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

[tripsync]

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.

The point was reducing cable circulation. MagSafe for MacBook increases cable circulation.

 

[tripsync]

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

read the reason the person gave: "Ultimately it will reduce the amount of cables in circulation in the longterm."

MagSafe for MacBook literally increases cables in circulation.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

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

No. It's the impact of having multiple cables uneserarely. As you can read in the paper providing evidence they know what they are talking about.

Desirable by who?

 73% of EU citizens believed that users of different electronic devices need to have multiple chargers which occupy space and may lead to confusion to be a serious problem, while 26% of respondents described this as a minor problem. Only 1% of did not consider it a problem.

 EU citizens also indicated that it can be difficult to find a suitable charger when away from home, with 64% considering this a serious problem and 35% a minor issue.

 Having multiple chargers taking up space or generating confusion in the household was considered a serious problem by 58% of respondents, while 39% considered this a minor problem. This was not deemed an issue by only 2% of respondents.

You really think governments are? 😂

Yes they are evidently if they represent the electorate.

 

[Crzyrio]

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.

You are missing the point, anyone can make a USB-Cable that during the handshake says it is capable of 100W, but that does not mean the physical construction of the cable and it's components can handle 100W.

The whole point behind the Apple 'Certified' is that you can trust the product more so then any random product of the internet. The assumption is Apple has done the work to make sure that those cable are built to a standard that is safe to use within the limits of the device.

 

[tripsync]

It’s better for the environment over the long term.

Not when there's USB-C cable confusion and constant updates to the spec.

Lightning hasn't really changed since inception. Cables shipped with iPhone 5 work pretty much the same way. Sure they're slow USB2.0 speeds, but that just pushes users to use wireless solutions like AirDrop and AirPlay, reducing the need to buy a brand new Lightning with USB4 speeds.

Not the short where Lightning cables will be discarded - but they won’t be around forever anyway.

Billions of functional cables going to the trash much faster than just dying a natural death. Billions of lightning accessories going to the trash at an accelerated pace too.

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

Subjective.

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.

No. Here's the thing: device makers build what they think is value into their products and customers vote with their dollars. That's how it always have worked. If Apple continues to use lightning for the next 30 years, it's up to the customers to vote with their wallets to tell Apple "i'm not cool with lightning anymore".

 

[tripsync]

‘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.

Sounds like you finally understood my point. Great! Have a good one. 👋

 

[bsolar]

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

Not necessarily. It has it advantages, but the lack of interoperability is a disadvantage. The EU considers interoperability more important than this particular kind of vertical integration, which is a perfectly reasonable position even if you happen to disagree with it.

Proving my point even more.

Your point seems to be that proprietary solutions have advantages. Nobody questions that, but you cannot conveniently forget that they also have disadvantages and whether they are better or worse than an industry standard depends on a costs/benefits analysis.

The EU made said cost/benefit analysis and decided that having a standard brings more benefits than allowing proprietary solutions.

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 also obvious that multiple industry-leaders joining forces to develop a standard solution can bring more to the table than a single vendor going forward with their own solution.

Again, proprietary solutions have their advantages but also its disadvantages just like industry standards have their advantages and also disadvantages.

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

You missed the argument that Apple can create a superior port, as long as they do it in a "harmonised manner, respecting the objectives of full interoperability". It's not difficult, they are part of the very organization that works at the new USB specifications and in a leading position at that.

Note that this already happened. Apple was one of the main contributors in the design of USB-C. This is what Apple wrote when announcing the MacBook 2015:

To create a notebook as thin and light as the new MacBook, we had to strive for efficiency in every detail, right down to how it connects to peripherals and power. So we contributed to a new universal connectivity standard that combines the essential functions you need every day in one dynamic port. The amazing USB-C port offers charging, quick USB 3 data transfer for connecting to external devices and peripherals, and video output that supports HDMI, VGA, and DisplayPort connections. All in a small, reversible design that's one-third the size of the current USB port. Incredibly portable. With one amazing port.

