EU Warns Apple About Limiting Speeds of Uncertified USB-C Cables for iPhones

[AppliedMicro]

I thought the goal of a free market was to have companies make/develop products and then let the consumer decide where it wants to spend its money.

We're not talking rocket science here.
Nor grand-scale globalised migration or eco-friendly production of electricity.

We're talking charging small, plain, boring, bog-standard lithium-ion batteries here.
There isn't a zillion innovative and differentiating ways to bloddy charge them.

If billions of devices do the same thing, namely charging, it's wasteful to have a dozen incompatible ports, cables and chargers and on them that do the same thing.

And if Apple should notice they aren't selling as much as they could, because there iPhone hasn't got USB, believe me, they will change that in an instance.

Yes - we can agree, that the connector is only a negligible factor in people's buying decisions.

So what does Apple do, once you broke or forgot your lightning charge cable and need a new one? Charge you a premium (either directly or indirectly through licensing fees) for a proprietary, licensed replacement cable. That will provide standard charging functionality.

While I personally prefer (as being more reliable and sturdy) the form factor of Lightning over USB-C, the non-support of standardised charging protocols is in no way a benefit to customers. Apple with their Lightning connector are in fact way behind the curve in charging speeds compared to the fastest charging Android phones. So much for the "innovation".

 

[gaximus]

No, the legal text do not say phones or cables need to support 100w PD. And that would be ludicrous. Fast charging isn't marketing. It explicitly say what that means
View attachment 2199200

As well as how to implement it.

in the case of radio equipment which is subject to the requirements set out in point 3 of Part I, a description of the specifications relating to charging capabilities of the radio equipment, in so far as it is capable of being recharged by means of wired charging at voltages higher than 5 Volts or currents higher than 3 Amperes or powers higher than 15 Watts, including an indication that the radio equipment supports the USB Power Delivery charging protocol by displaying the text “USB PD fast charging” and an indication of any other supported charging protocol by displaying its name in text format.

Correct, so change my comment from "1Watt" to "15 Watts", there is nothing in there that says a device can't charge at different rates, as long as it meets those minimums. My point to the OP, was that, Apple could let MFi cables charge at a faster rate than non-MFi cables, and still be within regulation. If the EU wants to correct this, they would have to update the regulation, which is the entire issue with creating regulations for tech in the first place. A regulation like this also stop all innovation for developing a new USB-D connector that could be even better than a USB-C, we will never progress past USB-C because of this regulation.

 

[AppliedMicro]

there is nothing in there that says a device can't charge at different rates, as long as it meets those minimums

"Other charging protocols are still allowed provided that they do not impede the full functionality of the common harmonised solution." Commission's Q&A

Also: "The proposal encourages innovation for wired and wireless technology charging. Any technological developments in wired charging can be reflected in a timely adjustment of technical requirements/ specific standards under the Radio Equipment Directive"

 

[bsolar]

Please provide a source for this statement. The only explanation I heard was the wish to 'reduce e-waist' and that really isn't on my short list of 'interests as a EU consumer'.

That's one of the goal, the other is consumer convenience. There is official documentation here, including various documents which go in great detail.

E.g. taken from the Executive Summary of the Impact Assessment:

What is the problem being addressed?

The first problem is the consumer inconvenience caused for consumers by the presence of three different connectors still on the market and the lack of charging interoperability.

The second problem is the environmental impact resulting from annual sales of around 300 million portable electronic devices in the EU. The old chargers fall into disuse or are thrown away.

The document goes in further detail explaining what they expect to achieve, what's the value that the regulation would provide, which different possible solutions are on the table, advantages and disadvantages etc...

Again, you might disagree with the reasoning, but it doesn't mean a reasoning was not provided, nor that since you personally don't agree everyone else also doesn't.

So basically, you are saying that the goal of a free market is standardisation. I thought the goal of a free market was to have companies make/develop products and then let the consumer decide where it wants to spend its money.

No, what I am saying is that the EU would have preferred for the free market to voluntarily converge towards a standard solution, but the free market failed to do so and they decided to intervene. Again, from the link above:

The voluntary approach did not meet consumer, European Parliament or Commission expectations, so we put forward a legislative approach.

Compare and contrast with what they are stating for wireless charging technologies:

Furthermore, wireless charging technology is still developing, currently showing a low level of fragmentation, and a good level of interoperability among the different solutions. It therefore seems premature to set out mandatory requirements.

'satisfactory solutions' according to who? I really do not know one single person that had this on their priority list, nor one politician standing in the street saying, "choose me in the EU parlement, I will give you USB on all your devices."

According to the EU Commission, which pushed forward the proposal, and the EU Parliament, which ratified said proposal.

The EU isn't democratic, the fact that one can cast a vote, doesn't make the system democratic or 'legal'. EU parlement has very limited powers, which leads to 'lets make laws, because we can' in the area's they have power.

