Is there a way to see how members voted?
Ireland's would be very interesting, and I reckon it would be against / abstain ...
OEMs, start your assembly lines as the European Commission (EC) has published its USB-C rules, and an official date for enforcement has been set for December 28, 2024. When the law comes into effect, any newly made radio equipment that can be charged with a wire, from smartphones and tablets to earbuds, mice and keyboards, …
These are the opposition and abstaining votes (grouped by party grouping and then MEP surname. All old-fashioned Irish names
ECR Hoogeveen, Vondra, Vrecionová, Weimers
PPE: Kokalari, Lega, Polfjärd, Skyttedal, Tobé, Warborn, Weiss
ECR: Ilčić, Jurzyca, Zahradil
ID: Haider, Kofod, Mayer, Vilimsky
(edit added note on group)
European Conservatives and Reformists - these are the more eurosceptic anti-federalist bunch initiated by David Cameron in 2006-09 so you'd expect them to be a bit anti the measure.
USB-C providing 100W does so at 20v (5A). I believe upcoming versions might move to 48v (so a smidge over 2A).
A 100W charger doesn't provide 100w all the time. If a device needs 5v@2A, it'll provide 5v@2A. If it needs 5v@500mA it'll provide 5v@500mA. The "100W" rating is the highest constant load that can be drawn in normal operating conditions.
So don't worry, plugging a 5v-only USB Flash Drive into a 100W-capable USB-C system won't cause the Flash Drive to draw 20A and burst into flames.
Not necessarily - you'd need more metal if you want to deliver 100 Watts at 5 Volts: the cable then needs to be able to carry 20 amps. It would be chunky. But the charging standard uses (negotiated) higher voltages for the higher power delivery options, allowing lower, reasonable, currents.
Of course, you can go too far: delivering at 100 kilovolts would only require a milliamp of current, but the cable would require a tad more insulation.
The problem is that the politicians don't fully understand the issues, hence the comment I was replying to about "seems wild to be forced to buy 100W cable if you only need it to carry 10W".
See the discussions elsewhere about the Online Safety Bill. Legislation created by politicians who want to Be Seen to be Doing Something, without any understanding of the unintended consequences of the legislation they promote.
Some of the most successful standards, such as Internet RFCs, CCITT coloured books, etc. were driven by professional engineers, with minimal political interference. They work.
hence the comment I was replying to about "seems wild to be forced to buy 100W cable if you only need it to carry 10W".
That comment was nonsense, and your reply was no better.
Complaining about "100W cable" is like complaining about "100km car". "I only need to drive 10km; why do I need a 100km car?"
It depends what chain of adapters you've got, but either it will all support the PD signals and negotiate voltage, or some link will not support them and it will be restricted to 5V with the maximum power output determined by the source device and the actual used current determined by physics. An adapter can prevent charging if it doesn't support it, but it can't choose to overvolt unless someone's deliberately made it to ignore the standard (in which case that's a problem you could have with anything).
The key thing for me is 100 watt supply won’t be that small. So when you want something small and light to carry to charge a laptop which only needs say 65 watts or 45 watts you are now forced to carry a physically larger and heavier PSU. I guess PSU designers will optimise their designs.
Wonder how this will tie in with workstation laptops which sometimes demand 230 watt power supplies. Really need to discover what USB-C’s maximum wattage is.
So I buy a phone with a USB-C connector and a 10 Watt charger. But the cable MUST be able to connect my 100 Watt laptop to a 100 Watt charger.
What does that mean? Does it have to actually supply 100 Watt (which means lots more copper in the cable) or does it have to just survive without bursting into flames (supplying 10 Watt to the laptop)?
It means that if you accidentally use the cable that came with your mobile phone, to connect your laptop to your laptop charger, it will work and charge at the normal speed for your laptop.
This is good for consumers. If you want things to charge quickly, you still have to make sure you are using the right charger (or a charger that is more powerful than that). You no longer have to worry about "am I using the right cable".
The irony of this being Apple won't want to waste time & money shipping a different type to the UK so we'll probably end up with it anyway. They're probably thinking the UK will get forced to be 'in line' by the EU to keep trading as well.
This is what happens when you try trading with someone 10000x more powerful than you... "we have all the cards" etc etc (poo emoji)
"Apple won't want to waste time & money shipping a different type to the UK"
Maybe they will. Reported on 18th Nov, India will require the USB-C so that it doesn't become a dumping ground for obsolete phones. The UK govt explicitly stated the UK won't require USB-C, and Apple has to get rid of the Lightening fitted phones somewhere.
But remember that EU regulations do apply in Northern Ireland, which is part of the UK.
