Switzerland Moves Toward a Universal Phone Charger Standard (vice.com) 401
Press2ToContinue writes: Apple's Lightning cable cartel be damned: Switzerland is moving forward with a plan for a single, universal phone charger across the country, standardizing phone chargers across the board. While the exact standard hasn't been mentioned yet, it wouldn't be hard to guess the standard: Micro USB, used across phone platforms, most especially Android, which has a gigantic chunk of the cell phone market worldwide.
The likely loser? Apple, which has relied on proprietary chargers since introducing the iPhone in 2007. While many companies have tried releasing generic cables, Apple often relies on DRM software to ensure that it's an Apple certified cable, charging $19 a piece for the Lightning charger used by the iPhone 5 and 6 and similar models.
What do you think -- are government-mandated standards for chargers a good idea? Despite the success of the standard household 3-prong electrical plug, doesn't this hamper progress? China seems to have done most of the work on the wall-circuit side of the equation,several years ago. But as to the "standard" 3-prong plug, any particular plug type is only as universal as the sockets and voltages they supply.
The likely loser? Apple, which has relied on proprietary chargers since introducing the iPhone in 2007. While many companies have tried releasing generic cables, Apple often relies on DRM software to ensure that it's an Apple certified cable, charging $19 a piece for the Lightning charger used by the iPhone 5 and 6 and similar models.
What do you think -- are government-mandated standards for chargers a good idea? Despite the success of the standard household 3-prong electrical plug, doesn't this hamper progress? China seems to have done most of the work on the wall-circuit side of the equation,several years ago. But as to the "standard" 3-prong plug, any particular plug type is only as universal as the sockets and voltages they supply.
No (Score:5, Insightful)
Switzerland movies nothing, our Government just tries to suck up to the EU wherever they can and copy their laws... and, it just mandates a USB-Plug *on the charger*, so even for the crap from Cuppertino it does not change anything...
standarizing phone chargers (Score:4, Funny)
I fail to see why that's a problem. Having a type A slot on the charger means that any phone w/ the correct cord can be charged - not just Apple or Android but also past generations of phones that may have used other types, like mini USB (used on the old Moto Razrs) or the proprietary types from Nokia, Samsung or LG.
Only issue as far as charging goes is iToys sometimes refusing to charge when not using the original white Apple made connectors. But even that happens only in certain environments, like a car's USB port.
As far as standardizing goes, USB has a pretty sordid record itself. Type A & Type B was fine, then you had mini, then micro, now Type C is coming out that is symmetric... Why can't the USB committee just standardize on Apple's lightning connector, instead of reinventing the wheel?
Re:standarizing phone chargers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:standarizing phone chargers (Score:5, Informative)
Well, several problems with the summary.
1) Micro USB sucks. I mean, USB Type C is coming out and for good reason - plugging in cables without doing the twist-around dance is a good thing. Rumor has it Apple actually gave that design to the USB forum because well, uni-directional connectors stink especially on mobile. Heck, there are several designs for the old Type A connector that are... reversible! Unfortunately, the design of the Type A means they are fragile
2) USB lightning cables aren't expensive, nor proprietary. The chip only comes into play if you want to do anything more than connect a sync/charge cable. You can pick up a ton of sync/charge USB to lightning cables on eBay/DealExtreme/monoprice/Alibaba for $5 shipped these days. There's a lot of clone cables out there. Hell, even licensed cables are only $10 on sale nowadays.
3) The chip allows lightning to do fancy things like send audio or video data out of it. USB has no such functionality directly (except through USB Host ports faking OTG - no one implements real OTG), so it's considered a "value add".
4) Reversible connectors are good. Imagine trying to design a phone accessory that uses the USB port - if you want to support a lot of phones, it's hard because half will have the USB plug one way, the other half will be the opposite, so you get stuck with releasing a product with a pigtail and some hokey attachment option.
