EU Proposes to Force Apple to Switch iPhone, iPad, and AirPods From Lightning to USB-C

[visualseed]

Do you know why it took so long for the automotive industry to adopt LED lights on cars? It wasn’t because LED technology wasn’t ready, in fact, it was already possible in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s based on commercial LED lamps from the late ‘60s. It was because the regulations were written in the early ‘50s to specify a certain wattage and size of incandescent light bulb. It took decades for the regulations to be updated to keep up with the innovation the industry had already made.

I’m not saying there is anything wrong with USB-C or that Apple shouldn’t adopt it. But when you codify it in law, it prevents newer and better technologies from entering the market. Today, the USB-C connector may be good enough for transferring up to 40/Gbs of data and providing 100w of power and that may be more than enough for most, if not everybody, but what if in the next decade we have requirements to move 100+/ Gbs of data and more power and the port can’t do it because it would require 1 additional pin. We already see things like HDMI 2.1 not supporting the USB-C/TB3 connectors and it’s forcing companies (maybe even Apple in the next MacBooks) to go back and add the full-sized HDMI to their computers.

I recently had to buy some new 30-Pin connectors because I have a classic iPod that won’t die and remains extremely useful, especially on long flights. This entire debate reminded me that just because new devices have standardized ports, the old ones don’t just fall off the face of the earth. I have new devices that I bought this year that still use micro-USB. By the time this law is enacted the USB-C port could be well into its second decade of life and really showing its age and the intended effects of reducing e-waste won’t be realized for even longer as devices sold up until the requiment to standardize is enacted will still be in use and circulation on the secondary market for years after. While the USB-C port may not keep up with future requirments. I still may be using my iPod and 30-Pin connectors then.

The one thing that lightning does do better than USB-C is that when it physically breaks, it is designed for the tip of the cable to break. When USB-C breaks it is usually the tab inside the port.

 

[code-m]

If the motivation is standardization then why is it limited to such a small subset of electronics? What about kettles, mixers, lamps, coffee makers, fans, TVs, audio equipment, irons, electric shavers, etc.

oh probably because European companies make these so we wouldn’t want to burden them with these pesky regulations.

You do realize those other household appliances require a lot more energy, my counter toaster oven wire gets hot after prolonged use (say cooking a pizza for 10 minutes) it’s due to heat generation, irons are similar. About the only argument you may have is for portable hair shavers the ones for travel.

 

[jlc1978]

And it wasn't government entities which imposed the existing voltage/frequency and outlet design standards? Which Apple seem perfectly happy to follow. (Much as they would have found it easier to use US standard power and outlet standards on everything, everywhere.)

Therefore, there is a precedent.

Not really in many cases. Early on there were a wide variety of competing plugs, and a standard emerged because it was best for all concerned to have a standard design, and that design became a defacto national standard.

Personally I feel that the USB-C is crap for a lot of users. At 77 I'm buying replacements 2 at a time, funds coming out of Social Security.

Biggest problem? They get bent pretty easily if you are prone to "accidents": tripping over cords, etc. My late Scottish Mother-In-Law would call them Cheap Johns and, of course, I agree with her. Too bad that Apple didn't offer their original MagSafe recharging design for a 1/10th of 1¢ royalty for that design.

You can get MagSafe style USB-C cables on Amazon. I have several and they work great for charging, but are not data cables.

They knew well ahead of time that USB-C was coming and decided to release a proprietary port instead anyway. If there wasn’t money and ecosystem lock-in involved why would they not have swapped to a consumer friendly stance years ago on their cash cow iPhone?
Now we as consumers have multiple charging standards delivered from Apple and have to pack both. That’s certainly not ease of use or environmental concerns.

It's also possible that Apple realized the USB-C standard, will become Balkanized as the standrads commitee seeks to placate all involved, resulting in a "standard" that has many diffeent implementations. At least with Lightening they controlled it and could ensure compatibility.