So there is no reason to believe they won't keep contributing to the standard for the benefit of all.

 

[bsolar]

read the reason the person gave: "Ultimately it will reduce the amount of cables in circulation in the longterm."

MagSafe for MacBook literally increases cables in circulation.

Again, the impact analysis is fully documented including the scientific methodology used to calculate the estimates.

edit: MacBook is not part of the regulation, so totally irrelevant to the discussion and the reason why MacBooks are not part of the regulation is explained above. They are regulated from 2026 but all already comply so still basically unaffected by the regulation.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

The point was reducing cable circulation. MagSafe for MacBook increases cable circulation.

No the point isn't to reduce cables in circulation. The paper list multiple reasons and cable circulation isn't one of them.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Not when there's USB-C cable confusion and constant updates to the spec.

USB-C cables aren't rocket science. And you can easily solve that issue by giving the user a firmware warning if a cable doesn't meet the transfer speed spec, for example (no, you don't need any proprietary certification to do so).

Side note: Apple is among the worse culprits of confusing customers with their marketing of their own USB2.0 charge cables as "ideal for charging, syncing, and transferring data between USB-C devices" (while explicity listing MacBooks as compatible).

Billions of functional cables going to the trash much faster than just dying a natural death. Billions of lightning accessories going to the trash at an accelerated pace too.

Apple won't keep Lightning forever anyway.
And over the long term fewer proprietary charging cables will go the landfill.

Subjective

Absolutely.

And I personally agree that standardisation with them is good - even though I did prefer Lightning connectors for their physical design over USB-C. But they've been getting long in the tooth anyway.

And so did the European parliament agree.

No. Here's the thing: device makers build what they think is value into their products and customers vote with their dollars.

No. Here's the thing: Customers can't and vote with their dollars on every single feature and spec a mobile phone has.

If you're building the greatest smartphone in the world but with an expensive proprietary connector, customers will buy it anyways - cause they manufacturer can get away with it. They usually won't even factor in a $20 or so price difference in charger prices into their buying decision.

If you force that manufacturer to standardise on a less expensive connector type, that is for the benefit of consumers.

That's how it always have worked. If Apple continues to use lightning for the next 30 years, it's up to the customers to vote with their wallets to tell Apple "i'm not cool with lightning anymore".

There's enough of them on this forum along - and yet the keep buying Apple's phones. Apple just gets away with it - no wonder, given how little competition (and how much vendor lock-in) there is among mobile phone OS.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Sounds like this was a pointless overreach by EU then.

Why? It didn't fulfill the goals after it was removed so they made a difrent regulation with evidence to support 5 possible solutions.

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?

MagSafe isn't a port but wireless and completely fine. You don't need to have a port. Or they can offer a superior solution open solution instead of a proprietary solution as stated by the commission. The law will be fully reviewed in 2028 or earlier if needed.

You are missing the point, anyone can make a USB-Cable that during the handshake says it is capable of 100W, but that does not mean the physical construction of the cable and it's components can handle 100W.

The whole point behind the Apple 'Certified' is that you can trust the product more so then any random product of the internet. The assumption is Apple has done the work to make sure that those cable are built to a standard that is safe to use within the limits of the device.

Anyone can make a cable and that includes MFI cables. And it's already illegal to sell such things in EU, and hopefully in USA as well for false product
Every USB cable is verified by USB-IF, exactly like MFI by Apple.

If you build a USB c cable that says it can handle 100w but it can in reality only handle 10w then it's not a USB cable and can't legally be sold as such because it's not within specifications.

Not when there's USB-C cable confusion and constant updates to the spec.

All USB-C cables must be able to carry a minimum of 3 A current (at 20 V, 60 W)

Lightning hasn't really changed since inception. Cables shipped with iPhone 5 work pretty much the same way. Sure they're slow USB2.0 speeds, but that just pushes users to use wireless solutions like AirDrop and AirPlay, reducing the need to buy a brand new Lightning with USB4 speeds.

