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

[Crzyrio]

USB-C already has this functionality. There's no need for Apple to add another mechanism to do the same thing.



Charging a phone is still a very small amount of power, all things considered. Plenty of cheap appliances around your home - toaster, kettle, etc - have up to 100X the power running through them.

A laptop USB-C cable has up to 10X the power of a phone cable, and even there I haven't heard of many users being harmed by faulty cables.

USB-C does not guarantee that the cable can actually handle the power, the only way to guarantee that is by someone looking at the cable construction along with it's components and certifying it.

 

[Crzyrio]

So... every normal USB cable? You are aware that's just fully part of the USB spec.

And if you're afraid of some knock-off USB cables, boy do I have to tell you about knock-off lightning cables.

It's not, I can make a USB cable that says it's capable of 100Amps but melt to pieces past 1Amp. Only way is for someone to actually look at the components and cable construction and say it's ok.

That is the whole point of the Apple Certification lol, so a customer buying it does not have to worry about it.

 

[jlc1978]

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 agree, should Apple go that route they should include a charger with the iPhone. Ideally it could charge the iPhone, iPad, AirPods and Watch.

 

[tripsync]

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.

1. What if Apple doesn't want their superior technology adopted by competitors?
2. Propose does not equal acceptance
3. Substantially hinders the adoption of "superior technology"

Nope. Not a solution.

 

[tripsync]

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.

You misunderstood. I said removing MagSafe is a major design change and is seemingly purely based on your anecdotal experience which I think is very dumb. It's not belittling you, I just think your reasoning for this is dumb. I never said you're dumb.

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

No. I'm showing you my anecdotal experiences is just as worthless as your anecdotal experiences for basis of design changes.

You proposed X change based on your experience.
I propose the opposite based on my experience.
It's a stalemate. So why bring up your own personal experience for the basis of a design change for everyone?

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.

So you're not really "all for having a superior technology". If Apple invented a new superior technology and is proprietary, you wouldn't be **all** for that superior piece of technology.

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.

By your logic, we should be removing MagSafe for MacBooks then, since that's another cable in circulation, right?

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Please provide a source for this statement. The
'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."

Well they did, can you guess who did this? The elected representatives in the parliament sets the agenda for the commission.

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 parlament can't make laws.
The Commission prepares laws and policies transparently, based on evidence and backed up by the views of citizens and stakeholders. This is referred to as Better Regulation.

The real problems (how to pay your electrical bill, the migration problem, etc) are left untouched. Having a USB charging port on al devices is way more important. The only task of a democratic government regarding a free market is making rules, so the playing field is equal to all. So no selling under production price because you can, or pay workers under the minimum wages (yes, we have minimum wages here), comply with safety regulations, etc.

The EU is fully democratic. Everyone is ether elected by you or elected by your representative.

And EU don't have a minimum wage, immigration and how you pay your electric bill is a state iasue, EU can't change that as its not a federation yet.

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.

No, if your phone can charge up to 14w then it doesn't need to implement USB-PD. BUT IF it charges 15w or more then the full USB PD standard must be implemented and supported. So if the phone supports 60w charging then the USB PD would support 60w.

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.

Thera nothing that stopps USB-D to be adapted. How did we go from micro USB to USB C being super common? Micro USB was mandatory in 2009. And it stoped in December 2014. USB c was released in May 2014. How strange.

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

USB C isn't available as a choice. Pick a Samsung galaxy and it will come only with USB c in difrent color flavors.

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.

They aren't paying a TV license for owning a TV. They are funding their independent national news agencies.

We have OTA TV and it's also payed by advertising. The difrence is how you are allowed to advertise. Advertising for tobacco, prescription medicines and firearms are forbidden, as is product placement during news, current affairs, religious and children's programming.

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.

The difrence is the cords are electrically compatible and artificially limited by the port shape and pin numbers. Software on the other hand aren't compatible on any level. That is why if you compare a program written purely for windows, IOS or Android they are fundamentaly different.

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.

This isn't even close to the same and you demonstrate an extraordinary lack of understanding how programs work.

EU isn't even entertaining such an idea because it's not possible to do. Linux can't run windows programs or Mac. And ios can't run android apk's and Android can't run ios apps.