And of course they also apply in Ireland, and retailers such as Currys/Carphone Warehouse and Vodafone sell in both countries and would likely want to place a single order for all their outlets in both countries.
EU gets brown envelopes from cable manufacturers and mining companies (you need to get that extra metal to have the cable to run safely that 100W)
Gee, wish we were in the EU so our MEPs could get brown envelopes too!
It's funny that when it comes to mass surveillance and other anti-freedom measures the EU is cooking up, the EU brigade stays silent...
Almost every device I buy comes with a cable, I have hundreds of them lying around. As soon as this regulation comes in no-one will be providing a cable that is used in everything else.
Why would metal manufacturers put money in brown envelopes to make 20% extra off every cable, but sell 5 times less?
I have looked at the first few paragraphs of the linked law but not gone through it in full. How is "radio equipment" defined? The example that comes to mind is site radios used by construction workers and kitchen fitters everywhere. If you don't know what I mean they're typically made by DeWalt, Makita, Bosch et al and use the same style of rechargeable batteries the same brand's cordless drill, circular saw etc use. Some of them can alternatively be plugged in and used as chargers for those same batteries. Are they caught up by this? Demanding USB charging on those seems superfluous at best.
Alternatively what about temporary cellular base stations for events or emergency/failure use? I would imagine most of the larger ones would be mains or diesel generator powered, but surely there are smaller battery units out there?
"Roll on common battery tool connector and interchangeable batteries."
Take one apart. They are, in most cass, your bog standard li-ion rechargabke cells, just packaged in a 50p case with a 1000% mark up.
People are now starting to sell converters and 3d printed generics.
I could name other things as well.
oh and lets not forget cars....no really, cars should be the top of the list
Site radios do not appear to be in the categories the directive applies to viz:
1.1 handheld mobile phones;
1.3. digital cameras;
1.6. handheld videogame consoles
1.7. portable speakers
1.11. portable navigation systems;
I was a bit confused about the part in the article that mentions smartwatches ("Devices that only charge wirelessly, like smartwatches, are exempt from the USB-C port requirements.")
My thought was that if other kinds smartwatches needed to use USB-C that would mean larger devices to accommodate the port - very difficult for the likes of Xiaomi's MiBand type devices
Although they could probably work like earbud chargers - you don't connect the earbuds directly to the USB-C port, instead you have a proprietary middleman in the guise of their storage/charging case.
It'll be an example of something that might or might not charge wirelessly. If it's a tacky Amazon special with a charging port, that port will have to be USB C. If the device only charges wirelessly, it's exempt.
I can imagine the connection to the charging dock/cradle would probably still need to be USB C, though, unless it's hardwired. Even the hardwired ones tend to be USB A at the wall wart end.
They aren't forcing all smartwatch makers to install a USB C port into all their watches.
100W is a fair chunk of power, allowing them to be charged by USB might not be the most useful if you have the charger handy, but if you a DeWalt and everyone on site has a Makita you would be really happy to be able to use your mobile phone's charger!
I wrote that - then turned to google. DeWalt and Ryobi agree with me!
The big names are already starting to support charging from USB-C, because it's useful to do so.
The regulations don't require it, but it's very nice to have the option of buying a generic USB charger from the local supermarket instead of ordering the custom one from the manufacturer that might turn up next week, if the courier can be arsed and doesn't get lost on the way to the site because it's not on Google Maps yet.
Lost working days are exceedingly pricey.
This is something I have enjoyed seeing as companies have adopted it, and I hope it becomes even more common later. I dislike having a collection of barrel adapters at different voltages, maximum currents, and polarities with little hand-made labels trying to tell people what each one should be used for. Labels fall off, or people don't read them (someone managed to connect a cable of a similar size to a device that needed a different one and fried it, so that was fun to replace), or the cables themselves break and I have to go through the box of ones I kept from stuff that broke in the hope that one of those will match (spoiler: they won't, but finding out will take twenty minutes). Bring on universal charging ports that figure out what voltage is needed.
This really is about consumer electronics.
What we could do with power tools would be something similar to make chargers and batteries interoperable for the same voltages. But seeing as these are the printer cartridges of the segment, it's going to be a cold day in hell before that happens.
>Devices that only charge wirelessly, like smartwatches, are exempt from the USB-C port requirements.
Always get downvoted to hell when I mention it but I still reckon Apple will just courageously innovate and go portless. The number of people who use the cable for anything other than charging is tiny. And they can make $$$$ on wireless charging kit.
I won't downvote you, but here are just a few reasons I can think of why wireless charging doesn't make sense:
1. It's wasteful, so it will not be a good look for Apple to switch to a less-efficient charging standard while everyone else is trying to burnish their green credentials.
