EU law requiring all new electronic devices manufactured from 2024 onwards to use a common charging cable.

[66701GBRF]

It does. USB-C is the standard, and USB-C has to be available as a charging option.
The later Surface Book devices could be charged from their USB-C ports, but the Surface Connect port was always going to be the most appropriate to charge the device.
The USB-C could only sustain the battery level, or allow it to lose power slower than unplugged, when in use.

I once forgot to bring the Book's charger on a trip, so I was delighted that I could still keep it mildly charged on the train using my phone's charger.

USBC has to be both ends otherwise you cannot have a common charging cable. For example I cannot charge my iPad or other USBC things with my Iphone 12 cable as its USBC at the charger end and lightening at the other.

 

[DC1989]

Possible EU law: does this have any relevance to the UK?

There's 0% chance Apple will just make an iPhone that's different for the UK, similar to the speed limiters on cars etc.

All part of the Brexit bonus though, we now have to follow laws we get zero input into!

 

[Bletchleyite]

There's 0% chance Apple will just make an iPhone that's different for the UK, similar to the speed limiters on cars etc.

The US is the largest market and not affected either, but they are moving to USB C anyway.

If any device was going to have double ports it'd be the iPad Pro, and it doesn't.

All part of the Brexit bonus though, we now have to follow laws we get zero input into!

Who cares in this case? It makes sense.

 

[edwin_m]

The UK will likely end up following whatever happens in mainland Europe, if at least only passively as more devices will just come with USB-C charging capability, even if not required to.

In practice that is likely to be the case - suppliers are unlikely to offer a model with a different connector just for the relatively small UK market. It seems unlikely the UK will actually legislate, but they probably don't need to.

 

[Mojo]

Bit annoying and wasteful for me, as I have loads of lightening cables in the loft and around the house, when I get a new phone I’ll often store the cable that comes with it up there and keep on using the old one until it breaks.

Will this new law require the cables to be double-ended USB-C, as at the moment I don’t have any USB-C plugs but have bundles of plugs that have normal USB as these last even longer than the cables! It was only my most recent phone that didn’t include a plug in the packaging.

 

[JohnMcL7]

Will this new law require the cables to be double-ended USB-C, as at the moment I don’t have any USB-C plugs but have bundles of plugs that have normal USB as these last even longer than the cables! It was only my most recent phone that didn’t include a plug in the packaging.

The new requirement is for the charging port specifically but not the cable so you can still use USB-A to USB-C cables.

I was curious where higher powered laptops sit that need more power than USB-C but I see it only applies for laptops using up to 100W power.

 

[AM9]

... Apple have historically said that the universal charging cable plan will “stifle innovation”, but if they and other manufacturers think outside the box and invest in new forms of charging, I believe the complete opposite will be the case.

This is Apple's usual claim to any change that prevents them from keeping to their proprietatry interfaces, especially essential ones that they can charge obscene prices for in the replacement market.
As fas as USB C goes, on their higher consumer and professional hardware, Apple and others have used the physical USB C interface's 'Alternate mode' applications including: Thunderbolt 3 - (data up to 40GB/s), Display port, 10GB Ethernet, HDMI and MHL. So much forstiling their innovation (apart from cutting off access to non-standard cable sharp practices).

 

[bspahh]

I was curious where higher powered laptops sit that need more power than USB-C but I see it only applies for laptops using up to 100W power.

I have a Dell 9520 which has a 130W USB C power supply.

 

[david1212]

I have just been looking at the USB-C connector pin-out and specifically power.

I always think of the power voltage in USB as 5 volts and for, as an example, a Google Pixel 3a with a USB-C port it still is.

...
I was curious where higher powered laptops sit that need more power than USB-C but I see it only applies for laptops using up to 100W power.

I have a Dell 9520 which has a 130W USB C power supply.

At 5 volts 100W is 20 amps and 130W at 26 amps. That requires thick cables so fundamentally incompatible with USB-C. Most laptops run and charge from around 20 volts e.g. Dell have used 19.5 volts for many years.

Remembering that the USB-C connector is reversable there are pins CC1 and CC2 named power delivery communication. These could detect the connected devices and only enable the laptop / charger to output say 20V when correctly linked.

Connect a 5V charger to the laptop requiring 20V and nothing will happen and no damage done.

What though happens if the high power / voltage laptop charger is connected to a phone that will be damanged by more than 5V ? Dell, Lenovo etc no doubt will have this covered but what about elsupercheapo PSU/chargers from the far east that are poorly designed and low quality components plus will never have actually been through any approval testing regardless of what the labelling will imply ?

I have seen several laptops damaged by universal chargers. Even if supposedly set correctly be that manually to e.g. 19.5V or a coded connector the when I have measured the actual output it has been e.g. 30V.

Apply 30V to a phone and worst case there will be a fire.

