Apple will just certify the cable which fulfill specification. There will be some cables on the market (among all uncertified) which do not fulfill the certification. Apple will not limit the charging speed for those. The cables because of the lower specification won’t support highest possible speeds.
As for the transfer speeds, Apple might just leave USB 2.0 speed for their port. And regardless which cable you gonna use (even MiFi certified)., you will get slow USB 2.0 speeds.
The EU might as well just be Apple's new design/engineering team. They're doing a great job at stifling innovation by mandating ports and speeds....let's not stop there! What's next, Apple has to make every new iPhone with a minimum 50MP camera? Or, perhaps they will mandate that all new iPhones must be able to run both Android and iOS?
Could not agree more.
Does the EU try to micromanage EU based companies like they do Apple? Do ASML, SAP, Siemens, et al and have to get design approval from the EU before they can release new products into the global market?
I don’t get it. What does it mean to “not throttle charging” speeds?
...
The fear is that Apple will do something outside the USB-C standard. Third party standard USB-C chargers/cables may not be allowed to charge as fast as Apple approved "Mi-Fi" cables.
Yes, one must be careful in how the rules are worded in order to address this issue. It is also unclear as to whether it is reasonable for Apple to require extra certification for higher power charging. Can Apple use a charging scheme that is a superset of USB-C, yet still compatible with it?
It doesn’t sound tenable, other than a minimum req’t.
Are they going to say that a device must support 3rd party cables at its maximum charge rate? How would they determine who is at fault? It could be the cable, the power adaptor, or the device.
Are they going to mandate that every USBC cable must support 10W, 30W, or 100W? There will be cable who will only support 10W. How would a consumer know what power a cable supports?
They really don’t know how it is going to work. It’s taking more than a year for them to come up with a “clarification” of what they mean. Just seems like a shitshow. Like with MFi, they would have to come up with a certification standard for the whole chain for it not to be a shitshow, and that’s already XKCD territory already.
“I understand the USB-C standard and that the charging speeds should not being throttled, as the point was to limit charger e-waste . But the EU wants to define data transfer speeds? Overreach. ”
Without “throttling” there’d be a lot of exploding devices out there. Every device controls power input to protect the device from being damaged.
If you read the EU law, it doesn't require that all phones have USB-C charging. Only phones that charge with a wire. Phones that charge exclusively via MagSafe, or other wireless charging methods do not need a USB-C connector.
Apple has the option of a software change to make the lightning connector "data only". If they do that, all current iPhone models would meet the current spec, without any hardware changes whatsoever.
It turns out that the EU law, doesn't require USB-C, it merely prohibits other wired charging methods. Apple has the option of choosing to meet the rules by reducing functionality via software for iPhones sold in the EU.
I am in that boat already with my iPhone 12 Pro Max - the Lightning socket in the phone has failed completely, as in dead as a doornail, no charging or data. The only way to charge it is with the magnetic puck, which has, of course, its own USB-C connector and charger.
Using the USB-C pick is fine by me, the only skin that I really have in the iPhone Lightning game now is - or rather, was - CarPlay, but with the defunct Lightning socket I no longer have CarPlay access, which is annoying (a failed USB-C connector would result in the same CarPlay situation, natürlich).
The EU might as well just be Apple's new design/engineering team. They're doing a great job at stifling innovation by mandating ports and speeds....let's not stop there! What's next, Apple has to make every new iPhone with a minimum 50MP camera? Or, perhaps they will mandate that all new iPhones must be able to run both Android and iOS?
That all phones must fit the same case or The State will come for you. People can still personalise the case with stickers if they want them to look different to the approved colours.
If you read the EU law, it doesn't require that all phones have USB-C charging. Only phones that charge with a wire. Phones that charge exclusively via MagSafe, or other wireless charging methods do not need a USB-C connector.
Apple has the option of a software change to make the lightning connector "data only". If they do that, all current iPhone models would meet the current spec, without any hardware changes whatsoever.
It turns out that the EU law, doesn't require USB-C, it merely prohibits other wired charging methods. Apple has the option of choosing to meet the rules by reducing functionality via software for iPhones sold in the EU.
I am in that boat already with my iPhone 12 Pro Max - the Lightning socket in the phone has failed completely, as in dead as a doornail, no charging or data. The only way to charge it is with the magnetic puck, which has, of course, its own USB-C connector and charger.