2. It requires wireless charging hardware inside the phone, which increases device size and expense while decreasing reliability.
3. It requires the user to also buy a wireless charger, which adds expense and waste as well as bulk while traveling, and the charger itself will still have to use USB-C.
The only reason for Apple to go wireless-only would be to flip off the EU, which seems pointless and out of character. I can kind of envision Meta or Google doing something like that, but not Apple.
"1. It's wasteful, so it will not be a good look for Apple to switch to a less-efficient charging standard while everyone else is trying to burnish their green credentials."
Yep, but that never really brought up, per phone is very little
"2. It requires wireless charging hardware inside the phone, which increases device size and expense while decreasing reliability".
It already is in many of their products, doesnt take up much space in side.
"3. It requires the user to also buy a wireless charger, which adds expense and waste as well as bulk while traveling, and the charger itself will still have to use USB-C."
Apple will see nothing wrong with this, more money. And having to carry around adapters etc, that normal these days for Apple products.
The only item on your list that could be a problem for Apple is number 1. As for number 2, they've already put wireless charging hardware in all their modern phones, which is a larger set than would need USB-C anyway, so they wouldn't have to make any changes to the plans. If it also means that their users have to buy wireless chargers, many of which Apple will sell, that's extra revenue (the main reason they've kept Lightning around anyway).
I don't think they will, but those reasons don't limit them very much.
USB-C was designed in 2014.
It's now 8 years after USB-C was designed. Almost every device larger than a tablet still has USB-B ports, because so many devices still use it.
If a new USB Standard was designed tomorrow, my guess is, it would be at least half a decade before mass adoption in consumer devices started, and longer still until it really starts replacing the incumbent standard.
Yes, lawmaking is slow business, but I am not worried about it catching up to new connection standards fast enough. And all that is ofc under the assumption that a new format will be incompatible to the old, which doesn't have to be the case.
When you say usb-b do you really mean usb-b?
Most laptops have usb-c ports and usb-b compatible ports. But while those ports will connect to good old usb 2 and even usb 1 they also tend to be usb 3 (SS) ports. This is pretty much identical to usb c but just using a different physical connector.
My laptop isn't new, but will charge either through a traditional charger or one of its usb ports
Previously, new standards came out about every 7 years, so the next one would have come out in 2021.
But it doesn't look like we are pushing the limits of USB-C yet. We can 80Gbps/240W, with the possibility that it could be pushed further, and I don't think any phone is going to need that for a while.
Smartphones themselves are by far the largest source of waste and pollution. Highly complex components as SoC, battery, screen, baseband processor, cameras, a multitude of sensors and the rest are being manufactured, assembled together, used for few years and then discarded. It’s reasonable to expect useful life extension to be the highest priority for reduction of waste. Mandate at least five years of OS updates and spare parts for at least seven years. Reverse the endless Android fragmentation. At the very least push Android makers to align with Apple.
Far second in line chargers. Modular design with replaceable cable and socket connector extend useful life. It’s reasonable again to expect a push for Android vendors to at least align with Apple.
Last tiny cables. With modular chargers is the part you may need to replace anyway every five to seven years. No matter which connector is used.
Did EU officials pursue what is sensible? Longer lasting smartphones firmly first. Modular chargers second. No. The narrative instead being Google won. Who knows why.
Did the EU pursue what is "sensible" (by your definition) or what is practicable and achiebable?
You might pass a regulation that requires spare parts to be available but will consumers take that up, or will majority think "the new one is only £50 more than a cost of repair, I'll buy a new [faster/bigger/shinier] one"
If manufacturers don't incude a charger/cable because 99% of buyers have access to one already then there's a knock on effect in other areas: eg reduced packaging = less card waste, more units in a box, more boxes on the delivery truck
Perhaps consumers buy one good USB cable rather than three-for-a-fiver and it lasts longer than those three together (more so since cheap micro-USB connectors seem to fail very readily). At least old phones are more likely to go to recycling than left over cables.
How about we all stop teaching our kids and fooling ourselves, that the aspirational bullshit we're sold in ads by the likes of Apple and Samsung, is all horseshit? How about we go back to the attitude that if it ain't broke and there's nothing to be gained from a new version of something, you keep the old one until you do need an upgrade.
Nope, the mobile contract companies have brainwashed everyone into buying the latest pocket jackoff status symbol every 2 years, pushed by Apple and their ilk. "You're a sad, pathetic loser if you have a phone over 2 years old! You really want people to think you're a loser, or worse, too poor to afford the £80/month contract?! Of course you're not poor, not give us that Direct Debit ASAP!".
