The EU is enforcing USB-C on portable devices

[Zero999]

Then since the regulation demands USB-C but doesn't prohibit another port alongside, the example is hypothetical.

I notice that a lot of the time when people want to justify their position that they resort to hypothetical scenarios. The problem with that is that hypothetical scenarios are imaginary, they're a daydream. Everyone can imagine themselves a story where all their beliefs are true and all their opponents look dumb. Real world results are the only thing that matters.

Having an extra port, just to meet a government regulation just causes extra expense. I agree we need good regulation. It's just not needed in this case because the industry has already adopted a standard.

If I want to go buy a loaf of bread, I'm safe in the knowledge that putting sawdust in the flour is forbidden.

Not in the US.
https://foodbabe.com/are-you-eating-this-substance-that-lines-food-industry-pockets/

Where's the evidence cellulose is harmful? If I bake my own bread with wholemeal flour it will contain plenty of cellulose. If I stop eating every food because some website or magazine says it's harmful, I'll die from starvation.

[langwadt]

If I want to go buy a loaf of bread, I'm safe in the knowledge that putting sawdust in the flour is forbidden.

Not in the US.
https://foodbabe.com/are-you-eating-this-substance-that-lines-food-industry-pockets/

you are seriously using clickbate "article" on a page called "foodbabe.com" as an argument??

[tooki]

If I want to go buy a loaf of bread, I'm safe in the knowledge that putting sawdust in the flour is forbidden.

Not in the US.
https://foodbabe.com/are-you-eating-this-substance-that-lines-food-industry-pockets/

1. Food Babe is a widely discredited crackpot best known for her crusade against “yoga mat chemicals” in bread, and for claiming air travel is hazardous because of the “increased” air pressure…
2. Cellulose is not the same as sawdust.

[PlainName]

I notice that a lot of the time when people want to justify their position that they resort to hypothetical scenarios. The problem with that is that hypothetical scenarios are imaginary, they're a daydream.

Another hypothetical: just imagine if no-one ever thought "what if..."

[SilverSolder]

"Humans cannot digest cellulose. It has no caloric value. The food industry tricks consumers who eat foods with a high cellulose content to feel full physically and psychologically without having consumed many calories."

Hmm, doesn't seem such a bad idea!!

[Zero999]

"Humans cannot digest cellulose. It has no caloric value. The food industry tricks consumers who eat foods with a high cellulose content to feel full physically and psychologically without having consumed many calories."

Hmm, doesn't seem such a bad idea!!

The problem with eating too much of those kinds of foods is, they normally have laxative effects. 💩 💩 💩

[eugene]

I have been away from this thread for 5 or 6 pages. You're welcome. Now I'm not surprised that there's still debate over whether or not standardization is good. Would someone please find me a reference to any intelligent person trying to argue that standardization is NOT good. Could be in this thread or any other.

My issue with the law is that it stifles free markets. If given a choice between a little handheld doodad with a micro B charging connector for $5 or one with a USB C connector for $5.25, I'll pick the cheaper one. Likewise, given the choice between something with a superior connector for $10, or one with both that and and a C connector for $11, I might choose either one. The point is, it would be up to me. That's free market. And if the high volume manufacturers need to switch to C connectors just for one large market, then they'll will limit their choices.

As for examples about food that's not good for you, if you're not smart enough to make good dietary choices then you probably should die earlier than people that make good decisions. It's call natural selection. But, I think some people are mistaking laws around safety with laws around convenience. Obviously, I want companies that handle the food I eat to produce food that is safe to eat. And since I can't tell by looking at the cans on the shelf which companies do or don't follow safe practices, I need to rely on governmental regulations. On the other hand, if my government decides that all canned fruit be pears moving forward and no more peaches, then something is wrong. I don't need my government to protect me from bad decisions that I am fully capable of making on my own. If peaches suck so bad, then people will stop buying them and canning companies will stop selling them.

[SilverSolder]

Why does it stifle the market, if manufacturers are free to add extra ports in addition to USB-C?