5) Apple chargers have special resistors to tell you how much current the charger allows. USB Charging spec shorts D+/D-, offering no clue as to how much you can draw. And it's changed - 500mA, 800mA, 1A and 2A are valid. And devices that draw 2A have been known to explode/set on fire cheap chargers. Why the USB folks couldn't have adopted the Apple system (which is cheap, requires no special hardware (the resistors pull the D+/D- lines to logical 0 and 1 states) to measure or use and lets you mix and match chargers at will, I have no idea. I mean, why can't the charger tell the device it only supports 500mA? (FYI - the circuits to detect a USB charger are the same as Apple resistors - the D+/D- short coupled with "special resistors" inside the device across ground and Vbus means you detect it because the USB lines go a certain way)
6) Government mandating USB Micro is already limiting - consumers won't get Type C style connectors on their phone. I mean it's good it's standardized, but you really want to harm innovation like this? Of course, you can allow adapters for the Apple folks, and the Type C phone folks as well. (And face it - more phones are coming with Type C nowadays).
SO no, I'm sure Apple's really worried. Because likely the adapter provision will have to say, or you're going to really deny people the ability to buy phones that have USB Type C?
Re: (Score:3)
Now I have e
Government should enforce more standards (Score:5, Funny)
Standards are the basis of a free market, and proprietary "standards" are the basis of proprietary lock-in.
Governments are given the oversight to ensure that there still is a free market.
Examples for proprietary "standards" being used for proprietary lock-in:
-> microsoft office to make interopability with their formats hard
-> whatsapp's messaging protocol. its basically xmpp, but they still only allow the official client to communicate
-> printer cartriges, even used to lie to the customer by lowering the price for the printer.
why? (Score:3)
Where does it say that the purpose of govt is to regulate the free market? Why would the govt know better than industry which things should be standardized or not? Innovation is a Good Thing, and mandated standards pee on this.
Re:why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
All monopolies are creations of governments. They don't exist in a free market.
Governments may allow monopolies to exist, but they do not create them. Likewise, there is nothing in a free market to prevent them.
Bury conduits in advance (Score:2)
Natural monopoly of utilities is a myth [mises.org] created by a history of inefficient allocation of rights of way. It's possible for government-owned rights of way to remain competitive. All a local government has to do is bury several conduits under a road or sidewalk, with the intent to sell the conduits later to competing utilities.
Re: (Score:2)
You're begging the question, for without government how are these "privately held" created, and how are they secured? Locke said "man looks for, and is willing to join in society with others for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberty and property." That government grants limited monopolies in some areas such as infrastructure rights-of-way in no way argues against those grants also resulting in other monopolies.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
All monopolies are creations of governments. They don't exist in a free market.
The U.S. government has had to step in many times to break up monopolies. If all monopolies are created by governments then why would they break them up?
Maybe you can explain how the U.S. created the Bell System (aka Ma Bell) and Standard Oil monopolies and then why they would dismantle what they created.
Re:why? (Score:5, Informative)
Well, the Bell System WAS a government created monopoly, which fought tooth and nail against every attempt to nibble away at any part of it. All the government had to do to dismantle it was to repeal the laws the prevented any competition.
Standard Oil, on the other hand, was a market created monopoly where the government had to take aggressive action to dismantle it.
Re: (Score:2)
US laws created an environment where the Bell System could gain exclusive access to rights-of-way for building their system. The alternative would have been for Bell to negotiate rights-of-way with (millions?) of landowners. Their initial dominance was built upon government provided patent rights. Standard Oil was built on "mineral" rights granted by la
Re: (Score:3)
"True free market" is one of those religious notions I think. In the absence of a government there can't be a well functioning market, so perhaps a "true" free market means a dysfunctional one? Trying to learn economics from libertarian pamphlets is not a good idea.
It's called a franchise (bribe). Same as cable tv (Score:2)
> Maybe you can explain how the U.S. created the Bell System (aka Ma Bell)
It's called a "franchise". The govrrnment of the state or city allows only one company to run wires in the city. In turn, the company helps fund the politicians campaign. It was a long time ago that Bell did it, and of course for phone service most people now use wireless. Now, these government- mandated monopolies, called franchises, affect us most regarding cable TV companies, who also provide internet service. In most citie
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, what propaganda have you been reading? Historical monopolies arise all the time without governments forming them. Standard Oil, the robber baron railroads, De Beers, U.S. Steel, Microsoft. That doesn't mean all those monopolies were bad, because Standard Oil's monopoly provided benefits and the government didn't want to intervene there.
The free market if left on its own without regulation has nothing that prevents monopolies. That's why there are things called "natural monopolies" where the resourc
Re: (Score:2)
Governments are supposed to look out for the needs of the common good. Industry looks out for the needs of the shareholder.