The EU Parliament is elected by the EU citizens, so it's clearly and undeniably a democratically elected institution. One of the powers of the EU Parliament is electing the EU Commission, which means also the EU Commission is democratically elected through the EU citizen's representatives.

Note that you personally disagreeing with whatever they are doing doesn't change the fact that they are democratically elected institutions.

 

[AppliedMicro]

The fact that someone or a body of someones was elected by someone doesn’t mean that something is a true democracy that deserves its name. Most non-democracies or authoritarian regimes do in fact hold some sort of elections. Often stacking electoral layers on top of other electoral layers and elected bodies and representatives (in often convoluted ways) is a common way of ensuring that the populace doesn’t get in the way by voting „wrong“. And the EU and its commission are often not all that different but work surprisingly similar.

If bureaucracy and technocracy aren’t more appropriate terms for the EU than democracy, they aren‘t far off either. It’s at least a hybrid system rather than truly democratic, IMO (This does seem to be often misunderstood on the forum here, judging by the number of people claiming the EU just hate American companies or does have little expertise in technology, when it comes to regulation that impacts Apple‘s business).

 

[russell_314]

The EU explained very clearly their rationale and why having a standard charging interface is in the interest of EU consumers. They expected a standard interface for charging to emerge from the free market and didn't enact any regulation at first, waiting to see how the situation evolved and whether the fragmentation would resolve by itself.

Only when it became clear that the free market was not going to deliver said standard charging interface they decided to intervene. As counter-example, they explicitly excluded regulating wireless charging because they are currently satisfied with what the free market is delivering in terms of lack of fragmentation between interfaces.

This is exactly how a free and democratic government should handle the free market when the free market alone is not delivering satisfactory solutions.

Just because something isn’t exactly the same does it mean it’s bad. Computers don’t have a standard operating system and this causes incompatible software.Should MacBooks before’s to run Windows? It would mean users would have more options for software.

 

[russell_314]

Consumers don't choose charging standards,

Sure they do. USB-C is available as a choice

 

[jlc1978]

I recommend you compare European tv and a US tv.

The amount of advertisements used in shows and breaks. Much of advertising is done in USA is deeply illegal

And in many European countries people pay a TV license fee for the privilage of owning a TV; in the US advertising pays for OTA TV. Different models; neither is inherently better, just different.

 

[tripsync]

I don’t know a single person who charges their iPhone via MagSafe to be honest, it might as well not be there.

Anecdotal. I charge my iPhone via MagSafe duo daily and I can't recall ever plugging in my iPhone 14 Pro. Perhaps once to easily register my iPhone to my dev account but that can be solved via software. May as well remove the port then, right?

The only use I have for it is to attach to a magnetic holder on my cars dashboard. When MagSafe came out the charger was overpriced at £59 and this put myself and I’d imagine many others off. It’s largely been forgotten about for me.

Again, anecdotal. Plenty use it. Plenty don't.

I plug the phone in still for charging and I’m confident this is still the most popular method.

Micro-usb was at one point the most popular port. Doesn't mean we should have stuck with micro-usb.

The watch has always had the same charger and one comes with every purchase. I highly doubt that will ever be USB-C as for that device it would be a step back. Transfer speeds are irrelevant with the Watch.

Not arguing for watch data transfer via cable.

iPhones are different in that regard and getting rid of the lightning connector is a natural progressive step

A natural progressive step should have a natural death, not accelerated by government intervention.

 

[0924487]

They are definitely after the American market with those designs. I can’t imagine they would be able to compete against the likes of BMW, Audi, Mercedes or Volvo in Europe but then each culture has their own tastes.

China is the home to 40% of global luxury car market. The most popular premium ICE car brand in China is Mercedes, followed by Porsche, then BMW.

The largest market for European ICE premium cars is China. China's goal is to domesticate that market segment. First by incentivizing German carmakers to manufacture them in China. Then, in the long run, foster domestic competitors like Hongqi through R&D subsidies to directly compete with the likes of Rolls Royces and Mercedes.

American cars don't sell well in East Asia because they are not efficient, too bulky, and not luxurious enough. German cars are much more refined for the East Asian taste.

 

[bsolar]

Just because something isn’t exactly the same does it mean it’s bad. Computers don’t have a standard operating system and this causes incompatible software.Should MacBooks before’s to run Windows? It would mean users would have more options for software.

Nobody is arguing that.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Just because something isn’t exactly the same does it mean it’s bad. Computers don’t have a standard operating system and this causes incompatible software.Should MacBooks before’s to run Windows? It would mean users would have more options for software.

There are differences between user-operated GUI computer operating systems (and the breadth of functionality they provide) and charging a dumb battery without user intervention/operation (past the initial plugging in of the connector).

