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

[profcutter]

It sounds to me more like a situation of frustration with regulation half-measures. The lightning port issue is essentially a non-issue, especially compared to the tax evasion situation in the EU, which the EU allowed to happen and then was forced to take action about, re: apple and Ireland.
Seems to me the EU is seeing, perhaps rightly, the lightning cable/Mfi situation as a blatant money grab, and feel like it could be an easy win to force apple to change over to an interface that they’re already using on so many of their products. In a sense, it’s low-hanging fruit.
The EU gets to look tough, after doing nothing about more serious issues, apple gets to complain publicly, but privately I wouldn’t be surprised if they were ready to abandon lightning anyway. Its only the low end iPads and all iPhones anyway, it’s not going to be a major change for apple to just changeover to USBC. From this forum alone, you see plenty of ambivalence about the cables, and 6 months down the line no one remembers this kerfuffle. The EU gets to say that they forced apple to use the same cable as everyone else, presumably a large proportion of EU citizens is happy about the change, apple sells more phones to people who didn’t want a proprietary interface, and life goes on.
Meanwhile the EU regulators twiddle their thumbs while we completely surpass greenhouse emissions targets. Everybody wins. Or loses.

 

[0924487]

This is a giant waste of time. If a company chose a non-standard port and the standard port was really that good, people simply wouldn't buy devices with the non-standard port. No, let's let luddites argue over how to write their preference for a particular port now into a law that will remain in place indefinitely. Truly one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. Can you imagine if some imbeciles wrote into law 20 years ago that every device has to have a USBA port, and the law just stayed on the books indefinitely? And companies not using the port anymore (all of them) would be paying a punitive fee that never made sense and especially doesn't now, while every company in every other industry does things that are 1000x as bad for the environment with every unit sold and don't have a law telling them not to?

Every time the USB standard gets updated, the law that points to the standard would be automatically updated without regulatory change.

So when USB 3.2 gets released, anyone making USB 3.1 ports would be paying punitive royalties that grows exponentially with time. This would artificially force old technology to be more expensive than the newer technologies.

 

[macar00n]

Every time the USB standard gets updated, the law that points to the standard would be automatically updated without regulatory change.

So when USB 3.2 gets released, anyone making USB 3.1 ports would be paying punitive royalties that grows expon with time. This would artificially force old technology to be more expensive than the newer technologies.

Why is the law telling consumers what to buy? Why is the law telling tech companies, who are experts in the products that they build, what port they must use even if they have a compelling reason to use another port? Why is this law being proposed arbitrarily in the tech industry when the same idiotic thing can be done in any industry?

 

[0924487]

Why is the law telling consumers what to buy? Why is the law telling tech companies, who are experts in the products that they build, what port they must use even if they have a compelling reason to use another port? Why is this law being proposed arbitrarily in the tech industry when the same idiotic thing can be done in any industry?

If they have a “compelling reason to use another port”, then they should draft a new proposal. If adopted, that port will be used by everyone. You can’t arbitrarily make a new proprietary port. Law can’t tell you what to buy, but can restrict what can be sold.

 

[polyphenol]

In my many years of using Lightning and, more recently, USB-C, the only real problems I have had are:

Bits of paper getting into the Lightning receptacle of my phone. Need to clear it out in order to work. A nuisance and inevitably happens when I urgently need to charge it.

Broken insulation near the ends of Lightning cables.

Poorer bending radius of USB-C cables, at least the higher power ones.

If USB-D comes along and doesn't need a receptacle - e.g. a more-or-less flat connector with magnets - great. Even better if the device can be implemented with a recess or flat. Use flat on portable devices to avoid holes. Use a recess on static devices to reduce cable strain.

But I can't see a future USB-D which isn't highly compatible with USB-C. Maybe by using some sort of adaptor?

As I said in an earlier response, you could dream up an optical USB which adds a fibre to USB-C. That could work with existing USB-C but, on compatible kit, would switch to light. (Not saying there is any reason to do this - maybe there is, maybe there isn't?)

 

[jlc1978]

As you admit, that scenario is unlikely, rendering it a bit of a disingenuous argument.

I said that becasue I think the most likely scenario is wireless, rendering the whole port issue moot and bypassing the EU's directive. In addition, my speculation points out there are plenty of ways to make the directive fail to accomplish its goal. One that is quite possible is a mix of PD/non-PD devices.

However, I do think even with the EU directive you will not see one universal charger / cable to rule them all.

Yes, but it seems to make sense to speculate about likely outcomes, not unlikely ones. Apple could decide to exit the phone business altogether, but what would be the point of discussing something so unlikely?

From the sublime to the ridiculous is one small step.

Every time the USB standard gets updated, the law that points to the standard would be automatically updated without regulatory change.

