Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point is, if the regulation works as intended, it consolidates USB-C as the standard and slows or blocks new types of ports from being designed and tested. If it doesn't, then it's useless. You can't have it both ways. Imagine a company that wants to design the next type of port. Normally, it would just do R&D and engineer the product, then put it on the market with that type of port. If the device only has that…
> it consolidates USB-C as the standard Yes > slows or blocks new types of ports from being designed and tested No > If the device only has that type of port, people must use it and provide feedback by choosing to keep buying the product (maybe they'll also make it explicit that they like the new port) When getting something out on the market, they woudn't take this risk and still have a commonly used port on the sid…
Like, people didn't buy Apple products before they were forced to use USB-C? So why did Apple not want to use USB-C if that caused them to lose money and sell fewer phones? Also, if this were true, once most devices support USB-C (like they already did before the regulation), the standard would be self-enforcing and require no additional regulation.
> I apologize, but I only skimmed the rest of your comment, because I believe it rests on a flawed premise in the first line.
EDIT: Your statements seem to be self-contradictory, so it's not even about facts. "We need a regulation because companies make and sell products with different ports" is in contradiction with "Companies wouldn't take the risk of not having a common port, and consumers won't take the risk to buy them".
Also, mine wasn't a premise. My claims are not statements that follow one from the previous, but a conjunction of negated statements laid out in chronological order. So all of them must be false or not relevant for you to be right.