It's not, I can make a USB cable that says it's capable of 100Amps but melt to pieces past 1Amp. Only way is for someone to actually look at the components and cable construction and say it's ok.

That is the whole point of the Apple Certification lol, so a customer buying it does not have to worry about it.

There already exist USB Verification. Never notices then when you use a cable that aren't up to spec that ether the device doesn't charge or charge very slow? A handshake happens that verifies what the USB cable can do.

 

[bsolar]

1. What if Apple doesn't want their superior technology adopted by competitors?

I quote the already posted Q&A from the EU answering about innovation, emphasis mine:

At the same time, the implementation of any new standards in further revisions of Radio Equipment Directive would need to be developed in a harmonised manner, respecting the objectives of full interoperability. Industry is therefore expected to continue the work already undertaken on the standardised interface, led by the USB-IF organisation, in view of developing new interoperable, open and non-controversial solutions.

So Apple can implement said technology in the context of the USB-IF which they are a Board of Directors member, "respecting full interoperability", or forfeit introducing said technology in the EU. The EU has made abundantly clear they don't want proprietary non-interoperable solutions in the market.

2. Propose does not equal acceptance

Obviously? It's a standard, no single contributor can dictate a change to be introduced. I mean, technology is full of such kind of standards and Apple is pretty involved in many of them.

3. Substantially hinders the adoption of "superior technology"

This is pure speculation. Having an industry standard also mean that everyone can profit from the contribution of the others and that further development can profit from the collaboration of many different entities. This might very well end up fostering the development of "superior technology" instead of hindering it.

Nope. Not a solution.

It's not up for you to decide.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

1. What if Apple doesn't want their superior technology adopted by competitors?
2. Propose does not equal acceptance
3. Substantially hinders the adoption of "superior technology"

Nope. Not a solution.

Probably exactly like last time. The requirement will be removed after a few years as its deemed no longer relevant or needed.

And what superior technology? The regulation says nothing about protocols. It's just a port shape. Just as Nintendo uses the USB C port, but it's not USB.
Nothing stops makers from having two ports at the same time. Or having no port at all

 

[Sophisticatednut]

By your logic, we should be removing MagSafe for MacBooks then, since that's another cable in circulation, right?

This is not true. You can have multiple standards used at the same time. The problem that everyone complained about Apple before was that you could only charge with USB c.

But now you can charge with MagSafe or usb-c. Best of both worlds.

 

[bsolar]

By your logic, we should be removing MagSafe for MacBooks then, since that's another cable in circulation, right?

There are reasons other devices are not being regulated. Again, from the Q&A:

Why are other devices not included in the scope of the proposal?

The products covered by the Commission's proposal are among the most used by a large group of consumers and share similar charging characteristics. Other products such as earbuds, smart-watches and fitness trackers were not considered for technical reasons linked to their size, use conditions, etc. The products concerned by the amendment to the Radio Equipment Directive were identified as having a strong potential to integrate the common charging solution and to secure the biggest benefits for consumers and the environment.

 

[bsolar]

And what superior technology? The regulation says nothing about protocols. It's just a port shape. Just as Nintendo uses the USB C port, but it's not USB.

The directive mandates support for the USB Power Delivery standard.

 

[AppliedMicro]

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

It’s better for the environment over the long term.
Not the short where Lightning cables will be discarded - but they won’t be around forever anyway.

but I think that should be something decided by Apple and their customers rather than some bureaucrat.

It should be decided by lawmakers and regulators if the market forces don’t bring about a desirable standard.

Here’s the thing: device makers aren’t on the customer’s side - and neither did they care much about the environment, when they can make money from proprietary chargers and cables.

There’s years of history of mobile phone makers each having their own, proprietary charging connectors - sometimes different ones within the range of their own products.

also that is from a Q&A, not a from the regulation, its not law.

It’s the commission’s Q&A though, which is a pretty

Apple could implement a MiFi standard (…) even just for data. Such an implementation could be fully compliant with the regulation.

and use MiFi to validate the proper cabling; or use MiFi for a very high speed data transfer.

The USB-C spec supports dozens of Gbps as a standardised specification. And alternative modes for DisplayPort and HDMI functionality.