Wireless is extremely slow and why would you push people to use airdrop(5-10% Mac market?) and even wifi 5(AC) isn't faster than usb 2 unless you glue your phone to the router.

Billions of functional cables going to the trash much faster than just dying a natural death. Billions of lightning accessories going to the trash at an accelerated pace too.

Nope, Thera still a major market with 5 plus years of lightning equipped iPhones.

Or would you say lightning should never be replaced and just grow the pile forever?

Again, the impact analysis is fully documented including the scientific methodology used to calculate the estimates. MacBook is not part of the regulation, so totally irrelevant to the discussion and the reason why MacBooks are not part of the regulation is explained above.

Actually macbook/ computers are part of the legislation. But aren't required untill 2026.

And every single apple computer already complies and have done so for year.

 

[tripsync]

Not necessarily. It has it advantages, but the lack of interoperability is a disadvantage. The EU considers interoperability more important than this particular kind of vertical integration,

That's where EU is overstepping.

which is a perfectly reasonable position

may as well force all software to be compiled into ARM architecture while we're at it. and then force all software releases to be compatible with iPhones and Android for mobile, Mac and Windows for desktop apps. games should be available for all Switch/Xbox/Playstation consoles as well as PCs. oh and all switch hardware should work on all devices. oh and Tesla cars too since now you can play games in the car now.

why should a person buying one console be stuck with only one set of software/hardware, right? if you switch consoles, you have to buy all new controllers and new software for example.

talk about interoperability...

Your point seems to be that proprietary solutions have advantages. Nobody questions that, but you cannot conveniently forget that they also have disadvantages and whether they are better or worse than an industry standard depends on a costs/benefits analysis.

The EU made said cost/benefit analysis and decided that having a standard brings more benefits than allowing proprietary solutions.

see above.

It's also obvious that multiple industry-leaders joining forces to develop a standard solution can bring more to the table than a single vendor going forward with their own solution.

Again, proprietary solutions have their advantages but also its disadvantages just like industry standards have their advantages and also disadvantages.

And that should be up to the vendor to decide to adopt.

You missed the argument that Apple can create a superior port, as long as they do it in a "harmonised manner, respecting the objectives of full interoperability".

It's not difficult, they are part of the very organization that works at the new USB specifications and in a leading position at that.

Which makes them less competitive. Why spend $100M in R&D into a new charging idea when the port will also give competitors the same tech? It's like giving away the MagSafe idea for laptops which people love.

Note that this already happened. Apple was one of the main contributors in the design of USB-C. This is what Apple wrote when announcing the MacBook 2015:

So there is no reason to believe they won't keep contributing to the standard for the benefit of all.

Superiority also includes simplicity and ease of use. USB-C has a headache of many different flavors so it's obviously more confusing than just using lightning.

Also, USB-C doesn't give Apple any competitive advantage. But if you look at, say MagSafe for iPhone, there are some ways it's a competitive advantage and superior over Qi charging, therefore Apple can afford to spend extra tens to hundreds of millions in R&D to help differentiate their phones against competitors, even if it's just exclusive for a few years as we've seen Apple submit these advantages to the Qi consortium.

 

[tripsync]

Again, the impact analysis is fully documented including the scientific methodology used to calculate the estimates.

edit: MacBook is not part of the regulation, so totally irrelevant to the discussion and the reason why MacBooks are not part of the regulation is explained above. They are regulated from 2026 but all already comply so still basically unaffected by the regulation.

Again: the reasoning given was for reduction of cables in circulation. If that was the reason, they would have forced the drop of MagSafe from laptops too.

And the impact analysis is misleading. It explains increased efficiency for marketing proprietary ports. But Apple would gladly market proprietary technology such as MagSafe iPhone charging to differentiate the product, increasing competitiveness.

