81–90 of 525 posts
I can't see a single reason why iPhone shouldn't use usb-c at the moment except to build Apple's own walled garden to charge a surplus against its customer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because lightning was available long before USB-C and there's no reason that hundreds of millions of customers should have to switch to new cables and throw billions of old chargers, wires, and accessories into landfills? When USB-C is superior for using on phones, then I'm OK with it. But right now it's just exchanging one plug for another because a bunch of bureaucrats say so. Does this mean in 20 years we'll still…
Well right now, if you are not fully locked into the Apple ecosystem, you require two cables. That's quite a waste, no? We're quite lucky no PC manufacturer managed to get as big as Apple is today back in the 80s-90s. There's no way we would have universal RAM, universal Keyboards, universal Video Cards, etc, etc, today, if that was the case.
No. I am not locked into the Apple ecosystem. Having two cables enables me to charge two devices at the same time, no?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed, the text only speaks of a "common charger" without specifying further, so I'm somewhat surprised you make the claim the directive speaks only about one sub-part of the charger. To me things appear thus: the EP passed a directive that states mobile radio equipment should have a "common charger", sensibly letting manufacturers decide how to solve the interoperability problem. Apple then argued "well, it's not e…
Hmm. You make a good point. In my attempt at reading both of these there seems to be a clear distinction being made when it refers to cables and when it refers to chargers. It also never really mentions ports. Therefore, to me, it cares less about the port and cable on the phone half and more about the brick / part that plugs into the wall. Neither document provides a definition for "charger". So perhaps whoever is i…
I think reading the texts as if they spoke only of the transformer/brick itself is to narrow, and not in line with the common understanding of what a "charger" is.
I will offer this suggestion of a precise definition for "charger": the complete technological assemblage required for transferring electrical power, suitable for storage, from a common wall socket onto the portable radio device.
Basically, if you have a wall socket, a mobile radio device, and a third thing, and they cannot be assembled so that the mobile can be charger, the thing is not a "common charger".
The joint motion points to adopting Directive 2014/53/EU which requires common _chargers_ but says nothing about the port that the phone uses. As far as I can tell this is only for the back half of the charger / brick that connects to the wall. Yet the Apple statement, and most of the articles about this (including the linked one), are talking about the phone's connector and talks about lightning and usb-c. Most of t…
Indeed, the text only speaks of a "common charger" without specifying further, so I'm somewhat surprised you make the claim the directive speaks only about one sub-part of the charger. To me things appear thus: the EP passed a directive that states mobile radio equipment should have a "common charger", sensibly letting manufacturers decide how to solve the interoperability problem. Apple then argued "well, it's not e…
It's the cable that they include with the iPhone that has a USB connector on the charger end and a lightning port on the phone end.
That included cable allows you to charge with any manufacturer's USB-C charger in the same way that the previous version of the cable worked with any USB-A charging port.
So, in summary, the cable Apple gives you works with other manufacturers chargers, and the charger Apple gives you works with other phones, using a standard USB-C cable that, I would imagine, came with the phone.
If they want to force Apple's hand specifically, they should be focusing on the port on the phone, not the charger.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While this resolution isn't actually a law, it does call for the commission to ensure standards get updated as technology develops, so I'm not seeing why we should imagine us being extra stuck with some old technology.
I think the fear is, the companies will be hindered from making those innovations if they have to go through a centralized approval process, particularly if that process is slow, bureaucratic, technologically illiterate, resistant to change, etc (to say nothing of regulatory capture). I'm not deadset against this sort of thing, and I think we could do a lot worse than USB-C as the new universal connector (at least fo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed, the text only speaks of a "common charger" without specifying further, so I'm somewhat surprised you make the claim the directive speaks only about one sub-part of the charger. To me things appear thus: the EP passed a directive that states mobile radio equipment should have a "common charger", sensibly letting manufacturers decide how to solve the interoperability problem. Apple then argued "well, it's not e…
Apple's charger already had a standard USB-A port and has moved to having a standard USB-C port. It's the cable that they include with the iPhone that has a USB connector on the charger end and a lightning port on the phone end. That included cable allows you to charge with any manufacturer's USB-C charger in the same way that the previous version of the cable worked with any USB-A charging port. So, in summary, the…
The point is you still need extra stuff just to charge your phone when you switch manufacturer. So what apple provides is in fact not a "common charger", but merely a transformer+rectifier that, using additional equipment, can be made into a "common charger".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree in general; but at some point don't we hit diminishing returns? If I were to say, "18.4 exabytes of RAM ought to be enough for everybody", that'd be basically correct, even future-proofing for the craziest sci-fi holodeck use cases we can imagine, right? But the legislation doesn't lock into something that might happen in the future. It locks the future to what we have today.
Does it actually do that? Have you read the legislation, or are you just saying what you assume it says?
Their current phones already follow a charging standard: qi. The $5 qi charger at Ikea charges an iPhone just fine. I have one on my desk.
Now, you are probably thinking that if something goes wrong, you'd rather be able to fix it than to throw your phone in the trash, generating more unnecessary waste. So Apple should take the lead and put a diagnostic port on each phone. Perhaps at the bottom, in the middle. To reduce the negative environmental impact of designing a new diagnostic port connection cable, Apple should design their diagnostic interface to be compatible with the billions of Lightning and/or USB-C cables already in the hands of consumers and repair shops.
That would be courageous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well right now, if you are not fully locked into the Apple ecosystem, you require two cables. That's quite a waste, no? We're quite lucky no PC manufacturer managed to get as big as Apple is today back in the 80s-90s. There's no way we would have universal RAM, universal Keyboards, universal Video Cards, etc, etc, today, if that was the case.
Well right now, if you are not fully locked into the Apple ecosystem, you require two cables. That's quite a waste, no? No. I am not locked into the Apple ecosystem. Having two cables enables me to charge two devices at the same time, no?
Are you going to make me list out every scenario that is doubled?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As far as I remember, this piece of legislation has been floating around since USB mini. We have now gone through 2 revisions to a connector that is now reversible and can carry video. Locking onto USB-C now could be a very "640k ought to be enough for everybody" moment. And if Apple was going to switch to USB C anyways, whats the point of this legislation?
> Locking onto USB-C now could be a very "640k ought to be enough for everybody" moment. I agree in general; but at some point don't we hit diminishing returns? If I were to say, "18.4 exabytes of RAM ought to be enough for everybody", that'd be basically correct, even future-proofing for the craziest sci-fi holodeck use cases we can imagine, right?
And in fact, they did. By the time I was reaching adulthood, that was that hard limit built into Win95, give or take boot errors if you had a quarter of that (which was gigantic at the time; 64MB was more than enough to boot it).
Fast forward another 25 years to today, and laptops routinely have 16GB of RAM, and higher end Mac Pros can apparently get a whopping 1.5TB of RAM.
Put another way, the high-end went from .1MB to 1TB in 40 years or so.
I get that we're reaching the physical limits of miniaturization, but I'd still be surprised if my grand kids don't have exabytes of RAM or equivalent on whatever the hell their main devices will be by the time they reach adulthood.