That depends on how the law is written, but consider this:

The new spec changes the plug design, obseleting exiting power supplies and cables.

So when USB 3.2 gets released, anyone making USB 3.1 ports would be paying punitive royalties that grows exponentially with time. This would artificially force old technology to be more expensive than the newer technologies.

For no good reason. Your assumption is the fastest solution is the best; but for a lot of low end phones the older tech is just fine and all such a law does is add costs and obsolete old cables and power supplies.

If they have a “compelling reason to use another port”, then they should draft a new proposal. If adopted, that port will be used by everyone. You can’t arbitrarily make a new proprietary port.

That's the thing - if a few companies decide to revise the standard everyone must comply. Good way to raise costs for smaller competitors by collusion of the big ones who can afford the costs.

Law can’t tell you what to buy, but can restrict what can be sold.

If the law says you can't print x, it's not restricting what you can read either by your argument.

Government actions pick winners and losers. That's not to say it is not reasonable and necessary but even well intentioned ones often have unforeseen problematic consequences.

Personally, every time a politician says they're doing something to help me I hide my wallet.

The 2008 financial crisis was triggered by foolish politicians (and the Fed) who thought it was a good idea for everyone to own their own homes.

I was compounded by a bunch of smart investment bankers who thought you could take a bunch of piles of crap, mix them together and put them in a bunch of small bags and magically the crap became gold.

 

[slplss]

Yes. usb-c does not provide any additional capabilities for me for iphones. I already carry around multiple cables...one more won't make a difference. I have usb-c connectors for other devices, lightning is measurable smaller.

Yes. Wireless, however, is the way to go.

I’m baffled by your responses, but I respect your opinions. Wireless only for iPhone is no-go for me, the need for carrying another cable, I want to get rid of that, not seek for an alternative. At the moment, you need to carry (at least) three cables with you: Lighting, USB-C and Apple Watch puck. So much for going green, Apple. I could live with USB-C for MacBook, iPad, iPhone, AirPods and a separate cable for Apple Watch, and one USB-C adapter. Having to carry two pucks sounds ridiculous to me, plus wireless charging is not as effective as it exhibits energy loss (in a form of heat) i.e. not very Green Apple.

 

[I7guy]

I’m baffled by your responses, but I respect your opinions. Wireless only for iPhone is no-go for me, the need for carrying another cable, I want to get rid of that, not seek for an alternative. At the moment, you need to carry (at least) three cables with you: Lighting, USB-C and Apple Watch puck. So much for going green, Apple. I could live with USB-C for MacBook, iPad, iPhone, AirPods and a separate cable for Apple Watch, and one USB-C adapter. Having to carry two pucks sounds ridiculous to me, plus wireless charging is not as effective as it exhibits energy loss (in a form of heat) i.e. not very Green Apple.

Start off by saying the usb-c is an inferior connector to lightning from a form factor point of view. Having said that it's true about the number of cables we take when travelling, but not because there are multiple connectors. Between my ipad and iphone and my wifes iphone, one cable one charger. My FITBIT a magnetic puck. (Well that is not true, I do not share cables with my wife so we each take our own). Our ipad pro another cable and charger. And my wifes' FITBIT another cable. So yeah, it's not really green but no way I am not going to be able to charge each device separately. At least my phone can be plugged into my laptop so I don't need another charger. At least if a cable breaks I have spares, so there is that.

 

[bookofxero]

"For radio wave health reasons all devices with wireless charging and data transfer must provide a wired option natively on device."

Hole plugged.

"Radio wave health reasons"? Curious wording.

 

[I7guy]

If you have 99 good things and 1 bad thing with few alternatives. The market forces are not strong enough to force a change, especially if you have ecosystem rent-seeking behaviour.

True. And it’s also true apple is entitled to make money on it’s intellectual property.

 

[I7guy]

What about emission standard for vehicles?

Public safety. Pollution.

What about efficiency rating of residential appliances?

Public safety. Pollution.

What about cellular radio frequency allocations?

Public safety. Radio frequencies need to managed so that communication is possible.

Your “public safety” exemption should be updated to “public interest” exemption.

Cell phone connectors aren’t a public interest any more than the shape of a remote control.

 

[Karma*Police]

I’m baffled by your responses, but I respect your opinions. Wireless only for iPhone is no-go for me, the need for carrying another cable, I want to get rid of that, not seek for an alternative. At the moment, you need to carry (at least) three cables with you: Lighting, USB-C and Apple Watch puck. So much for going green, Apple. I could live with USB-C for MacBook, iPad, iPhone, AirPods and a separate cable for Apple Watch, and one USB-C adapter. Having to carry two pucks sounds ridiculous to me, plus wireless charging is not as effective as it exhibits energy loss (in a form of heat) i.e. not very Green Apple.

