January 1, 2025, is the date for mobile phones and other small electronic devices. Saudi Arabia announced a law to standardize charging ports for all...
The problem with these types of mandates is it locks us into standards and makes change hard. Imagine if they had done this when the terrible USB port was dominant.
Or, it gives all the power to the USB group. They have a terrible track record (USB-C is a mess).
The other problem is all the cheap devices that have a USB-C port, but will not charge from a real USB-C to USB-C cable. They are the same old USB ports electrically with a new shape.
How quickly will a standard be updated if the mandate encourages companies to entrench on the current standard? Industries built around the legislative certainty of the current standard may exert influence to inhibit moves to new standards, even if there are good reasons to move on.
What if we had mandated, by law, that all monitors must use the VGA connector in 1995? Would that have made DVI or HDMI or later technologies less likely to take off?
Suppose a company sees an opportunity for a better standard with such a law in place. They would have to develop the new standard and create the market for the new standard, all while their change is forbidden by law. How can they propose a new standard before actually developing it? Then, after sinking the costs on a hope, they would have to pay more to fight to change the law to encompass the new standard against everyone who likes it the way it is.
Don’t get me wrong. It would be neat if every doodad I had used the same connector. But soon enough, any connector we care to choose is a straitjacket. We raise the standard for improvement from being incremental and iterative to no change short of world shaking all at one go.
It’s locking nobody with no standard. The standard is evolving time to time. This argument of locking the user which by the way is the same as “competition is the better” is the Apple argument to impose it’s locked (walled garden) ecosystem.
It’s well known strategy to argue in a way that isn’t your goal to achieve another one. Apple is a master here. They use this same strategy with the future mandatory easy battery replacement.
always amazed by people who think “well, if we accept USB-C, we will never be able to have any future tech!” as if the regulation hasnt thought of that.
"It is also necessary to provide the basis for adaptation to any future scientific and technological progress or market developments, which will be continuously monitored by the Commission
God that last one drives me up a fucking wall. My partner’s laptop refuses to charge with anything except the officially supported power adapter, even though it’s just a USB-C connector. Everything I’ve plugged it into has been rated for the 100W that the laptop needs to charge, but the damned device locks out anything except official chargers under the guise of safety.
Unlike pretty much all other standards, all USB documents are open access and allow you to build compliant devices without 3rd party permission. You only need a license if you want to sell devices with the logo and/or need a official Vendor and Product ID (VID/PID). So unless all manufactures are forced to publish documentation for their IO in a similar level of detail, forcing one standard upon everyone is the next best option. Apple gambled on keeping their connector proprietary, and now get the backlash they deserve.
The problem with these types of mandates is it locks us into standards and makes change hard. Imagine if they had done this when the terrible USB port was dominant.
Or, it gives all the power to the USB group. They have a terrible track record (USB-C is a mess).
The other problem is all the cheap devices that have a USB-C port, but will not charge from a real USB-C to USB-C cable. They are the same old USB ports electrically with a new shape.
These are bad laws with good intents.
Standards can be updated. Like the EU standard was from Micro-USB to USB-C. It happens all the time in all fields of technology.
How quickly will a standard be updated if the mandate encourages companies to entrench on the current standard? Industries built around the legislative certainty of the current standard may exert influence to inhibit moves to new standards, even if there are good reasons to move on.
What if we had mandated, by law, that all monitors must use the VGA connector in 1995? Would that have made DVI or HDMI or later technologies less likely to take off?
Suppose a company sees an opportunity for a better standard with such a law in place. They would have to develop the new standard and create the market for the new standard, all while their change is forbidden by law. How can they propose a new standard before actually developing it? Then, after sinking the costs on a hope, they would have to pay more to fight to change the law to encompass the new standard against everyone who likes it the way it is.
Don’t get me wrong. It would be neat if every doodad I had used the same connector. But soon enough, any connector we care to choose is a straitjacket. We raise the standard for improvement from being incremental and iterative to no change short of world shaking all at one go.
It’s locking nobody with no standard. The standard is evolving time to time. This argument of locking the user which by the way is the same as “competition is the better” is the Apple argument to impose it’s locked (walled garden) ecosystem.
It’s well known strategy to argue in a way that isn’t your goal to achieve another one. Apple is a master here. They use this same strategy with the future mandatory easy battery replacement.
I second this. How could anyone argue that regulation is bad for user? Standardization locks user in, what kind of logic is that?
I’m not sure about the SA one, but the EU variant of that law already has this thought through.
It has allowances already for new emerging standards. If USB-D came out, there would be zero law changes required.
always amazed by people who think “well, if we accept USB-C, we will never be able to have any future tech!” as if the regulation hasnt thought of that.
Which clause of the legislation provides for moving on to a new standard, short of new legislation?
That would be clause 9:
"It is also necessary to provide the basis for adaptation to any future scientific and technological progress or market developments, which will be continuously monitored by the Commission
God that last one drives me up a fucking wall. My partner’s laptop refuses to charge with anything except the officially supported power adapter, even though it’s just a USB-C connector. Everything I’ve plugged it into has been rated for the 100W that the laptop needs to charge, but the damned device locks out anything except official chargers under the guise of safety.
That should be illegal.
Unlike pretty much all other standards, all USB documents are open access and allow you to build compliant devices without 3rd party permission. You only need a license if you want to sell devices with the logo and/or need a official Vendor and Product ID (VID/PID). So unless all manufactures are forced to publish documentation for their IO in a similar level of detail, forcing one standard upon everyone is the next best option. Apple gambled on keeping their connector proprietary, and now get the backlash they deserve.