EU standardizing around USB-C, death of lightning in sight

[chakoo]

8 hours ago, sblfilms said:

Other than stuff from the power pc architecture days, what doesn't work for many generations on Mac OS?

 

It kind of depends on when the software was built and what OS dependencies it has. Apple has made changes in the past that will break a decent chunk of software that need deep integration within the OS. A lot of older 3rd party dev software no longer works on modern OS. Then when you get into more WIP stuff like SwiftUI, stuff built targeting a previous version can/does break with the next major OS revision (We've got a series of bugs from things that broke in the Ventra Beta we're still hoping apple will address before launch). There was also initial issues with the migration from Intel to M1 chips but a lot of those migration issues have been resolved in software.

 

Yet with that said the main one people get PO about is not mac but iOS when apple killed compatibility with 32bit software. There is a lot of stuff lost to time because of that forced change.

 

 

9 hours ago, ort said:

I know there are carve outs, but it adds tons of friction to the process. It will slow progress. If this law existed 20 years ago, where would we be today? we don't know.

 

I'm going to ignore the crap about apple inventing USB-C but jump to this specific point. You're still creating a hypothetical with nothing to back it up as a reason why this is bad. EU rule is to push the entire industry, which most have moved to fully, to align to a common industry standard. It does not say the industry standard can not move past USB-C. That continues to ignore the work the USB-IF has been doing to push forward innovation as the standard evolves and changes.

 

You're still arguing. "Yeah but what if apple goes bankrupt tomorrow, how will we get any other innovation?"

 

I'm personally going to leave this discussion at that. I have GCP bullshit to deal with.

[Anathema-]

15 hours ago, ort said:

Every "apple" house that is filled with perfectly working lightning cables everywhere

 

lmao

 

lol

 

rofl

[ort]

13 hours ago, chakoo said:

 

I'm going to ignore the crap about apple inventing USB-C but jump to this specific point. You're still creating a hypothetical with nothing to back it up as a reason why this is bad. EU rule is to push the entire industry, which most have moved to fully, to align to a common industry standard. It does not say the industry standard can not move past USB-C. That continues to ignore the work the USB-IF has been doing to push forward innovation as the standard evolves and changes.

 

You're still arguing. "Yeah but what if apple goes bankrupt tomorrow, how will we get any other innovation?"

 

I'm personally going to leave this discussion at that. I have GCP bullshit to deal with.

 

"You're still arguing. "Yeah but what if apple goes bankrupt tomorrow, how will we get any other innovation?""

 

When did I say anything even remotely close to this in any way? I mean, come on.

 

I don't think this is that crazy of a concept. In a world where there are laws that dictate what charging port you can put on 20% of the devices you sell, you are much much less incentivized to put R+D money into improving the charging ports. You would be completely disincentivized to go out on a limb and try something new as a company. It basically ties one hand behind your back. It's not impossible, but it becomes much more burdensome.

 

Maybe we've reached a point where it is no longer necessary and this connecter will see us through for the next 20 years. It's possible we've reached that point... but if at any point in the last 20 years they made a law like this, we would probably currently have a worse connector on the bottom of all of our phones.

 

The USB standards body is not aligned with the EU. They have different goals. The standards body isn't going to push for change as hard as an individual company would. They will move slowly. The EU will move even slower than that.

 

I'm not out here ranting and raving or even disagreeing. I'm just putting some legitimate contrarian thoughts and concerns out there and everyone is piling on me like I'm some sort of stupid dipshit. It all feels very hostile and condescending. We're talking about fucking computer cords. I mean, come on.

 

[stepee]

36 minutes ago, ort said:

 

"You're still arguing. "Yeah but what if apple goes bankrupt tomorrow, how will we get any other innovation?""

 

When did I say anything even remotely close to this in any way? I mean, come on.

 

I don't think this is that crazy of a concept. In a world where there are laws that dictate what charging port you can put on 20% of the devices you sell, you are much much less incentivized to put R+D money into improving the charging ports. You would be completely disincentivized to go out on a limb and try something new as a company. It basically ties one hand behind your back. It's not impossible, but it becomes much more burdensome.

 

Maybe we've reached a point where it is no longer necessary and this connecter will see us through for the next 20 years. It's possible we've reached that point... but if at any point in the last 20 years they made a law like this, we would probably currently have a worse connector on the bottom of all of our phones.