I would not be at all surprised. Same with the kid gloves treatment that VW got. And the same kinds of easy treatment for US auto mfgs in the US. On the other hand, there are standards for the items you’re describing. The standard connector for AC Mains. Not every company uses them, but the standard exists. Why that’s not regulated? Unclear. That would certainly make apple’s connector for the M1 IMac difficult.

Actually, there are multiple standards for mains in the EU, it just so happens the plugs interchange but do not have the same features. And Italy has a plug that is not compatible in addition to compatible ones.

 

[ericwn]

So Apple should have waited for the size and other improvements of a new connector and continued using the 30-pin port a couple more years? That sounds like a poor decision both for Apple and consumers.

Ecosystem lock-in is real, but rarely due to charging/connector cables. 3rd party cabled accessories were very popular a decade ago, but are not so common now as most are wireless.

Not sure where that would have been a poorer decision than now having three different charging standards for watch, MacBooks and iPads and phones. The dock connector was dragged along until 2012 and usb-c was launched in 2014. Until then nobody would have bothered sticking with the dock connection especially since the devices still had the physical space to easily accommodate it.

 

[code-m]

Do you know why it took so long for the automotive industry to adopt LED lights on cars? It wasn’t because LED technology wasn’t ready, in fact, it was already possible in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s based on commercial LED lamps from the late ‘60s. It was because the regulations were written in the early ‘50s to specify a certain wattage and size of incandescent light bulb. It took decades for the regulations to be updated to keep up with the innovation the industry had already made.

I’m not saying there is anything wrong with USB-C or that Apple shouldn’t adopt it. But when you codify it in law, it prevents newer and better technologies from entering the market. Today, the USB-C connector may be good enough for transferring up to 40/Gbs of data and providing 100w of power and that may be more than enough for most, if not everybody, but what if in the next decade we have requirements to move 100+/ Gbs of data and more power and the port can’t do it because it would require 1 additional pin. We already see things like HDMI 2.1 not supporting the USB-C/TB3 connectors and it’s forcing companies (maybe even Apple in the next MacBooks) to go back and add the full-sized HDMI to their computers.

I recently had to buy some new 30-Pin connectors because I have a classic iPod that won’t die and remains extremely useful, especially on long flights. This entire debate reminded me that just because new devices have standardized ports, the old ones don’t just fall off the face of the earth. I have new devices that I bought this year that still use micro-USB. By the time this law is enacted the USB-C port could be well into its second decade of life and really showing its age and the intended effects of reducing e-waste won’t be realized for even longer as devices sold up until the requiment to standardize is enacted will still be in use and circulation on the secondary market For years after. I still may be using my iPod and 30-Pin connectors then.

The one thing that lightning does do better than USB-C is that when it physically breaks, it is designed for the tip of the cable to break. When USB-C breaks it is usually the tab inside the port.

Any reason why Apple limits Lightening data transfer speed.

 

[ApplesAreSweet&Sour]

I also have no idea why people insist on this idea of Apple wanting for years to go full USB-C for all of its products but opting to stay with Lightning to avoid "pulling the rug away" under its established userbase who already own tons of Lightning cables, not wanting to force them to buy new cables:

Instead of going USB-C, Apple literally spent millions to create their new MagSafe ecosystem of wired charging pucks and accessories just to have yet another proprietary product line with yet another certification system that Apple profits from.

"Coincidentally", Apple also set all Qi-enabled iPhones to not take in more than 7.5W through Qi wireless charging while simultaneously letting them get up to 15W if charging wirelessly via a MagSafe puck. And obviously, Apple had to make MagSafe pucks have non-detachable cables even though it could have easily put a Lightning or USB-C port on them to let its users plug in their USB-C to Lightning cables that they got with previous iPhone purchases.

Gee, I wonder what the result of more proprietary ports and cables like MagSafe and the AW charging pucks is?