The reduction in ewaste is misguided too.
- Acceleration of lightning's death makes billions of perfectly functional cables useless.
- It's a possibility that Apple would have waited until the time was right to go portless. But now an accelerated lightning death means people will throw lightning out AND if apple decided to go portless a few years after introducing USB-C, it's more than likely people will throw out USB-C cables too after hundreds of millions of USB-C cables sold even factoring in other devices that use USB-C.

 

[tripsync]

No the point isn't to reduce cables in circulation. The paper list multiple reasons and cable circulation isn't one of them.

This is exactly why you don't jump into conversations without reading it entirely. The-Real-Deal82 stated the reason "Ultimately it will reduce the amount of cables in circulation in the longterm.". I disagreed and gave my reason.

You're talking about something else. Read the thread entirely next time before jumping in.

 

[tripsync]

USB-C cables aren't rocket science. And you can easily solve that issue by giving the user a firmware warning if a cable doesn't meet the transfer speed spec, for example (no, you don't need any proprietary certification to do so).

Popping up any error message saying X USB-C cable doesn't work, get Y USB-C cable is rocket science to 70 year olds.

Side note: Apple is among the worse culprits of confusing customers with their marketing of their own USB2.0 charge cables as "ideal for charging, syncing, and transferring data between USB-C devices" (while explicity listing MacBooks as compatible).

Ideal does not mean best. Off topic anyways.

Apple won't keep Lightning forever anyway.
And over the long term fewer proprietary charging cables will go the landfill.

Plan could have been to go portless. But now you're throwing lightning and usb-c cables in to the trash when Apple goes portless. Sure you could keep USB-C cables because it's multifunctional, but let's not pretend that there will be plenty of non-tech people throwing USB-C cables in the trash. Increased landfill over just going from lightning to portless.

Absolutely.

And I personally agree that standardisation with them is good - even though I did prefer Lightning connectors for their physical design over USB-C. But they've been getting long in the tooth anyway.

And so did the European parliament agree.

And EU shouldn't be making these subjective decisions. That should be a market decision.

No. Here's the thing: Customers can't and vote with their dollars on every single feature and spec a mobile phone has.

They shouldn't anyways. Otherwise we would have seen iPhones with flash support which would have been a TERRIBLE decision.

If you're building the greatest smartphone in the world but with an expensive proprietary connector, customers will buy it anyways - cause they manufacturer can get away with it. They usually won't even factor in a $20 or so price difference in charger prices into their buying decision.

If you force that manufacturer to standardise on a less expensive connector type, that is for the benefit of consumers.

By that logic, EU should force Google Cast and AirPlay into one protocol so that any AirPlay or Google Cast TV will receive mirroring from a device. That way you don't have to dump one TV if it only supported one casting protocol.

EU should allow any voice assistant to be installed in an Alexa device since that benefits the user considering they won't have to replace 10 Alexa devices to switch to Google assistant (reduce ewaste!).

EU should force microsoft and playstation to allow games and hardware to be run on either platform since their architectures are similar so the user doesn't have to rebuy a lot of things when they switch.

This is crazy.

Apple just gets away with it

Nope, that's competition at work. That's how it should be. If you don't like it, you don't buy the device and buy a viable alternative instead. Enough people taking their money away from Apple will force Apple to make the change. "Greatest smartphone" is still subjective and as long as you keep giving Apple your money, you're telling Apple what they're doing is ok.

You should absolutely not be able to dictate one or two particular things you didn't like from a product and force gov to change it. "Hey EU, ban IAP from all free games. That'll greatly benefit the customer and decrease scams." is ridiculous.

 

[bsolar]

That's where EU is overstepping.

Everyone is entitled their opinion, even if they are wrong.

may as well force all software to be compiled into ARM architecture while we're at it. and then force all software releases to be compatible with iPhones and Android for mobile, Mac and Windows for desktop apps. games should be available for all Switch/Xbox/Playstation consoles as well as PCs. oh and all switch hardware should work on all devices. oh and Tesla cars too since now you can play games in the car now.

