101–110 of 525 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's usually not the port that's wearing out, but the cable, because USB-C moved the retention clips from the port to the cable.
I've experienced the port wearing out. Using the same cable with two different MBPs, only one MBP has loose ports when plugging in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 read "charger" to mean "the thing you use for charging", and not really bothering with the technical detail of exactly how this thing is made. 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 requi…
I'd like to see some clarification :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How would it have been possible to advance to the next generation of technology like USB-C. The law does no say what a common charger is. Manufacturers are free to migrate to a new standard.
Presumably it is on the Commission to decide that USB-C is to be the next standard, and only then will there be a proposal for a law. (We are not yet talking about a law.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mean you miss the good old innovative days when every phone model had its own charger? The days where you needed special proprietary software to access any part of your phone if you connected it with to a computer using its special cable? I remember losing plenty of sms history and contacts when changing phones because the dedicated phone software was too old to run on my windows, and the dodgy program I found on…
Seems like the free market solved all the probs you mentioned, so yeah.
It's really quite bad.
One of the primary motivations cited relates to waste and recycling - however chargers represent an utterly minuscule component of individual waste.
A much better approach from a waste management perspective would be to require that all electronics gear be 'processed' (like batteries). The price of the product 'pre includes' the cost of post-processing, so when it's picked up in its special recycling category, the bit of labour is taken care of.
In fact - this could be applied to a wide variety of products.
As for 'charging standard' - this can only work if it's led by a really smart body, nimble enough to enable innovation and adaptatio, and it's most certainly not the legislative body. The EU could 'empower' such a working group, but should not be getting into the details.
Of course - this legislation will be hacked immediately - everyone will not sell funky multi-adapter chargers with proprietary bits connected to the standard bits. I don't doubt for one second Apple's ability to 'sell you more crap'.
Finally - Apple uses mostly fairly standard stuff. I have a Samsung that uses a far-flung USB kind of standard I've never seen elsewhere. Apple has actually been focusing on USB-C pretty well on their own.
In summary: these kinds of rulings fundamentally do not belong at the level of the legal draft - they belong in standards bodies. They will not solve the problems they are intended to solve, and will simply accrue more overhead for everyone in the EU. Solving issues of sustainability and recycling etc. should be one elsewhere and likely requires some bigger picture thinking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It may be legitimate when the regulated action causes direct physical harm to someone else. For example: I think it's reasonable to regulate particulate emissions. It's not legitimate to regulate manufacture or commercialization of products when that manufacture or commercialization poses no direct threat to the physical well-being of other individuals.
Why draw the line at physical well-being? Why should it be fine to waste someone's time, cost them money, even destroy them emotionally, so long as you don't directly physically harm them? Your scope is absurdly narrow.
The only reason this happened is because one company refusees to play ball. Everyone else already figured out that it's better for consumers and them. Apple would sell you a non standard power socket for your house if they could.
No, not at all.
It happened because legislators in the EU don't understand tech, don't understand re-cycling, don't understand the industry, but they all use iPhones+Androids and wonder why 'there are so many goddam cables'. It's a very specific problem that just happens to be visceral and immediate with the people in charge: they can all relate to it. So they want to 'do something' and 'legislation' is what they do.
It's the wrong approach I hope cooler heads prevail.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. 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 addi…
You don't need anything but the cable that came with your phone.
I'll miss lightning when it's gone if only because it was the most satisfying and secure feeling cable connection I've ever used. USB-C has some slack built into it by design but it just makes it feel lower quality.
The USB-C ports wear out badly after a couple years of use and are loose. Lightning, as you are saying, still feels good after years of daily use. The duty cycle is higher for lightning and should be used for things which are often disconnected and reconnected like mobile devices.