What in theory is a good idea and would in reality be low risk if USB-C was confined to 5 volt chargers and devices then another standard for laptops may turn out rather different.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What though happens if the high power / voltage laptop charger is connected to a phone that will be damanged by more than 5V ? Dell, Lenovo etc no doubt will have this covered but what about elsupercheapo PSU/chargers from the far east that are poorly designed and low quality components plus will never have actually been through any approval testing regardless of what the labelling will imply ?

The USB-C standard requires the device to negotiate for anything higher than the standard 5V. If both sides don't agree, you get 5V.

Cheap chargers can damage kit. That's nothing new. Don't buy cheap chargers. Reputable third party ones are of course fine.

What in theory is a good idea and would in reality be low risk if USB-C was confined to 5 volt chargers and devices then another standard for laptops may turn out rather different.

You speak as if USB C wasn't already in use and working just fine. Many laptops, e.g. Dells and some Macbook Airs already use it. Stuff isn't blowing up.

(This is a bit akin to people rubbishing the feasibility of things on the railway that already exist, which happens a lot on here, e.g. how e-tickets work)

 

[Giugiaro]

All part of the Brexit bonus though, we now have to follow laws we get zero input into!

Brexit in a nutshell.
Becoming independent by losing influence.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Brexit in a nutshell.
Becoming independent by losing influence.

I'm not for Brexit but this really isn't one of those things to be in the remotest bit bothered about. Would people here really rather have back the days when you had to carry a separate mains charger for each device?

 

[crablab]

At 5 volts 100W is 20 amps and 130W at 26 amps. That requires thick cables so fundamentally incompatible with USB-C. Most laptops run and charge from around 20 volts e.g. Dell have used 19.5 volts for many years.

And 20V is a voltage that USB-C supports. (It actually supports up to 48V, 240W in the latest specification).

These could detect the connected devices and only enable the laptop / charger to output say 20V when correctly linked.

You are describing exactly how USB-C works.

I won't repeat @Bletchleyite's comments on cheap chargers, save to agree with them.

What in theory is a good idea and would in reality be low risk if USB-C was confined to 5 volt chargers and devices then another standard for laptops may turn out rather different.

Which would entirely defeat the point of USB-C, which has "turned out" entirely fine.

Both my laptops use USB-C as the only power source, as does my phone. My work laptop is permanently plugged in to my desk setup and receives power from one monitor and outputs DisplayPort down both USB-C ports connected to both monitors (plus a load of USB devices connected to the hubs in the monitors).

Works great, hasn't caught fire. Can be disconnected from my entire desk set up with two cables.

 

[Cdd89]

Plus, if Apple predictably goes the route of the portless iPhone, there's nothing keeping them from doing so

I was OK with the removal of the 3.5mm jack and (impending removal of) SIM tray, but portless is stupid as portable power banks are a thing, and the efficiency disadvantage becomes a big deal there.

 

[Giugiaro]

For me, the poor efficiency of inductive charging is what kills the solution.

But people are gonna people, and Apple is gonna Apple.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Meaning charging costs you 6p instead of 5p?

De minimis non curat lex.

 

[AM9]

Meaning charging costs you 6p instead of 5p?

De minimis non curat lex.

However, an unnecessary move to a 20%* waste of energy is not a good look.
* Or whatever the actual difference is.

 

[Bletchleyite]

However, an unnecessary move to a 20%* waste of energy is not a good look.
* Or whatever the actual difference is.

The gain from it is a fully waterproof phone. And 20% of next to nothing is next to nothing. There are bigger fish to fry.

 

[nlogax]

The gain from it is a fully waterproof phone.

Is it just me or is this particular gain usually overstated? In my *cough* three decades of owning mobile phones, getting one wet enough to render it unusable has never happened.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is it just me or is this particular gain usually overstated? In my *cough* three decades of owning mobile phones, getting one wet enough to render it unusable has never happened.

I've done so to an iPhone 7, but yes, it's a good feature on a phone costing £1K. You may be careful of yours, not everyone is nor wishes to be.

 

[py_megapixel]

The gain from it is a fully waterproof phone. And 20% of next to nothing is next to nothing. There are bigger fish to fry.

Charging the battery is a more common thing I want to do with my phone than submerging it in water!

And in any case, that's the argument that was made when the headphone jack was removed, and it's just Apple PR b****cks. Samsung Galaxy S9s have a headphone jack, a USB port and an IP68 rating. They even detect if there is moisture in the USB port and warn you not to plug anything into it until it's dry to avoid damage.

Is it just me or is this particular gain usually overstated? In my *cough* three decades of owning mobile phones, getting one wet enough to render it unusable has never happened.

I agree. I have done it just once - by putting the phone in the same bag as a water bottle which, unknown to me at the time, was leaking. The phone didn't survive long after that, but I was still able to copy the data off it before it failed completely. (This was in the early days of smartphones, before anyone had even considered making one waterproof.)

