None of the first part of your post can be proven as we have no idea what’s over the horizon or what the future might require. It could well be inferior for a long time if something vastly better appears. Innovation isn’t just great, it’s essential. The alternative is stagnation. Whatever comes in the future will require a new cable or dongle - it’s the price we pay for progress.
So is standardization.
4 Likes
I disagree. Standardisation has its place, but not at the expense of innovation.
1 Like
Indeed, USB-C can already do more than most users need and more than any other connectors.
Apple added USB Power Delivery to iPhones and iPads some time ago for fast charging. I have been using this feature for my iPhone 8+ and 10.5-inch iPad Pro thanks to non-Apple USB-C PD chargers with Apple cables (USB-C/Lightning). That was the only way! Now I am glad I won’t have to pay extra Apple cables in the future for fast charging.
USB-C and USB Power Delivery will continue to offer new features (check https://usb.org and especially this page: USB Charger (USB Power Delivery) | USB-IF).
Apple like any other manufacturers can continue to innovate on connectors as long as USB-C (fast) charging is available on all their devices and accessories.
BTW, I am better with my 4-year non-Apple USB-C PD chargers to fast charge my 12.9-inch iPad Pro M1 than the original one that came with it. It makes a huge difference.
You’re typing this on a globe-spanning electronic network that works because of standardization – and the existence of that network has allowed enormous innovation over the last few decades. Shutting down innovation in that area allowed a massive bloom of innovation in a much more important arena – just like the standardizing of the rail gauge did in 19th century America. I don’t think that USB-C is that level, but the binary opposition of standardization vs. innovation ignores a much more complicated relationship between the two.
5 Likes
That’s not a fair comparison.
Internet/web standards have been developed by the technology companies that deploy the products using those standards. They were developed by the companies, and were standardized by mutual consent of those companies with little, if any, government involvement.
Standards like this will grow and evolve over time as the companies making the products develop the next generation of tech. This is how the most successful technologies, including wireless telephony and global networking, were developed and is how they continue to be developed.
But the EU’s USB-C mandate is not the same. That’s a bunch of politicians, who have no involvement in the design, development or deployment of the tech, deciding for themselves that everybody will be forced to use one specific standard. Companies that choose not use that standard, for any reason whatsoever, will be punished for their non-compliance. Which means the companies working on the next generation won’t be able to deploy it without getting multinational political bureaucracies to sign off on it first.
It’s not a perfect comparison, but it’s certainly a fair one. The point was that standardization stifles innovation not that certain kinds of standardization stifles innovation.
But even then, the idea that politicians can’t set standards but should leave them to the experts is belied both by history and by XKCD. First off, governments hire experts to help them out – it’s not like the EU commissioners randomly decided one morning to take up standardization. Second, historically speaking, I can come up with all sorts of standardizations imposed by governments that are so basic to the functioning of our society that they’re almost unnoticeable, including what side of the road we drive on, food hygiene, the voltage of our electricity, and so on. Thirdly, I give you how well private industry has managed standards before with the entire USB specification, which has so many sub-genres that I can hardly call it a standard. Finally, XKCD:
At very least, the EU has narrowed it down.
You’re stuck because this is happening now – we understand how transparently silly it would be to argue that every road owner should be able to decide how cars use it (right! left! center! sideways!) because we have lived the value of the standardization.
3 Likes
One of the big issues with this is that USB-C is a plug and receptacle, but is not standard for power (or data delivery). It’s a fact of life that most cables between the plugs are unmarked. See Rene Ritchie’s video that discusses this and other issues with the ‘standard’.
As I said earlier, I disagree.
Obviously, there’s no way of anticipating what sort of innovation might emerge, but the EU is fully expecting it to happen and to update to accommodate. From the FAQ:
Will the proposal be an obstacle to innovation?
The Commission’s proposal aims at providing consumers with an open and interoperable solution and, at the same time, enabling technological innovation. The proposal encourages innovation for wired and wireless technology charging.
Any technological developments in wired charging can be reflected in a timely adjustment of technical requirements/ specific standards under the Radio Equipment Directive. This would ensure that the technology used is not outdated.
At the same time, the implementation of any new standards in further revisions of Radio Equipment Directive would need to be developed in a harmonised manner, respecting the objectives of full interoperability. Industry is therefore expected to continue the work already undertaken on the standardised interface, led by the USB-IF organisation, in view of developing new interoperable, open and non-controversial solutions.
In addition, larger technological developments are expected in the area of wireless charging, which is still a developing technology with a low level of market fragmentation. In order to allow innovation in this field, the proposal does not set specific technical requirements for wireless charging. Therefore, manufacturers remain free to include any wireless charging solution in their products alongside the wired charging via the USB-C port.
5 Likes
More from Apple’s perspective.