 

The USB standards body is not aligned with the EU. They have different goals. The standards body isn't going to push for change as hard as an individual company would. They will move slowly. The EU will move even slower than that.

 

I'm not out here ranting and raving or even disagreeing. I'm just putting some legitimate contrarian thoughts and concerns out there and everyone is piling on me like I'm some sort of stupid dipshit. It all feels very hostile and condescending. We're talking about fucking computer cords. I mean, come on.

 

 

listen here you piece of shit I’ll fucking slaughter your entire family 

[AbsolutSurgen]

40 minutes ago, ort said:

 

"You're still arguing. "Yeah but what if apple goes bankrupt tomorrow, how will we get any other innovation?""

 

When did I say anything even remotely close to this in any way? I mean, come on.

 

I don't think this is that crazy of a concept. In a world where there are laws that dictate what charging port you can put on 20% of the devices you sell, you are much much less incentivized to put R+D money into improving the charging ports. You would be completely disincentivized to go out on a limb and try something new as a company. It basically ties one hand behind your back. It's not impossible, but it becomes much more burdensome.

 

Maybe we've reached a point where it is no longer necessary and this connecter will see us through for the next 20 years. It's possible we've reached that point... but if at any point in the last 20 years they made a law like this, we would probably currently have a worse connector on the bottom of all of our phones.

 

The USB standards body is not aligned with the EU. They have different goals. The standards body isn't going to push for change as hard as an individual company would. They will move slowly. The EU will move even slower than that.

 

I'm not out here ranting and raving or even disagreeing. I'm just putting some legitimate contrarian thoughts and concerns out there and everyone is piling on me like I'm some sort of stupid dipshit. It all feels very hostile and condescending. We're talking about fucking computer cords. I mean, come on.

 

I'm also against legislating standards that aren't safety related.

I think Apple SHOULD adopt USB-C, but I don't think government regulations should force them to.

[Guest]

45 minutes ago, ort said:

The standards body isn't going to push for change as hard as an individual company would. They will move slowly.

Why is this a bad thing? Your initial premise is that change is hard and we are forgetting all the people who are going to be upset by this change. Open standards produce consistent improvements in reasonable amounts of time and tend to promote backward compatibility, while proprietary stuff just locks people in to one company’s eco system and innovation slows to a crawl. Look at how far behind lightning is in 2022.

[Jason]

24 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

I'm also against legislating standards that aren't safety related.

I think Apple SHOULD adopt USB-C, but I don't think government regulations should force them to.

 

The government interest here is that Apple sticking with Lightning has become a significant e-waste problem. 

[AbsolutSurgen]

13 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

The government interest here is that Apple sticking with Lightning has become a significant e-waste problem. 

If you believe that different devices use different chargers.  I use the same ones for my USB-C and lightning devices.  I can't imagine that I am unique.

[ort]

29 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Why is this a bad thing? Your initial premise is that change is hard and we are forgetting all the people who are going to be upset by this change. Open standards produce consistent improvements in reasonable amounts of time and tend to promote backward compatibility, while proprietary stuff just locks people in to one company’s eco system and innovation slows to a crawl. Look at how far behind lightning is in 2022.

 

I'm not really making an argument. I'm not trying to "win" a debate. Actions can have multiple outcomes.

 

Yes, it's annoying to have to buy all new cables. This passing will make millions of people have to buy and/or throw away a bunch of cables in the short term. Also, in the future, it could lead to innovation happening slower. They don't have to be related. It's just two reasons why this isn't a slam dunk.

[ort]

My main concern honestly is that overall the technological innovation thrives in the free market, and putting in place roadblocks like this, no matter how well intentioned, can have consequences.

 

Personally, I think Apple should have moved over to USB-C like 3 years ago... but I also don't the government should be forcing them to do it.

 

I worry that apple's hubris is going to react to this in a way that ends up being worse for it's customers.

[Ghost_MH]

1 hour ago, ort said:

 

"You're still arguing. "Yeah but what if apple goes bankrupt tomorrow, how will we get any other innovation?""

 

When did I say anything even remotely close to this in any way? I mean, come on.

