Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
EU Warns Apple About Limiting Speeds of Uncertified USB-C Cables for iPhones
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'll try to explain this calmly again since you apparently somehow reacted strongly last time.
It is entirely possible that the EU will regulate which software should be available on which device in the future. I'm not saying it will happen or that they even have an intention of doing that: I'm saying that in the right context, they would have the authority to do that. Everything depends on the situation and that's why you cannot say "since they are doing this with charging ports they should do it with everything else".
Take as example Microsoft and the requirement to offer to the user competing browsers besides IE in their OS. It's a private company, wanting to vertically integrate their offers, but regulators decided that it was in the best interests of consumers to mandate them to offer third-party software they would definitely otherwise not offer. In the US they were prohibited from bundling IE, which is similarly mandating decisions Microsoft would have otherwise not made.
This is nothing new or nothing special and regulators have this power, but they don't just use it "on a whim": it requires a legal basis and significant enough rationale for the regulator to intervene in the market so invasively, as the body of documentation attached to this directive attests.
That's why they decided to regulate charging ports but not (yet) Alexa: in one case they determined the rationale warrant intervention, in the other not (yet).
Last edited:
They aren't, the commission is the one who did it as they are the experts. And yes they are allowed to target a single company.
But Apple isn't the only holdout. There are plenty of phones and devices that still use micro USB or proprietary charging protocols that forces users to only use the manufacturers EPS.
Apple is actually using USB-PD.
No they aren't a gas car can't be electric. That would be an electric vehicle unless you mean.
The vast majority of u citizens want it as demonstrated . And do you know if EU is against people advocating to have the ability to use Google assistant on their Alexa devises?
That makes zero sence. Or you mean cars must be electric and Banning combustion engine cars? Nothing is forced to be interoperable.
It is as its their market. It's not EU's problem that Apple wants customers to spend more money on MagSafe. If Apple sells less acesories or not isn't relevant to them
In what way? MagSafe is an open standard to use. A USB c or lighting port iPhone will charge the same
USB-IF cables are the minimum. All companies seeking to use the USB-IF logos on their product must have a valid USB-IF Trademark License Agreement on file with the USB-IF and the product must be certified
I'm talking about the specifications of the cable and not the plug as its generally subjective at this point.
So apple can't invent a new protocol or port? Apple seem to have been competitive despite a less capable port.
The data shows otherwise.
The turnover of worldwide industries decreases of 350 million EUR yearly while option 5 is expected to have a positive impact on EU industries turnover of 22 million EUR yearly and a positive impact on distributors and retailers turnover of 457 million EUR yearly;
The gain to consumers will be 246 million EUR yearly;
The material use decreases by 2 606 tonnes less yearly, the e-waste decreases by
980 tonnes yearly and GHG emissions decreases by 184 ktCO2 yearly.
Yes..? So people won't throw their USB-c cables in the trash when the iphone goes portles because everything else still uses Usb-c for charging and data.
Only iPhones and some apple products use the lightning port. With the exception with some neat powerbanks, such a shame really it ended up as firewire.
How is it not illogical to remove anything not using USB-c?
I mean a policy don't need to cover everything if it's deemed unnecessary.
They have the authority within the EU to regulate the minimum capabilities. They have the authority to say that all cables, MFI and non-MFI, have to meet the same minimum capabilities.
Last edited:
As with any cable. Even an official Apple cable could be frayed, damaged, or have manufacturing faults.
The point is that USB-C cables have a built-in protocol to describe themselves. There's no danger of a device accidentally using high power levels (100W+) with a cable not designed for it.
Secondly, all USB-C cables (but not all USB-A adapters) support up to 60W (3A @ 20V) power delivery, which is more than enough for any current phone.
Considering Watch and iPhone can't even use the same MagSafe adapter, I think we're a long way off from that.
A speed difference that is irrelevant for most users; in some ways WiFi or Airdrop are better in that they do not require physically connecting two devices close together.
It assumes that the CE cert is genuine, and not just slapped on by some manufacturer of cheap junk. Which, of course, applies to MiFI as well.