Using the USB-C pick is fine by me, the only skin that I really have in the iPhone Lightning game now is - or rather, was - CarPlay, but with the defunct Lightning socket I no longer have CarPlay access, which is annoying (a failed USB-C connector would result in the same CarPlay situation, natürlich).
Sounds like a great excuse to get a wireless CarPlay dongle.
The fear is that Apple will do something outside the USB-C standard. Third party standard USB-C chargers/cables may not be allowed to charge as fast as Apple approved "Mi-Fi" cables.
Yes, one must be careful in how the rules are worded in order to address this issue. It is also unclear as to whether it is reasonable for Apple to require extra certification for higher power charging. Can Apple use a charging scheme that is a superset of USB-C, yet still compatible with it?
The Type-C Authentication standard, which allows both source and sink devices to do as much, or as little is they see fit with what they connect to, will probably provide the technical foundation for Apple to verify connections and decide how to proceed. It is part of the USB spec, so Apple doesn't need to create anything special to have that capability.
It's funny that the EU is 1) reading tech rumor sites, and 2) crafting official responses based on such rumors.
What's even funnier is that the EU itself doesn't seem to recognize the history of USB charging, or what is happening right now under their noses, with MagSafe.
From the beginning, no device would have any sort of capability to "fast charge" if proprietary extensions to the USB specs were not implemented.
Apple 10W, and then 12W were not part of the USB spec. Nor was Samsung's Fast Charge, the Chinese phone brands' methods of fast charging, nor QuickCharge.
They were created to fill a need to enable higher charging rates, but none of them prevented devices from charging at the standard, albeit snail slow rates USB specs provided for.
On the wireless induction charging side, MagSafe conforms to the Qi standard, and Apple devices will function perfectly fine with chargers that conform, but an Apple-certified wireless charger is needed to "fast" charge at the highest rates. Same principle at work.
Most are not picking up on the concept of a superset, instead focusing on a restricted subset, assuming that's how Apple will approach it. But MagSafe, and history says otherwise.
Technically, gas stations cannot break out credit card merchant fees into separate component charges, or they will be in violation of their merchant agreements with the card associations. How do they get around this? By offering "cash discounts" and a lower price that does not contain those merchant fees.
It is entirely possible to adhere to the letter, if not the spirit of the law, and you're right, nuance will play a big role.
It doesn’t sound tenable, other than a minimum req’t.
Are
they going to say that a device must support 3rd party cables at its
maximum charge rate? How would they determine who is at fault? It could
be the cable, the power adaptor, or the device.
Are
they going to mandate that every USBC cable must support 10W, 30W, or
100W? There will be cable who will only support 10W. How would a
consumer know what power a cable supports?
They really
don’t know how it is going to work. It’s taking more than a year for
them to come up with a “clarification” of what they mean. Just seems
like a shitshow. Like with MFi, they would have to come up with a
certification standard for the whole chain for it not to be a shitshow,
and that’s already XKCD territory already.
The only kind of "minimum" that exists is that spec-compliant Type-C cables must be capable of carrying 60W (more than enough for most devices), and USB 2 data. The older spec provided for higher capacity 100W cables, and currently 240W cables, which must be e-marked. Those specs pertain strictly to cables, not sources, nor sinks.
There is no minimum standard, or expectation for any device except for what that device chooses, or is designed to accept, and every one is different.
As noted above, history, and practice has not prevented supersets, nor do those supersets preclude compatibility with strictly spec-compliant devices.
If the EU is going to try to overreach, and not merely mandate compliance, but single out Apple for not complying "enough," then it should be prepared to apply that standard to everyone, not just Apple, and prepare for some pushback.
The EU's stated objective was to have Apple standardize on Type-C, for compatibility. Apple can do that by switching to Type-C ports.
But what it appears to want now, in response to a rumor, is to also regulate performance.
If you read the EU law, it doesn't require that all phones have USB-C charging. Only phones that charge with a wire. Phones that charge exclusively via MagSafe, or other wireless charging methods do not need a USB-C connector.
Apple has the option of a software change to make the lightning connector "data only". If they do that, all current iPhone models would meet the current spec, without any hardware changes whatsoever.
It turns out that the EU law, doesn't require USB-C, it merely prohibits other wired charging methods. Apple has the option of choosing to meet the rules by reducing functionality via software for iPhones sold in the EU.
I am in that boat already with my iPhone 12 Pro Max - the Lightning socket in the phone has failed completely, as in dead as a doornail, no charging or data. The only way to charge it is with the magnetic puck, which has, of course, its own USB-C connector and charger.
Using the USB-C pick is fine by me, the only skin that I really have in the iPhone Lightning game now is - or rather, was - CarPlay, but with the defunct Lightning socket I no longer have CarPlay access, which is annoying (a failed USB-C connector would result in the same CarPlay situation, natürlich).
If you haven't attempted to clean the socket, then I would do so, and there are a number of youtube videos for that.
It's amazing how angry internet people will get about a rumour of a letter sent to Apple that may be about the EU possibly taking some unspecified action against Apple if Apple ever do something that they're rumoured to maybe be thinking about possibly doing when they do the other thing that they also have not confirmed that they're doing.
Anyone calling the EU crazy about this glimmer of a possibility should probably have a think about easily they're being triggered.
The fear is that Apple will do something outside the USB-C standard. Third party standard USB-C chargers/cables may not be allowed to charge as fast as Apple approved "Mi-Fi" cables.
Yes, one must be careful in how the rules are worded in order to address this issue. It is also unclear as to whether it is reasonable for Apple to require extra certification for higher power charging. Can Apple use a charging scheme that is a superset of USB-C, yet still compatible with it?
The Type-C Authentication standard, which allows both source and sink devices to do as much, or as little is they see fit with what they connect to, will probably provide the technical foundation for Apple to verify connections and decide how to proceed. It is part of the USB spec, so Apple doesn't need to create anything special to have that capability.
It's funny that the EU is 1) reading tech rumor sites, and 2) crafting official responses based on such rumors.
What's even funnier is that the EU itself doesn't seem to recognize the history of USB charging, or what is happening right now under their noses, with MagSafe.
From the beginning, no device would have any sort of capability to "fast charge" if proprietary extensions to the USB specs were not implemented.
Apple 10W, and then 12W were not part of the USB spec. Nor was Samsung's Fast Charge, the Chinese phone brands' methods of fast charging, nor QuickCharge.
They were created to fill a need to enable higher charging rates, but none of them prevented devices from charging at the standard, albeit snail slow rates USB specs provided for.
On the wireless induction charging side, MagSafe conforms to the Qi standard, and Apple devices will function perfectly fine with chargers that conform, but an Apple-certified wireless charger is needed to "fast" charge at the highest rates. Same principle at work.
Most are not picking up on the concept of a superset, instead focusing on a restricted subset, assuming that's how Apple will approach it. But MagSafe, and history says otherwise.
Technically, gas stations cannot break out credit card merchant fees into separate component charges, or they will be in violation of their merchant agreements with the card associations. How do they get around this? By offering "cash discounts" and a lower price that does not contain those merchant fees.
It is entirely possible to adhere to the letter, if not the spirit of the law, and you're right, nuance will play a big role.
It doesn’t sound tenable, other than a minimum req’t.
Are
they going to say that a device must support 3rd party cables at its
maximum charge rate? How would they determine who is at fault? It could
be the cable, the power adaptor, or the device.
Are
they going to mandate that every USBC cable must support 10W, 30W, or
100W? There will be cable who will only support 10W. How would a
consumer know what power a cable supports?
They really
don’t know how it is going to work. It’s taking more than a year for
them to come up with a “clarification” of what they mean. Just seems
like a shitshow. Like with MFi, they would have to come up with a
certification standard for the whole chain for it not to be a shitshow,
and that’s already XKCD territory already.
The only kind of "minimum" that exists is that spec-compliant Type-C cables must be capable of carrying 60W (more than enough for most devices), and USB 2 data. The older spec provided for higher capacity 100W cables, and currently 240W cables, which must be e-marked. Those specs pertain strictly to cables, not sources, nor sinks.
There is no minimum standard, or expectation for any device except for what that device chooses, or is designed to accept, and every one is different.
As noted above, history, and practice has not prevented supersets, nor do those supersets preclude compatibility with strictly spec-compliant devices.
If the EU is going to try to overreach, and not merely mandate compliance, but single out Apple for not complying "enough," then it should be prepared to apply that standard to everyone, not just Apple, and prepare for some pushback.
The EU's stated objective was to have Apple standardize on Type-C, for compatibility. Apple can do that by switching to Type-C ports.
But what it appears to want now, in response to a rumor, is to also regulate performance.
While various companies extended the USB spec to allow fast charging, various third parties were able to build chargers and cables that were compatible with thee methods.
The concern is that Apple will use various methods to ensure that third parties can't build compatible chargers/cables compatible with these extensions, unless they pay Apple a licensing fee.
There is also a concern that Apple's phones will implement only parts of the USB-C spec, unless the cables/chargers are licensed from Apple.
Modern technology allows Apple to impose all sorts of arbitrary restrictions and limitations. Whether or not Apple would do such a thing is a separate question, as is whether or not such restrictions are reasonable.
I am in that boat already with my iPhone 12 Pro Max - the Lightning socket in the phone has failed completely, as in dead as a doornail, no charging or data. The only way to charge it is with the magnetic puck, which has, of course, its own USB-C connector and charger.
Using the USB-C pick is fine by me, the only skin that I really have in the iPhone Lightning game now is - or rather, was - CarPlay, but with the defunct Lightning socket I no longer have CarPlay access, which is annoying (a failed USB-C connector would result in the same CarPlay situation, natürlich).
There are a number of third party devices that will add wireless CarPlay to a car that has only wired CarPlay. Essentially they are a wireless CarPlay receiver that attaches to the car via USB. If you were interested, this would allow you to use CarPlay, even with a non-functional lighting connector on your iPhone.
The EU might as well just be Apple's new design/engineering team. They're doing a great job at stifling innovation by mandating ports and speeds....let's not stop there! What's next, Apple has to make every new iPhone with a minimum 50MP camera? Or, perhaps they will mandate that all new iPhones must be able to run both Android and iOS?
How exactly is telling Apple to get with the times and use a modern port that allows for a 40Gbps standard stifling innovation? Was Apple stifling innovation when they moved to only USB-C on the Mac? How about with the iPad? Or was Apple being innovative when they did nothing with Lightning to improve speeds? Oh, an adapter allowed for USB 3.0 speeds on one iPad. How innovative!
Why are you mad that the EU is telling Apple that they cannot sell you a device limited to 480Mbps when transferring data?
The EU might as well just be Apple's new design/engineering team. They're doing a great job at stifling innovation by mandating ports and speeds....let's not stop there! What's next, Apple has to make every new iPhone with a minimum 50MP camera? Or, perhaps they will mandate that all new iPhones must be able to run both Android and iOS?
How exactly is telling Apple to get with the times and use a modern port that allows for a 40Gbps standard stifling innovation? Was Apple stifling innovation when they moved to only USB-C on the Mac? How about with the iPad? Or was Apple being innovative when they did nothing with Lightning to improve speeds? Oh, an adapter allowed for USB 3.0 speeds on one iPad. How innovative!
Why are you mad that the EU is telling Apple that they cannot sell you a device limited to 480Mbps when transferring data?
They are telling Apple that they can't use something better than USB-C for wired charging.
I believe Apple was the first to popularize a reversible power/data connector using a chip in the connector (i.e. the "lightning connector"). I think that was the inspiration for many aspects of USB-C. Had Apple been forced to use the micro USB connector common at the time, we might never have gotten something like USB-C. Forcing the use of a standard, discourages companies to develop new technology. Why develop better technology when you won't be able to use it, and you don't have to worry about your competitors developing a competing better technology as they wouldn't be able to use it.
Such restrictions save companies money, and hurt consumers.
The EU might as well just be Apple's new design/engineering team. They're doing a great job at stifling innovation by mandating ports and speeds....let's not stop there! What's next, Apple has to make every new iPhone with a minimum 50MP camera? Or, perhaps they will mandate that all new iPhones must be able to run both Android and iOS?
How exactly is telling Apple to get with the times and use a modern port that allows for a 40Gbps standard stifling innovation? Was Apple stifling innovation when they moved to only USB-C on the Mac? How about with the iPad? Or was Apple being innovative when they did nothing with Lightning to improve speeds? Oh, an adapter allowed for USB 3.0 speeds on one iPad. How innovative!
Why are you mad that the EU is telling Apple that they cannot sell you a device limited to 480Mbps when transferring data?
They are telling Apple that they can't use something better than USB-C for wired charging.
No they aren't. The regulations do not say anything like that.
The EU might as well just be Apple's new design/engineering team. They're doing a great job at stifling innovation by mandating ports and speeds....let's not stop there! What's next, Apple has to make every new iPhone with a minimum 50MP camera? Or, perhaps they will mandate that all new iPhones must be able to run both Android and iOS?
How exactly is telling Apple to get with the times and use a modern port that allows for a 40Gbps standard stifling innovation? Was Apple stifling innovation when they moved to only USB-C on the Mac? How about with the iPad? Or was Apple being innovative when they did nothing with Lightning to improve speeds? Oh, an adapter allowed for USB 3.0 speeds on one iPad. How innovative!
Why are you mad that the EU is telling Apple that they cannot sell you a device limited to 480Mbps when transferring data?
They are telling Apple that they can't use something better than USB-C for wired charging.
No they aren't. The regulations do not say anything like that.
Perhaps I misunderstood the EU regulation. My impression was that if the phone used wired charging, that had to be over a USB-C connector using the USB standard.
This would preclude Apple using a different connector that was rated for higher voltages and/or currents.
The EU Directive specifically requires that devices specifically incorporate the USB Power Delivery standard, and that any additional charging protocol allows for full functionality of USB Power Delivery.
The Directive imagines that divergent solutions might be developed in the future, and says that the Commission should take action towards promoting and harmonizing such solutions to avoid future fragmentation of the market.
In other words, if a company develops a better mouse trap, they need to share it with other companies, thus eliminating any competitive advantage.
The primary purpose of the directive is to make charging standard, and to eliminate proprietary (and perhaps superior) charging methods. They feel that it is better to stick to the lowest common denominator, so that chargers/cables are interchangeable, than to let companies produce unique and better products.
The EU might as well just be Apple's new design/engineering team. They're doing a great job at stifling innovation by mandating ports and speeds....let's not stop there! What's next, Apple has to make every new iPhone with a minimum 50MP camera? Or, perhaps they will mandate that all new iPhones must be able to run both Android and iOS?
How exactly is telling Apple to get with the times and use a modern port that allows for a 40Gbps standard stifling innovation? Was Apple stifling innovation when they moved to only USB-C on the Mac? How about with the iPad? Or was Apple being innovative when they did nothing with Lightning to improve speeds? Oh, an adapter allowed for USB 3.0 speeds on one iPad. How innovative!
Why are you mad that the EU is telling Apple that they cannot sell you a device limited to 480Mbps when transferring data?
They are telling Apple that they can't use something better than USB-C for wired charging.
No they aren't. The regulations do not say anything like that.
Perhaps I misunderstood the EU regulation. My impression was that if the phone used wired charging, that had to be over a USB-C connector using the USB standard.
This would preclude Apple using a different connector that was rated for higher voltages and/or currents.
The EU Directive specifically requires that devices specifically incorporate the USB Power Delivery standard, and that any additional charging protocol allows for full functionality of USB Power Delivery.
The Directive imagines that divergent solutions might be developed in the future, and says that the Commission should take action towards promoting and harmonizing such solutions to avoid future fragmentation of the market.
In other words, if a company develops a better mouse trap, they need to share it with other companies, thus eliminating any competitive advantage.
The primary purpose of the directive is to make charging standard, and to eliminate proprietary (and perhaps superior) charging methods. They feel that it is better to stick to the lowest common denominator, so that chargers/cables are interchangeable, than to let companies produce unique and better products.
If Apple makes a magical new connector that completely supersedes USB-C, they can submit it to the USB Implementors Forum as a new standard. If this magical connector is so good, they won't have any problem with getting other companies to adopt it. If it's so good, customers will flock to it instead of USB-C.
If Apple makes a magical new connector that completely supersedes USB-C, they can submit it to the USB Implementors Forum as a new standard. If this magical connector is so good, they won't have any problem with getting other companies to adopt it. If it's so good, customers will flock to it instead of USB-C.
Possibly.
But they chose not to release lightning as a standard. They kept it proprietary to Apple. Perhaps Apple felt that Lightning gave them a competitive advantage over competitors using Micro USB.
Apple's marketing strategy has been to position their products as being better than competitors. This allows Apple to charge a premium price. If your product is perceived to be the same as as your competitors, then people tend to buy the lower priced product.
The advantage to the public is that this encourages companies to develop new and more attractive products. The disadvantage is that other companies need to come up with competing technologies that are typically not compatible. Ensuring compatibility reduces innovation.
We see this with Apple's closed iPhone eco system. You can only buy Apps vetted by Apple. This means that all apps have passed some sort of vetting process. it also means that if your phone does get a virus, you can restore your data, and clean versions of Apps, all fro one source.
This offers both advantages and disadvantages.
An important question is whether it better for the government or the marketplace to make these sorts of decisions. If the market demanded USB-C, sales of iPhones with lightning would drop. The market would push Apple towards USB-C.
An interesting question is whether the adaption of USB-C in some models of iPad has made a difference in sales?
But of course, let's not pretend that current iPhones cannot be charged from a USB-C charger. iPhones come with a USB-C to Lightning cable and no charger. The idea is that you use a standard USB-C charger for charging your current model iPhone.
I rather hope Apple adds USB-C to their phones. Just because they dont have to for another couple years doesn't mean they should put it off. I would buy a phone sooner than I ordinarily would if it has USB-C. I wont buy another one until it does. All this hand-wringing over MFi is silly. As long as it charges and connects to my computer I will be happy.
Comments
There will be some cables on the market (among all uncertified) which do not fulfill the certification. Apple will not limit the charging speed for those. The cables because of the lower specification won’t support highest possible speeds.
As for the transfer speeds, Apple might just leave USB 2.0 speed for their port. And regardless which cable you gonna use (even MiFi certified)., you will get slow USB 2.0 speeds.
Are they going to say that a device must support 3rd party cables at its maximum charge rate? How would they determine who is at fault? It could be the cable, the power adaptor, or the device.
Using the USB-C pick is fine by me, the only skin that I really have in the iPhone Lightning game now is - or rather, was - CarPlay, but with the defunct Lightning socket I no longer have CarPlay access, which is annoying (a failed USB-C connector would result in the same CarPlay situation, natürlich).
Anyone calling the EU crazy about this glimmer of a possibility should probably have a think about easily they're being triggered.
There is also a concern that Apple's phones will implement only parts of the USB-C spec, unless the cables/chargers are licensed from Apple.
Modern technology allows Apple to impose all sorts of arbitrary restrictions and limitations. Whether or not Apple would do such a thing is a separate question, as is whether or not such restrictions are reasonable.
Why are you mad that the EU is telling Apple that they cannot sell you a device limited to 480Mbps when transferring data?
In other words, if a company develops a better mouse trap, they need to share it with other companies, thus eliminating any competitive advantage.
The primary purpose of the directive is to make charging standard, and to eliminate proprietary (and perhaps superior) charging methods. They feel that it is better to stick to the lowest common denominator, so that chargers/cables are interchangeable, than to let companies produce unique and better products.
Whether or not one agrees with this is a separate issue. However, that's clearly the intention of the directive. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32022L2380
But they chose not to release lightning as a standard. They kept it proprietary to Apple. Perhaps Apple felt that Lightning gave them a competitive advantage over competitors using Micro USB.
The advantage to the public is that this encourages companies to develop new and more attractive products. The disadvantage is that other companies need to come up with competing technologies that are typically not compatible. Ensuring compatibility reduces innovation.
We see this with Apple's closed iPhone eco system. You can only buy Apps vetted by Apple. This means that all apps have passed some sort of vetting process. it also means that if your phone does get a virus, you can restore your data, and clean versions of Apps, all fro one source.
This offers both advantages and disadvantages.
An important question is whether it better for the government or the marketplace to make these sorts of decisions. If the market demanded USB-C, sales of iPhones with lightning would drop. The market would push Apple towards USB-C.
An interesting question is whether the adaption of USB-C in some models of iPad has made a difference in sales?
But of course, let's not pretend that current iPhones cannot be charged from a USB-C charger. iPhones come with a USB-C to Lightning cable and no charger. The idea is that you use a standard USB-C charger for charging your current model iPhone.