 

I don't think this is that crazy of a concept. In a world where there are laws that dictate what charging port you can put on 20% of the devices you sell, you are much much less incentivized to put R+D money into improving the charging ports. You would be completely disincentivized to go out on a limb and try something new as a company. It basically ties one hand behind your back. It's not impossible, but it becomes much more burdensome.

 

Maybe we've reached a point where it is no longer necessary and this connecter will see us through for the next 20 years. It's possible we've reached that point... but if at any point in the last 20 years they made a law like this, we would probably currently have a worse connector on the bottom of all of our phones.

 

The USB standards body is not aligned with the EU. They have different goals. The standards body isn't going to push for change as hard as an individual company would. They will move slowly. The EU will move even slower than that.

 

I'm not out here ranting and raving or even disagreeing. I'm just putting some legitimate contrarian thoughts and concerns out there and everyone is piling on me like I'm some sort of stupid dipshit. It all feels very hostile and condescending. We're talking about fucking computer cords. I mean, come on.

 

 

There are no plans for changing the physical connector. Even if the underlying tech changes USB-C should be able to stick around as long as USB-A which is still found everywhere, unchanged, since '96. There have only been one addition to the full size USB port since USB has been a thing. Even the weirdo looking USB-B 3.0 ports are backward compatible with USB-B 1.0 and 2.0 cables. You just don't get the speed.

 

The entire point of USB-C was to merge USB-A and USB-B along with miniUSB and microUSB, as well their B variants. Also, yes, there is such a thing as B versions of the mini and micro.

[Jason]

13 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

If you believe that different devices use different chargers.  I use the same ones for my USB-C and lightning devices.  I can't imagine that I am unique.

 

The cables are also e-waste. 

[ort]

There's no plans now, sure. What about a decade from now?

 

 I think people are putting too much faith in the USB standards body. Even USB-C is a total clusterfuck of a spec.

 

USB-C Was Supposed to Simplify Our Lives. Instead, It’s a Total Mess. | by Owen Williams | Debugger

DEBUGGER.MEDIUM.COM

---

A mix of hidden standards make the ubiquitous cable a pain to deal with

 

 

 

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, ort said:

My main concern honestly is that overall the technological innovation thrives in the free market, and putting in place roadblocks like this, no matter how well intentioned can have consequences.

Standardization of basic aspects of technology does precisely the opposite of creating roadblocks. Proprietary technology is the roadblock. It stops smaller players from entering the market. You’ve got it backwards!

[AbsolutSurgen]

3 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Standardization of basic aspects of technology does precisely the opposite of creating roadblocks. Proprietary technology is the roadblock. It stops smaller players from entering the market. You’ve got it backwards!

The way we charge devices is still changing rapidly.  By 2025/2026 I would be surprised if new Apple phones still accept a cable.

[Guest]

Just now, AbsolutSurgen said:

The way we charge devices is still changing rapidly.  By 2025/2026 I would be surprised if new Apple phones still accept a cable.

And even wireless charging is standardizing

[AbsolutSurgen]

9 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

And even wireless charging is standardizing

Isn't it already standardized for phones?

When someone decides to deviate, it will because they have a technology/feature that Qi can't provide.

[Kal-El814]

I will say that I’ve never had issues witb charging over USB-C. Thunderbolt compatibility and functionality is occasionally extremely weird. 

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

Isn't it already standardized for phones?

When someone decides to deviate, it will because they have a technology/feature that Qi can't provide.

This isn’t really the why of it. They do it because it provides some short term competitive advantage over those who adhere to the open standard. If they want to introduce a new feature to the standard, they could, but how do they make the most money? With their proprietary route.

[Jason]

[ort]

21 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

This isn’t really the why of it. They do it because it provides some short term competitive advantage over those who adhere to the open standard. If they want to introduce a new feature to the standard, they could, but how do they make the most money? With their proprietary route.

 

That's the problem. It removes almost all incentive for them to introduce new stuff.

 

What if right now, after spending years of research and hundreds of millions of dollars... Samsung R+D is almost ready to launch a proprietary charger/connector that will allow their phones to charge from 0 to 100 in 10 minutes, but it requires a proprietary port. Do they just not sell them in Europe? Do they give it over to the standards body while singing Kumbaya?

 

What if right now some internal lab has a Eureka moment in charging ports and needs lots of time and money to flesh it out... would they get the funding if they know they are locked into USB-C? Would they approach the idea aggressively? Probably not.

