EU sends Apple stark warning over USB-C charging on new iPhones

Post by dist-epoch » Sun, May 07, 2023, 2:24 PM UTC

Vespasian wrote: post #276

elzbardico wrote: post #221

This is definitely not good news for iPhone users. The thing with lightning is that it is fucking robust. USB-C may not be as bad as the micro-USB but it is still more fragile than lightning. People should be able to choose, if you love One Connector To Rule’em all just get and Android phone.

Maybe to put you mind a little bit at ease anecdotally, I never had a USB-c plug or socket fail on me even with intense (ab)use. The same is true for my immediate family It probably happens though. I had cheap-o cables break but this is hardly the fault of usb-c

Post by viraptor » Sun, May 07, 2023, 2:26 PM UTC

revelio wrote: post #326

viraptor wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the regulatory bodies deciding. It's the industry agreeing on when to move on. If they co-operate and design the new version in the open, there's no risk of wasted time. If they don't... it's a good lesson I guess.

Of course it's the regulatory bodies deciding. What do you think they're doing right now, what this article is about? There is no mechanism for "industry agreeing" that the rule should be discarded.

Post by GuB-42 » Sun, May 07, 2023, 2:26 PM UTC

christophilus wrote: post #228

crote wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law explicitly states that it has to be reviewed every couple of years to determine whether USB-C it is still the best choice, or there has been sufficient technological progress to warrant a switch to a newer standard. The fear for a "lock-in" is completely unfounded, as the EU previously quasi-mandated Micro USB and switching to USB-C was no issue whatsoever. Besides, nothing is stopping manufacturers from incl…

But if the whole world adopted this kind of regulatory stance, there would be much less incentive to invent that better cable because you now have huge regulatory bodies that may block its adoption and thus mean most of that work was money and time wasted. This kind of thing may tilt the risk / reward of research towards the riskier end of the spectrum. I’m not saying it’s a bad thing— just that it’s not without cons…

Post by lttlrck » Sun, May 07, 2023, 2:28 PM UTC

heresie-dabord wrote: post #341

WanderPanda wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me it’s the opposite, it ashames me to be an EU citizen. The problem with the EU is that it forces this kind of stuff on everyone instead of letting countries compete for the best policies. There is little/no feedback control hence it will drift down the usual decline of increasingly authoritarian systems. It‘s a shame because of the opportunity costs.

> instead of letting countries compete for the best policies. The way we have let manufacturers compete to create the best standard for power adaptors?

Post by revelio » Sun, May 07, 2023, 2:28 PM UTC

viraptor wrote: post #373

revelio wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it's the regulatory bodies deciding. What do you think they're doing right now, what this article is about? There is no mechanism for "industry agreeing" that the rule should be discarded.

If only there was a specific document which talks about the consolations with industry experts to ensure future developments update the requirements... (There may be a more recent version of that doc available) https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/46755/attachments/3/...