Apple moving on forced the rest of the industry to follow (there is a direct line from the original iMac to USB adoption, and USB would possibly still be at USB1 or 2 without firewire and then lightning), and we have all seen that happening, but the EU regulation stops that technological shift from happening.

I disagree with this. The mandate exists to unify power delivery standards. This is certainly convenient for the consumer, and does not stop innovation. I suppose it would block a "technological shift", but I can't imagine what a serial->usb shift would look like for USB-C. It does not block innovation as you can build new charging standards on top of USBC. You just have to be able to fallback to USB PD. Even then, USB PD is highly flexible, and we will see 240w devices coming soon using this. Examples of this include Qualcomms QC spec, and the various fast charging specs from the Chinese phones like Oneplus VOOC and Huawei SCP.

If the EU had (for example) mandated serial ports on everything for "one cable", then USB couldn't have come to the fore. (A "Kettle lead" mandate would have blocked power over USB) If they had mandated that the "one cable to rule them all" was USB-A, then USB-C couldn't have been introduced to the market. (And for TV where is the "one cable"? There must be more TVs than phones, but the EU haven't mandated that TVs have to have one - and only one - of HDMI/ Display Port/ Thunderbolt/ Ethernet/ Coax/ ...)

The EU isn't locking in a port like serial. USB 1.1 was already orders of magnitude faster than RS-232. They are also inherently different - USB was designed to be a universal connector and abstracted away from the user many configurations steps that RS-232 required. USB-C is the current forefront of technology and doesn't exclude anything. USB-A would have limited speed and not allowed for Thunderbolt or PCIe or video. I don't think that USB-C is blocking anything.

I would also argue that TVs already have a "one cable" solution - HDMI:

• HDMI supports Ethernet, audio return channels (ARC/eARC), and CEC for device control.
• It’s on every TV and almost every source device.
• HDMI and DisplayPort use the same data transfer method, so a simple passive adapter allows HDMI to work with a USB-C device.

Even then, this isn’t the same situation as USB-C for charging:

• A TV is never going to have just one connection because multiple devices use it.
• A display signal and an internet connection serve entirely different functions.
• USB-PD is meant for portable devices that need charging - a TV is neither portable nor chargeable.
• We already have IEC standards for static high-power devices, which are widely used for safety and compatibility.

USB-C would also be a downgrade for display bandwidth and cable length:

• HDMI has supported 48Gbps for years, while USB-C is only now approaching that speed.
• Long HDMI cables already exist, but USB-C struggles beyond a couple of meters at full speed.

I wouldn't mind some intervention in the display cable sector though. HDMI's certification/specification is meaningless, and it would be nice to see DisplayPort adopt some of HDMIs home-theatre type features so we could remove HDMI altogether - it has no real advantage over DisplayPort and requires licensing fees. I would also like to see the advertised supported resolutions for HDMI/DP be clearly marked as using compression or not.

 

*"standardization and reducing e-waste" seems to be a bit undermined by the simple fact that everyone that had lightning cables has to replace them and throw them away. If the standard had been mandated before lightning become the standard for half of the industry, this is a possibility, but to mandate it to ensure that there are billions of cables forced into obsolescence seems an odd way of reducing e-waste. Of course it couldn't have been mandated before lightning become the standard for half of the industry, because back then the rest of the world had not-standardised on mini-USB, micro-USB, nano-USB and proprietary connectors. Ironically Apple, with Lightning (and to a lesser degree FireWire), forced the rest of the industry to standardise on USB-C. So the EU punished Apple, and reduced the chances of Apple creating/ fostering the next connection standard.

While the immediate transition from Lightning to USB-C would create waste, this mandate is projected to save 11,000 tonnes of e-waste annually, and save €250m in charger purchases. If we are to believe their research, then this mandate appears to be a positive for e-waste. Furthermore, Apple was never going to create a new connection standard. They already knew USB-C was better, they've been using it since 2015 on MacBooks, and iPads more recently. I suspect they originally switched because, as a development partner with Intel, they knew Thunderbolt 3 would be using USB-C, which they released in 2016.

This also means that most Apple users already have a USB-C charger from their Apple laptop or tablet, so the Lightning charger didn't require much resource expenditure to replace. A study found that nearly 60% of Apple users own three or more Apple devices, meaning many already have USB-C chargers, reducing the overall impact of the transition.

To address this bit in particular.

