[SiempreViernes]

Indeed, the text only speaks of a "common charger" without specifying further, so I'm somewhat surprised you make the claim the directive speaks only about one sub-part of the charger.

To me things appear thus: the EP passed a directive that states mobile radio equipment should have a "common charger", sensibly letting manufacturers decide how to solve the interoperability problem. Apple then argued "well, it's not explicit that you should be able use the 'common charger' without an adapter" and continued making phones that can't be charged by equipment made by others.

This join resolution isn't super clear about it, but does indicate that: "common charger" really ought to mean you can use the same charger for all similar devices.

[GeekyBear]

Apple's charger already had a standard USB-A port and has moved to having a standard USB-C port.

It's the cable that they include with the iPhone that has a USB connector on the charger end and a lightning port on the phone end.

That included cable allows you to charge with any manufacturer's USB-C charger in the same way that the previous version of the cable worked with any USB-A charging port.

So, in summary, the cable Apple gives you works with other manufacturers chargers, and the charger Apple gives you works with other phones, using a standard USB-C cable that, I would imagine, came with the phone.

If they want to force Apple's hand specifically, they should be focusing on the port on the phone, not the charger.

[SiempreViernes]

> So, in summary, the cable Apple gives you works with other manufacturers chargers, and the charger Apple gives you works with other phones, using a standard USB-C cable that, I would imagine, came with the phone.

The point is you still need extra stuff just to charge your phone when you switch manufacturer. So what apple provides is in fact not a "common charger", but merely a transformer+rectifier that, using additional equipment, can be made into a "common charger".

[GeekyBear]

You don't need anything but the cable that came with your phone.

[monocasa]

Whereas the entire point of the regulation is to not need the cord that came with your phone, but to use anyone's. They got tired of all the proprietary connectors back in the feature phone days.

[ashildr]

So what specific kind of USB-C cable will be allowed to be packed with my next shiny for the decades to come? What kind of USB-PD will the phone be allowed to support and - if the phone supports a higher voltage/amperage combination than the EU fixed in 2020 - will I have to buy an additional cable to support this?

How did we ever switch from SCART to HDMI after the EU forced the TV manufacturers to only support SCART in 1996? Oh, it didn’t.

This is complete and utter nonsense. Apple’s powerplugs for iPhone/iPad only ever came with USB-A - or now with USB-C. They thankfully switched their lightning port before USB-C was even published, when everybody was still selling broken micro-USB or barrel connectors. There are many problems to solve, but Lightning isn’t one.

[nojvek]

Macs come with usb-c. Why can’t iPhones be also usb-c? I’m not sure I fully understand why everything in the world can’t be usb-c?

[monocasa]

They had no problem allowing USB-C quickly, why would the next one be different?

[tokamak-teapot]

I thought it was to reduce materials waste from making and disposing of the chargers themselves.

[eanzenberg]

So they missed the boat by 15 years?

[bpfrh]

AFAIK that is the directive that that was already planned years ago.

I remember many years ago there was a new charger for each version(!) of a phone, so the EU said either the companies choose a common port voluntary or they will regulate them.

That was 2009 shortly after that every major phone provider switched to micro usb, except of course apple.

2014 the first regulation was voted and should have went in effect 2017.

[monocasa]

They passed this 15 years ago.

They gave apple the benefit of the doubt with the 30 pin connector and lightning that apple was going to make them standards, apple hasn't made that happen, so now the EU is saying they have to use an actual standard.

[GeekyBear]

If the cord was still hard wired into the charger like the old days, you would have a point, but this is supposedly about the chargers.

[monocasa]

The EU doesn't make a distinction between the cord and the transformer. And given their goals it doesn't really make sense for them to.