Re: (Score:2)
Governments are supposed to look out for the needs of the common good.
Supposed to. But they end up looking out for the needs of large contributors to their campaigns and friendly IEOPACs* more often.
Industry looks out for the needs of the shareholder.
Then get your behind onto E*Trade and become a shareholder :-p
* An IEOPAC is an independent-expenditure-only political action committee, sometimes called a "super PAC". Under U.S. election law, an IEOPAC has no donation cap so long as it doesn't donate to or directly coordinate with a candidate's official campaign organization.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Government should enforce more standards (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes. However, there is no world government; so planetary adoption of standards is still hard.
the success of the standard household 3-prong electrical plug
Haha. Right. All the proposed regulation does is to make *one* end of the charger a standard. Good luck with the other end. There is no "standard household outlet"; countries can't even agree on what the voltage should be, or the AC frequency, never mind the number of, arrangement, size, and shape of prongs.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, its a true mess.
Re: (Score:2)
Haha. Right. All the proposed regulation does is to make *one* end of the charger a standard. Good luck with the other end. There is no "standard household outlet"; countries can't even agree on what the voltage should be, or the AC frequency, never mind the number of, arrangement, size, and shape of prongs.
Seems like you could use SSRs and/or actual relays to just support sticking wires into holes and praying, albeit at some expense...
Re: (Score:2)
It's a no-brainer if it's done independently and transparently.
I vaguely trust the EU to do this. Not so much the US.
Re: (Score:2)
In the UK the govt mandated electronic document formats are things like PDF, CSV and ODF. https://www.gov.uk/government/... [www.gov.uk]
I still find it hard to believe, given our, *ahem* questionable approach to standards (we ratified and pushed OOXML forward as an open standard).
Re:Government should enforce more standards (Score:5, Insightful)
Government mandated standards may or may not be a good idea, but they are certainly not "the basis of a free market" because they represent an intervention by government in the forces of supply and demand.
This is nonsense. The parent was right.
The underlying supply, mor important, demand, does not change, just because the suppliers need to meet a certain standard. And by all being forced to adhere to the same standard, a single supplier can not abuse his artificial monopoly.
Re:Government should enforce more standards (Score:4, Insightful)
Your statement may be true but still standards are not the basis of a free market.
Re: (Score:3)
They are in a very important way. For example, legal standards are an absolute necessity for what you call a "free market" (which isn't really free, but that's a different discussion). If there were no standard for what happens to people who don't perform on contracts, created by government and enforced by government courts, then there could be no market at all, much less a "free" one.
Also, standards as to what constitutes f
Re: (Score:3)
That's the point.
So what you want is not a "totally free market", but rather, a regulated market. The only discussion left then is a negotiation regarding where to set the level of regulation. In other words, you want an attenuated freedom...a limited freedom. I guess, freedom ain't free.
I suggest we set the "freedom dial" to the setting that has provided people with the highest level of economic security, economic mobility, standard of living and lowest level of po
Re: (Score:3)
What did she do wrong in Benghazi? Last I pushed someone hard on that issue, it would up as a claim that Clinton should have micromanaged the situation better while being an ocean away.
There was nothing wrong with having a private email server when she did it.
I don't hate you, I just think you're a "useful idiot" of the right wing.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If the government imposes standards for chargers (or anything else), buyers and sellers are not free to engage in transactions without government interference; that makes the market a regulated market, not a free market. I'm sorry if you don't understand that, but your analysis is, to use your own words, "nonsense".
Furthermore, government standards can very much affect supply and demand.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you give us an example of an unregulated "free market"? I mean one that actually exists, or has existed. Who decided that the voltage coming out of the wall socket should be 120v at 60hz? Where does the silly notion that there are a certain number of ounces to the pound come from? Why
Re: (Score:3)
Well, as a simple example, black markets by their very nature are unregulated. New markets generally also start out unregulated and free; many Internet offerings were originally unregulated. There are historical examples as well. But even if there weren't, what do you think that would show?
(It's 110V 60Hz in the US.) Th
Re: (Score:3)
The criterion for a free market is that people conduct business transactions voluntarily and without having terms or conditions imposed on them by others. How does the voluntary use of government currency and the voluntary
Re: (Score:3)
That's even more amazing, since the US has some of the strictest consumer protection and environmental protection in the world.
Surely you can point to studies showing that!