There’s no technical reason for Apple to require an MFi spec to do so - except a huge dick move to extract more money from licensees and ultimately customers by putting it behind a paywall of licensing fees and proprietary cables.

Then again, this is Apple, so it wouldn’t surprise me at all.

The regulation says nothing about protocols. It's just a port shape

The regulation does mandate protocol support.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

You misunderstood. I said removing MagSafe is a major design change and is seemingly purely based on your anecdotal experience which I think is very dumb. It's not belittling you, I just think your reasoning for this is dumb. I never said you're dumb.



No. I'm showing you my anecdotal experiences is just as worthless as your anecdotal experiences for basis of design changes.

You proposed X change based on your experience.
I propose the opposite based on my experience.
It's a stalemate. So why bring up your own personal experience for the basis of a design change for everyone?



So you're not really "all for having a superior technology". If Apple invented a new superior technology and is proprietary, you wouldn't be **all** for that superior piece of technology.



By your logic, we should be removing MagSafe for MacBooks then, since that's another cable in circulation, right?

‘Tongue in cheek’ were the operative words in that post. I wasn’t suggesting MagSafe be removed, just taking the mick out of those who think their method for charging is the same for everybody. You appear to think I am one of those people which suggests you completely missed my point. No issue though, I think this conversation has run its course, at least for me anyway.

 

[0924487]

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 point is, if Chinese manufactures can capture China's luxury car market, which is 40% of global luxury car market, even if they don't sell a single luxury car outside of China, that will still be a massive win. Currently they spend a lot of foreign reserves on imported ICE cars, and imported cars don't provide high paying jobs locally.

Imaging how many rubber duckies they have to export to be able to import a Mercedes.

 

[russell_314]

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".

That’s a lot of word for saying it’s bad if it’s different. If the EU thought it was good to be different they wouldn’t be trying to make USB-C mandatory.

 

[russell_314]

It’s better for the environment over the long term.
Not the short where Lightning cables will be discarded - but they won’t be around forever anyway.

Why is it environmentally better? Are USB-C cables made with more environmentally friendly materials?

It should be decided by lawmakers and regulators if the market forces don’t bring about a desirable standard.

Desirable by who?

Here’s the thing: device makers aren’t on the customer’s side - and neither did they care much about the environment, when they can make money from proprietary chargers and cables.

You really think governments are? 😂

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

The point is, if Chinese manufactures can capture China's luxury car market, which is 40% of global luxury car market, even if they don't sell a single luxury car outside of China, that will still be a massive win. Currently they spend a lot of foreign reserves on imported ICE cars, and imported cars don't provide high paying jobs locally.

Imaging how many rubber duckies they have to export to be able to import a Mercedes.

There’s a big demand for European brands in China though and that’s something that will take a long time to go away. Luxury car makers like Land Rover, BMW and Volvo have moved some production to China to satisfy the market there and also for Australia etc so your comment isn’t entirely correct. Sure if carmakers lose the Chinese market and they are happy with their own brands, cars in the rest of the world will suddenly become a lot more expensive, especially in the US where they pay about 40% more than Europe for brands like Audi, BMW and Mercedes.

 

[bsolar]

That’s a lot of word for saying it’s bad if it’s different. If the EU thought it was good to be different they wouldn’t be trying to make USB-C mandatory.

That's because the issue is far more nuanced than a very superficial and simplistic "it's bad if it's different". On one side standards are useful, on the other mandating them is a pretty invasive measure. That's the reason they performed multiple impact assessments, cost/benefit analysis and resorted to mandating the standard only after years of observation.

 

[bsolar]

Why is it environmentally better? Are USB-C cables made with more environmentally friendly materials?

The impact assessment report documents the estimate environmental benefits. Actually it does that not only for the solution which became part of the directive, but for 5 different solutions which were evaluated.

Annex 4 of said report documents the analytical methods used to calculate the estimated environmental impact.

Desirable by who?

Again, the proposal was pushed forward by the EU Commission and ratified by the EU Parliament. Both are institution democratically elected by the citizens of the EU and acting on behalf of the citizens of the EU.