[DangitBobby]

Aren't these cables notorious for fraying and breaking?

https://frayedlightningcables.tumblr.com/

Anecdotally, my friends' cables always seem to be frayed. I personally have not owned an apple phone in many years, but I recently bought an apple brand usb-c to 3.5mm adapter at an airport because that's all they had and I forgot mine at home... It stopped working after about a month of very gentle use. It's in perfect physical condition.

The point is, if you have to keep replacing them, it's not a reduction in e-waste and runs counter to the spirit of the ruling.

[tokamak-teapot]

I have about 6 lightning cables and only one has started to lose its rubber sheathing after years of abuse. We all have anecdata.

[djannzjkzxn]

Is this any better than the cables that come with non-Apple devices? I’m skeptical.

[DangitBobby]

I have the dongle that came with my phone, and I ordered a second of the same kind from the website. No issues with either of them. I've personally never broken a charging cable of any sort, except for micro USB where the little prongs stop latching properly. I may just be unusually careful with mine.

[Symbiote]

I check the electronic waste bin in my apartment building every so often, there's often something interesting I can try and fix.

There are always broken Apple charger cables. They don't have a rubber grommit on the end of the cables, so they wear out.

Android or PC laptop cables that are in the bin are usually in working order, with an obsolete device.

[riffraff]

I don't have a clue on how bad apple cables are, but I own a few micro USB cables for phones and Kindles that never frayed, so I don't think so.

The only cable that stopped working was one for a power bank I got as some marketing swag, and that's only because I bent the plug.

[vineyardmike]

Meanwhile, every other electronic that ships with USB C never requires extra stuff.

No extra stuff to connect to old devices, no extra stuff to connect to vide/displays, no extra stuff to connect to network connections, etc.

For a connector that was supposed to reduce electronic waste and simply connections, USB C has generated a lot of extra cables required.

[signal11]

> If they want to force Apple's hand specifically, they should be focusing on the port on the phone, not the charger.

It's worth remembering that the backers of the EU legislation started with the idea of reducing e-waste, not punishing a particular manufacturer. Nor is it a Lightning vs USB-C squabble.

Getting people to throw their lightning cables, charging ports, docking stations, etc away would be counter-productive to their aims. The Lightning port has been around for a long time and getting rid of that will cause significant e-waste.

[ern]

The Lightning port has been around for a long time and getting rid of that will cause significant e-waste.

From personal experience, Lightning already produces significant e-waste. The lack of strain relief means that my family experiences many broken Lightning cables each year.

[llampx]

That's not a Lightning thing, that's an Apple thing. Most of their cables suffer the same problem.

[FreakyT]

Right, but by using their own proprietary cable, Apple cables (and those officially “approved” by Apple) are the ones that get sold, and the terrible failure rates.

[HelloNurse]

We are talking about new devices, and possibly fines about old ones. Making iPhones with USB-C ports doesn't mean "throwing away" anything.

[PunksATawnyFill]

Strawman. That’s a one-time transition. And do Apple devices even come with chargers anymore?

[BinaryIdiot]

Hmm. You make a good point.

In my attempt at reading both of these there seems to be a clear distinction being made when it refers to cables and when it refers to chargers. It also never really mentions ports.

Therefore, to me, it cares less about the port and cable on the phone half and more about the brick / part that plugs into the wall.

Neither document provides a definition for "charger". So perhaps whoever is in charge of implementing this directive (I'm not sure how this works in EU law) can interpret it either way?

I wish it was more clear.

[SiempreViernes]

I read "charger" to mean "the thing you use for charging", and not really bothering with the technical detail of exactly how this thing is made.

I think reading the texts as if they spoke only of the transformer/brick itself is to narrow, and not in line with the common understanding of what a "charger" is.

I will offer this suggestion of a precise definition for "charger": the complete technological assemblage required for transferring electrical power, suitable for storage, from a common wall socket onto the portable radio device.

Basically, if you have a wall socket, a mobile radio device, and a third thing, and they cannot be assembled so that the mobile can be charger, the thing is not a "common charger".