 

These are slightly hyperbolic examples, but this is one of my concerns.

[ort]

1 hour ago, sblfilms said:

Standardization of basic aspects of technology does precisely the opposite of creating roadblocks. Proprietary technology is the roadblock. It stops smaller players from entering the market. You’ve got it backwards!

 

I don't disagree, but it's not a 100% black and white thing. It's complicated and nuanced like everything.

 

I love standardization. I want Apple to move to USB-C. I think USB-C is great. I'm glad every phone uses Qi. It's great. I just think it should come about naturally and worry what government intervention is going to do.

 

I think this law is short term thinking and trying to solve a problem that's on its way to being sorted out by market forces.

 

There are pathways written into this law for moving to new standards, but will the industry be incentivized to strive for new standards? How can a great new standard get any traction in the market when there is a literal law blocking it from existing.

[Ghost_MH]

1 hour ago, ort said:

There's no plans now, sure. What about a decade from now?

 

 I think people are putting too much faith in the USB standards body. Even USB-C is a total clusterfuck of a spec.

 

USB-C Was Supposed to Simplify Our Lives. Instead, It’s a Total Mess. | by Owen Williams | Debugger

DEBUGGER.MEDIUM.COM

---

A mix of hidden standards make the ubiquitous cable a pain to deal with

 

I think you're confused. USB-C is a form factor.

 

USB 2.0 and up have been a cluster thanks to how quickly the tech and standards have been evolving. USB-IF has finally gotten their heads out of their asses and come up with an actually sane naming convention for the USB 2.0 and up standards that should make things easier for folks.

 

USB-C can carry be USB 2.0, USB 3.1,  Thunderbolt 4, and so on.

 

USB-A and USB-B are only going away NOW, after 25+ years, thanks to USB 4. USB-C isn't going away anytime soon, even once we start seeing the USB spec hit Tbps speeds.

[TwinIon]

Oddly enough, I think think the mess that is USB-C standards is a good reason why this legislation is more benign than it might seem in that it shows how flexible the port is in what kind of connections it can handle.

 

My Dell laptop has a USB-C port that can handle Thunderbolt 3, but it's also a proprietary Dell connection that allows for more power than the USB spec allowed at the time (I think it's up to 180W, when the max official spec was still 100W). Much has been said about how the Switch USB-C port isn't entirely standards compliant. Google, Samsung, Qualcomm, Motorola, and others already have fast charging standards that only work at full speed when you have a compatible charger, cable, and device, but also still work at standard rates with any random charger.

 

Apple could build a USB-C port into an iPhone that can charge from any charger but will only pass data to a certified device or doesn't pass any data at all. They could build their own communication protocol on top of existing USB standards, much like they do with bluetooth with their headphones. They can build their own charging tech on top of USB-PD so that iPhones charge much faster from Apple's own chargers than they would elsewhere. All told, the constraints are relatively limited and I wouldn't expect to have a material impact on what Apple or anyone else decides to do with the port.

[SuperSpreader]

Solution; put a USB-C port and whatever other experimental ones on the device too. 

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

Oddly enough, I think think the mess that is USB-C standards is a good reason why this legislation is more benign than it might seem in that it shows how flexible the port is in what kind of connections it can handle.

 

My Dell laptop has a USB-C port that can handle Thunderbolt 3, but it's also a proprietary Dell connection that allows for more power than the USB spec allowed at the time (I think it's up to 180W, when the max official spec was still 100W). Much has been said about how the Switch USB-C port isn't entirely standards compliant. Google, Samsung, Qualcomm, Motorola, and others already have fast charging standards that only work at full speed when you have a compatible charger, cable, and device, but also still work at standard rates with any random charger.

 

Apple could build a USB-C port into an iPhone that can charge from any charger but will only pass data to a certified device or doesn't pass any data at all. They could build their own communication protocol on top of existing USB standards, much like they do with bluetooth with their headphones. They can build their own charging tech on top of USB-PD so that iPhones charge much faster from Apple's own chargers than they would elsewhere. All told, the constraints are relatively limited and I wouldn't expect to have a material impact on what Apple or anyone else decides to do with the port.

This is an important distinction to make. There is nothing precluding a manufacturer from using a USB-C connector is a novel way that still creates cross compatibility of cables and some base level of functionality.
 

