having a unique port just for themselves, no one has yet given a concrete example of Apple using their proprietary port for anything special that a generic port everyone could use can't accomplish.

Lightning was great when the only other options were the 30-pin connector and micro-B, and it could have been a great replacement to USB if Apple had pushed for lightning to be the standard for USB-C. They didn't, not because they couldn't have but because they wanted to keep that nice lightning lock in and MFi Licensing program going.

Apple is free to contribute to the next great port design and push for its adoption so this law has only imaginary effect on preventing future innovation. There is nothing here preventing a new standard being rolled out in the future.
People keep bouncing around on innovation without providing nay concrete examples beyond the shape of the port which Apple could've pushed to make the standard (as I keep repeating).

Apple isn't hurt by this, innovation isn't hurt by this, a standard port hurts no one and helps everyone. If the port chosen is less than ideal that is partially Apple's fault for fighting this process every step of the way rather than contributing productively.
 
You're mixing up "interfaces" that should be standardized, and products on either side of the "interface" that must not be standardized!

Keyboards and phones must use the same interface (bluetooth) to exchange data. Companies must use the same currencies to exchange funds. People need do talk the same language to exchange information.

It's actually the standardization of the interface (here: USB-C) that enables a free choice on either side (i.e. free choice of phones on side A and free choice of charger, display, keyboard, storage system, game controller, earphones on side B).
And the standardization of the INTERFACE enables innovators to invest in new product development (phones or periphery), as they can trust that they can actually sell their product to a large number of costumers (without having to fear that their device won't be compatible by then).
Nope.

I’m simply saying it’s wrong to force a company to use a standard/interface where there’s no inherent right or wrong answer as to what that standard/interface should be.

I’m saying apple (or any other company) should be free to adopt the interface(s) they believe best for the product they’re creating.
 
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: SirusB1 and usagora
...

Apple isn't hurt by this, innovation isn't hurt by this, a standard port hurts no one and helps everyone. If the port chosen is less than ideal that is partially Apple's fault for fighting this process every step of the way rather than contributing productively.
Right, because if MicroUSB would have been forced Apple would have totally spent the R&D on developing Lightning since they wouldn't have been able to use it. Makes sense.
 
The problem is that the USB Specs change very so often. Suppose USB-D comes out and it's amazing. Do we want to be stuck with the older spec forever?
Nothing needs to be changed. The standard putts a minimum floor for things to meet. If a device wants to implement a 1.000w 1000GB/S transfer speed they are free so do so. Nothing tells them to not provide something better, just that they can’t provide something worse.
 
It will be a usb C to lightning dongle that ships with the phone in the EU.
This what happend in 2009 and what happened 2009 is reason why it will not‘t happen again. Adapters are not an option anymore. The port has to be part of the device. Game over.

I don‘t like this regulation. But it is Apples fault. There was more than enough time for industry to agree to a common standard, but Apple blocked. So the EU had to regulate with the so called Anti Apple law. And there is more to come. The digital markets act (DMA) is about Apple, Google, Amazon and Facebook.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: usagora
Nope.

I’m simply saying it’s wrong to force a company to use a standard/interface where there’s no inherent right or wrong answer as to what that standard/interface should be.

I’m saying apple (or any other company) should be free to adopt the interface(s) they believe best for the product they’re creating.
Wrong based on what metric? Companies are forced to use standard interfaces all the time. It's why we have a standard interface for charing electric vehicles and Tesla wasn't allowed to use their own. Everyone benefited from that because now teslas don't need adapters at non-tesla chargers and non-teslas can theoretically use the Tesla charging stations.
 
Then use your iPad. Or buy a non-iPhone smart phone. You have a choice. Do you think it's the government's role to step in to force Apple to change the iPhone so you can use it exactly how you want to? That's the issue here as I see it. I have no problem with people debating about USB-C vs. lightning, but that should be Apple's decision to make, not the EU's.
You asked me for an answer. Here you go:
No, it's not the governments role to change a product so that I can use it excactly how I want to use it.

But it's the governments role to enable free markets (by defining interfaces so that companies can develop products that can be connected), it's the governments role to break up monopolies (and to help avoid consumers being locked in), it's the governments role to help protect the environment (reducing the amount of electronic waste, at least in the future), it's the governments role to set reliable guidelines for companies (so they can plan their developments, product releases or purchases and can compete on a level playing ground).

It's not Apple's role to decide what port their charging cable is connected to (it's standard USB - not 7V, so strange plug, no weird power adapter). It's not Apple's role to decide the voltage of the wall outlet. It's not Apple's role to decide on the shape of the wall outlet. It's not Apple's role to decide on the mobile phone standard (LTE, 3G or GSM in the past). It's not Apple's role to decide on the radio frequency regulations, on the safety regulations or against misleading advertisement. So why should it be important for Apple to stick to an old port that has become a niche, with the entire world around it embracing a superior USB-C?
 
  • Love
Reactions: dysamoria
Define "quickly". There are literally 1 billion devices on the planet that use a Lightning port.
...which is nothing compared to the number of USB-C devices...
But ideally, people continue using their Lightning devices for as long as possible (where necessary and appropriate, with adapters).
 
  • Like
Reactions: M3gatron
Well, the world has put its money in USB-C. All laptops and tablets (including Apples), almost all phones and most periphery (if not using MicroUSB) is using USB-C. The few Lightning-connect iPhones have become a niche product now.
It's unlikely that any developer of an innovative product would afford to bet on Lightning any longer - in particular since even Apple as been expected to move iPhones to USB-C for some time.

I think you're mixing up how consumers and expert committees acquire their information.

You also seem to miss that it's the interface (e.g. the connector) that must be standardized to let the consumers freely choose the products they want to purchase - on either side of the interface.
I think your confused about who can have more information on what is important to their outcomes and purchasing decisions … millions of people or a few committee members.

Why would the connector need to be standardized to allow choice? It’s not an experiment it’s a multifactorial choice. We can easily observe that very few care about this enough that it influences their decisions. You missed that from the comment you quoted by saying people have invested money on USBC. Not relevant. The money that matters is the consumers money. Companies invest in busts all the time.

Imagine the govt said all High def discs had to be HD-DVD and someone said … let’s let people money decide. You would be saying … businesses invested a lot in HD-DvD. Yes but no one cares. It’s consumers that matter because the sum of their choices makes the end outcome not the suppliers choices.

Anyway…bureaucrats do what they do…drunk with power and trying to “make the world a better place” they screw up stuff more often than make it better. If they just wait this will all sort itself out.
 
Right, because if MicroUSB would have been forced Apple would have totally spent the R&D on developing Lightning since they wouldn't have been able to use it. Makes sense.
MicroUSB had so many drawbacks that USB-C doesn't have in terms of flexibility and future capabilities, it's probably why they weren't mandated to include a microB port on their phones...
As I keep pointing out, Apple is making everything harder on themselves by not working to help develop a good shared port (they did help with the USB-C). If they want a good high quality standard, advocate for that, but they don't want that, they want vendor lock in more than they actually care about the quality of the port.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.