E-waste fighting Apple now has products with Lightning ports, USB-C ports, Apple Watch charging puck "ports", MagSafe charging pucks -Seems like a lot of different ports and cables and charging pucks for a company that's supposedly prioritising the part of its userbase who has a lot of Lightning cables lying around, or a company that wants to simplify its products and give consumers the best of the best and avoid uneccesary e-waste.

I mean, we can speculate all day about what we assume Apple's intentions to be or go by what it says in press statements. But Apple sure doesn't act like a company that wants to reduce e-waste or give its users a single cable or port to charge most of its products.

 

[code-m]

Not sure where that would have been a poorer decision than now having three different charging standards for watch, MacBooks and iPads and phones. The dock connector was dragged along until 2012 and usb-c was launched in 2014. Until then nobody would have bothered sticking with the dock connection especially since the devices still had the physical space to easily accommodate it.

2022 is looking promising for USB-C on the iPhone 14, then watch the Lightening connector crowd be silent and complain about something else.

 

[vladi]

Why so authoritarian, EU? It's like you want to be up in everyone's business... let the market decide.

USB-Crybabies go home.

Even back in high school I knew there was no such thing as market decision and market self regulation. There is option A and sometimes option B and that's about it. Forget about C, D, E, etc.

 

[vladi]

Do you know why it took so long for the automotive industry to adopt LED lights on cars? It wasn’t because LED technology wasn’t ready, in fact, it was already possible in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s based on commercial LED lamps from the late ‘60s. It was because the regulations were written in the early ‘50s to specify a certain wattage and size of incandescent light bulb. It took decades for the regulations to be updated to keep up with the innovation the industry had already made.

I’m not saying there is anything wrong with USB-C or that Apple shouldn’t adopt it. But when you codify it in law, it prevents newer and better technologies from entering the market. Today, the USB-C connector may be good enough for transferring up to 40/Gbs of data and providing 100w of power and that may be more than enough for most, if not everybody, but what if in the next decade we have requirements to move 100+/ Gbs of data and more power and the port can’t do it because it would require 1 additional pin. We already see things like HDMI 2.1 not supporting the USB-C/TB3 connectors and it’s forcing companies (maybe even Apple in the next MacBooks) to go back and add the full-sized HDMI to their computers.

I recently had to buy some new 30-Pin connectors because I have a classic iPod that won’t die and remains extremely useful, especially on long flights. This entire debate reminded me that just because new devices have standardized ports, the old ones don’t just fall off the face of the earth. I have new devices that I bought this year that still use micro-USB. By the time this law is enacted the USB-C port could be well into its second decade of life and really showing its age and the intended effects of reducing e-waste won’t be realized for even longer as devices sold up until the requiment to standardize is enacted will still be in use and circulation on the secondary market for years after. While the USB-C port may not keep up with future requirments. I still may be using my iPod and 30-Pin connectors then.

The one thing that lightning does do better than USB-C is that when it physically breaks, it is designed for the tip of the cable to break. When USB-C breaks it is usually the tab inside the port.

OEM Lightning cable is absolute record title holder when it comes cheap quality and tearing apart during usage.

 

[sdf]

That just won't work out very well fragmenting the market that way. They will likely just move to USB C and blame the EU.

I don't know if we have data for the iPhone 13 yet, but they already had different models of iPhone 12 due to different internals. I think some years they've managed to have a unified model, but I think the iPhones with multiple models for different radio capabilities probably outnumber them… and probably by a lot. Swapping the port and advertising a lesser water resistance level would probably not be a very long reach for them.

 

[sdf]

OEM Lightning cable is absolute record title holder when it comes cheap quality and tearing apart during usage.

I haven't had an Apple OEM lightning cable fail since the iPhone 5 days (not even 5s). Yes, they were awful, but it's been a solved problem for a while.

