Submitted by bk27465 t3_xw3zdw in UpliftingNews
Agreeable_Win7642 t1_ir4s7sg wrote
So what will happen later when we find new ways to transfer data blazingly fast? Will we need 2 ports for that? Does this assume everything is going wireless? What is a smartphone? Do lawmakers decide what that is now?
I'm not suggesting this is bad legislation, but there are some outstanding questions around evolution.
sonofagunn t1_ir56xk8 wrote
The law is well written. It does not specify a technology, it says they must all follow the IEEE standard, which is an industry organization. The standard can't change for at least three years.
It just so happens that the current standard is USB-C.
Agreeable_Win7642 t1_ir5b95y wrote
That's a good point. The issue I see with this is that as a start-up I can't build something cheaper with older connectors now.
Do I also have to compete for connectors now with the big players, while everyone makes the switch? This might open opportunities for some new manufacturers to build type c connectors, to cover the new demand, sure. I don't think that's how it will go though.
Some devices also don't need faster connections. I would rather have my sport's smartwatch be more waterproof rather than have it's data bandwidth increase.
I don't know. It will be interesting to see what happens.
sonofagunn t1_ir5e4rd wrote
It only applies to smartphones, tablets, and cameras.
Zerieth t1_ir5fn3l wrote
Stuff has to move with the times and there's no avoiding that. We don't make floppy disks anymore for data transfer either, and some of the older connectors are no longer in wide use. Give it a few more years and vga will vanish completely from the market(still on some motherboards) to be replaced by DPort and HDMI.
Apple has been trying very hard for years to create their own product bubble with limited compatability to anything outside of that bubble. This means their own OS on all their products, Bluetooth compatability problems to none Apple related products, and yes connectors.
This is why I dislike them as a company. At least in Microsoft land we can buy pretty much anything we like and expect it to work with our tech. Microsoft and Linux can run on the same hardware with no issues. Apple you basically have to buy from Apple, or someone that has a contract with Apple. Mac stuff requires its own proprietary hardware on their computers, smartphones, and tablets. You can get the Mac Os onto a PC but hardware wise it's all Mac shit. Limited market competition means higher prices.
Agreeable_Win7642 t1_ir5i8j1 wrote
I agree with your final point. Market competition is great. This law doesn't provide that, in my opinion. It will drive smaller players that cannot afford this adaptation out of the market.
And Microsoft and Linux can run on many things, but not without issue. There's a great cost to develop such systems with a lot of compatibility in mind. Vertical integration is more efficient. Regardless if you like apple or not, they have provided the best laptop by far because of this, in recent times. There isn't anything on the market to top the battery life to performance of the last pro lineup, and this is coming from a thinkpad fan. But this argument hasn't much to do with port choice. Apple can change that with ease and it will lead to more sales. They can take the cost now for sales later. I care more about the smaller companies that won't have a choice but to switch to type C. They might not be able to do the same
chownrootroot t1_ir5wvtu wrote
Android phones basically already had either microUSB or USB-C already, and microUSB is considered flimsy, cheap, and slow, if a small Android phone maker was sticking to microUSB, chances are they wouldn't be much of a player in the EU market and they are welcome to sell their phones in other markets regardless of what the EU says.
Apple complained about this but they won't mind the cost and they switched much of their products to type-C already.
The law does apply to tablets, some laptops (not gaming or workstation types), and cameras. Tablets are basically the same as phones, so the above also applies to them, with laptops there could be small laptop makers complaining but charging a little more for universal charging is a fair trade-off, so many times in the past getting a laptop charger would be a problem with proprietary charging. And cheap and small point and shoot cameras are basically dead, replaced by smartphones, most cameras you buy are like Gopros or large DSLRs and they can spare the cost for changing the USB port (some in the past had the Superspeed Micro connector, so it would be a huge improvement to have the USB-C connector so you don't have to carry around another cable just for the camera data transfer).
LiosIsHere t1_ir4zesq wrote
When a new and better connection is developed, the law will change to that connection instead of USB-C. That will likely take a while. Wireless is obviously also an option, but data transfer is still too slow.
This law is for all handheld mobile phones, tablets, digital cameras, headphones, headsets, portable speakers, handheld videogame consoles, e-readers, earbuds, keyboards, mice and portable navigation systems.
I'm sure it's pretty clear what a (smart)phone is, or any of the other things on this list. If something is invented that really doesn't fit any of these categories, the producers will likely already choose USB-C themselves (because having 1 different cable for 1 product is not very smart) or the law will be adjusted.
sleepytoday t1_ir6aj0w wrote
How will a new and better connection get developed? And what is the motivation to develop one if you can’t be better than your competitors?
MoustachedCat t1_ir6boab wrote
So you can license it.
sleepytoday t1_ir6fgdp wrote
Fair point. That works for me!
LiosIsHere t1_ir6ivoy wrote
Do we need a new and better connection? If yes, it will be made. If no, then it won't. Doesn't matter whether everyone uses the same connection or not.
Agreeable_Win7642 t1_ir5a7tq wrote
Well legislation is notoriously slow. And that is one issue that might halt progress. Do we have to wait for the law to change to release a new products with new connections? This law for example has been debated for more than a year now. How long will it take to add new acceptable connectors to the list? And at that point if apple develops one that is ground Breaking, and a smaller entity another, which one has the resources to lobby for this new standard to be adopted?