I'm happy for others to buy expensive doodahs to plug into the proprietary ports, just keep my old chargers working and I'll let you be on your way! 

[SilverSolder]

[...]  If peaches suck so bad, then people will stop buying them and canning companies will stop selling them.

You are ignoring the shortcomings of our species.

E.g. millions of people fall for phishing scams despite knowing they are bad for you,  or vote for bad politicians, or make any number of poor decisions....    You can argue that they have a right to make poor decisions...   which I would agree with - but! - not at my expense!

[eugene]

Why does it stifle the market, if manufacturers are free to add extra ports in addition to USB-C?

Because manufacturers would not free to make products without USB-C.

This is not a difficult concept, so I'm baffled that you need it explained to you. Is it a language problem? Did I use words that you don't understand? Maybe you just don't understand the term "free market"?

I'm happy for others to buy expensive doodahs to plug into the proprietary ports, just keep my old chargers working and I'll let you be on your way! 

Again, is it a language problem? Is it a basic problem of reasoning abilities? I won't make personal insults here, but I am thinking them.

EDIT: Maybe I'm not seeing something that others see. It there exists today some rechargeable doodad with a proprietary charging port, please make me aware of it. I'm talking about things you can buy today, not cellphones from the last century. (Nor iPhones. If the proprietary plug on iPhones is what this is all about then bring it up with Apple.)

Or are we concerned with things like electric toothbrushes or electric shavers that charge by sitting in a proprietary stand? If so, then I disagree that it makes sense to force all the devices with micro B connectors to be retooled (and thus become more expensive.) Seriously, tell the toothbrush company you prefer that you would buy a new toothbrush if it has a non-proprietary charging port. If enough people agree, then they will respond. They're in business to make money, and if some specific feature will make more money for them, then they will add it.

Again, this is not an issue of safety, health, or even fair practice.

[madires]

One's freedom ends where another's begins. When the free market starts hurting people shouldn't it be limited or regulated for the greater good?

[emece67]

.

[Zero999]

Polemic remarks aside, the problem is if USB-C is made mandatory, of course manufacturers could add another connector, if a better standard comes along, but they're still stuck with the having to have the old obsolete USB-C connector. Hopefully the law will be reviewed and updated, if necessary, top prevent this.

[PlainName]

Or are we concerned with things like electric toothbrushes or electric shavers that charge by sitting in a proprietary stand?

Well now, that's a thought. The regs don't cover them so this is, uh, dreamy hypothetical nonsense, of course.

Let's suppose that toothbrushes are covered. On the one hand that would be great - no need to have to base plugged directly into the mains, which must make it a bit safer. And you can have it charging your toothbrush in the car if that's what turns you on. But OTOH you can see people trying plug a common or garden USB charger into a socket in the bathroom, and that's surely going to end in tears.

I think this would be a good case not just for an exemption but for a ban.

[Monkeh]

Or are we concerned with things like electric toothbrushes or electric shavers that charge by sitting in a proprietary stand?

Well now, that's a thought. The regs don't cover them so this is, uh, dreamy hypothetical nonsense, of course.

Let's suppose that toothbrushes are covered. On the one hand that would be great - no need to have to base plugged directly into the mains, which must make it a bit safer. And you can have it charging your toothbrush in the car if that's what turns you on. But OTOH you can see people trying plug a common or garden USB charger into a socket in the bathroom, and that's surely going to end in tears.

I think this would be a good case not just for an exemption but for a ban.

They're generally wireless charging, so it's even more hypothetical.

I already have a USB powered charger for my toothbrush, too..

Polemic remarks aside, the problem is if USB-C is made mandatory, of course manufacturers could add another connector, if a better standard comes along, but they're still stuck with the having to have the old obsolete USB-C connector. Hopefully the law will be reviewed and updated, if necessary, top prevent this.

One imagines if there is significant reason to switch to another connector for charging purposes, there will be loud enough noises made to change the requirements.