 

[code-m]

I also have no idea why people insist on this idea of Apple wanting for years to go full USB-C for all of its products but opting to stay with Lightning to avoid "pulling the rug away" under its established userbase who already own tons of Lightning cables, not wanting to force them to buy new cables:

Instead of going USB-C, Apple literally spent millions to create their new MagSafe ecosystem of wired charging pucks and accessories just to have yet another proprietary product line with yet another certification system that Apple profits from.

"Coincidentally", Apple also set all Qi-enabled iPhones to not take in more than 7.5W through Qi wireless charging while simultaneously letting them get up to 15W if charging wirelessly via a MagSafe puck. And obviously, Apple had to make MagSafe pucks have non-detachable cables even though it could have easily put a Lightning or USB-C port on them to let its users plug in their USB-C to Lightning cables that they got with previous iPhone purchases.

Gee, I wonder what the result of more proprietary ports and cables like MagSafe and the AW charging pucks is?

E-waste fighting Apple now has products with Lightning ports, USB-C ports, Apple Watch charging puck "ports", MagSafe charging pucks -Seems like a lot of different ports and cables and charging pucks for a company that's supposedly prioritising the part of its userbase who has a lot of Lightning cables lying around, or a company that wants to simplify its products and give consumers the best of the best and avoid uneccesary e-waste.

I mean, we can speculate all day about what we assume Apple's intentions to be or go by what it says in press statements. But Apple sure doesn't act like a company that wants to reduce e-waste or give its users a single cable or port to charge most of its products.

The unfortunate “suckers” are the iPhone 13 customers similar to the 30 pin to lightning connector situation. Another super-cycle iPhone next year, Apple is ready while forum members here are defending Apple’s Lightning connector’s continuing existence. Must be to reassure themselves of their new iPhone 13 purchase 😂

 

[vipergts2207]

Actually, what you’re presenting is short term thinking. You‘re assuming that USB-C is the end of the technology roadmap. It certainly is not. It’s only 2 years younger than Lightning with the same limitations of foresight that every new technology must face.

Look at the history of USB— they aren’t one for keeping a connector definition for long.

When micro-USB-C, or whatever they’ll call it, comes along, should the EU force everyone to throw their USB-C stuff away to move to the new standard, or should they force manufacturers to hold back their technology to stay compatible with the older USB-C?

And having a single cable/brick for all your electronic devices is just as much a pipe dream. USB-C is not monolithic. Do I really want to carry a MacBook Pro brick and 100W cable to charge my AirPods? USB-C uses different cable and charger bricks for different purposes. Not every device is compatible with every brick even if they have the same port on them.

And we’re mostly there anyway— lightning cables have USB ports on the brick end, so the brick isn’t really part of the discussion here.

Every other USB port had significant drawbacks wouldn't you say? Your comparison to the other flavors of USB is incomplete at best and highly flawed at worst. USB-C is the only USB plug that's reversible, which let's face it, is the biggest plus of lightning. USB-C has also been designed to be updated, while retaining the same connector and maximizing backwards compatibility. They also had the foresight to include compatibility with other major protocols such as HDMI, DP, and TB. They also saw fit to give it the ability to deliver up to 100W of power. With USB4 USB-C will support 40 Gb/s speeds. Clearly the connector isn't going anywhere, regardless of the fretting going on here. USB-C is the closest thing to a future-proof connector that we've ever had.

Additionally, do you not think if some fancy new connector comes along 15 years from now, that the tech companies can't all go to the EU and tell them, "hey we all want to move to this new technology and here's why." As long as they'd be making the move in unison so that we don't end up with three different connectors on the market at the same time again, I think the EU would be rather amenable. However, considering what I outlined above, I don't imagine that would be necessary in the first place. Everything will go wireless before something supplants USB-C. Much like Blu-Ray is likely the last disk-based media, USB-C is likely the last new cable technology. Similarly to how things have moved to streaming rather than disks, things are moving to wireless rather than wired.