I doubt it does, but if the cost/analysis of advantages and disadvantages supports those measures, why not? I am not aware of any such study though.

And that should be up to the vendor to decide to adopt.

It is absolutely within the rights of the EU, or any jurisdiction, to regulate its market including imposing regulations. Like in every jurisdictions, if a company that wants to do business there has to abide to the rules. If Apple doesn't like the rules they can appeal them if there is an appeal process (there is in the EU) or leave that particular market: nobody is forcing them to do business in any jurisdiction.

Which makes them less competitive. Why spend $100M in R&D into a new charging idea when the port will also give competitors the same tech? It's like giving away the MagSafe idea for laptops which people love.

They will have to deal with that. As said, there are advantages and disadvantages. Not being able to push for a proprietary solution has disadvantages, but having an industry standard that foster interoperability also has advantages.

Ultimately the EU did survey what the EU citizens wanted and the EU citizens also will have to deal with the consequences of their choices. From the impact assessment report:

Should the EU take further action for mobile phones chargers?

There seems to be strong consensus among EU citizens on the need for a universal charger model. A 63% majority was in favour of the EU exercising its regulatory power to mandate a charger standard, whilst 31% considered that the EU should promote an industry-wide agreement.

Superiority also includes simplicity and ease of use. USB-C has a headache of many different flavors so it's obviously more confusing than just using lightning.

No, it is not "obviously more confusing". Everyone and their dog use USB-C: iPhones will become simply another device that use the port everything else already uses. I mean, even within Apple's own ecosystem iPads use USB-C, why would it confuse an Apple user?

Also, USB-C doesn't give Apple any competitive advantage. But if you look at, say MagSafe for iPhone, there are some ways it's a competitive advantage and superior over Qi charging, therefore Apple can afford to spend extra tens to hundreds of millions in R&D to help differentiate their phones against competitors, even if it's just exclusive for a few years as we've seen Apple submit these advantages to the Qi consortium.

Again from the Q&A:

In addition, larger technological developments are expected in the area of wireless charging, which is still a developing technology with a low level of market fragmentation. In order to allow innovation in this field, the proposal does not set specific technical requirements for wireless charging. Therefore, manufacturers remain free to include any wireless charging solution in their products alongside the wired charging via the USB-C port.

Basically, for now wireless charging will not be regulated and the regulators recognize the advantages of giving companies free reign until the technology matures. Again, the regulators do have to balance advantages and disadvantages and do so on a case-by-case basis.

Said that, when the technology will be deemed mature enough, you can bet there will be a push toward establishing an industry standard and if necessary regulation to impose one.

 

[tripsync]

Why? It didn't fulfill the goals after it was removed so they made a difrent regulation with evidence to support 5 possible solutions.

It looks to me EU doesn't know what they're doing.

MagSafe isn't a port but wireless and completely fine. You don't need to have a port. Or they can offer a superior solution open solution instead of a proprietary solution as stated by the commission. The law will be fully reviewed in 2028 or earlier if needed.

MagSafe is growing in adoption but not enough to go portless yet. But now because of the EU, customers must buy USB-C cables which distracts from MagSafe adoption, whereas people before likely had a surplus of lightning cables and had money to spend on a MagSafe solution. This throws a wrench into Apple's plans of going portless.

All USB-C cables must be able to carry a minimum of 3 A current (at 20 V, 60 W)

And? You're telling me there is zero confusion? I literally unknowingly brought a 60W USB-C cable to my trip and my MacBook is constantly draining down to 0% during heavy load. I'm planning to throw these and every single 60W cable so that next time I won't have this issue when I grab a USB-C cable from my box. And these cables aren't even labeled properly.