In any case, which part of "Objecting to government-mandated standards is not the same as objecting to standards." did you not understand?
None. But I disagree with you, because when industries create voluntary standards, companies have a tendency to push the boundaries as there is no comeback on them if they fail to meet the standard.
Re: (Score:2)
"a regulated market, not a free market."
Why do you hate Adam Smith?
Re: (Score:2)
Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations condemned monopoly. So a market ought to be regulated to the extent that regulations preserve opportunity for competition. People say they want a free market, but what they probably want is a competitive market.
Re: (Score:2)
Too many have a theology that essentially says "the worst corporation is better then the best government". That is, evil done by a corporation is fine and good because the free market fairies will fix it, but no good can possibly come from a government which exists only to create a military market and provide a means to sue those you disagree with. The problem is that there really is not a free market without government, much like there are no personal freedoms either without a government to defend them,
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Government should enforce more standards (Score:5, Insightful)
A free market is a ...
That is ONE definition of a "free market", as a market free of government regulation. Another definition of a "free market" is a competitive market with negligible barriers to entry, and the inability of a single participant (either buyer or seller) to unilaterally set prices. In practice, these two definitions are opposites, since completely unregulated markets tend to be rigged.
Re:Government should enforce more standards (Score:4, Informative)
The first definition has proven time and time again to lead to abuses in the market, abuses against rights of citizens, abuses against its own workers, cheating against its own shareholders even.
Re: (Score:3)
(Don't give me the example of people trying to "corner the market" or "get a monopoly by buying up all competitors", that just doesn't work.)
Tell that to DeBeers.
Re: (Score:3)
No, you claimed that a market can't be rigged if the transactions are voluntary. I showed three examples off the top of my head of rigged markets where the transactions were voluntary. You further claimed that cornering the market doesn't work. I would say the fantastic profits of DeBeers show that it DOES work. Nothing lasts forever, but it doesn't have to in order to be immensely profitable to a few and damaging to many.
If you're going to move the goalposts all over the place, I'm not going to bother play
Re: (Score:3)
Really? Telling people that price fixing agreements are likely not to be optimal for one or the other party is "free marketism to the extreme"???
The guy in question was happy with the advice. As a child, he found it a very valuable lesson, and more money. But you refuse to accept his view of the experience as positive because "interfering with markets". That's extremist free marketism, stating that the invisible hand is more important than anything, even the education of a child.
And the problem with that would be... what?
The inability of anyone to make a bloody living.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the primary criterion of a free market is low barrier to entry. This means no lock-ins to proprietary upgrades/maintenance.
Re: (Score:3)
"Taking whatever they want" is not a "voluntary transaction", so, no, that's not a free market.
Defense of private property is something quite different from government regulations of markets, so your comment is missing the point. Nevertheless, government is not necessary in order to defend private prop
Re: (Score:2)
Standards are the basis of a free market, and proprietary "standards" are the basis of proprietary lock-in.
Government mandated standards may or may not be a good idea, but they are certainly not "the basis of a free market" because they represent an intervention by government in the forces of supply and demand.
He's pretty much right. The "Free Market" has no monopolies (including no patents, no copyrights, and no proprietary standards -- obviously, since all of those are "you can't make/sell this" restrictions) and an infinite number of competing companies producing any particular product, such that the price of an item is based on the supply and demand. Having a single standard means more competition, so it is much closer to the Free Market ideal than multiple proprietary standards.
While governments can sometime
Douglas Adams had an opinion: (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.douglasadams.com/dna/980707-03-a.html
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Cut the man some slack, he's been dead almost 14 years, and as far as anyone can tell, not for tax purposes.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for that. I loved it.
Re: (Score:2)
I travel a lot too and my power requirements are met with a single, small, plastic box containing a step up/down transformer and an assortment of plug adapters to handle the physical configuration of any power connector standard in the world.
This reminds me of one of my pet peeves: so-called travel [amazon.com] surge [amazon.com] protectors [amazon.com] that are only good for 120V [amazon.com].
Should say: "travel in North America" surge protectors...
Re: (Score:2)
Should say: "travel in North America" surge protectors...