You really think governments are? 😂

In theory they are just as in theory private companies are mainly concerned in making profits. Whether they are in practice depends of course, but their raison d'etre is fundamentally different.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Why is it environmentally better? Are USB-C cables made with more environmentally friendly materials?

Probably not. That said, I am using one USB-C cable to charge my laptop, my mouse, my digital camera and my iPad - and connect them to an external display occasionally.

I need less cables due to standardisation, compared to every one of these devices using a different connector.

Desirable by who?

Requiring less different cables is desirable from the economic standpoint of a consumer and the environment.
The forced migration from Lightning to USB-C clearly is not (quote the contrary!) - but that's transitory.

You really think governments are?

I know that broad government bashing is en vogue on this forum, but: more than billion dollar companies like smartphone manufacturers, yes.

 

[makitango]

My point is just because the government can do something doesn't mean they should do it. Some people want the government to force companies to make decisions and do things they want them to do. Just because someone wants something doesn't mean there's justification for legal force. I think for the most part when governments force companies do things that are out of their scope that aren't relevant to protecting consumers or the environment, then it stifles innovation. If the iPhone was electrocuting people, then that's where the government should come in and force Apple to fix the problem because it's a danger. If the iPhone was leaking toxic chemicals, then it's harming the environment so if something needs to be done.

If the EU forced Apple to do this when Lightning came out, iPhones would have micro USB today. Can you imagine the big 💩 that would be

Yes. It would be big poo just because the connector would only look in one way. Right.
Everyone would still use one cable, which is the point. Anyone asking you or you asking anyone would have the same fitting cable. Such a bad thing.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

The directive mandates support for the USB Power Delivery standard.

My bad, I mean that they are electrically compatible and have one fallback standard.

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 commission is the ones who wrote the law...

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?

Yes a handshake happens before charging that determines what the cable can do.

Otherwise cables everywhere would constantly melt and burn.

The regulation does mandate protocol support.

Wel my bad. But it's not the only protocol as multiple can exist in parallel without any taking extra space compared to a mandatory port shape.

That’s a lot of word for saying it’s bad if it’s different. If the EU thought it was good to be different they wouldn’t be trying to make USB-C mandatory.

Wrong, it's not the difrences but the lack of compatability the have a problem with with no advantage.

Just take our electric outlets. They are all difrent but completely interoperability

 

[makitango]

It's never bad to ban an illegal product. There's no point in having rules, if they aren't enforced.

Whether a product is declared illegal or not is not relevant to its classification as good or bad.
Look at countries who banned a plethora of products, services and access to information.

What should be clear here is that Apple runs 90% of its products on USB-C and the most influential one on Lightning while offering only shortcomings with the standard, and despite all the time, could not improve upon it but switched to USB-C on every other product where data and charging speeds are relevant because they failed to come up with a solution of their own.

So much for Apple on innovating on ports.

 

[tripsync]

The EU has made abundantly clear they don't want proprietary non-interoperable solutions in the market.

I think you just proved my point. High vertical integration among Apple products is superior to interoperable solutions among third party.

Obviously? It's a standard, no single contributor can dictate a change to be introduced.

Proving my point even more.

This is pure speculation. Having an industry standard also mean that everyone can profit from the contribution of the others and that further development can profit from the collaboration of many different entities. This might very well end up fostering the development of "superior technology" instead of hindering it.

Not pure speculation. It's obvious new proprietary tech can be implemented faster when they're not worrying about adoption by third parties.

It's not up for you to decide.

You missed the argument. If Apple cannot create a superior port, your statement about them having a chance is false.

 

[tripsync]

Probably exactly like last time. The requirement will be removed after a few years as its deemed no longer relevant or needed.

Sounds like this was a pointless overreach by EU then.

And what superior technology? The regulation says nothing about protocols. It's just a port shape. Just as Nintendo uses the USB C port, but it's not USB.
Nothing stops makers from having two ports at the same time. Or having no port at all

Two physical ports on an iPhone? That negates the need for any sort of superior solution. Imagine MagSafe 4 where it's thinner than USB-C and can be used on MacBooks/iPads/Watches/iPhones/Apple TV Remote/Mice/Keyboard/Trackpads/Pencils/AR. What's the point in including it in the iPhone if the iPhone must also have a usb-c port right next to the MagSafe 4 port?