Wireless is extremely slow and why would you push people to use airdrop(5-10% Mac market?) and even wifi 5(AC) isn't faster than usb 2 unless you glue your phone to the router.

uh no. USB2.0 real world speeds give me about 30MB/sec. I just transferred 800MB via airdrop to my MacBook in 10 seconds. AirDrop is peer to peer, no router needed so I don't know what you mean by "glue your phone to the router".

Nope, Thera still a major market with 5 plus years of lightning equipped iPhones.

Didn't say overnight. I said at an accelerated pace.

Or would you say lightning should never be replaced and just grow the pile forever?

No.

Apple should introduce portless iPhone when they believe lightning should be replaced. Rather than force customers to dump lightning and then force them to dump USB-C after selling millions of USB-C cables when they release the portless phone. Even those who keep USB-C for other devices, there's no question many will still dump their USB-C cables if they bought a portless phone.

There's a downward demand for lightning cables. You're restarting that demand with USB-C. And USB4 is restarting that trend for the current USB-C demand.

 

[tripsync]

Everyone is entitled their opinion, even if they are wrong.

I am giving my opinion. It's subjective, so I can't be wrong or right as it is just an opinion not stated or represented as a fact.

I doubt it does, but if the cost/analysis of advantages and disadvantages supports those measures, why not?

"Why not?" wow. And that's where I'm done. 👋 Have a good one!

 

[Sophisticatednut]

That's where EU is overstepping.

And what basis?

may as well force all software to be compiled into ARM architecture while we're at it. and then force all software releases to be compatible with iPhones and Android for mobile, Mac and Windows for desktop apps. games should be available for all Switch/Xbox/Playstation consoles as well as PCs. oh and all switch hardware should work on all devices. oh and Tesla cars too since now you can play games in the car now.

Why? This isn't even possible to do and not even equivalent. It's like demanding a gasoline car should be able to use diesel.

Must everything be interoperable or nothing at all?

why should a person buying one console be stuck with only one set of software/hardware, right? if you switch consoles, you have to buy all new controllers and new software for example.

Why must a gasoline car only use gasoline? Why can't they use diesel?

It's simply not relevant or possibl.

Which makes them less competitive. Why spend $100M in R&D into a new charging idea when the port will also give competitors the same tech? It's like giving away the MagSafe idea for laptops which people love.

That's not EU's problem as they manage the market. Why can't McDonald's sell the same food in EU as in the usa? Why can't tesla use their American charging port in EU?

The port isn't competitive, it's just a means of locking user in their market. Just as airpods, magic mouse or keyboard using lighting to charge isn't a competitive advantage.

Superiority also includes simplicity and ease of use. USB-C has a headache of many different flavors so it's obviously more confusing than just using lightning.

The minimum usb c to USB C cable standard is equivalent to lightning. So it's better

Also, USB-C doesn't give Apple any competitive advantage. But if you look at, say MagSafe for iPhone, there are some ways it's a competitive advantage and superior over Qi charging, therefore Apple can afford to spend extra tens to hundreds of millions in R&D to help differentiate their phones against competitors, even if it's just exclusive for a few years as we've seen Apple submit these advantages to the Qi consortium.

Of course the usb-c gives apple a competitive advantage as they now can implement thunderbolt or superior protocols

Again: the reasoning given was for reduction of cables in circulation. If that was the reason, they would have forced the drop of MagSafe from laptops too.

Why? It's not a 0% or 100% decision

The reduction in ewaste is misguided too.
- Acceleration of lightning's death makes billions of perfectly functional cables useless.

Nope, the cables can still be used with existing iPhones

- It's a possibility that Apple would have waited until the time was right to go portless. But now an accelerated lightning death means people will throw lightning out AND if apple decided to go portless a few years after introducing USB-C, it's more than likely people will throw out USB-C cables too after hundreds of millions of USB-C cables sold even factoring in other devices that use USB-C.

Nope, because contrary to lightning, usb-c have a wider usage. Charge your computer, ssd, docks and charging cameras, remotes, keyboards, headsets, powerbanks etc etc. So the day the iphone goes portles you will have thousands of equipment that have use of usb c.