And you're right I wouldn't want to carry around an MBP power brick just to charge some AirPods. You know what would be cool though? Having the option to take only my MBP power brick when traveling since it will charge my MBP, iPad, iPhone, and AirPods, instead of needing two, three, or four different chargers for my devices. Or being able to charge any device in my car with a single cable. Need to borrow a cable? Oh, well luckily everything uses the same connector.

 

[code-m]

I have had 2/3 of my lightning cables tear and some are fine, while my family and friends have all been torn apart, so what is your point?

I haven't had an Apple OEM lightning cable fail since the iPhone 5 days (not even 5s).

 

[sdf]

The one thing that lightning does do better than USB-C is that when it physically breaks, it is designed for the tip of the cable to break. When USB-C breaks it is usually the tab inside the port.

The Lightning port seems more durable in more ways than just this, but sure. The one difference is the port is more durable.

But what else really matters?

 

[PilotWoo]

Do you know why it took so long for the automotive industry to adopt LED lights on cars? It wasn’t because LED technology wasn’t ready, in fact, it was already possible in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s based on commercial LED lamps from the late ‘60s. It was because the regulations were written in the early ‘50s to specify a certain wattage and size of incandescent light bulb. It took decades for the regulations to be updated to keep up with the innovation the industry had already made.

I’m not saying there is anything wrong with USB-C or that Apple shouldn’t adopt it. But when you codify it in law, it prevents newer and better technologies from entering the market. Today, the USB-C connector may be good enough for transferring up to 40/Gbs of data and providing 100w of power and that may be more than enough for most, if not everybody, but what if in the next decade we have requirements to move 100+/ Gbs of data and more power and the port can’t do it because it would require 1 additional pin. We already see things like HDMI 2.1 not supporting the USB-C/TB3 connectors and it’s forcing companies (maybe even Apple in the next MacBooks) to go back and add the full-sized HDMI to their computers.

I recently had to buy some new 30-Pin connectors because I have a classic iPod that won’t die and remains extremely useful, especially on long flights. This entire debate reminded me that just because new devices have standardized ports, the old ones don’t just fall off the face of the earth. I have new devices that I bought this year that still use micro-USB. By the time this law is enacted the USB-C port could be well into its second decade of life and really showing its age and the intended effects of reducing e-waste won’t be realized for even longer as devices sold up until the requiment to standardize is enacted will still be in use and circulation on the secondary market for years after. While the USB-C port may not keep up with future requirments. I still may be using my iPod and 30-Pin connectors then.

@visualseed you make so much sense.

It is none of the EU's business. They have chosen a fight they can never win, as technology marches on. What they should be focussing on is providing effective and efficient electronic recycling.

 

[code-m]

@visualseed you make so much sense.

It is none of the EU's business. They have chosen a fight they can never win, as technology marches on. What they should be focussing on is providing effective and efficient electronic recycling.

What’s wrong with addressing the issue at every stage? Rather than just recycle and the issue is still producing the end state does not make sense. I feel this is good news for all including Apple.

 

[I7guy]

I also have no idea why people insist on this idea of Apple wanting for years to go full USB-C for all of its products but opting to stay with Lightning to avoid "pulling the rug away" under its established userbase who already own tons of Lightning cables, not wanting to force them to buy new cables:

I agree. Apple doesn't want to disenfranchise it's base of hundreds of millions of customers that already have a phone with a lightning connector. And also cause more e-waste.

Instead of going USB-C, Apple literally spent millions to create their new MagSafe ecosystem of wired charging pucks and accessories just to have yet another proprietary product line with yet another certification system that Apple profits from.

Probably because Apple controls the entire experience, unlike Android where the different manufacturers are free to have their own standards. So yeah, Apple should profit from its' inventions.