[BinaryIdiot]

Good points. My only hesitation on the charger definition is most laws include whatever definition the legislature is operating under and sometimes it's different than what you'd expect.

I'd like to see some clarification :)

[djannzjkzxn]

You can define the charger to include the cable, and I can define the phone to include the cable. Either way it doesn’t provide much insight into the definitions with legal force.

[brmgb]

That's not how it works. What the lawmakers mean is pretty clear as soon as you go read the documents affixed to the motion. There is no need for more boilerplate.

The 2018 Comission report has this to say on the subject for example :

The study has, in particular, provided the following information and conclusions: even manufacturers of mobile phones which did not sign up to the Memorandum of Understanding appear to have also adopted Micro-USB charging solutions, leading to the indication that almost 100% of data enabled phones sold in Europe in 2013 were compliant with Micro-USB charging solution.; due to the Memorandum of Understanding, it is estimated to have resulted in six to 21 million fewer standalone chargers over the period 2011 to 2013; the increasing prevalence of Micro-USB charging has limited the need to purchase standalone chargers and consequently reduced the use of raw materials than might otherwise have been the case.

Since the previous experience of the Memorandum of Understanding had proven to be successful for the reasons mentioned above, the Commission wished to continue the approach already followed based on a voluntary agreement. Moreover, a voluntary solution could more readily accommodate new technology and innovation compared to a regulatory option. Additionally, a voluntary approach may have had the advantage of having a wider scope, compared to the regulatory option, for example, it may have covered both ends of the charging cable 79 .

However, given the unsatisfactory outcome so far of the progress in the voluntary option, the Commission will shortly launch a study to assess costs and benefits of different options, including the regulatory one.

[djannzjkzxn]

If the report is saying almost 100% of phones sold follow the reg, then they must be saying Apple are in compliance, right? I don’t see how you can get near 100% of phones without including the iPhone.

Also, take a look here:

> Additionally, a voluntary approach may have had the advantage of having a wider scope, compared to the regulatory option, for example, it may have covered both ends of the charging cable.

>However, given the unsatisfactory outcome so far of the progress in the voluntary option, the Commission will shortly launch a study to assess costs and benefits of different options, including the regulatory one.

This seems to say fairly clearly that only a voluntary option would cover both ends of the cable. Then it says they are looking at the regulatory option instead of the voluntary option. It doesn’t seem to contemplate a non-voluntary regulation covering both ends of the cable.

I don’t think I’m being pedantic or obtuse here, just reading the doc plainly.

[tripzilch]

> You can define the charger to include the cable, and I can define the phone to include the cable.

Yeah but nobody would take you seriously. Read it again with the idea in mind that somehow the cable is "part of the phone": https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/RC-9-2020-0070...

Does the phone work without the cable? YES!

Does the charger work without the cable? NO!

Exceept ... in the case of wireless charging, yup. Which they explicitly mention. Would that mean that ... maybe ... the other kind of charging, involves cables?

Finally they state that one of the goals is reduction in the volume of cables collected and recycled.

[tripzilch]

This one? https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/RC-9-2020-0070...

The charger is obviously the thing between your phone and the power socket. It seems perfectly clear to me.

Because the entire thing is a charger. You can't use the charger without the cable. If the cable was a separate thing, fully interchangeable, the whole law wouldn't be necessary.

And they can't in hindsight decide that the cables aren't part of the "package" because they wrote in the resolution what the motivation of this law is, which is interoperability / compatibility / interchangeability and reducing waste, and if the cable part is non standard and not compatible, then obviously you'd need an additional cable to make the whole charger simply operable. Needing additional cables is what the resolution states (several times) is one of the explicit purposes, to prevent.

They also specifically discuss that wireless charging should be common as well, because not needing a cable is even better than needing the same cable.

I get the idea that sometimes EU laws are so clear and straightforward, that Americans implicitly don't trust them and expect a "gotcha!".