Because this regulation covers everything that uses or csn use usb to charge will be forced to use usb c.

This is exactly why you don't jump into conversations without reading it entirely. The-Real-Deal82 stated the reason "Ultimately it will reduce the amount of cables in circulation in the longterm.". I disagreed and gave my reason.

You're talking about something else. Read the thread entirely next time before jumping in.

I did, he was just wrong hence why I pointed to the correct information. You just took it to an illogical conclusion.

Mandating usb c being used to reduce e-waste because of micro usb and lightning that are single use cables.

We must remove all cables that aren't usb c... makes absolutely zero sence

You can target a 20% reduction instead of a 100%.

 

[darngooddesign]

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.

Apple did improve it with USB3.0 on the last Lighting iPad Pros, but even still they didn't use the faster lighting on any iPhone. So yeah, Apple failed to innovate by not improving Lightning or even coming up with a successor to Lightning.

 

[tripsync]

And what basis?

EU Parliament is a government body and they should not be dictating what is a design decision. While EU isn't allowed to force one particular company to adopt a standard, effectively they are with this law since Apple seems to be the only hold out.

Why? This isn't even possible to do and not even equivalent. It's like demanding a gasoline car should be able to use diesel.

Or you mean all gas cars should be electric which is literally what EU is doing. Lol?

Must everything be interoperable or nothing at all?

No but if you're advocating for a standardized charging port, people who advocate for Google Assistant in Alexa devices should be able to get that too. Why do you get a standardized piece of technology but we don't?

Why must a gasoline car only use gasoline? Why can't they use diesel?

It's simply not relevant or possibl.

Actually a gas car must be electric. EU is mandating this. So complain all you want.

That's not EU's problem as they manage the market.

EXACTLY so it's not EU's problem to mandate USB-C. Keeping iPhone on lightning allows returning customers to spend their extra dollars on MagSafe accessories. But nope, they now must buy extra USB-C cables. Thanks for agreeing with me.

The port isn't competitive, it's just a means of locking user in their market. Just as airpods, magic mouse or keyboard using lighting to charge isn't a competitive advantage.

USB-C mandate distracts from MagSafe adoption which is a competitive advantage.

The minimum usb c to USB C cable standard is equivalent to lightning. So it's better

Nope. For one, all MFi cables have a level of overvoltage/overcurrent protection. Not all USB-C cables offer overvoltage/overcurrent protection (USB-IF cables do, but that's not part of the minimum). You're wrong.

Of course the usb-c gives apple a competitive advantage as they now can implement thunderbolt or superior protocols

So does everyone else with USB-C. If everyone has the same competitive advantage, it's not a competitive advantage. Nope.

Why? It's not a 0% or 100% decision

Ask the person who made that assertion.

Nope, the cables can still be used with existing iPhones

Acceleration does not mean overnight.

Nope, because contrary to lightning, usb-c have a wider usage. Charge your computer, ssd, docks and charging cameras, remotes, keyboards, headsets, powerbanks etc etc. So the day the iphone goes portles you will have thousands of equipment that have use of usb c.

You missed the part about " even factoring in other devices that use USB-C."

Because this regulation covers everything that uses or csn use usb to charge will be forced to use usb c.

I did, he was just wrong hence why I pointed to the correct information. You just took it to an illogical conclusion.

No. I'm responding to that assertion. You're continuing on under that premise.

Mandating usb c being used to reduce e-waste because of micro usb and lightning that are single use cables.

I don't know what you mean by single use cables. Lightning also carries data.

We must remove all cables that aren't usb c... makes absolutely zero sence

Nope.

You can target a 20% reduction instead of a 100%.

Don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

It looks to me EU doesn't know what they're doing.

They do if you read the 137 page document laying out exactly what they want to do and the consiqensese of the solution it have parlament to vote on. Including what citizens think/want and why. And what the manufacturers want and the economic and environmental impact.