I also don't know that I agree with the statement that that we know what a smartphone is. I think intuitively we do, but to argue in court about such matters is more complicated. Is it a phone with a touch screen? If so when does a phone become a tablet? What about new possible voice UIs? Ok, if it's not the input method maybe it is functionality. What's the threshold to call a phone "smart"? Is it internet connectivity? Is it a camera? Does it have to have either? What if it has none?
I know it sounds easy in theory, but in practice it is not. In court it's a different story and only the big guys will have the resources to argue such matters. This means that small start-ups might not be able to disrupt the market with new products. Remember that a Mac computer is not a PC. Why would an iPhone be a smartphone?
An item that is not in that list and uses a different connector: a smartwatch. Sport smart watches from Garmin for example would never be as waterproof with a type C connector. There's no need for faster data connections for some of these devices, like the ones for diving. Why would a niche manufacturer invest in building new devices with such connectors that are more expensive?
I'm just saying it's complicated. This seems like a good idea but it might not be.
KanoeKnight t1_ir5buj1 wrote
Why don’t you go read the law yourself to find out how they define a smartphone?
Agreeable_Win7642 t1_ir5ezts wrote
I read the provisional agreement form June. It doesn't include the word smartphone anywhere in it: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2014_2019/plmrep/COMMITTEES/IMCO/AG/2022/07-11/1259528EN.pdf
Neither does this: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52020IP0024&qid=1664977809509 But uses the term "radio devices" which is even worse as anything with a Bluetooth connector, wifi connector etc. is a "radio device"
Would you be so kind to tell me where you read it?
KanoeKnight t1_ir734cd wrote
I didn’t because I don’t care enough about those little details because it doesn’t matter
LiosIsHere t1_ir5fh2x wrote
What we read in the news is just an easy to understand excerpt, I'm sure they thought of all those things you mention (which is why it took so long). I mean, they even have a whole paragraph detailing the label that needs to be displayed when a device does or doesn't include the charger (down to the dimensions and everything).
Also, the text mentions mobile phones, not smartphones, so anything that is mobile and can be used to call would be a mobile phone. It doesn't matter when it becomes a tablet, because those need to have USB-C as well.
And, as with any law, exceptions or challenges will most likely arise and be taken to court to be sorted out.
It's better to have this and maybe be a bit more sluggish with innovations than letting the current situation continu.
Agreeable_Win7642 t1_ir5gz7e wrote
Ok, we were going off the article with those examples. The law (at least the June proposal that was up for debate) does say this:
Apply to the following categories or classes
of radio equipment:
a) handheld mobile phones,
b) tablets,
c) digital cameras,
d) headphones,
e) headsets,
f) handheld videogame consoles,
g) portable speakers,
h) e-readers,
i) keyboards,
j) mice,
k) portable navigation systems,
l) earbuds,
m) laptops,
We can have similar debates about any of the items on the list, with examples that go in the same direction.
The part where I generally disagree is this: > I'm sure they thought of all those things you mention I don't think so. And I believe it is up to us to scrutinize any and all laws that get adopted to ensure that they do think about it and that others do so too.
>It's better to have this and maybe be a bit more sluggish with innovations than let ting the current situation continu.
Actually I don't see why. The e waste generated off of this will be huge and detrimental to the environment. I don't see the added value here. A bit of convenience because I don't have to carry 2 cables? Not worth it for me.
LiosIsHere t1_ir61uja wrote
It’s less waste, that’s the whole point. Yes, one time you might have a bunch of obsolete cables (although you can also use converters), but for the rest of time you only need one charger and cable for all your stuff and just need to replace those when they break.
hopingforabetterpast t1_ir5uaox wrote
what e-waste?
xSilverMC t1_ir5zg2j wrote
The billions upon billions of lightning cables that will be thrown out immediately, strangling all turtles into extinction in a matter of weeks /s
parental92 t1_ir6qj69 wrote
>when we find new ways to transfer data blazingly fast?
standards move on and we can make it backwards compatible. Since usb C itself is still evolving.
>Will we need 2 ports for that?
depends on the theoritical new faster port
>Does this assume everything is going wireless?
even the reverse. if iphone are usb C they can transver files at faster speed than usb 2.0. Even if everything going wireless, a standardized port are still a good thing.
>What is a smartphone?
The thing you type your comment on
>Do lawmakers decide what that is now?
hint: to impose a law you need to define the thing you impose it to. Hence bog standard definition id smartphone. We cant jam a usb c on oura smart ring cant we ?
​
​
I get that there are arguments about evolution., but history proves that it is mostly irrelevant. given the chance . . (like they already have in the last 10 years) Big company like apple does not uses the best and fastest port in the interest of "evolution". they uses it to trap the consumer to their own stuff. Not even exclusive to Apple . . Look at one plus/oppo, wanna fast charge your oppo ? buy OUR charger!
​
There, hope that answer your questions.
TheJedibugs t1_ir5ph6m wrote
The port, and thus the connectors, must be the same. The technology within that port can be updated. We already use that same port shape for Thunderbolt 3, Thunderbolt 4 and USB 3. Just the same as how we used USB-A ports for USB 1-3, seeing huge upgrades in data transfer over that span.
ob2kenobi t1_ir7mcgs wrote
>find new ways to transfer data blazingly fast?
Ha! That's kinda funny considering iPhones are still limited to USB 2.0 speeds.
[deleted] t1_ir4uig2 wrote
[deleted]
Ticeben2 t1_ir69els wrote
Environment>blazing fast
stevedadog t1_ir5jw2g wrote
This has a ton of replies but only one upvote. It’s not poorly worded, and it’s a completely valid question what the fuck Reddit(ors)???
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments