FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > EU's USB standards ruling
EU's USB standards ruling
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another excuse to stop the freedom of choice they wont be happy until we all have the same eu phone, drive a eu car etc it reminds me of the old soviet union. "I am surprised by the number of people who are hailing the move as some sort of masterclass of how to govern. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another excuse to stop the freedom of choice they wont be happy until we all have the same eu phone, drive a eu car etc it reminds me of the old soviet union.
I am surprised by the number of people who are hailing the move as some sort of masterclass of how to govern."Some people take great comfort in everyone being and having the same things. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another excuse to stop the freedom of choice they wont be happy until we all have the same eu phone, drive a eu car etc it reminds me of the old soviet union. "Nope…. Nope…. Nope!! Bad read!! It’s being done for two reasons 1) a million different standards means more gadgets with different ends.. what did does is reduce waste as everyone is now manufacturing for the same standard.. it should also bring down costs as in effect there is more competition over the same space 2) the EU were actually kinda smart here in that they let USB (which is actually an independent organisation standard all the manufacturers are actually signed up to anyway) set what we would call the standard rather than them dictating it Think of it like vhs and Betamax… it didn’t help everything had to produce everything twice and it protects one group from potentially being penalised or left out in progress | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another excuse to stop the freedom of choice they wont be happy until we all have the same eu phone, drive a eu car etc it reminds me of the old soviet union.
Nope…. Nope…. Nope!! Bad read!!
It’s being done for two reasons
1) a million different standards means more gadgets with different ends.. what did does is reduce waste as everyone is now manufacturing for the same standard.. it should also bring down costs as in effect there is more competition over the same space
2) the EU were actually kinda smart here in that they let USB (which is actually an independent organisation standard all the manufacturers are actually signed up to anyway) set what we would call the standard rather than them dictating it
Think of it like vhs and Betamax… it didn’t help everything had to produce everything twice and it protects one group from potentially being penalised or left out in progress "True, you will have to forgive some of the ‘older ‘ posters on here, they are very set in their ways and resistant to change | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are you really missing the age of phones from the early 2000s to mid 2015 where each manufacturer had their own proprietary cable? " Yes, and it was a frigging nightmare. New phone, new batch of chargers for home and car, usually cheapo eBay crap that fell to bits as Genuine chargers were ridiculous in price. I have numerous devices with USB-C charging sockets as well as Micro-USB and the older USB-B that many SLR cameras still use. Simple answer, just have a couple of each type of cables, chargers you'll probably already have. Problem solved. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another excuse to stop the freedom of choice they wont be happy until we all have the same eu phone, drive a eu car etc it reminds me of the old soviet union.
Nope…. Nope…. Nope!! Bad read!!
It’s being done for two reasons
1) a million different standards means more gadgets with different ends.. what did does is reduce waste as everyone is now manufacturing for the same standard.. it should also bring down costs as in effect there is more competition over the same space
2) the EU were actually kinda smart here in that they let USB (which is actually an independent organisation standard all the manufacturers are actually signed up to anyway) set what we would call the standard rather than them dictating it
Think of it like vhs and Betamax… it didn’t help everything had to produce everything twice and it protects one group from potentially being penalised or left out in progress "1) Without these standards, prices were coming down already. What the standard does is block the development of new technology. Imagine this rule was applied when all phones were using Micro USB and the standard applied was micro USB. No would have incentive to create a new standard and hence we would not have fast charging. 2) The idea of establishing a "standard" on an ever-evolving technology is not smart. It is downright stupid. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are you really missing the age of phones from the early 2000s to mid 2015 where each manufacturer had their own proprietary cable? " I am really missing the days when every company tried to innovate and hence we moved from charging a 500 mAh for three hours to charging 3000 mAh in one hour | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another excuse to stop the freedom of choice they wont be happy until we all have the same eu phone, drive a eu car etc it reminds me of the old soviet union.
Nope…. Nope…. Nope!! Bad read!!
It’s being done for two reasons
1) a million different standards means more gadgets with different ends.. what did does is reduce waste as everyone is now manufacturing for the same standard.. it should also bring down costs as in effect there is more competition over the same space
2) the EU were actually kinda smart here in that they let USB (which is actually an independent organisation standard all the manufacturers are actually signed up to anyway) set what we would call the standard rather than them dictating it
Think of it like vhs and Betamax… it didn’t help everything had to produce everything twice and it protects one group from potentially being penalised or left out in progress
True, you will have to forgive some of the ‘older ‘ posters on here, they are very set in their ways and resistant to change "After a decade, rest of the world will be using new technologies and making fun of EU for using older technology because "standards" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another excuse to stop the freedom of choice they wont be happy until we all have the same eu phone, drive a eu car etc it reminds me of the old soviet union.
Nope…. Nope…. Nope!! Bad read!!