And acording to the data consumers want this change overwhelmingly.

MagSafe is growing in adoption but not enough to go portless yet. But now because of the EU, customers must buy USB-C cables which distracts from MagSafe adoption, whereas people before likely had a surplus of lightning cables and had money to spend on a MagSafe solution. This throws a wrench into Apple's plans of going portless.

MagSafe is 2%~ and irrelevant because the cable is still better.

And ignores the fact a cable is already included in the box and most people have USB c cables already/ or will when 100% of everything else uses it.

And? You're telling me there is zero confusion? I literally unknowingly brought a 60W USB-C cable to my trip and my MacBook is constantly draining down to 0% during heavy load. I'm planning to throw these and every single 60W cable so that next time I won't have this issue when I grab a USB-C cable from my box. And these cables aren't even labeled properly.

In relation to iPhones and everything that will be covered along side it as we talk about in the conversation? Nope.

uh no. USB2.0 real world speeds give me about 30MB/sec. I just transferred 800MB via airdrop to my MacBook in 10 seconds. AirDrop is peer to peer, no router needed so I don't know what you mean by "glue your phone to the router".

Real world speeds? wifi AC do not have 800Mb/s. It have 433 Mb/s. And I mean you must be close to the receiver to maximize the speed. And it should take your cable ~3 seconds to do what your wifi did in 10 seconds.

USB 2.0 have 320 Mb/s. And You can't mix MB and Mb as they are different.
80 Mb/s = 9.5MB/s
320 Mb/s= 40MB/s
433 Mb/s= 54MB/S
800Mb =95MB

Close to nobody can use airdrop considering nobody have macs comparatively speaking
And usb 3 is much faster

Didn't say overnight. I said at an accelerated pace.

Then what's the issue? Sooner the better if you want to minimize amount of sold lightning cables.

No.

Apple should introduce portless iPhone when they believe lightning should be replaced. Rather than force customers to dump lightning and then force them to dump USB-C after selling millions of USB-C cables when they release the portless phone. Even those who keep USB-C for other devices, there's no question many will still dump their USB-C cables if they bought a portless phone.

Nobody will dump their USB c cables as there are hundreds of other devices that charge with it.

There's a downward demand for lightning cables. You're restarting that demand with USB-C. And USB4 is restarting that trend for the current USB-C demand.

Usb4 isn't restarting anything, it's just USB-c
Just as thunderbolt 3/4 is usb-c, displayport 2.0 is usb c etc

 

[makitango]

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.

That is what the CE certification is about, which is all the security seals you need. MFI is just a construct in your mind that Apple put in there.

 

[AppliedMicro]

may as well force all software to be compiled

The legislation is specifically limited to physical charging of electronic devices.
You’re making up a straw man argument with your “all software” statement.

Ideal does not mean best

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/ideal

They literally provide the definition of “best possible”.

Off topic anyways.

It’s absolutely on topic in the context of Apple products.

Apple are demonstrably not caring or actively misleading their customers on USB-C cables. Which casts doubt on the argument that MFi certification required by Apple would reduce confusion about cables for customers.

Plan could have been to go portless

Now would be the best time!?
To be clear, the EU doesn’t require a device to have a physical charging port.

By that logic, EU should force Google Cast and AirPlay into one protocol so that any AirPlay or Google Cast TV will receive mirroring from a device

The EU is mandating a technology under very specific circumstances and providing clear reasoning for that. It’s the straw man again.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

Lightning hasn't really changed since inception. Cables shipped with iPhone 5 work pretty much the same way. Sure they're slow USB2.0 speeds, but that just pushes users to use wireless solutions like AirDrop and AirPlay, reducing the need to buy a brand new Lightning with USB4 speeds.

Wireless is great for the tiny number of iPhone users that use Macs but not for those transferring data to non-Apple computers. When you’re transferring 200+ pictures and videos, Airdropping to a PC is very difficult.