 

[Cdd89]

Meaning charging costs you 6p instead of 5p?

De minimis non curat lex.

It’s not that (and it’s probably only a fraction of a penny, anyway!). It’s that:

• Charging takes longer, so if you only have 20 minutes to charge your phone before leaving home you will leave with a lower battery percentage
• It’s about 25% less efficient, meaning you would need a power bank 25% greater in size than you otherwise would (I generally buy the smallest one that can get me through a full day of heavy use)

MagSafe deals with the former annoyance that you couldn’t use the phone while it was charging wirelessly, but not the above two objections.

I do like wireless charging, and have wireless charging stands on my desks + MagSafe by my bedside, but the option for conventional charging is essential IMO.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Charging the battery is a more common thing I want to do with my phone than submerging it in water!

It's not about dropping it in the bog, though that does happen. It makes things more useful for e.g. hillwalkers - the thing that wrecked an iPhone 7 for me was a day of very wet hillwalking, not dropping it in water.

Charging takes longer, so if you only have 20 minutes to charge your phone before leaving home you will leave with a lower battery percentage

Most smartphone users just charge overnight by the bed while using it as an alarm.

It’s about 25% less efficient, meaning you would need a power bank 25% greater in size than you otherwise would (I generally buy the smallest one that can get me through a full day of heavy use)

Do most people do that? I doubt it. I've got two, one gives 2-3 days of charges and one gives a weeks' worth. There is far more variance from how much I've used it. I don't see a huge point in buying the one-day ones, they're not much smaller than a 2-3 day one.

 

[jon0844]

I suspect Apple will just fall into line and adopt it; if they have to provide USB-C charging for the European market, I doubt they're going to want to have separate production lines for each market.

It's mad that Apple didn't change before, having kept a stupidly slow USB 2 data connection and slow charging (compared to USB-PD). Plus when USB incorporated Thunderbolt, it made even less sense for Apple to cling on.

The only reason I can see is that they can charge people to make Lightning cables, which must net them a few quid in third party accessories. There's really no other benefit, given other Apple products now use USB-C and have done for some time.

 

[66701GBRF]

It's not about dropping it in the bog, though that does happen. It makes things more useful for e.g. hillwalkers - the thing that wrecked an iPhone 7 for me was a day of very wet hillwalking, not dropping it in water.

The seems like a very niche market imo. Most people use cases on their phones which offers further protection anyway. The port is more than a charging port....its also a quick and convenient way to move large files backwards and forwards without needing wifi....its also the only way left to connect to other devices such as older car stereos, wired headphones (yes they do still exist) etc.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The seems like a very niche market imo. Most people use cases on their phones which offers further protection anyway.

Cases don't generally fully enclose a phone.

The port is more than a charging port....its also a quick and convenient way to move large files backwards and forwards without needing wifi....its also the only way left to connect to other devices such as older car stereos, wired headphones (yes they do still exist) etc.

What proportion of users of the latest iPhones do that sort of thing? I'd venture fewer than 1%. They're budget-phone things to do. I can't see Motorola binning headphone sockets and USBs any time soon, as they are in the budget market.

 

[Dent]

The gain from it is a fully waterproof phone. And 20% of next to nothing is next to nothing. There are bigger fish to fry.

Not really an issue when charging from the mains, but when charging from a power bank it would substantially reduce the amount of useful energy you can get out of the power bank.

Also, wireless charging may be slightly more convenient if you only ever charge your phione in one location and never use it while it is charging, but in basically any other scenario it is substantially less convenient.

 

[66701GBRF]

Cases don't generally fully enclose a phone.



What proportion of users of the latest iPhones do that sort of thing? I'd venture fewer than 1%. They're budget-phone things to do. I can't see Motorola binning headphone sockets and USBs any time soon, as they are in the budget market.

If you are into hillwalking or something that is likely to affect your phone I'm sure you are more likely to use a case that offers more protection... and where did you get the idea that connecting to wired headphones (or whatever) is budget thing?

If Apple want a portless device on one of their lower end models then fine, but if they are still using the "Pro" moniker then I expect a port!

 

[Bletchleyite]

where did you get the idea that connecting to wired headphones (or whatever) is budget thing?

Because it is. If you're a premium Apple user you have Airpods Pro or their on-ear ones (or if you prefer some Beats or Sennheiser Bluetooth headphones), and if you're at home you probably connect to a premium stereo separates setup, not a phone.

I get why people don't like Apple's business model and approach - if you don't, there's enough Android kit out there for you - but I don't get why people don't understand it and why it works for them even if it doesn't for you.

As for the iPhone Pro, it's just an upspecced model, not one with ports all over it. The iPad Pro, despite the naming similarity, is in a totally different market.

 

[66701GBRF]

"ports all over it"? yeah ok