If you go on Amazon, almost every cable claims MiFi, and most chargers CE. Personally, I doubt many cheap cables or chargers actually do the testing; which is why I stick to known name brands, even if they cost more.
Nothing would require using a MiFi certified cable to achieve the charging covered by the regulation, something pretty clear in the regulation.
Apple could (emphasis could once this is all speculation over a rumor) use MiFI to extend the devices capabilities, something also allowed by the regulation.
In the end, devices will be able o be charged by any PD compliant cable at the designed charging speed; if you don't want the (speculated) features enabled by a MiFi cable don't buy one and you'll still get what the EU has said you should get.
Absolutely true. We had a bad cable fry the Lightning port on one of our iPhones; an iPhone where the user hadn't backed up her photos in a while and she didn't use cloud photos. There was no wireless transfer which was fast enough to get all her photos off before the battery died, whereas using a cable would have. AirDrop is very failure prone when the number of photos is in the middle hundreds or more. The secondary lesson from this was that wired is superior to wireless.
And when you are dealing with the high-res photos and videos which iPhones can now take, AirDrop is inferior to a fast cable.
Legitimate companies will, but one making ultra cheap ones will have no qualms about labelling cables any way they want.
However, nothing prevents an unscrupulous manufacturer from labeling a cable as 100W but not actually supporting it in it's protocol chip; or using the right chip but a higher gauge wire that can't handle the load and hiding it with a thicker outer shell so it looks like a 5A cable.
Does that mean the reg is bad? No; just that it will not magically result in one cable that meets the spec to rule them all.
Cheap cables will sill exist and cause issues.
Apple could fix that with a redesign of the MagSafe puck or next watch. AirPods already can use either charger if they have a MagSafe case. There is no reason to not be able to extend the iPhone puck to charge a watch as well.
The main lesson is to backup regularly as device can fail without notice. Failing to backup is user error and not a limitation of the device.
In your user's case, the only question is how much is she willing to pay to get her photos off the device. There are ways to get power to a device once the battery dies.
Yes, that's why I said it was the secondary lesson. But the point still stands that when it comes to charging and data transfer, wired is superior to wireless.
I know, I had to use alternate methods to retrieve all the photos.
Everyone knows you can make a study say anything. These are often made with an objective in mind. They will spend millions of dollars to have some paper written up to back whatever proposal they’re wanting to do.
And that doesn’t mean it's a good thing. democratically elected government have done lots of terrible things. Not trying to get political here because it’s not about politics but you can’t just say well they were elected so it must be a good thing what they’re doing.
No, because a private company wants to make a product that sells. They have to make something that actually works because because people have a choice. Sure you have a choice when you elect these politicians although it’s often a choice between one or the other so you’re picking the least worst option. if the next iPhone is terrible, I can just not buy it or even buy a different brand. If these politicians mess up, they don’t have any consequences. If Apple messes up, they could go out of business. Governments can lose trillions of dollars and they’ll just collect more money from the people to cover their failures. There is no incentive for doing well. This is the main reason why I think it’s better for a private company to make these decisions because their decisions have consequences. When I say consequences, I mean consequences to the people making the decision. If this is a terrible decision, none of these politicians are going to lose a dime.
This doesn't mean every study is flawed though. If you want to refute a study you cannot do it by just throwing around insinuations, you have to provide specific arguments challenging the study's content.
Neither does it means it's a bad thing. Even assuming the government is totally corrupt, it doesn't mean this particular regulation is bad. Attacking the character, motive or whatever characteristics you don't like of the author of the regulation is by definition an ad-hominem fallacy.
I don't think the regulation is good because I particularly like the "government": I think it's good because I read the rationale for it and I happen to agree with it.
If you keep electing them after they messed up, sure, but that's your responsibility as a citizen to elect the representatives and vote for someone else if a given representative disappointed you. Every democratic country has the government it deserves.
This is also not necessarily true. There are plenty of examples of top managers which are focused to the short-term and drive the company they are managing into the ground, having golden-parachutes when they leave said company for some other place.