It’s being done for two reasons
1) a million different standards means more gadgets with different ends.. what did does is reduce waste as everyone is now manufacturing for the same standard.. it should also bring down costs as in effect there is more competition over the same space
2) the EU were actually kinda smart here in that they let USB (which is actually an independent organisation standard all the manufacturers are actually signed up to anyway) set what we would call the standard rather than them dictating it
Think of it like vhs and Betamax… it didn’t help everything had to produce everything twice and it protects one group from potentially being penalised or left out in progress
True, you will have to forgive some of the ‘older ‘ posters on here, they are very set in their ways and resistant to change
After a decade, rest of the world will be using new technologies and making fun of EU for using older technology because "standards""Not really. The rest of the world is already using USB C. The only company not using it on their phones is Apple. Apple wants to stick to their proprietory system because it enables them to sell overpriced accessories. This is anti consumer. The EU ruling is a win for all consumers. USB C is just an interface for a device. To say it prevents innovation is just absolute rubbish. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another excuse to stop the freedom of choice they wont be happy until we all have the same eu phone, drive a eu car etc it reminds me of the old soviet union.
Nope…. Nope…. Nope!! Bad read!!
It’s being done for two reasons
1) a million different standards means more gadgets with different ends.. what did does is reduce waste as everyone is now manufacturing for the same standard.. it should also bring down costs as in effect there is more competition over the same space
2) the EU were actually kinda smart here in that they let USB (which is actually an independent organisation standard all the manufacturers are actually signed up to anyway) set what we would call the standard rather than them dictating it
Think of it like vhs and Betamax… it didn’t help everything had to produce everything twice and it protects one group from potentially being penalised or left out in progress
True, you will have to forgive some of the ‘older ‘ posters on here, they are very set in their ways and resistant to change
After a decade, rest of the world will be using new technologies and making fun of EU for using older technology because "standards"
Not really. The rest of the world is already using USB C. The only company not using it on their phones is Apple.
Apple wants to stick to their proprietory system because it enables them to sell overpriced accessories. This is anti consumer. The EU ruling is a win for all consumers.
USB C is just an interface for a device. To say it prevents innovation is just absolute rubbish."There will be a time when something better than USB C will come up. In other countries, it will be used in expensive devices at first as usual and later it will be adapted in cheaper devices. At what point will the new standard be adapted in EU? We need to wait till that new technology becomes as cheap as USB C? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am sure when a new standard is proposed, the EU will look at it and allow it. It's to stop monopoly on accessories and doubt will still be using USB-C chargers and sockets in 2059. It will also stop USB keep changing without good reason. USB-C has a lot of future built into it, even if only 5yrs to USB-D, then a least many tonnes won't end up nine landfill. The EU, damned if they do, damned if they don't. That's the issue, the EU got blamed for everything that was 'wrong' but reality, for many reasons we were much better off for many of their rulings." So when a new technology comes, EU will allow that to co-exist with USB-C? How much lightning charges will end in landfill when Apple is forced to implement USB C? This is one of the things EU had no business interfering with. Looks more like a populist move that makes people believe that it's all for good when in reality, it will have negative impact. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am sure when a new standard is proposed, the EU will look at it and allow it. It's to stop monopoly on accessories and doubt will still be using USB-C chargers and sockets in 2059. It will also stop USB keep changing without good reason. USB-C has a lot of future built into it, even if only 5yrs to USB-D, then a least many tonnes won't end up nine landfill. The EU, damned if they do, damned if they don't. That's the issue, the EU got blamed for everything that was 'wrong' but reality, for many reasons we were much better off for many of their rulings. So when a new technology comes, EU will allow that to co-exist with USB-C? How much lightning charges will end in landfill when Apple is forced to implement USB C? This is one of the things EU had no business interfering with. Looks more like a populist move that makes people believe that it's all for good when in reality, it will have negative impact." Lucky for you that you live in the Sovereign state of Global Britain where you can keep multiple leads handy fornthe offchance that they will fit your device. How I envy you - I don't know how I am going to cope with only carrying one lead for multiple devices. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am sure when a new standard is proposed, the EU will look at it and allow it. It's to stop monopoly on accessories and doubt will still be using USB-C chargers and sockets in 2059. It will also stop USB keep changing without good reason. USB-C has a lot of future built into it, even if only 5yrs to USB-D, then a least many tonnes won't end up nine landfill. The EU, damned if they do, damned if they don't. That's the issue, the EU got blamed for everything that was 'wrong' but reality, for many reasons we were much better off for many of their rulings. So when a new technology comes, EU will allow that to co-exist with USB-C? How much lightning charges will end in landfill when Apple is forced to implement USB C? This is one of the things EU had no business interfering with. Looks more like a populist move that makes people believe that it's all for good when in reality, it will have negative impact. Lucky for you that you live in the Sovereign state of Global Britain where you can keep multiple leads handy fornthe offchance that they will fit your device. How I envy you - I don't know how I am going to cope with only carrying one lead for multiple devices. " Sorry. I don't think you understood my post. People in EU do not have to envy that UK people have multiple connectors. But what there are things they will envy: 1) Cheaper range phoned will be much cheaper in UK because UK still allows old micro USB. People who cannot afford expensive phones will have better choices. 