Well to be fair why should it adress it? The biggest intrest is to have one usb-c device not getting shortcircuted because they use priporitary solution(looking at you Nintendo).
I agree. Any compliant cable should work without problems.
They always had to do that as the IP is owned by USB-IF. Or they can do as now make a cable not called an USB. As this only about the port.
Seems to be the intent considering they directly points to USB-IF digital documents that describe exactly how to build an USB c cable.
Well it seems to be acording to plan.
It will be inetersting to see what labeling requiremenst will be enforced for cables. If teh EU requires USB-C logos, the cheap cable folks will proabably simply use the logos knowing even if theEU or USB-IF wnated to there is little they can do.
From what I read in/of the regulation, it does allow for proprietary protocols/functionality „on top“ of it - that I agree on.
Which was my point - there may never be one cable to rule tehm all as some seem to think this reg requires.
Not every government regulation creates or increases entry barriers and leads to higher prices though - that (any generalisation to that effect) I disagree on. Given the nature of the standard and Apple’s position in the marketplace however, I maintain that it is a „net“ removal of entry barriers and will, if anything increase competition and lower prices for charging cables.
I never sadid every one does, and doubt this one will have much effect on Apple, Google, et.al. Consumer buying habits won't change much, other than needing to buy new cables and chargers to replace old ones. Most will buy one when they get the phone and be done with it.
At the low end, true compliance will add costs to producing a phone and may impact that market as it is price sensitive.
Overall, however, I doubt it will have much effect either way.
Since such functionality is already part of the established standard (using handshakes and e-markers), it can reasonably be assumed that a manufacturer would use it as merely (or primarily) a pretext in order to charge additional proprietary licensing fees.
There I disagree. Ensuring cables meet the required spec and have the proper handshaking, via proprietary licensed chips, offers more control and assurance when buying cables from a reputable manufacturer. It allows creation of an end to end price not dependent on others to comply to make it work.
From an economic perspective, I 'd bet MiFi is a rounding error nd thus not really driven by the fees collected.