Furthermore, it is a well know fact that the free market does not always do what is desirable. Every country which has a free market also has regulations and ways to steer said free market. They can go from subsidizing, to prohibiting practices, anti-trust, anti-fraud etc... and yes, mandating standards is also part of this. Most standards are mandated for the sake of safety, but it's definitely also the case to have mandatory standard for the sake of interoperability.
Last edited:
Superior is relative and depends on the situation. I have a MagSafe car mount the obviates the need to plug my iPhone in every time I get in and out, which is superior to having to constantly plug and unplug.
Similar, dropping the phone on. wireless charger makes it easier to grab and answer it at night.
When traveling, a MagSafe battery pack is usable when there is no outlet.
Automatic cloud backup wirelessly means not forgetting to backup up regularly by plugging in.
OTOH, as you rightly point out, sending large files quickly or for fast charging wired is superior.
So, IMHO, neither is inherently superior; just different tools suited to different use cases.
I figured you were savvy enough to do that. The real PITA is the death loop which would require specialized tools and knowledge to retrieve data.
As one of my Econ profs said: "I believe in free markets, but not anarchy..."
So of the commission later changes there mind on how its written then the law is null? It doesn't matter if the commission wrote the law, what matters is how the law is written, any good lawyer can navigate a poorly written law to interpret it how they want. Which is the biggest problem with these types of tech laws, the more vague it is, the more wiggle room there is for lawyers, and the more detailed it is the less room there is for tech companies to innovate new tech. There will now, never be a better port than USB-C, but there could have be been. Either way the consumer looses, and the whole point of the law was to protect them.
Very valid points.
I ended up swapping the battery for a fully charged one to complete the data transfer.
Speed difrences that are irrelevant?
You understand backing up a 500GB iPhone would take theoretically 2~houers or up to 7+ houers with USB 2.0 or wifi AC it could take even longer when it's not in an optimal spot or evn more 23h+
While if they had USB 3.0(2008)that would be cut to between 13min and 40min. Or 6min and up to 20min for usb 3.1(2013) and 3min to 10min with USB 3.2(2017)
And I have an example further down from another user. You can try it out and post what you get.
Indeed hence it's a pointless debate to point to MFI verification when its easily faked as fraudulent products.
I had to deal with a fair share of regulation due to the field I operate in. Some of these regulations are from the EU. It is quite often the case that the regulation, be it from the EU or otherwise, is not always 100% clear or unambiguous especially in regards of some technical details. It's pretty common to have to consult or request additional documents and obtain specific clarifications to make sure the correct interpretation is being implemented.
Again, there is an appeal process, so if someone wants to go the hard way with an alternative interpretation they definitely can, but my suggestion is that if the clarification says A and you insist in interpreting B you better have a very good case, especially if your alternative interpretation goes against the spirit of the regulation.
IMHO the directive is clear enough in stating basically that if you have your own fast charging protocol it cannot be at the detriment of the fast-charging protocol provided by the standard USB Power Delivery you are mandated to also provide. Having the proprietary protocol deliver 30 watt whereas USB Power Deliver delivers e.g. 15 watt would violate that.
There is room for interpreting it otherwise? Maybe, but IMHO not nearly enough to win an appeal, especially since the "official" interpretation is clearly consistent with the spirit of the regulation whereas the alternative interpretation is clearly not.
Considering the rule allows for newer ports, innovation can continue as the USB committee come up with newer designs.
yes, no certification is free from fakes; but that is not the point. MiFi can be legally used by Apple to differentiate products from competitors, as long as they have the specs required by the regulation. You could still get everything required by teh regulation with a generic USB-C cable; just not features requiring MiFi integration.
Of course, all this is speculation based on a roomer by some random pundit and the EU's reaction without knowing hat will really be done.
Yes, for probably 90% or more of the users.
Most people don't backup or transfer 500gb at one shot; rather it is an incremental process as the phone fills up. As a result, transfer speed is not an issue; especially since that is a background task that often runs at low use times anyway.
At most, they will do a restore from backup when getting a new phone, every few years; and in my expereince the speed is less of an issue even with large backups as the phone becomes useable while the files download; and most people do not need instant access to 500gb of data.
So yes, portless iPhones are a viable future option for most users. Will Apple go there? Who knows.