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

China is the home to 40% of global luxury car market. The most popular premium ICE car brand in China is Mercedes, followed by Porsche, then BMW.

The largest market for European ICE premium cars is China. China's goal is to domesticate that market segment. First by incentivizing German carmakers to manufacture them in China. Then, in the long run, foster domestic competitors like Hongqi through R&D subsidies to directly compete with the likes of Rolls Royces and Mercedes.

American cars don't sell well in East Asia because they are not efficient, too bulky, and not luxurious enough. German cars are much more refined for the East Asian taste.

American cars have never sold well in Europe either due to being inefficient, poor in the Euro NCAP safety ratings and an acquired taste in terms of styling. I think as a perception we as a market are fine with our products being manufactured in China, but there is still a stigma around products such as cars being designed and built there. In the automotive industry I work in there is a growing demand to rely less and less on China for parts and strategies in place to pull away by the end of this decade.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

Anecdotal. I charge my iPhone via MagSafe duo daily and I can't recall ever plugging in my iPhone 14 Pro. Perhaps once to easily register my iPhone to my dev account but that can be solved via software. May as well remove the port then, right?

Of course it’s anecdotal and I made that crystal clear, much like your example is also anecdotal. No point removing the port of it’s still used by plenty.

Again, anecdotal. Plenty use it. Plenty don't.

Again, of course and you example is anecdotal too.

Micro-usb was at one point the most popular port. Doesn't mean we should have stuck with micro-usb.

I’m all for having a superior technology on my iPhone and lightning is outdated and slow.

A natural progressive step should have a natural death, not accelerated by government intervention.

Does the same go for going electric when it comes to vehicles? Why shouldn’t electronics companies also be held accountable?

 

[tripsync]

Of course it’s anecdotal and I made that crystal clear, much like your example is also anecdotal. No point removing the port of it’s still used by plenty.

I'm just show you how extremely dumb it is to make a major design change based on your anecdotal experience. Recall "charges their iPhone via MagSafe to be honest, it might as well not be there.". Very dumb take.

Again, of course and you example is anecdotal too.

Again, showing you how irrelevant anecdotal experiences is in this conversation.

I’m all for having a superior technology on my iPhone and lightning is outdated and slow.

USB-C isn't the ultimate port, but now Apple won't have a chance to create a "superior technology" to replace the USB-C port. See where I'm getting at?

Does the same go for going electric when it comes to vehicles?

Is the lightning cord killing Earth? Nope. In fact, this USB-C mandate is actually worse for the environment. Largely irrelevant and invalid comparison.

 

[bsolar]

USB-C isn't the ultimate port, but now Apple won't have a chance to create a "superior technology" to replace the USB-C port. See where I'm getting at?

Of course they have such chance: they can propose said "superior technology" to be implemented in a new version of the USB standard.

Note that Apple is a member in the USB Implementers Forum and Apple even has a representative in its Board of Directors, so they definitely have the means to contribute to the standard's evolution.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

I'm just show you how extremely dumb it is to make a major design change based on your anecdotal experience. Recall "charges their iPhone via MagSafe to be honest, it might as well not be there.". Very dumb take.

I don't think a change of port is a major design change in regards to USB-C. My comment about MagSafe was just highlighting that Apple can't solely rely on it being the primary method for charging as not everybody uses it, even two and a half years after it was released. It was more of a tongue in cheek comment on my part. I would try not to use words like 'dumb' when discussing others opinions as it gives the impression you are belittling them or suggesting their opinion is not as valid as your own.

Again, showing you how irrelevant anecdotal experiences is in this conversation.

Unless it is your own anecdotal experiences being used in this conversation of course?

USB-C isn't the ultimate port, but now Apple won't have a chance to create a "superior technology" to replace the USB-C port. See where I'm getting at?

Its not the ultimate port no, but it has become a standard used across millions of devices World wide. Apple could have opened up Lightning to be used by other manufacturers back in 2012 but chose to keep it proprietary and are now in a situation of having to follow a regulation rather than set it.

Is the lightning cord killing Earth? Nope. In fact, this USB-C mandate is actually worse for the environment. Largely irrelevant and invalid comparison.

Having one type of cable for multiple devices is a positive for consumers though. Ultimately it will reduce the amount of cables in circulation in the longterm.

 

[russell_314]

Nobody is arguing that.

Actually, they are arguing that. People and the EU are insisting that every phone use the same charging port.

 

[russell_314]

There are differences between user-operated GUI computer operating systems (and the breadth of functionality they provide) and charging a dumb battery without user intervention/operation (past the initial plugging in of the connector).

You’re correct. If anything, the EU would be more justified mandating compatibility for applications, rather than a charging plug. It’s not much trouble to get the correct cord but if you want to use a piece of software, or perhaps play a game, it can be impossible due to these differences.

