The EU is enforcing USB-C on portable devices

[SilverSolder]

[...]
I'm not saying that locking it down is always the right answer. But I can absolutely understand why companies do it.

Why doesn't the same thinking apply to laptops, or car batteries, or lantern/torch batteries, etc. etc. etc.?   Historically, we are used to be able to replace batteries with any brand we like, in most products.   It seems a stretch to argue that there is any benefit to the consumer for overpaying for wear parts such as batteries, ports, etc.

I’d say ubiquity of phones, and risk: we use the highest-density, most unstable lithium batteries in phones due to size and weight. It’s easy to make a lithium cell that’s more robust and can tolerate more abuse, but that makes them hold less energy and makes them physically larger due to armoring. (Like in cylindrical cells or battery packs with hard shells.)

The original manufacturer can carefully design a product around a temperamental lipo battery. Third parties may get it right, but many won’t.

With that said, I don’t think the other products you mention are actually good counterexamples.

Until modern purely-electric cars, car batteries have been simple lead acid affairs, where nothing bad is likely to happen if the battery goes bad. (And in modern all-electric cars, the lithium battery packs are locked down.)
Lantern batteries are historically, again, not lithium rechargeables, but alkaline or carbon zinc cells, again not hazardous. Rechargeable flashlights often don’t have removable batteries.

Laptop batteries generally have been locked down. Third parties either carefully rebuilt original ones, or reverse-engineered the authentication.

Are there any examples at all of commercial policies that you would consider to be profiteering, or are you willing to always give them the benefit of any faint doubt?

Do you see nothing wrong with Dymo putting chips in their labels to prevent customers buying labels from third parties, for example?

[tooki]

I wouldn’t use the word “wrong” in the sense of it being immoral, I just think it’s stupid and annoying, such that I won’t buy their product. “Bad” yes, “wrong” no. Same with printer ink, Juicero pods, and many other things.

Where “wrong” in the sense of immoral does apply, IMHO, is things like medication, such as the $600 epi-pens, $1500/month Truvada (HIV-preventing pill that costs pennies to make), and in general, healthcare and education as profit centers.

Every single example I was discussing in this thread is safety-related. And to repeat what I said: I never said safety/liability is the SOLE factor. That would be naive.

But it’s equally naive to think that ALL companies ONLY consider profit maximization in their decisions to the exclusion of all else. There are many competing factors and motivations: legal, image, reputation, competition, short term vs long term profit vs market share growth vs profit share growth vs stock price growth, company culture and values, and many more I’m sure.

It’s frustrating that every time someone (be it me or someone else) brings up the fact that business decisions aren’t usually as black-and-white, good-vs-evil as they’re made out to be, people attack or dismiss us as being naive, stupid, or ill-informed, when frankly, it’s usually them who are ill-informed or narrow-minded.

[PlainName]

But it’s equally naive to think that ALL companies ONLY consider profit maximization in their decisions to the exclusion of all else.

I know you qualify that with 'of all else' but how does it square with:

But as a publicly traded company, making money is their primary goal, as is literally required by law.

[JPortici]

I have asked for a new laptop at work. Current one is 6 years old, one USB port has failed, another is starting to fail and in any case it's an old system, my couple years  newer intel nuc runs laps around it.
I've looked at some catalogs.
All have USB C ports, one dedicated to charging. Some also have a regular ("legacy" as in "it can use the older brick wall charger") charging port.
The port dedicated to charging is indicated with a lightning with an arrow symbol, pretty easy to understand. The symbol changes with the manufacturer but you get it, it's obvious.

From the list i chose the laptop that had most "conventional" ports, as i need to be connected to ethernet at times, and two-three usb gadgets.
Obviously i could use a docking station or a port expander. As a matter of fact, when i'm at my desk the laptop is connected to a dock and everything is connected to the dock. But when the laptop is on my lap, things better be connected directly.

Only the higher priced laptops came with 3-4 USB-C and nothing else. i had plenty of choice for my needs, and it's still compliant to the USB-C mandate for charging.
At this moment the USB-C thing is a non issue.

[tooki]

But it’s equally naive to think that ALL companies ONLY consider profit maximization in their decisions to the exclusion of all else.

I know you qualify that with 'of all else' but how does it square with:

But as a publicly traded company, making money is their primary goal, as is literally required by law.

Two ways:

1. Not all companies are publicly traded.

2. This:

There are many competing factors and motivations: legal, image, reputation, competition, short term vs long term profit vs market share growth vs profit share growth vs stock price growth, company culture and values, and many more I’m sure.

” short term vs long term profit vs market share growth vs profit share growth vs stock price growth” are all ways of making money.

[GlennSprigg]

'We' as individuals, can never change 'progress', good or bad.  I, as an 'older' person now, and suffering from 'Brain-Farts'
will not progress from my days of USB ports. Though that doesn't matter!! as when I'm soon gone, the World will go on!!!
I 'Think' I understand the usefulness of Type-C, and it's applications, however I can't help feeling that it's as much a direction
in reducing onboard hardware, in order to reduce production costs?  Everything we need now, is via external devices etc.