It’s not green nor is it convenient, but way better that than giving the gov’t more power to intervene in every aspect of our lives. For example, what about my electric shaver and electric toothbrush? Wouldn’t the world be more green if they used USB-C as well? What happens when someone invents a much faster, smaller and capable charger? Who gets to decide when that gets introduced to the world? Where does this gov’t intervention end?

If you look at the history of computing, it’s littered with different connectors/cables because change is the price of progress.

With all the problems in the world, many of them created by the gov’ts themselves, do you really believe they should be spending time and taxpayer resources (as if they didn’t waste enough) trying to figure out, legislate and enforce what connector every smartphone manufacturer should use? They’re already too big, inefficient and corrupt as it is.

 

[macar00n]

If they have a “compelling reason to use another port”, then they should draft a new proposal. If adopted, that port will be used by everyone.

Cool, so if Apple wants a port that's more waterproof and durable than the existing standard for something specific to Apple, they have to beg a standards board with conflicting interests and a bunch of clueless lawmakers, who will then force everyone to use it regardless of whether it's suitable?

You can’t arbitrarily make a new proprietary port.

Companies arbitrarily make proprietary new technologies all the time, it's called innovation and arbitrarily limiting it because some complete technological dodo birds think it would be easier to have one cable for everything is, again, the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

Law can’t tell you what to buy, but can restrict what can be sold.

So you're saying that law restricting what can be sold is not a way for law to tell consumers what to buy? "We restricted by law everything except for this one cable being sold, but you're free to buy any cable you want!" You really have a knack for this, have you considered becoming a law maker?

 

[macar00n]

Is everyone posting from the "green" angle in favor of forcing this cable on Apple out of their minds? A single tire for a car has a thousand times as much environmental impact as one of these cables, as do many other products without any legislation aimed at them. I'm not saying we should all trash the environment, I'm saying if you really care about it then start with something meaningful instead of the equivalent of bucketing water off the Titanic when the hull of the ship is torn open, this will accomplish nothing but stymying tech progress, Apple knows better what port to put in their products than some dinosaur paper pushers and everyone is free to buy Android phones and PCs with all the USBC ports you want if carrying a single cable is that important to you

 

[macar00n]

"We know you manufacture an electric car, but consumers are used to putting gas in their cars and want to fuel up at one place, so we're making it a law that all cars have to take gas as a fuel source"

"Low profile tires that make a ton of road noise last longer and are better for the environment, so we are requiring by law that only these tires are being manufactured"

"Salads and vitamins are healthier so we're retaining your ability to buy any food you want, except cheeseburgers and pizza which we've banned by law"

"This cable responsible for 0% of environmental impact and takes up close to 0 space is slightly inconvenient for a handful of people, so we're banning it and every cable standard except for one but you can continue to buy devices using any cable as long as it's this one still available"

 

[code-m]

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.

“Technology moves on quickly” is a wide net term thrown around in the consumer electronic industry. USB-A has been around for over two decades, SD Cards for around a decade or so, HDMI also quite a long time, etc. I would not call this advancing quickly as even USB-C has been around since 2014, now if you are trying to make the case that it only matters if Apple adopts some tech then that is erroneous mentality for look at it. USB-C was designed to be as future proof as possible. Specifications and capabilities of some technology might expand or increase bandwidth but that does not take away from its core which is to carry power and support multi functions including data, video and audio at higher bandwidth if required.

USB-C is not proprietary compared to Lightening connector so it’s confusing as to why one would prefer it over the other. Lightening connector had a good run for a decade and it was Apple who dragged its heels to adopt USB-C. Ask yourself if Lightening connector is so great why no make it royalty-free and why not include it on Mac hardware (not accessories) as an option.

 

[polyphenol]

Is everyone posting from the "green" angle in favor of forcing this cable on Apple out of their minds? A single tire for a car has a thousand times as much environmental impact as one of these cables, as do many other products without any legislation aimed at them. I'm not saying we should all trash the environment, I'm saying if you really care about it then start with something meaningful instead of the equivalent of bucketing water off the Titanic when the hull of the ship is torn open, this will accomplish nothing but stymying tech progress, Apple knows better what port to put in their products than some dinosaur paper pushers and everyone is free to buy Android phones and PCs with all the USBC ports you want if carrying a single cable is that important to you

It isn't the single cable that is the issue.

It is the combination of ALL cables, ALL chargers/power supplies, for ALL devices - at least, for all small devices that need to charge.

I do not know much about US law, but in the UK we have extensive legal requirements for road veicles. They demand no wheel less than 670 mm rim diameter. And pneumatic or resilient tyres (with their own definitions) depending on type of vehicle.

If someone comes up with a very small wheel that does not need a pneumatic or resilient tyre (e.g. some sort of clever materials usage in a mesh), they will need to get a law changed in order to use it.