I don't have as much faith as you do in the lawmakers: I really do think that the EU legislation was a spiteful anti-Apple (probably designed as anti-US) law with little or no technological reasoning. But I may be biased, so to take it at face value:

The trick is noticing that it has become a limitation. Until USB came along, no-one had noticed that serial/ parallel/ RSnnn connectors had become a limitation. Until the iMac had USB and only USB, the rest of the industry had played about with adding a USB connector to devices, but no-one actually made any USB peripherals to connect to them. Thus no-one noticed that USB was miles better (and "standard"), so there would have been no reason to update any putative legislation favouring the status quo.

The iMac forced peripheral makers to make USB peripherals, and the rest of the industry flocked to the "new" standard, but this was only forced because the iMac had no old-style connectors: this sort of thing would be banned by the EU law.

It's easy to see how this mandate looks like a targeted move against Apple or the US, but that overlooks the broader context. The regulation isn't about punishing any specific company - it's about reducing e-waste, improving the consumer experience, and lowering switching costs to make it easier for consumers to change devices while reducing barriers to entry for new competitors. It might seem like this law was aimed at Apple, but it applies universally and ensures that no future company, including Apple, can create similar lock-in again. Apple was the only major holdout against USB-C, and this delay was only so that they could continue to generate revenue off of having a proprietary connector.

The comparison to the iMac's role in standardisation doesn’t really apply here. The iMac replaced a mix of old, inefficient, and bulky standards with USB, which was a clear improvement for the consumer. USB-C is not like a serial port - it's the best we currently have, and it’s still being developed and improved. USB-C has already evolved to support Thunderbolt 5, USB4 v2, and 240W power delivery, proving it is adaptable to future needs. Apple was not going to release a new standard, as they had already adopted USB-C themselves. In fact, reports suggest that Apple was testing USB-C iPhones as early as 2019, before any EU mandate showing that they weren’t developing anything new and already knew USB-C was the best option.

The idea that the iMac's USB-only approach would have been banned by the EU misrepresents what the law actually does. The EU isn't banning new standards, they are only ensuring that all devices capable of wired charging use a universal connector. If a company wants to introduce something new, they can build on top of USB-C or introduce something to co-exist with it, just like how Thunderbolt evolved on USB-C. If Apple truly wanted to innovate, nothing was stopping them from creating something new and demonstrating its advantages before this mandate. Apple just wanted to hold onto Lightning because it made them revenue, like through the Made for I-device program. One (slightly sketchy) website claims they earn over $10b per year by selling cables and charging MFi fees. I don't put too much stock in this number, but it's certainly a revenue stream for them.

The industry is also capable of driving innovation by itself. Apple's FireWire died because they kept it proprietary and charged fees for it. USB quickly improved and became favoured over FireWire, and consequently, we don't have FireWire today.

Ultimately, this law does not prevent innovation - it prevents fragmentation. It ensures that we don't return to having multiple, sometimes proprietary, connections that limit choice and increase waste. If USB-C becomes a limitation, the law can be revised, just like how regulations regarding emissions or power efficiency are updated. USB-C provides a common foundation for everyone to contribute to innovation and progression, rather than companies pulling consumers backward into proprietary ecosystems.

I really miss my opossum buddy. The first time I saw him I thought death had come to claim me, but he was just chilling on my fence. He ate the noisy bugs and apparently my bedroom light helped in some way? I asked about it on reddit.

Reddit dude told me it wasn't ONE Opossum, because they only live for two years. I had a family of protectors!

And I never once thought to get them a cake.

Tonight, I had a Pepper Turkey and Palmetto cheese sandwich. I'm a big fan of cheese spread, and made the mistake of buying a local delicacy,
palmetto cheese.
It's like, a goo with shredded cheese. Looks nasty, texture is nasty, tastes amazing. I swore I wouldn't buy it again.

Aunt brought over a tub because she's a troll and she knew the cheese vexed me.

The cheese is spicy, the pepper turkey was spicy, and it made for a fantastic sandwich.

I just looked them up, they DO have just cheese spread. WOOHOO!

I was going to post a link to their website but then it blasted audio out of my speakers. So, I won't.

Getting rid of lightning was a spiteful - and stupid - thing to do, but that isn't what bothers me. What bothers me is that the EU bureaucrats have mandated that USB-C is used in perpetuity, when anyone with any sense knows that it will be obsolete in 5 years, and positively historic in 10: theoretically everyone that sells in the EU will be still building into their kit in 50 years. Like Wintel and the serial port. This is madness.

