Indeed, the text only speaks of a "common charger" without specifying further, so I'm somewhat surprised you make the claim the directive speaks only about one sub-part of the charger.
To me things appear thus: the EP passed a directive that states mobile radio equipment should have a "common charger", sensibly letting manufacturers decide how to solve the interoperability problem. Apple then argued "well, it's not explicit that you should be able use the 'common charger' without an adapter" and continued making phones that can't be charged by equipment made by others.
This join resolution isn't super clear about it, but does indicate that: "common charger" really ought to mean you can use the same charger for all similar devices.
Apple's charger already had a standard USB-A port and has moved to having a standard USB-C port.
It's the cable that they include with the iPhone that has a USB connector on the charger end and a lightning port on the phone end.
That included cable allows you to charge with any manufacturer's USB-C charger in the same way that the previous version of the cable worked with any USB-A charging port.
So, in summary, the cable Apple gives you works with other manufacturers chargers, and the charger Apple gives you works with other phones, using a standard USB-C cable that, I would imagine, came with the phone.
If they want to force Apple's hand specifically, they should be focusing on the port on the phone, not the charger.
> So, in summary, the cable Apple gives you works with other manufacturers chargers, and the charger Apple gives you works with other phones, using a standard USB-C cable that, I would imagine, came with the phone.
The point is you still need extra stuff just to charge your phone when you switch manufacturer. So what apple provides is in fact not a "common charger", but merely a transformer+rectifier that, using additional equipment, can be made into a "common charger".
Whereas the entire point of the regulation is to not need the cord that came with your phone, but to use anyone's. They got tired of all the proprietary connectors back in the feature phone days.
So what specific kind of USB-C cable will be allowed to be packed with my next shiny for the decades to come? What kind of USB-PD will the phone be allowed to support and - if the phone supports a higher voltage/amperage combination than the EU fixed in 2020 - will I have to buy an additional cable to support this?
How did we ever switch from SCART to HDMI after the EU forced the TV manufacturers to only support SCART in 1996?
Oh, it didn’t.
This is complete and utter nonsense. Apple’s powerplugs for iPhone/iPad only ever came with USB-A - or now with USB-C. They thankfully switched their lightning port before USB-C was even published, when everybody was still selling broken micro-USB or barrel connectors. There are many problems to solve, but Lightning isn’t one.
One day they might be, but they probably think switching now is too soon. Like the person above said, lightning came out before UBS-C. Apple switched from their long https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dock_connector#Apple_30-pin_... only 8 years ago. Everyone had to throw away their docks and charging cables. Now just 8 years later you want them to make everyone throw all those away again? Wikipedia says the 30 pin connector lasted from 2003 to 2014, so let people use the things they paid for a couple more years. Maybe Apple will come up with something better than USB-C in that time.
Lightning being a better connector than USB-C doesn't help.
Because not everything should be USBC, and not everything needs to be USBC.
USB C won’t be the standard forever, and it’s a standard that takes many forms and has caused lots of confusion, so it’s not exactly the gold standard.
USB C isn’t forever, eventually USB D will come around, and what’ll happen? The EU and their (often targeted anti-American-tech) laws will hold phones back, or leave themselves out of the market.
EU isn't legislating USB-C, it's demanding that the industry standards body have a common standard for charging, and continue to develop it as a common standard. The manufacturers are going to be collaborating on the specs. It will be like TCP/IP, DNS, UTF and many other things.
But why does the EU bureaucracy know that charging ports cannot be an important part of product differentiation? I would hope they wouldn’t legislate a common screen size or a common operating system... why legislate a common charging port? I STRONGLY prefer Lightning and would hope that people who prefer Lightning like me can buy Apple and people who prefer USB-C can buy Android.
Because the EU isn't there to pamper big corporations, it is there to strengthen the rights of consumers and citizens by strengthening competition. If your company can't survive without selling adapters or locking in customers with unnecessary differing standards (and therefor avoiding competition), maybe it isn't really healthy to begin with.
I would have a different perspective if there was really a practical reason for apple to go the different route — but there isn't.