North America or Japan, I guess, as a lot of appliances intended for North American 115 V have little or no trouble adapting to Japanese 100 V. The Republic of Korea, on the other hand, uses 230 V euro-power.
that's just the EU standard (Score:3, Interesting)
The EU has mandated USB-style chargers by law for a couple of years now. These regulations do not prohibit proprietary charge connectors, just the ability to charge a phone from USB through an adapter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Given technologies like USB-C and various wireless chargers, it's not clear that these regulations really are very meaningful.
Negative connotation of harmonization to EU (Score:3)
Except a title like "Switzerland Harmonizes Phone Power Plug Rule to EU" might have a negative ring among Slashdot users because "harmonizing rules to the EU" was the excuse to push things like the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998.
In this case ... (Score:4, Insightful)
... government standardization would be a good thing since the vendors obviously aren't going to do it themselves. Proprietary connectors mostly help the vendors with lock-in due to patents which only helps to pad the balance sheets of those vendors.
Jeunism (Score:5, Interesting)
But after fifty years almost everyone experiences a deterioration of vision. It is so simple to make an explicit clear design of a plug, still I am to put on my glasses just to connect a smartphone to a charger.
It is not only with cables, it's with everything, an iron, a headphones, etc. About everything is designed by young cool people with perfect youthful vision.
Re: (Score:2)
I, still being young, are able to connect my phone to the charger in the dark, by feeling which side of the usb cable has the little "teeth". I then find out on which side on my smartphone the home button is (also very easy to find out), and then I apply my knowledge that the teeth have to be on the side facing away from the home button.
Re: (Score:2)
Eventually you too will be a blind old handicapped morbidly obese woman of colour with no dexterity and the mental age of a 4 year old, and you will wish you had prepared your USB connectors.
Definition of proprietary (Score:2)
Bad timing (Score:2)
At this point, the charger standard should really allow for USB Type C or microUSB.
Regardless, I hope, for their sake, that they actually make manufacturers bundle any required adapters with the phones. Despite all the fancy talk, Apple still only sells lightning to microUSB adapters instead of bundling them with the phones, effectively rendering the standard mostly useless, since everyone was standardizing on microUSB anyway.
This solution would also be helpful for the microUSB to USB type C transition.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you really bitching that there MUST be a law to force Apple to deliver a 25€ adapter? This is the level of minutia that you think that governments need to insert themselves into our lives?
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck off. Seriously, how on earth can you possibly consider this a bad decision?
Let's examine your "magic" (everyone knows Apple only does magic) "25€" adapter:
- It does not cost 25€ to produce
- The BoM is minimal: Plastic shell, PCB-mount lightning plug, PCB-mount microUSB receptacle, itty-bitty PCB and authentication chip. We're talking sub-1€ BoM.
- The BoM is entirely Apple's doing: If they didn't force all cables to have the stupid chip, they could reduce the BoM even further.
- It could b
Re: (Score:3)
Deliver, no. Make their phones compatible with micro-USB chargers, yes. Governments impose regulations and pass laws requiring standards compliance on products all the time. Especially in the EU, where there are laws which do such things as force standard sizes for foods (for example, in the UK, manufacturers were forced to sell products in sizes that were round numbers in grams and not just conversions from t
Apple will simply not sell phones without charger (Score:2)
As long as the law does not also forbid to bundle chargers with phones, also demanding that the phone+charger price has to be higher than the phone-only price, not much is gained.
Sure, people might save some money on secondary chargers, but I don't know many people who ever bought such.
Ah, and BTW, the fixed, proprietary, non-user replaceable batteries are even more of a problem than the chargers, as they allow manufacturers to limit the lifetime of their phones easily, if only by asking unreasonable pr
Ah, government. (Score:2)
We're going to standardize on a standard which is itself obsolete and was replaced by a new standard, which we will surely standardize on as soon as another standard replaces it.
(Technically, micro-USB is two generations out of date, but only if you count the abomination that is USB 3.0 micro-B)
I'm conflicted about this... (Score:5, Interesting)
On the one hand, I have drawers full of old phones and chargers...so I reckon standards are good.
On the other, my kids (and to a lesser extent I) enjoyed the extended functionality that iPhone sockets brought to (cheap, non-Apple) peripherals like bedside alarms, autonomous amp/speakers in the bathroom or by the pool, replacement car stereos...access to contacts, charging, music and all without Apple or Android "car OS" bullshit. And no, bluetooth alternatives for non-Apple devices do not count...only recently have they become remotely equivalent in reliability of connection, integration and ease of use.