[SilverSolder]

[...]
Because manufacturers would not free to make products without USB-C.
[...]

Of course not, that's the whole point of the regulation?  I.e. just like a lamp has to plug in to your nearest wall outlet, a rechargeable device has to plug in to USB-C.    I don't see a problem with that, and many benefits.

The advantage of allowing proprietary-only plugs are really only the ability to fleece the consumer.  Are you in favour of fleecing consumers??

[SiliconWizard]

Polemic remarks aside, the problem is if USB-C is made mandatory, of course manufacturers could add another connector, if a better standard comes along, but they're still stuck with the having to have the old obsolete USB-C connector. Hopefully the law will be reviewed and updated, if necessary, top prevent this.

As I mentioned earlier, that would prevent a wireless-only solution with no connector at all, if USB-C must be there.
I think some replied that I didn't read the proposal if I claimed that. But please show the part that says it would be possible. Otherwise I stand by my claim: that would prevent any solution WITHOUT any connector at all. And this is just an example.

As was hinted here and there, I highly suspect the main driver behind this is NOT to make people's lives easier. It's to pretend doing something to limit e-waste. And the relevance of that, after some analysis, would be relatively easy to debunk IMHO.

The relevance of comparing that to mains plugs is uh, very poor. It's a completely different context and rationale.

[PlainName]

I already have a USB powered charger for my toothbrush, too..

Oral-B?

<microseconds later>Oh, a tenner from Amazon. Hmmm. Almost as much as the brush but tempting...

Still a captive cable, though. Wonder why that is.

[Kyle_from_somewhere]

My issue with the law is that it stifles free markets.

Free markets don't exist. They're only a thought experiment that relies on a bunch of assumptions that are often not true in real life.

[eugene]

When the free market starts hurting people shouldn't it be limited or regulated for the greater good?

Sure, there are cases where it makes sense. Some people might point at monopolies, but I would argue that monopolies are a distinct example of a free market ailing, so regulations might be put into place to restore its health. I understand that I'm expressing something of a ideology here, that a free market is always the best system provided it is allowed to be healthy and flourish. Not everyone agrees with that ideology, but I honestly don't see how this particular situation of multiple charging ports is improved in more than a trivial way at the expense of a free market. I mean, I have thought hard about it, and read the first few pages of this thread to understand the viewpoints of others, but I honesty can't think of a significant real world advantage to the regulation.

In any case, I think it's nearly universally true that all laws are intended for the greater good, possibly at the expense of a few. But it's never black and white. The advantages need to be weighed against the disadvantages. The number of people that benefit and the degree to which they benefit needs to be compared to the cost, whether to a few or to many. If a regulation makes things slightly more convenient for some, but adds real financial cost to almost everyone, then it doesn't seem like a good tradeoff. As I've already explained, the benefit of convenience to me is nearly zero as I will continue to own and use older equipment with micro B connectors. I suspect that the same is true for most people even if they haven't realized it. As for the talk about proprietary connectors, I simply don't see them anywhere on rechargeable products. None. If they exist on new products, someone please make me aware of them.

I relayed the regulation to a friend that hadn't heard about it. Their immediate response was that they think it's a good idea. They then proceeded to list all the reasons they prefer USB C over micro-B. But when asked if they thought a law should be passed requiring it on every product with a charging port, they admitted that a law doesn't make sense. Plenty of the rechargeable devices they already own have micro-B connectors, so they would need to have micro-B cables for some time to come. Everything rechargeable they ever owned with a proprietary connector has been replaced by now. It's simply a question of USB micro-B, USB C, or whatever other standard naturally emerges along with growing technology.

[eugene]

... a lamp has to plug in to your nearest wall outlet, a rechargeable device has to plug in to USB-C.   

The wall plugs are standardized for safety reasons. And in case you haven't noticed, there's more than one plug, each rated for different current.

I don't see a problem with that, and many benefits.

What are the many benefits? An increase in convenience is one. What are the rest?