How is there no practical reason? The practical reason is implied by context. Apple is among the single most profitable companies in existence, consumers vote with their wallets and their wallets overwhelmingly vote in a manner that supports Apple's decisions. It's a very European thing to point at the purpose of a government entity and assume it's true. Helping consumers? If consumers prefer universal cable standards then they'll favor products with cross compatability standards. The only people who benefit from this government intervention are the EU businesses that can't be bothered to examine themselves long enough to find a way to compete effectively. This sort of disconnected legislation is just another reason the EU has lost significance as an innovator, they'd rather settle for a comfortable and unchallenging norm.
Isn't it possible that consumers don't like needing separate proprietary chargers for iPhones, but it's a small enough part of the overall iOS experience it doesn't noticeably harm sales? After all, phone ecosystems are a duopoly. It's not an area where free market arguments hold water. This legislation lets the industry decide on their own standard. Do you think customers would also enjoy incompatible Wi-Fi standards, or cell modems?
Sure it’s possible but the opposite is also possible and politicians shouldn’t be trying to figure this out. There clearly isn’t some major harm to the world being caused by two different power standards. I can say that I personally vastly prefer Lightning to USB-C. Politicians should focus on the areas where the harm has been clearly established, like in privacy, not some dubious guesses about what power cable people like. And in other places where Apple has their own standard, like AirPlay and AirDrop, I prefer it to the open standard, so I’d prefer if politicians didn’t make laws standardizing the worse option.
To me it's the same as fridges and TVs. I should be able to buy a common cable that plugs into a Samsung or an LG TV and the same for an Apple or Google phone.
The rule was in place ten years ago. That's why every other manufacturer ships USB now, and even Apple puts USB on one side of their charger cord in malicious compliance.
I’ve been using lightning happily since my non-Apple devices were coming with broken micro USB cables. As a consumer I’ve been very happy with this. There’s nothing malicious about it.
AFAIK that is the directive that that was already planned years ago.
I remember many years ago there was a new charger for each version(!) of a phone, so the EU said either the companies choose a common port voluntary or they will regulate them.
That was 2009 shortly after that every major phone provider switched to micro usb, except of course apple.
2014 the first regulation was voted and should have went in effect 2017.
They gave apple the benefit of the doubt with the 30 pin connector and lightning that apple was going to make them standards, apple hasn't made that happen, so now the EU is saying they have to use an actual standard.
Anecdotally, my friends' cables always seem to be frayed. I personally have not owned an apple phone in many years, but I recently bought an apple brand usb-c to 3.5mm adapter at an airport because that's all they had and I forgot mine at home... It stopped working after about a month of very gentle use. It's in perfect physical condition.
The point is, if you have to keep replacing them, it's not a reduction in e-waste and runs counter to the spirit of the ruling.
I have the dongle that came with my phone, and I ordered a second of the same kind from the website. No issues with either of them. I've personally never broken a charging cable of any sort, except for micro USB where the little prongs stop latching properly. I may just be unusually careful with mine.
> If they want to force Apple's hand specifically, they should be focusing on the port on the phone, not the charger.
It's worth remembering that the backers of the EU legislation started with the idea of reducing e-waste, not punishing a particular manufacturer. Nor is it a Lightning vs USB-C squabble.
Getting people to throw their lightning cables, charging ports, docking stations, etc away would be counter-productive to their aims. The Lightning port has been around for a long time and getting rid of that will cause significant e-waste.
The Lightning port has been around for a long time and getting rid of that will cause significant e-waste.
From personal experience, Lightning already produces significant e-waste. The lack of strain relief means that my family experiences many broken Lightning cables each year.
Right, but by using their own proprietary cable, Apple cables (and those officially “approved” by Apple) are the ones that get sold, and the terrible failure rates.
In my attempt at reading both of these there seems to be a clear distinction being made when it refers to cables and when it refers to chargers. It also never really mentions ports.
Therefore, to me, it cares less about the port and cable on the phone half and more about the brick / part that plugs into the wall.
Neither document provides a definition for "charger". So perhaps whoever is in charge of implementing this directive (I'm not sure how this works in EU law) can interpret it either way?
I read "charger" to mean "the thing you use for charging", and not really bothering with the technical detail of exactly how this thing is made.