The cheapo Chinese iThings mostly "Just Worked"...(OK, albeit with hilariously poor and inconsistent interfaces)
Well, up to iPhone 4s anyway.
All that came to a grinding halt with later iPhones / iOS.
Since my kids and cats routinely lose, loan, or just simply destroy chargers and cables, I have a bunch of hard-wired armoured micro-USB cables all around the house, the garden, the cars etc.
Fine for me and the wife with Android 'phones; for kids and visitors a small "tip" that converted the mini-USB to Lightening was attached with a steel flying wire near the end, (fishing line header, if you're interested...)
Neat little thing, bought for cheap. Worked fine.
Until an "update" rendered them useless...
Fuck you Apple.
Oh, and don't get me started on how later iOS updates rendered the user interface LESS usable.
Fuck you again, boys, and BTW fuck iTunes while we're at it.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to mow the lawn.
The likely loser ? (Score:2, Insightful)
The article claims that apple is going to lose. This is wrong: it will be the apple fan boys who will have to shell out for an overly expensive bit of wire. Still: probably a small fraction of what they have already paid in over priced kit.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple hasn't had much pull in Switzerland since the days of William Tell.
Hopefully NOT USB Micro B (Score:5, Insightful)
USB-C is a way better connector - No schrodinger's cat problem where the ports direction isn't determined until you try it the first time, so it always takes 3 tries. Aupports higher power etc - just a way better standard than Micro B
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
USB-C is the best current option as in 3.1's power delivery 2.0. Mind you it needs a data condom to be safe since you have digital interface to negotiate power delivery. In any event anything required by law should not require any licensing etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Bzzt. Sorry. You made the unwarranted assumption that the voltage is limited to 5V, devices can negotiate up to 20V. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
That said, it's still sounding like it's going to need a fairly big cable to accommodate the current safely.
UBA (Score:3)
Does it work in Europe?
IBM UBA [youtube.com]
Switzerland (Score:2)
I doubt if Apple or anyone else is likely to care about this. Even if it became a worldwide standard, a USBLightning charging cable is no problem, and I don't think the cable itself has any DRM - I can buy a generic branded one in my local tech store for a few bucks.
Oh come on! (Score:5, Insightful)
Micro-USB "standard" is largely in place in the EU (Score:2)
It's a de-facto standard, to be sure. On my desk at the moment, I have Bluetooth speaker; bluetooth keyboard, a small "dye-sub" printer, a bluetooth mouse, my phone, a PS Vita, an NVIDIA shield tablet, the game controller for the tablet, and a charger for my camera's batteries. All of these devices are powered/charged by micro-usb. For the past several years, I have been trying to avoid devices that do not allow charging via micro-usb. I made an exception recently for a Pebble smartwatch - the "other" end o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
These articles are about EU adopting an universal phone standard. Switzerland isn't a part of the EU, only schengen.
The current story is about switzerland adopting the law.
The swiss people are smart: they only adopt the EU laws that make sense.
Re: (Score:3)
EFTA membership is important here I suspect:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/... [europa.eu]
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting, didn't know that.
Re:Govt mandated? (Score:4, Insightful)
The digital industry is filled with almost monopolies. Microsoft is almost monopolist for the desktop (and its office suite is almost monopolist was well), intel is almost monopolist for the desktop CPU market. Google is almost monopolist for internet search. If these companies now use their monopoly to promote only a part of the market they control, its an abuse of their monopoly.
Its hard if a company wants to improve a product, yes. But here the thought of a free market is more important than wanting to improve cabled charger technology.
Imagine if you bought a house with apple IOT, and apple sells thousands of these houses, and after they sold them, they declare that only devices will work with the house's power grid that are certified by apple. This will be their next money printing machine. Modifying the house would be forbidden because of the strong IP laws, and patents apple has on the house. Your only option would be to tear down. Would you want this? And what is if only such houses are on the market, if nobody can build a normal house anymore, without vendor lock in?
Re: (Score:2)
You bash the free market and throw in IP laws which are government monopolies.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Govt mandated? (Score:2)
> Contrary to popular belief in America, Government is not inherently bad, so long as it's actually serving the interests of the people
Lool naive. Govt serves the interests of govt.
If the industry actually had to pay... (Score:5, Insightful)
However, regulating the production seems to be just more practical than searching through all trash cans for illegal dumping of toxic waste.