Now, for say $8 to $12 if you want, you can add a 4-port USB-3 to a C-port, so why worry?? I just don't think about it!!!   

[PlainName]

you can add a 4-port USB-3 to a C-port, so why worry

There's a limit to how many hubs you can chain, and some devices don't like being even one hub away from the PC port. In particular, the USB spec says that bus-powered hubs may not be connected in series to other bus-powered hubs.

[eugene]

Now, for say $8 to $12 if you want, you can add a 4-port USB-3 to a C-port, so why worry?? I just don't think about it!!!   

I would happily pay an extra $25 for the laptop with 4 USB ports over the one with just a single port.

Are we starting to see how 'making money' is not simple?

[SiliconWizard]

Fitting 4 USB ports on a modern laptop is usually from difficult to impossible. They are just too small and too thin. And market asks for that I guess, since it sells.

I personally don't see this as much of a problem per se though (I have more problems with those ugly ultra-flat keyboards), as I tend to use laptops while on the go and desktop computers otherwise. And on the go, the small number of ports is usually alright - with an occasional use of external hub if needed.

But that's just me.

[SilverSolder]

I have a recent-ish thinkpad T490 which has a decent number and variety of ports.  -  so it is still possible to get ports...

[Black Phoenix]

Regarding the power tools battery system talked before, where Bosch and other brands join together in developing tools who use the same battery system:

https://youtu.be/_rHtdDBM5ds

Yeah I know is typical marketing blab, just stating that in some cases standards are not bad for the consumer.

[eti]

USB-C is a pile of shit connector design. Data speeds aside, lightning is many times more robust and more well thought through in terms of design. Based on this, it stands to reason that Apple will supercede it with a better, equally (or more) robust plug and socket than the current lightning port. USB-C doesn't factor into their plans for phones; anyone with enough nouse and experience with the DNA and ethos of Apple KNOWS this, it's not even a point of "discussion" as it's not gonna happen.

iPad needs more power to charge, so Apple used USB-C a stop-gap until whatever plans they have for a new connector (or maybe just wireless, but VERY doubtful based on the appalling efficiency and fad-like nature of current wireless charging garbage) are released into their portfolio of devices.

Apple AIN'T everyone else. They don't care what everyone else is doing, nor what they want. Traditional thought patterns and simplistic assumptions DO NOT WORK when analysing Apple. You don't get to become mobile product leader by tagging along and kowtowing to the whims of what others do, or what the public and the other OEMs want. Nope. They DOMINATE the tablet and phone markets. They will do what they have planned, do not underestimate the brains at Cupertino, they're light years ahead of the rest.

What you see as a "new" Apple product is old hat... they've had that finished and on the shelf, ready to go, signed off and have moved onto the next 3-4 generations of designs LONNNNNNG ago. It's new TO US, not to them.

USB-C on iPhone won't ever happen. Print this out and take it to the bank, cash it when I'm shown to be right. I know Apple inside out.

[dxl]

USB-C on iPhone won't ever happen. Print this out and take it to the bank, cash it when I'm shown to be right. I know Apple inside out.

And USB on Apple devices will never happen because Firewire is so much better.

[eti]

USB-C on iPhone won't ever happen. Print this out and take it to the bank, cash it when I'm shown to be right. I know Apple inside out.

And USB on Apple devices will never happen because Firewire is so much better.

You're a funny man. But I'm a correct one. Wait and see.

[tooki]

USB-C is a pile of shit connector design. Data speeds aside, lightning is many times more robust and more well thought through in terms of design. Based on this, it stands to reason that Apple will supercede it with a better, equally (or more) robust plug and socket than the current lightning port. USB-C doesn't factor into their plans for phones; anyone with enough nouse and experience with the DNA and ethos of Apple KNOWS this, it's not even a point of "discussion" as it's not gonna happen.

Bullcrap. Apple gladly uses industry standards when they suffice. It’s only when no industry standard meets their requirements that they roll their own. That’s the Apple DNA/ethos.

I’m honestly not sure why Apple hasn’t moved the iPhone to USB-C yet. The only argument against it is that existing iPhone owners already have lots of Lightning accessories.

[Black Phoenix]

I’m honestly not sure why Apple hasn’t moved the iPhone to USB-C yet. The only argument against it is that existing iPhone owners already have lots of Lightning accessories.

As I said previously in this topic I believe it is because of the MFi certification who earns them money per accessory, not product.

Here's the quote with relevant links

For some of us playing along at home, form factor aside, what can the lightning interface do that the USB-C cannot? Or am I trying to oversimplify it?

Provide an extra avenue of revenue for Apple. That's the only difference between the Apple Lightning port and USB-C.

Both are reversible, both the plug gets damaged first than the port on the device, both support video and audio.

USB-C is better on power delivery.