It would probably have been better if they had added a category something like "or other wheel/tyre specifically approved under <schedule X>".

There was an issue not so far back where the seat belts as fitted to some sort of racing car were not allowed by the legislation despite having performance factors way ahead of those required in ordinary road vehicles. At one point, they fitted road-legal seatbelts as well as racing ones. Such legal requirements have long existed. And will continue to do so.

 

[I7guy]

[…].

USB-C is not proprietary compared to Lightening connector so it’s confusing as to why one would prefer it over the other. Lightening connector had a good run for a decade and it was Apple who dragged its heels to adopt USB-C. Ask yourself if Lightening connector is so great why no make it royalty-free and why not include it on Mac hardware (not accessories) as an option.

Being proprietary or not is not my concern. I have no issues for apple (or any company) being paid for its IP. I just believe lightning is more durable.

 

[macar00n]

It isn't the single cable that is the issue.

It is the combination of ALL cables, ALL chargers/power supplies, for ALL devices - at least, for all small devices that need to charge.

I do not know much about US law, but in the UK we have extensive legal requirements for road veicles. They demand no wheel less than 670 mm rim diameter. And pneumatic or resilient tyres (with their own definitions) depending on type of vehicle.

If someone comes up with a very small wheel that does not need a pneumatic or resilient tyre (e.g. some sort of clever materials usage in a mesh), they will need to get a law changed in order to use it.

It would probably have been better if they had added a category something like "or other wheel/tyre specifically approved under <schedule X>".

There was an issue not so far back where the seat belts as fitted to some sort of racing car were not allowed by the legislation despite having performance factors way ahead of those required in ordinary road vehicles. At one point, they fitted road-legal seatbelts as well as racing ones. Such legal requirements have long existed. And will continue to do so.

Am I missing something or are all of these perfect examples of slowing down progress/improvement with unnecessary legislation that is then difficult to overturn?

 

[code-m]

Being proprietary or not is not my concern. I have no issues for apple (or any company) being paid for its IP. I just believe lightning is more durable.

Other than Apple are any other manufacturer(s) or product(s) using Lightening connector. Sounds like the whole Betamax versus VHS in your opinion. 😜

I am not referring to accessory products such as wired headphones or dongle makers/docks to be used with iOS products.

 

[polyphenol]

Am I missing something or are all of these perfect examples of slowing down progress/improvement with unnecessary legislation that is then difficult to overturn?

They are not perfect examples if no-one has seen fit to request them be overturned! (If no-one has needed to get them changed, it sugegsts they might have been quite well chosen.) But I offered them as examples of existing law which does include specifics.

The UK's Health & Safety at Work Act was written so that it didn't have loads of specific requirements but, more or less, said that everyone has a duty to look out for the safety of others. And was condemned by some for not containing detailed requirements! To a large extent, if you can show what you are doing is safe, it is OK. If you can't, it isn't. Yes - there are all sorts of codes of practice across industry, but they are not themselves law. And they can be changed without going back to primary legislation.

 

[I7guy]

Other than Apple are any other manufacturer(s) or product(s) using Lightening connector. Sounds like the whole Betamax versus VHS in your opinion. 😜

I am not referring to accessory products such as wired headphones or dongle makers/docks to be used with iOS products.

Right. I don’t care about the connectors outside of Apple is my point.

 

[code-m]

Right. I don’t care about the connectors outside of Apple is my point.

Apple themselves include USB-C on Mac hardware and iPads (except iPad 9th gen). What happens if/when iPhone 14 drops Lightening connector in favour for USB-C, will you not care then.

Remember Apple is the one who gushed over introducing USB-C on its Mac laptop line and how versatile it is.

I have never had the connector component break on the 30 pin, USB-A, mini/micro USB, Lightening or USB-C to me those are all durable but I have had along with family and friends the cable year off including on the MagSafe for Mac laptops. I agree with the industry and Apple that USB-C is more versatile.

 

[I7guy]

Apple themselves include USB-C on Mac hardware and iPads (except iPad 9th gen). What happens if/when iPhone 14 drops Lightening connector in favour for USB-C, will you not care then.

Yes I will care.

Remember Apple is the one who gushed over introducing USB-C on its Mac laptop line and how versatile it is.

A Mac has a different use case than a phone….apple can gush all they want.

I have never had the connector component break on the 30 pin, USB-A, mini/micro USB, Lightening or USB-C to me those are all durable but I have had along with family and friends the cable year off including on the MagSafe for Mac laptops. I agree with the industry and Apple that USB-C is more versatile.

Never broke a connector lightning included. However I agree with MR posters whose opinion is lightning is better for phones.

 

[aaronhead14]

Normally I’m against government force. But this is necessary at this point. Apple’s insistence to stay with Lightning instead of USB-C is anti-consumer and outright irresponsible.