Re: (Score:3)
Govt overreach?
Yes, lucky you live in the states so idiots like you can not vote here.
That is exactly what a government is for.
Perhaps you missed the news: Swizerland is not the first country demanding universal chargers.
There are people that don't want to carry half a dozen different chargers around just because they have so many devices.
If the companies are to dumb to realize that then the government has to force them. That is for what I pay taxes.
Govt mandated standards always make things worse and serve
Re: (Score:2)
How could Apple's proprietary charger be the de facto standard when most devices sold don't use it?
Re: Govt mandated? (Score:2)
Several standards can coexist...
Re: (Score:2)
How could Apple's proprietary charger be the de facto standard when most devices sold don't use it?
Apple chargers have a USB-A socket on them that allows one to use them to charge practically any device. When I go on holiday I simply chuck a couple of iPad chargers into my bag and use them to charge my iPhone, iPad, Garmin Nav-aid, my Bluetooth headphones and a occasionally the Samsung phones of a couple of other family members. I don't really understand why Apple has to be the looser in this. If the Swiss universal charger will have a USB-C socket on it you could plug any cable into it you want includin
Re: (Score:3)
They sold a billion units... with 2 or 3 different connectors...
in comparison to several billion product sold by all other PLUS pther devices which also decided to standardize on micro-USB (like HP Prime calculator, some bank card reader for e-banking, raspberry pi and other (Bannana pi, Beagle Bone, ...) and so on...
Apple is the outsider, not a standard...
Re: Govt mandated? (Score:2)
Who cares? So what if a couple apple-yards want to throw themselves into a pit of incompatibility? Why is this something that needs govt intervention?
Re: (Score:2)
However, Govmints are evil, so your house burns down. Its the Murican way, hell yeah! And we, in the EU suck the Murican dick.
Re:Lightning Charger? Bias Much? (Score:4, Insightful)
The cable should be a dumb piece of conductor. A Lightning cable isn't. You might think that the ability to insert it either way would rely on special hardware in the phone, but that's because you're not thinking like a piece of shit that wants to force everyone to buy overpriced cables. In the Lightning cable, the hardware to determine the cable orientation and get everything hooked up right is IN THE CABLE.
That little bump before the Lightning plug? That's a chip. That's where the "insert either direction" magic happens.
About the fifth time you get the this accessory is not supported by this iPhone [google.com] message on the included cable and charger, you'll start to realize why the whole Lightning system is a horrible idea.
FWIW I rather pay a "premium" on a cable that will not fry my hardware and might burn my house down.
That's the charger, not the cable. Poorly built chargers can catch fire, and they can do that just fine with an Apple approved Lightning cable.
Of course, you also need an Apple approved charger, because iOS won't draw anything past the absolute minimum USB charge if not connected to an official Apple charger.
Re: (Score:2)
The phone charging problem is something the free market can solve very effectively. There is no reason for government to dictate standards like this.
Neither can you buy an iPhone with an USB charging plug on the iPhone, nor can you buy an Android with the Apple charger.
So: you free market seems not to work. And I really wonder by what magic you think the free market would give us a universal plug? Care to explain? And care to explain what timeframe that will happen 'due to free market'?
Re: (Score:3)
You must not remember before the EU insisted on USB charging. Pretty much every manufacturer had it's own plug and charger 'standard'. Replacement chargers, if available at all, were priced as if they were plated in platinum for the simple reason that there was nowhere else to get one from. There was no option for a universal charger or even a charger that might work on more than one phone.
Manufacturers shouldn't waste the people's time and money on non-standard chargers. They had plenty of opportunity to g
Re: (Score:3)
This is absurd.
No, the situations before those laws where absurd.
We have far bigger problems and government should not waste the people's time on stupid issues like charging cables.
A la contrair: the government should spend most of its time on all stupid issues regarding where citizens are robbed by companies which are to stupid to follow common sense.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no need for a charger or charging cable to understand external video. In fact, for security and price purposes, it's much better that they don't. Just define pins to supply electricity and let data cables have extra pins that evolve for all those other needs.
Re: (Score:2)
Samsung PHONES are already using micro-USB for years... Only their tablets may still be using some proprietary connector (mine is several years old so I can't say about current tablets)
You may add the HP Prime calculator, the Raspberry Pi, The BeagleBoxBlack and other which also use micro-USB