"Coincidentally", Apple also set all Qi-enabled iPhones to not take in more than 7.5W through Qi wireless charging while simultaneously letting them get up to 15W if charging wirelessly via a MagSafe puck. And obviously, Apple had to make MagSafe pucks have non-detachable cables even though it could have easily put a Lightning or USB-C port on them to let its users plug in their USB-C to Lightning cables that they got with previous iPhone purchases.

There may be rational that Apple has, that you are not privvy to.

Gee, I wonder what the result of more proprietary ports and cables like MagSafe and the AW charging pucks is?

Better experience than Android when Apple controls the entire ecosystem, is probably the result.

E-waste fighting Apple now has products with Lightning ports, USB-C ports, Apple Watch charging puck "ports", MagSafe charging pucks -Seems like a lot of different ports and cables and charging pucks for a company that's supposedly prioritising the part of its userbase who has a lot of Lightning cables lying around, or a company that wants to simplify its products and give consumers the best of the best and avoid uneccesary e-waste.

Seems like the directive to throw all of this out is at odds with everything. However, can't blame Apple for going portless with idiocy like this happening.

I mean, we can speculate all day about what we assume Apple's intentions to be or go by what it says in press statements. But Apple sure doesn't act like a company that wants to reduce e-waste or give its users a single cable or port to charge most of its products.

Apple most assuredly wants to reduce e-waste. From the above comment, it seems your plan is not their plan.

 

[vipergts2207]

like USB-A, USB-B, SCSI cables, et al.

Quite the poorly chosen point. Last I checked USB-A, which is from the 90's, is still shipping on new computers today, including from Apple. And guess what the computers that no longer have USB-A (after 25 years) are shipping with. USB-C. Don't know what to tell you if you think USB-C is some kind of fad.

 

[ApplesAreSweet&Sour]

Look at the AW and MagSafe charging pucks and tell me that they are more than just a proprietary version of a Qi puck.

Why not make the cable on these charging pucks detachable as its the most likely part to wear and break? Then you could easily throw the cable away and just plug any USB-A or USB-C to Lightning cable into that charging puck. You'd then only throw away the cable but not the puck itself.

Oh, you can get a charging puck with a detachable cable.. but that's not included $79 for a Charging dock.

But can't you just use one of the other Qi pads/pucks you have lying around? Apple does, after all, use the Qi standard for AW.

No, you cannot use other Qi chargers because Apple has software locked AWs to only work with AW charging pucks.

I think it's quite clear what Apple's intentions are for charging and ports for its products.

 

[visualseed]

OEM Lightning cable is absolute record title holder when it comes cheap quality and tearing apart during usage.

Would you rather the cheap cable break or the port on your $1,000+ dollar phone?

 

[PilotWoo]

What’s wrong with addressing the issue at every stage?

Because technology moves on quickly, so the standard goes out of date quickly. Because it stifles innovation. Because it's a waste of bureaucrats/lawyers/MEP's time, and the EU's budget, which could be spent tackling issues like homelessness, poverty or child protection, which I would argue are more pressing to EU citizens and more under the purview of the EU.

 

[MowgliWolf]

I have to ask, why? Why now some 10 odd years later, what and who does it really serve when the lightning cable itself supports both usb-a and usb-c?

 

[visualseed]

Quite the poorly chosen point. Last I checked USB-A, which is from the 90's, is still shipping on new computers today, including from Apple. And guess what the computers that no longer have USB-A (after 25 years) are shipping with. USB-C. Don't know what to tell you if you think USB-C is some kind of fad.

It’s not that USB-C is a fad, but the existence of USB-C proves that market’s use requirements outpaced the USB-A ports ability to keep up. The only reason why we consider USB-C (USB4/Thunderbolt3,etc) viable now is because we are still in the phase of the product lifecycle where its top-end specs are beyond our normal use requirements. Once that changes, as it is most certainly going to, then the market will need a successor port technology and the C ports will be relegated to legacy ports.

 

[bilbo--baggins]

I prefer the lightning connector to usb c for the iPhone. Reversible and small. Why take a step backwards?