Any accessory to be certified (every accessory, not a line of accessories) have to pay a tax to Apple to have the logo of MFi - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22209924

https://appleinsider.com/articles/14/02/07/apple-lowers-mfi-lightening-licensing-fees-paving-way-for-more-affordable-ios-accessories-

So that is the main reason, all the other reasons they say being increase waste, controlling the experience of owning and using their product is just a smoke screen from the real reason.

[Monkeh]

I know Apple inside out.

So you're saying they're going to exit the EU market?

[themadhippy]

The only argument against it is that existing iPhone owners already have lots of Lightning accessories

Apple caring about compatibility to legacy kit? yea they got a good history of doing that

[eti]

USB-C is a pile of shit connector design. Data speeds aside, lightning is many times more robust and more well thought through in terms of design. Based on this, it stands to reason that Apple will supercede it with a better, equally (or more) robust plug and socket than the current lightning port. USB-C doesn't factor into their plans for phones; anyone with enough nouse and experience with the DNA and ethos of Apple KNOWS this, it's not even a point of "discussion" as it's not gonna happen.

Bullcrap. Apple gladly uses industry standards when they suffice. It’s only when no industry standard meets their requirements that they roll their own. That’s the Apple DNA/ethos.

I’m honestly not sure why Apple hasn’t moved the iPhone to USB-C yet. The only argument against it is that existing iPhone owners already have lots of Lightning accessories.

I explained why. You reject it. Oh well. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[eti]

I know Apple inside out.

So you're saying they're going to exit the EU market?

The "EU" *SAY* that they will enforce it, Apple WILL find a way around it, or ignore them. Don't people learn from experience? No one wants a SHIT standard, least of all Apple.

[Monkeh]

I know Apple inside out.

So you're saying they're going to exit the EU market?

The "EU" *SAY* that they will enforce it, Apple WILL find a way around it, or ignore them. Don't people learn from experience? No one wants a SHIT standard, least of all Apple.

The sheer arrogance you attribute to Apple is a mere fraction of your own.

[tooki]

USB-C is a pile of shit connector design. Data speeds aside, lightning is many times more robust and more well thought through in terms of design. Based on this, it stands to reason that Apple will supercede it with a better, equally (or more) robust plug and socket than the current lightning port. USB-C doesn't factor into their plans for phones; anyone with enough nouse and experience with the DNA and ethos of Apple KNOWS this, it's not even a point of "discussion" as it's not gonna happen.

Bullcrap. Apple gladly uses industry standards when they suffice. It’s only when no industry standard meets their requirements that they roll their own. That’s the Apple DNA/ethos.

I’m honestly not sure why Apple hasn’t moved the iPhone to USB-C yet. The only argument against it is that existing iPhone owners already have lots of Lightning accessories.

I explained why. You reject it. Oh well. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Well yeah, because it’s wrong, and obviously so. I very, very much understand the Apple ethos, and it’s clear to me you don’t understand it, and don’t know Apple’s history as well as you think you do. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[tooki]

The only argument against it is that existing iPhone owners already have lots of Lightning accessories

Apple caring about compatibility to legacy kit? yea they got a good history of doing that

It’s not that so much as it is avoiding the “oh, they’re forcing customers to buy new accessories/dongles AGAIN” whining, like happened after switching to Lightning.

[tooki]

I’m honestly not sure why Apple hasn’t moved the iPhone to USB-C yet. The only argument against it is that existing iPhone owners already have lots of Lightning accessories.

As I said previously in this topic I believe it is because of the MFi certification who earns them money per accessory, not product.

Here's the quote with relevant links

For some of us playing along at home, form factor aside, what can the lightning interface do that the USB-C cannot? Or am I trying to oversimplify it?

Provide an extra avenue of revenue for Apple. That's the only difference between the Apple Lightning port and USB-C.

Both are reversible, both the plug gets damaged first than the port on the device, both support video and audio.

USB-C is better on power delivery.

Any accessory to be certified (every accessory, not a line of accessories) have to pay a tax to Apple to have the logo of MFi - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22209924

https://appleinsider.com/articles/14/02/07/apple-lowers-mfi-lightening-licensing-fees-paving-way-for-more-affordable-ios-accessories-

So that is the main reason, all the other reasons they say being increase waste, controlling the experience of owning and using their product is just a smoke screen from the real reason.

I know you wrote that, but I don’t think it’s correct. MFi certification is required to use Lightning, but it’s also required to use the MFi logo on things that don’t use Lightning. (For example, an iPhone-compatible USB jack on a car stereo or home cinema receiver. You can make it compatible without licensing, but you can’t use the logo. Or Bluetooth.) There’s no reason to assume the MFi revenues would simply disappear even if Lightning gave way to USB-C.

[Berni]

It is possible the apple might make a port-less iPhone before they make a USB-C one.

Going to USB-C is something sensible but wouldn't really make for much of a big news in the apple circles when they announce it on the next apple keynote, especially since iPads already have it. But announcing a iPhone without any USB port, now that is industry wide news. Apple is good at taking away things and then marketing it as a feature. They already did it with the headphone jack.

Not that it matters for me. I am an Android user, all modern Android phones are USB-C. Tho the headphone jack deletion trend has spread to Android now too.