I think reading the texts as if they spoke only of the transformer/brick itself is to narrow, and not in line with the common understanding of what a "charger" is.
I will offer this suggestion of a precise definition for "charger": the complete technological assemblage required for transferring electrical power, suitable for storage, from a common wall socket onto the portable radio device.
Basically, if you have a wall socket, a mobile radio device, and a third thing, and they cannot be assembled so that the mobile can be charger, the thing is not a "common charger".
Good points. My only hesitation on the charger definition is most laws include whatever definition the legislature is operating under and sometimes it's different than what you'd expect.
You can define the charger to include the cable, and I can define the phone to include the cable. Either way it doesn’t provide much insight into the definitions with legal force.
That's not how it works. What the lawmakers mean is pretty clear as soon as you go read the documents affixed to the motion. There is no need for more boilerplate.
The 2018 Comission report has this to say on the subject for example :
The study has, in particular, provided the following information and conclusions: even manufacturers of mobile phones which did not sign up to the Memorandum of Understanding appear to have also adopted Micro-USB charging solutions, leading to the indication that almost 100% of data enabled phones sold in Europe in 2013 were compliant with Micro-USB charging solution.; due to the Memorandum of Understanding, it is estimated to have resulted in six to 21 million fewer standalone chargers over the period 2011 to 2013; the increasing prevalence of Micro-USB charging has limited the need to purchase standalone chargers and consequently reduced the use of raw materials than might otherwise have been the case.
Since the previous experience of the Memorandum of Understanding had proven to be successful for the reasons mentioned above, the Commission wished to continue the approach already followed based on a voluntary agreement. Moreover, a voluntary solution could more readily accommodate new technology and innovation compared to a regulatory option. Additionally, a voluntary approach may have had the advantage of having a wider scope, compared to the regulatory option, for example, it may have covered both ends of the charging cable 79 .
However, given the unsatisfactory outcome so far of the progress in the voluntary option, the Commission will shortly launch a study to assess costs and benefits of different options, including the regulatory one.
If the report is saying almost 100% of phones sold follow the reg, then they must be saying Apple are in compliance, right? I don’t see how you can get near 100% of phones without including the iPhone.
Also, take a look here:
> Additionally, a voluntary approach may have had the advantage of having a wider scope, compared to the regulatory option, for example, it may have covered both ends of the charging cable.
>However, given the unsatisfactory outcome so far of the progress in the voluntary option, the Commission will shortly launch a study to assess costs and benefits of different options, including the regulatory one.
This seems to say fairly clearly that only a voluntary option would cover both ends of the cable. Then it says they are looking at the regulatory option instead of the voluntary option. It doesn’t seem to contemplate a non-voluntary regulation covering both ends of the cable.
I don’t think I’m being pedantic or obtuse here, just reading the doc plainly.
Exceept ... in the case of wireless charging, yup. Which they explicitly mention. Would that mean that ... maybe ... the other kind of charging, involves cables?
Finally they state that one of the goals is reduction in the volume of cables collected and recycled.
The charger is obviously the thing between your phone and the power socket. It seems perfectly clear to me.
Because the entire thing is a charger. You can't use the charger without the cable. If the cable was a separate thing, fully interchangeable, the whole law wouldn't be necessary.
And they can't in hindsight decide that the cables aren't part of the "package" because they wrote in the resolution what the motivation of this law is, which is interoperability / compatibility / interchangeability and reducing waste, and if the cable part is non standard and not compatible, then obviously you'd need an additional cable to make the whole charger simply operable. Needing additional cables is what the resolution states (several times) is one of the explicit purposes, to prevent.
They also specifically discuss that wireless charging should be common as well, because not needing a cable is even better than needing the same cable.
I get the idea that sometimes EU laws are so clear and straightforward, that Americans implicitly don't trust them and expect a "gotcha!".
To me things appear thus: the EP passed a directive that states mobile radio equipment should have a "common charger", sensibly letting manufacturers decide how to solve the interoperability problem. Apple then argued "well, it's not explicit that you should be able use the 'common charger' without an adapter" and continued making phones that can't be charged by equipment made by others.
This join resolution isn't super clear about it, but does indicate that: "common charger" really ought to mean you can use the same charger for all similar devices.