Last 3 phones I've had over the last 10 years have all been second hand, the last one has lasted me 3 years and what a surprise it still makes call, runs WhatsApp, plays my Sega emulators and my MP3 app still works. How can that be? Samsung and Google made me think if I kept it a day over 2 years it would either explode or start an alarm that yelled, "POOR PERSON! POOR PERSON! WON'T UPGRADE PHONE! BURN THE HERETIC!".
I couldn't agree more.
My last phone bought 5 years ago was a £75 Huwawei P10 light. It was ok, did the job. Replaced 2 years ago with a 2nd hand Mate 30 pro, again 2nd hand and is still going strong.
The P10 carried on in service as a music / podcast player for my car until last week when the SD card gave up.
My 14 year old is content with her Iphone 6 and my 11 year old had a SE2 for last Christmas.
The same 11 year old saved her birthday, Christmas and pocket money to buy herself a 2nd hand ipad mini 5 and loves it.
tldr, teach kids you don't need the latest gizmo, be individuals and find what REALLY makes them happy, and not be clones of society and they will be grateful of what they have.
Netiquette (still a know term?) advises not to use capital letters. I will stick to it.
Agreed. The problem is, as you put it, people. People buying bottles of air from Canada. People buying drugs from online forums. People buying SUVs. I am wandering off.
The point is regulation exists because tax money allow politicians to confront industry representatives and allocate resources for enforcement. It would be much more effective for the protection of the environment to enforce longer lasting smartphones with non bundled, modular chargers. Instead of forcing a connector choice. Good quality cables are a non issue.
Effective for the environment doesn’t mean also for the people mentioned above. I give for granted they won’t understand.
Could you clarify this? The iPhone 8 is still supported on the latest IOS and should also continue to install apps when it loses OS updates. I have an original SE which is older than the 8 (any 8, as I bought it before the 8 was released in 2017) which is still operating. The problem you are having may not be designed in.
"Apple said it was concerned that a single charging standard would stifle innovation"
Apple is a member of the appropriate USB bodies, it can contribute all the innovation it feels would be useful to the consumer, the only thing this agreement does is limit Apple's ability to exploit that innovation for its own profit (or anyone else for that matter).
Apple (and their fanbois and fangoirls) keep on telling us that usb c is inferior but can't actually tell us in what way
My favourite reason I heard from a fanboi was that usb c doesn't support wired headphones. Not only does it support such a thing, but Apple are completely against the idea of wired headphones.
For all the USB-A to Lightning cables that I have, including the ones charging USB-C iPhones, but also keyboards, mice, and all kinds of stuff? Will they pay me for a new adapter so I can plug two sets of headphones into an iPhone with USB-C connector instead of Lightning? Do these people actually have any clue?
Will they pay me for a new adapter so I can plug two sets of headphones into an iPhone with USB-C connector instead of Lightning.
Remind me which was the company that ditched the generic inexpensive headphone jack, forcing you to buy the expensive converter in the first place?
How did that refund go?
So you are saying I should complain to Apple about changing the adapter and costing me money, but I’m not allowed to complain about the EU coding me money again?
Now about my wireless headphones… They come with a tiny little USB charging cable. So the next time I’ll have to pay for a 100 Watt USB-C cable?
So my iPad came with a 30 Watt charger. And a cable. Are you telling me, seriously, that this 30 Watt charger has to come with a 100 Watt charging cable to charge a 30 Watt iPad? What if someone creates a 2 Watt charger to charge a smart watch, does that need a 100 Watt USB-C cable? Now if they require "needs a cable that you can plug into a 100 Watt charger connected to a 100 Watt device without blowing up", that's something I can accept. As long as my iPhone cable is allowed to only actually transmit 30 Watt in that case.
Is a USB C plug compatible with water? My Cubot N1 is charged by a magnetically attached cable which touches external contacts. My previous one - an Amazfit Stratos - had a similar system but the cable clipped on mechanically.
And anyway, aren't all devices charged by a cable? How much bulk would a wireless charger add?
Maybe next, the EU can pass a law requiring games consoles to be hardware and software compatible with each other, and incidentally allowing third parties to make and sell compatible games. The kind of exclusivity arrangements the industry currently has are of absolutely no benefit to gamers.
..... A gal can dream, can't she?
Based on my experience with USB-C connectors they seem to be prone to wear and subsequently loose fit. This I have noticed with several phones and other devices, as much as I love being able to use the same charger I’m not blind to the downsides. Even my Laptop, a ThinkPad, using USB-C for the charger has twice picked up lint or whatever that needed cleaning out, both in less than a year. Same for my wife’s laptop. I don’t subject that laptop to a harsh environment by any means. While my iPhone during longer service time did not need that, also the connector is as firm now as it was two years ago.
Just wondering if it’s really that great of a design to make it mandatory?