The advantage of allowing proprietary-only plugs are really only the ability to fleece the consumer.  Are you in favour of fleecing consumers??

What proprietary connectors are you talking about? Please give me an example.

[SilverSolder]

... a lamp has to plug in to your nearest wall outlet, a rechargeable device has to plug in to USB-C.   

The wall plugs are standardized for safety reasons. And in case you haven't noticed, there's more than one plug, each rated for different current.

I don't see a problem with that, and many benefits.

What are the many benefits? An increase in convenience is one. What are the rest?

The advantage of allowing proprietary-only plugs are really only the ability to fleece the consumer.  Are you in favour of fleecing consumers??

What proprietary connectors are you talking about? Please give me an example.

Do we really need to explain to a competent engineer what the benefits of standardisation are? 

The benefits are so obvious that the onus is actually on you to explain why we should NOT require a standard charging port (as well as whatever other ports you want) on mobile devices.  It is the best of both worlds - we are not impeding innovation, and we are allowing people to (re)use existing chargers and cables in cars, offices, homes, travel bags, and so on.

The idea that if you own 4 portable devices, means that you need 4 chargers in your car, 4 in your office, 4 in your bedroom, 4 in your living room, 4 in your travel bag, 4 in your cottage, and so on,   -   really, it is just absurd...    when one could do the job.

Maybe for your specific use case, of owning one phone that you always snuggle up to, the proprietary port nightmare isn't an issue.   But can you at least accept that it is an issue for other people, and allow us a USB-C port to fulfill our basic charging needs unimpeded by "progress"??

[tszaboo]

Polemic remarks aside, the problem is if USB-C is made mandatory, of course manufacturers could add another connector, if a better standard comes along, but they're still stuck with the having to have the old obsolete USB-C connector. Hopefully the law will be reviewed and updated, if necessary, top prevent this.

I don't see the problem. My Laptop can be charged with USB-C, which is also a Thunderbolt or the Lenovo specific charger.
I don't know how they do it, maybe they are using these new so-called dijodes to like switch where the power is coming from.
This is literally a non-issue.

[JPortici]

The idea that if you own 4 portable devices, means that you need 4 chargers in your car, 4 in your office, 4 in your bedroom, 4 in your living room, 4 in your travel bag, 4 in your cottage, and so on,   -   really, it is just absurd...    when one could do the job.

bet he's going to argue you have one charger, four cables that plug into charger.

[eugene]

Do we really need to explain to a competent engineer what the benefits of standardisation are? 

No you don't need to explain the benefits of standardization. As I said earlier on this very page, everyone agrees that standardization is good.

Evidently, all attempts to explain to you that charging ports are already standardized has not hit home.

The benefits are so obvious that the onus is actually on you to explain why we should NOT require a standard charging port (as well as whatever other ports you want) on mobile devices.  It is the best of both worlds - we are not impeding innovation, and we are allowing people to (re)use existing chargers and cables in cars, offices, homes, travel bags, and so on.

The idea that if you own 4 portable devices, means that you need 4 chargers in your car, 4 in your office, 4 in your bedroom, 4 in your living room, 4 in your travel bag, 4 in your cottage, and so on,   -   really, it is just absurd...    when one could do the job.

Maybe for your specific use case, of owning one phone that you always snuggle up to, the proprietary port nightmare isn't an issue.   But can you at least accept that it is an issue for other people, and allow us a USB-C port to fulfill our basic charging needs unimpeded by "progress"??

What 4 devices requiring 4 different connectors? As I have already explained too many times, there are only 2: USB micro-B and USB C. Making a law that all new devices have a C connector will not make micro-B disappear because I will continue to own those devices.

Again, I ask you, for the second time on this page alone, what proprietary connectors are you talking about? Please, tell me so that I can take your argument the slightest bit seriously. Otherwise I will be forced to consider it a so-called strawman argument and disregard any further comments from you as not being important. This round and round is getting nowhere. You need to make me aware of the other 2 out of 4 connectors that you are talking about. I cannot address your comments without that information.