I think Apple should have kept the lightning port and stopped selling in the EU.

(Side note - USB-C is a mad melange of standards: instead of making sure that everything is interoperable, USB-C makes it impossible to know what is or isn't interoperable. The connector is standard, but the protocols aren't, meaning that no-one can ever be sure when they connect two items using a USB-C cable which functions - if any - will work, and to what extent)

Lawmakers should stay out of technology. I understand that winding up the Apple guy is a widespread pastime, but no-one that doesn't use Apple cared that Apple used lightning, and everyone that used lightning had no interest in USB-C, so the law actually addressed a problem that didn't exist, and "solved" it by making things a hundred times worse. Genius.

The EU saw a problem where none existed: in that Apple used lightning ports and cables, and everyone else used some variant of USB. So they mandated that - for the benefit of the consumer - any electronic device that has a charging port must use USB-C for charging. Thus they forced everyone that used lightning cables to change to USB-C, and buy a new set of cables and peripherals (when the EU says consumer, they apparently - like Smokes - mean "non-Apple-using consumer").

Unfortunately they didn't understand that USB will be obsolete soon, and people will then still have to manufacture equipment with a USB port that is a museum piece. I assume that they are of the opinion that the legislation will be updated to reflect new technology, not comprehending that it is in the interest of the manufacturer to stay with outdated standards if there is no competition (qv serial port, parallel port, RS232, RS422,  SCSI, which we would likely still be using if Apple hadn't upset the Wintel "Applecart")

I think the only real downside to losing Lightning is that it was more durable and easier to clean than USB-C. It also felt a bit more secure when plugged in. But beyond that, USB-C is just more capable overall—higher speeds, video output, and universal charging.

Having multiple standards under the same connector isn’t really unique to USB-C. HDMI 2.1, for example, requires better cables but isn’t always labeled clearly, and some devices are advertised as "HDMI 2.1" while only supporting HDMI 2.0 speeds. DisplayPort has different versions too, and even USB-A had its own issues with USB 1.1, 2.0, and 3.0 all looking the same. It’s not ideal, but the real problem is the lack of clear labeling, not the existence of different specs.

The idea that the USB-C law will block innovation forever seems a bit exaggerated. If it actually becomes a limitation, it can be revised, like how other regulations change over time. I don’t really see why USB-C would be outdated so soon though—USB-A has lasted for decades, and HDMI is still evolving. Thunderbolt 5 (or USB4 v2) already does 80Gbps and 240W, which is more than enough for most things outside of GPUs.

The regulation itself was mainly about standardization and reducing e-waste, which makes sense. Having a single charging standard does make things more convenient. But in the case of the iPhone specifically, it also had the side effect of pushing Apple away from its proprietary ecosystem faster than they would have liked. Apple already uses USB-C on Macs and iPads, so they clearly see its advantages. I'm sure some prosumers appreciate the higher speed too, such as those using the phone to film in high resolution often. But keeping Lightning on iPhones let them control accessories, enforce MFi licensing, and reinforce ecosystem lock-in. iPhones are usually the entry point into Apple’s ecosystem, and having a proprietary port made switching to other platforms less appealing. It’s similar to how Apple won’t support RCS messaging or make iMessage open—once people are in the system, they’re more likely to stay.

Also, if getting rid of old ports is bad, then wasn’t Apple dropping serial, parallel, and SCSI also a problem? Those ports stuck around in business and industrial settings, but Apple moved on, which forced the industry to adapt. That’s usually seen as progress. So it’s kind of odd to say that USB-C shouldn’t be mandated, but Lightning—USB 2.0 speeds, no video output—should have stuck around instead. Either removing outdated ports is good, or it isn’t.

A
What with this and the stupidity and ignorance of the EU leading to USB-C being mandatory for the rest of time, we live in very strange times.

Please elaborate on this ?

Thanks, goldie.  I subscribe to the Jonathan Pye videos on youtube so I watched that earlier today.  I was amused by his salty language that seemed entirely appropriate given the outrages that have been happening at an alarmingly fast rate.

And chris, I am simply filled with despair at the damage he and his minions (including that ignorant twit VP of his) have been doing to our global alliances.  A majority of Americans don't approve of any of this. Trump's poll numbers are tanking.  Now if only our GOP dominated legislature would grow a spine, but I fear that's hoping for too much.