Last edited:
…as is the “not MFi certified” error message, depending on its wording.
…or be counterfeit.
“Extend” is the wrong word word.
“Restrict” seems more fitting.
USB-C is capable of transferring up to 80Gbps of data and HDMI or DisplayPort signal. There is hardly any real-world application in or with an iPhone today that could not be handled through standardised USB protocols. There isn’t really anything they could extend or expand in functionality only through proprietary means.
Agree.
But thankfully, the EU may be flexible and reactive enough to evolve and expand their regulation.
I propose the following: if manufacturers purposely disable functionality provided that the USB-C standard and offer that/similar functionality proprietarily, without it being duly justified by the manufacturer, sales of such devices should be prohibited in the union.
Huh. Your evidence shows that their concern was almost entirely about chargers. Something completely independent of the port on the phone itself.
Airdrop? Just use Dropbox or iCloud or whatever cloud storage you prefer. Simple.
I can guarantee you that the average person has never heard off or has any idea what CE Is. The 'Made for iPhone/Ipad' stickers hold much more meaning to the average consumer then a CE marking lol.
This has nothing to do with frayed, damaged for manufacturing faults. This is manufactures race to the bottom and cutting corners to lower their cost. So many USB-A cables barely met the requirements set out of the USB standard forget USB-C.
If a cable is not designed to use the high power level, it will literally start to melt or get to hot to touch.
Google engineer leaves scathing reviews of dodgy USB Type-C cables on Amazon
Most cheap USB Type-C cables can’t carry the full 3.0A required by the spec.
arstechnica.com
USB Type-C cable so bad it fries Google engineer’s Chromebook Pixel
Benson Leung, the Type-C cable testing vigilante, has finally met his match.
arstechnica.com
No, every USB cable is not verified by USB-IF. There are so many cables that are not USB-if verified/certified/compliant.
Apple has much a more stringent verification process for MFI cables as well as a way to identify which cables are certified. You can usb a non compliant USB-IF cable and never know.
You guys are all living in a perfect world or are ignorant to the face that most people do not have the same level of knowledge regarding electronics and cables as you and I.
Out of 10 of the cheapest USB-C cable you will find on Amazon, at least a quarter of them will not be able support the rated power.
No why would it be voided? They can a mend the law
It's not that easy as you think. And yes it's the commission who enforce the regulation. Or the supreme court. So the fact the commission who wrote it will also enforce it.
Why do you think that? We had micro USB and now we have USB-C replacing it. Even tho micro usb was mandatory before.
EU gave us GDPR/cookie popups. Intention is good, but 99% of the people are annoyed by it. The way they go about execution is so bad. So forgive me if being prolific is not proof of knowing what they're doing.
Consumers want to be able to buy a playstation game and be able to play on the Xbox too.
Consumers want to be able to swap out alexa for google assistant too.
Consumers want to be able to use CarPlay in Teslas too
Doesn't mean we should enact laws to force companies to do whatever we want.
USB-C was at 2% at one point. Your point? I said growing adoption for a reason.
Subjective. I think MagSafe is better at charging. So what then? Stalemate. Irrelevant point to bring up what you think is better.
All the more reason to keep lightning port as removing the cable from the box is more environmentally friendly and people can continue using lightning.
"or will"
so you see the point of "growing adoption". see above about growing adoption point.
I said 800MB. "MB" means megabytes. "Mb" is Megabits. I transferred an 800MB file. You completely misunderstood.
irrelevant in context of speed.
I can finish airdropping a large video file from getting out of my car on my way to my room before you get out of your car, go to your room, grab your USB-C cable to plugin to wait for Finder to recognize the phone.
Accelerated death means more average cables consumed per user in their lifetime compared to not having this law.
Nope. Plenty will actually. Just because you have hundreds of USB-C devices doesn't mean a 80 year old would keep it if iPhone went portless.
My cousin is dumping his USB-C cables actually because he doesn't know which of his USB-C cables are 2.0/3.1(10Gbps)/4.0(40Gbps) 60W/100W/140W because not all USB-C cables are marked appropriately.
Last edited: