The best thing the EU could do is to disappear from the face of the earth. In the meantime, they will continue doing whatever they want without any considerations of correctness, common decency, consequences etc. They have an unlimited budget off the backs of Europeans.
When governments try to implement or regulate technology, it rarely ends well. The Venn diagram of people with the greatest influence to do so vs those with tech literacy is almost two independent circles. But really it's fine that the people in charge don't know how the tech works, just don't go around making promises that cannot be kept.
I just gave this a read, and encourage everyone to have a glimpse:
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news...-for-mobile-devices-will-be-a-reality-in-2024
And yeah it really is out of touch with reality. Each point can easily be dismantled. Obviously USB-C isn't merely a charging port, it is also used for data transfer and display output connectivity. But the problem is USB-C is only a port, it isn't a standard of any sort for anything. It's just the plug, receptacle and their respective pinouts. Manufacturers often play hard and fast with such loose standards to best benefit their bottom line.
Take for example budget Android devices. They may have a USB-C port, but chances are it is only wired up for USB 2.0 functionality. The average user won't know that. Early OnePlus devices even used a highly proprietary Dash/Warp/VOOC fast charging standard that required the use of a OnePlus branded power adapter and cable, on their USB 2.0-only port. The Type-A plug contacts and the entire cable has extra copper to facilitate high-current charging, in contrast to the industry standard which is high-voltage charging.
Consider this article:
https://www.androidauthority.com/state-of-usb-c-870996/
The graph above is interactive and if you go to the article, the tabs are clickable. The EU is really optimistic about "All devices that support fast charging will now have the same charging speed, allowing users to charge their devices at the same speed with any compatible charger." That entirely depends on the charging brick
and the cable; in this regard, that statement only applies to Apple's implementation of USB-C and USB PD (I'll get to that later). Generally speaking, not all cables are made equal. OnePlus' Warp Charging physically uses more copper, but that's an outlier. USB-A to USB-C cables are all pretty much capped at 5V x 3A = 15W, however C to C cables can be 20V x 3A =
60W max. or 20V x 5A =
100W max. The cable must be e-marked and made to the proper spec in order to charge at 100W.
Then also consider the Google Pixel line of devices. While they may have a full pin USB 3.x whatever version port (let's just call it SuperSpeed), the bundled cable is only USB 2.0, and Google went out of their way to block DP Alt mode display output at the kernel level so they can drive Chromecast sales for wireless casting. Luckily DisplayLink still works as it relies on a plain USB data connection to deliver a display signal, but the user experience is much worse than DP Alt mode. Google then took their sweet time to ditch Micro USB in their Chromecasts, only bringing it to the latest generation. The discontinued Chromecast Ultra had an Ethernet port in the power adapter so that wired internet could be delivered to the Chromecast, which only had a Micro USB port as the only I/O other than HDMI. However that did not make use of the OTG standard which meant Android phones could not benefit from it.
Apple was an early adopter of the USB-C life, if any recalls the dark MacBook ages of 2014-2018. But user adoption was a bit rocky, and Apple was quite ambitious with going all in with USB-C. They handled it pretty well, only sticking to the USB Power Delivery spec for the most part. As time went on and iPhone and iPad also received the USB PD treatment, compatibility was really good between Apple chargers of different wattages, since they covered all of the standard power profiles. Fast charging was not proprietary so any charger that offered the appropriate power delivery profiles could charge Apple devices at the same charging speed.
But the cables that came with the devices, again, were only wired up for USB 2.0 data transfer. Apple however had a pioneer advantage with Thunderbolt, so their implementations of USB-C almost always also included TB3 support and if you went out of your way to buy a TB3 cable, things would be right as rain. For computers, only the 12" Retina MacBook didn't have Thunderbolt, and for iPad Pros all the non-Apple Silicon models didn't have TB, and the iPad Mini 6/iPad 10th gen don't even have SuperSpeed USB.
IIRC there exists USB-C cables of several varieties:
- USB 2.0 60W
- USB 2.0 100W
- USB SuperSpeed 60W
- USB SuperSpeed 100W
- ThunderBolt 60W
- ThunderBolt 100W
- Optic fibre ThunderBolt that carries no power
- Optic fibre ThunderBolt that carries power with dedicated power wires
Depending on who makes the cable, you can choose to get any of the above. Apple for example makes 1m and 2m long plain USB 2.0 Type-C cables. 2m is bundled with the MacBooks and can charge at the full 100W. However I can't say for certain for the 1m long one. Apple also has ThunderBolt and Thunderbolt Pro cables that can both do 100W.
Contrary to popular belief, Lightning actually does support USB SuperSpeed, up to 5 Gbps. The iPad Pro 10.5" and the first two generations of the iPad Pro 12.9" have a double sided Lightning port that made use of both sides of the Lightning plug, which has an asymmetrical pinout. Quite an impressive feat I must say, because the host device dynamically assigns functions of each of the individual pins through a mux chip on the fly. Any new function that Apple wants to implement on the Lightning port, they just need to push a software update out and it'll work. This is how the Lightning to VGA, Lightning to HDMI and Lightning to 3.5mm headphone jack adapters work.
Unfortunately, Lightning with SuperSpeed data throughput could only be taken advantage of using the Lightning to USB 3 Camera Adapter (and maybe the SD card reader adapter too, but not sure about that one). No Lighting to USB-C SuperSpeed cables were ever made, which is a shame. There might have been a 3rd party one initially (presumably not MFi certified), but I couldn't find any traces of it.
Finally, if Apple replaces Lightning with USB-C, imagine the e-waste that'll result in. Lighting is perfectly fine as charging connector for 99% of users. There is only a single implementor of Lightning ports and only a single manufacturing process for the plug (if it's MFi certified). Sometimes proprietary doesn't equal bad. Often it's the only way that consistent quality can be maintained.
Give this a read:
https://www.dignited.com/28249/usb-c-top-5-issues-usb-c-connector/
In a nutshell, there are no standards or guidelines that USB-IF bestow upon manufacturers in order for them to be able to advertise using official USB branding and iconography. And as a result, the quality of ports/plugs between USB-C devices can vary greatly.
Some ports are rock solid and rely on proper standoffs, screws, enclosure design and FPC daughterboards to ensure that the port can withstand the rigours or daily wear and tear, and can be serviced without soldering if repair is required. Same with the plugs - good quality plugs will be made using a deep-draw extrusion method that results in a seamless plug, looking sort of like a flattened drinking straw.
Others will cheap out on the port, using only bottom of the barrel Foxconn OEM hardware that is surface mounted and secured using only solder joints, and hard soldered onto substantial PCBs. The ports are made of folded/stamped steel, usually joining at a dovetail seam, which often can burst open over time. And again same the plugs, the folded and stamped plugs will often have a plastic cap trimpiece at the open end of the port. This part is quite fragile and is known to break and fall off the plug.
And since USB-C can work in either direction, these cheap-out manufacturing techniques apply to both ends of the ensemble; cheaper charging blocks will break easier due to cheaply implemented port hardware.
Anyway, that's my $0.02. I could go on and on about this, happy to discuss and even happier to listen to any counterarguments
