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.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?
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.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.
I do agree that Lightning is mechanically superior to USB-C.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.
Well said.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.
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.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.
Define "quickly". There are literally 1 billion devices on the planet that use a Lightning port..... Lightning has become a nice-product and will get obsolete quickly.
Well, I live in the EU and I'm glad we'll get new iPhones with USB-C.
If you live in the US, you might not be so lucky - I'm sorry for you.
They'll just go portless.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.
That is a well thought out, lengthy and articulated falsely applied argument.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).
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.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"
Honestly that's all I have time to type out, but I'm sure I have another 3+ variations.
- 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
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.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.
I think you're mixing up how consumers and expert committees acquire their information.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.
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.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.
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!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.
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.
Nope.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).
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....
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.
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.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?
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.It will be a usb C to lightning dongle that ships with the phone in the EU.
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.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.
You asked me for an answer. Here you go: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.
...which is nothing compared to the number of USB-C devices...Define "quickly". There are literally 1 billion devices on the planet that use a Lightning port.
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.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.
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...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.