There are some commercial imaging companies that I know do out of spec things with HDMI 2.1 between their projectors/screens and their own proprietary video players, as another example.

[ort]

1 hour ago, SuperSpreader said:

Solution; put a USB-C port and whatever other experimental ones on the device too. 

 

Apple already does this with new MacBooks. You can charge via Magsafe or USB-C.

[Ghost_MH]

1 hour ago, ort said:

Apple already does this with new MacBooks. You can charge via Magsafe or USB-C.

 

And I so hate it. I always loved Magsafe for charging, but that was before it was possible to have a data port double for power. Now all I can do is look at the new Macbooks and think that the'd all be better with another USB-C port. What's even worse is that the Magsafe isn't even necessary since you can still charge those Macs over USB-C. It's the same for Microsoft's Surface line. They all have that Surface Connect port, but can be just as easily charged over USB-C. The Surface Connect made sense when there wasn't a single cable that could handle data and video signals along with power, but that's completely doable over USB-C.

[SuperSpreader]

58 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

And I so hate it. I always loved Magsafe for charging, but that was before it was possible to have a data port double for power. Now all I can do is look at the new Macbooks and think that the'd all be better with another USB-C port. What's even worse is that the Magsafe isn't even necessary since you can still charge those Macs over USB-C. It's the same for Microsoft's Surface line. They all have that Surface Connect port, but can be just as easily charged over USB-C. The Surface Connect made sense when there wasn't a single cable that could handle data and video signals along with power, but that's completely doable over USB-C.

 

I have a Surface Laptop 4 and only use the USB-C for charging. Like why do I want to carry that brick around? 

[Ghost_MH]

2 minutes ago, SuperSpreader said:

I have a Surface Laptop 4 and only use the USB-C for charging. Like why do I want to carry that brick around? 

 

Yup. I have the first gen Surface Laptop Studio. Nobody can tell me the right side wouldn't be a million times better if it ditched the Surface Connect port for two additional USB-C.

[SuperSpreader]

5 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

Yup. I have the first gen Surface Laptop Studio. Nobody can tell me the right side wouldn't be a million times better if it ditched the Surface Connect port for two additional USB-C.

 

I almost got the studio but just wanted something light with long battery 

[Jason]

I'm pretty sure they didn't have enough bus bandwidth for another Thunderbolt port and they don't want to confuse things by having different USB-C ports do different things. At least the Magsafe gives you the option to not hog  a USB-C port while charging.

[Jason]

Also Magsafe is just a USB-C connector on the other end; so the brick is still USB-C. You can never use Magsafe if you don't want to.

[Ghost_MH]

1 hour ago, Jason said:

I'm pretty sure they didn't have enough bus bandwidth for another Thunderbolt port and they don't want to confuse things by having different USB-C ports do different things. At least the Magsafe gives you the option to not hog  a USB-C port while charging.

 

You are correct on the M1 equipped MacBooks. However, the M1 Max, M1 Pro, and M1 Ultra support 4xThunderbolt ports along side 2xUSB 3.1. There's no reason the MacBook Pro lineup should be limited. It's likely Apple didn't want to deal with multiple chassis with different ports more than anything there.

 

Microsoft has no excuse. The Surface Connect is just additional USB ports squished together into one proprietary port.

[Jason]

1 hour ago, Ghost_MH said:

You are correct on the M1 equipped MacBooks. However, the M1 Max, M1 Pro, and M1 Ultra support 4xThunderbolt ports along side 2xUSB 3.1. There's no reason the MacBook Pro lineup should be limited. It's likely Apple didn't want to deal with multiple chassis with different ports more than anything there.

 

I think they didn't have enough bandwidth for a full fourth Thunderbolt port because the HDMI port they provide only does HDMI 2.0 even though the Thunderbolt ports can do HDMI 21. People in the comments of this Ars Technica article think it's because of the 7+GBps SSD.

 

The new MacBook Pro seems to have an HDMI 2.0 port, not 2.1

ARSTECHNICA.COM

---

120 Hz 4K monitors aren't the norm today, but they probably will be later.

 

If they had the bandwidth but decided that people would appreciate not needing a dongle for USB-C to HDMI cable more than not having a fourth Thunderbolt port, you'd think they'd have at least provided HDMI 2.1 instead.