My point is that the same reasoning for having every charging port be the same could be used for a lot of things. I’m not even saying the iPhone shouldn’t go to USB-C, but I think that should be something decided by Apple and their customers rather than some bureaucrat.

 

[bsolar]

Actually, they are arguing that. People and the EU are insisting that every phone use the same charging port.

Nobody is arguing "Just because something isn’t exactly the same does it mean it’s bad": that's definitely true since in some situations having variety is not bad at all, but it's not true in general. There are situation when things not being the same is bad.

The EU's reasoning is not "they are not the same, which is inherently bad, so they have to become the same". The EU's reasoning is "the advantages in regulating them to have a standardized solution overcome the drawbacks in letting different incompatible implementations in the market".

 

[gaximus]

"Other charging protocols are still allowed provided that they do not impede the full functionality of the common harmonised solution." Commission's Q&A

Also: "The proposal encourages innovation for wired and wireless technology charging. Any technological developments in wired charging can be reflected in a timely adjustment of technical requirements/ specific standards under the Radio Equipment Directive"

Charging at at 15 Watts vs 65 Watts does not "impede the full functionality of the common harmonized solution"(Which is a very vague statement up to interpretation), also that is from a Q&A, not a from the regulation, its not law.

 

[bsolar]

Charging at at 15 Watts vs 65 Watts does not "impede the full functionality of the common harmonized solution"(Which is a very vague statement up to interpretation), also that is from a Q&A, not a from the regulation, its not law.

The Q&A provides a clear outlook at how the Directive is being interpreted. It's not uncommon in technical regulations to have some uncertainty in how some aspects have to be interpreted and having to request clarification to the regulator.

 

[jlc1978]

Charging at at 15 Watts vs 65 Watts does not "impede the full functionality of the common harmonized solution"

The "does not impede" (emphasis mine) is the key - Apple could implement a MiFi standard that allows full required PD charging capability with any compatible cable, even if it is non-MiFi, and use MiFi to add additional functionality beyond PD or even just for data. Such an implementation could be fully compliant with the regulation.

For example, Apple could create a high speed reverse charging capability and use MiFi to validate the proper cabling; or use MiFi for a very high speed data transfer.

(Which is a very vague statement up to interpretation), also that is from a Q&A, not a from the regulation, it's not law.

I don't think it is vague - the intent clearly is for any device to support PD at the same speeds as a proprietary one if the PD standard allows for the wattage used. You can't have a 15WPD capability and 65W with only the proprietary implementation, for example, since PD includes 65W is part of the spec.

It's not the ultimate port no, but it has become a standard used across millions of devices World wide. Apple could have opened up Lightning to be used by other manufacturers back in 2012 but chose to keep it proprietary and are now in a situation of having to follow a regulation rather than set it.

Given Apple's role in setting the USB-C standard, I think it was only a matter of time before they went all in on USB-C for most devices, and MagSafe for the rest.

It would not even surprise me if they and the other big manufacturers had a say on implementation timelines. Right now, only the iPhone 17 could conceivably fall under the new regulation.

My comment about MagSafe was just highlighting that Apple can't solely rely on it being the primary method for charging as not everybody uses it, even two and a half years after it was released. It was more of a tongue in cheek comment on my part.

While I appreciate your statement was TIC, Apple has never been shy about abandoning some existing (pretty much) standard hardware in favor of their own way or simply deciding the existing one was no longer relevant. Withness CD-Rom, Floppy Disks, various ports...

 

[MichaelThwaite]

I’ve never believed this rumor. I think the authentication chip is so the iPhone 15 can use MFi lightning accessories that require a handshake. If Apple wanted to limit USB-C charging speeds for non-official cables, they would have started with the iPad.

And the MacBook - that machine can sink over 100W which will actually melt a thin cable. Come to think of it, I'm sort of surprised that don't already have something.

Perhaps they, like Tesla, they detect a voltage drop under load and halt charging?

Does any one know?

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

While I appreciate your statement was TIC, Apple has never been shy about abandoning some existing (pretty much) standard hardware in favor of their own way or simply deciding the existing one was no longer relevant. Withness CD-Rom, Floppy Disks, various ports...

That's true, but if they want to make sure all their iPhone users start using MagSafe, they need to sort out the heating issues and offer chargers at a sensible price point. Buying an £1100+ iPhone and then being required to then further purchase a £59 charger is unreasonable and perhaps one of the reasons MagSafe is not universally popular despite millions having the capability on their phones. I certainly hope regulators get involved should this be forced on us in future, much like the removal of a cabled charger got blocked in Brazil and Apple were then forced to offer a charger as standard. Cost is the issue driving sales down for all manufacturers at the moment and people get easily turned off once accessories are removed and unit prices start creeping up.