2) In the future, when battery capacity and media quality/size inevitably go up, a new technology will come up that to handle these parameters better. But EU will be the last to start using the technology. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am sure when a new standard is proposed, the EU will look at it and allow it. It's to stop monopoly on accessories and doubt will still be using USB-C chargers and sockets in 2059. It will also stop USB keep changing without good reason. USB-C has a lot of future built into it, even if only 5yrs to USB-D, then a least many tonnes won't end up nine landfill. The EU, damned if they do, damned if they don't. That's the issue, the EU got blamed for everything that was 'wrong' but reality, for many reasons we were much better off for many of their rulings. So when a new technology comes, EU will allow that to co-exist with USB-C? How much lightning charges will end in landfill when Apple is forced to implement USB C? This is one of the things EU had no business interfering with. Looks more like a populist move that makes people believe that it's all for good when in reality, it will have negative impact. Lucky for you that you live in the Sovereign state of Global Britain where you can keep multiple leads handy fornthe offchance that they will fit your device. How I envy you - I don't know how I am going to cope with only carrying one lead for multiple devices. Sorry. I don't think you understood my post. People in EU do not have to envy that UK people have multiple connectors. But what there are things they will envy: 1) Cheaper range phoned will be much cheaper in UK because UK still allows old micro USB. People who cannot afford expensive phones will have better choices. 2) In the future, when battery capacity and media quality/size inevitably go up, a new technology will come up that to handle these parameters better. But EU will be the last to start using the technology." It is great how you support the Union Jack and see things so clearly. Keep flying the flag and believing. The UK is pretty insignificant - UK standards mean very little in the grand scheme of things. But it is good to have a dream. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am sure when a new standard is proposed, the EU will look at it and allow it. It's to stop monopoly on accessories and doubt will still be using USB-C chargers and sockets in 2059. It will also stop USB keep changing without good reason. USB-C has a lot of future built into it, even if only 5yrs to USB-D, then a least many tonnes won't end up nine landfill. The EU, damned if they do, damned if they don't. That's the issue, the EU got blamed for everything that was 'wrong' but reality, for many reasons we were much better off for many of their rulings. So when a new technology comes, EU will allow that to co-exist with USB-C? How much lightning charges will end in landfill when Apple is forced to implement USB C? This is one of the things EU had no business interfering with. Looks more like a populist move that makes people believe that it's all for good when in reality, it will have negative impact." I think you are missing the point of this by more than a country mile. Technology advances in batteries and chargers will continue, while the older less functional charging tech dies out along with the hardware it powers. Consumers benefit from a standard and tech firms know the baseline for improvements. Apple will also be forced to stop mixing their charging methods, lightning, USB-C, being used on their devices already. When I go away, I need the charging lead for the iphone, the ipad and watch, all different and a ballache if I damage one as I need to replace it, not use another lead I already have. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am sure when a new standard is proposed, the EU will look at it and allow it. It's to stop monopoly on accessories and doubt will still be using USB-C chargers and sockets in 2059. It will also stop USB keep changing without good reason. USB-C has a lot of future built into it, even if only 5yrs to USB-D, then a least many tonnes won't end up nine landfill. The EU, damned if they do, damned if they don't. That's the issue, the EU got blamed for everything that was 'wrong' but reality, for many reasons we were much better off for many of their rulings. So when a new technology comes, EU will allow that to co-exist with USB-C? How much lightning charges will end in landfill when Apple is forced to implement USB C? This is one of the things EU had no business interfering with. Looks more like a populist move that makes people believe that it's all for good when in reality, it will have negative impact. Lucky for you that you live in the Sovereign state of Global Britain where you can keep multiple leads handy fornthe offchance that they will fit your device. How I envy you - I don't know how I am going to cope with only carrying one lead for multiple devices. Sorry. I don't think you understood my post. People in EU do not have to envy that UK people have multiple connectors. But what there are things they will envy: 1) Cheaper range phoned will be much cheaper in UK because UK still allows old micro USB. People who cannot afford expensive phones will have better choices. 2) In the future, when battery capacity and media quality/size inevitably go up, a new technology will come up that to handle these parameters better. But EU will be the last to start using the technology. It is great how you support the Union Jack and see things so clearly. Keep flying the flag and believing. The UK is pretty insignificant - UK standards mean very little in the grand scheme of things. But it is good to have a dream." I moved here 4 years back. I don't personally have any emotional connection with the EU, the union jack or even the Indian flag. I like to judge government moves for what they are. As I mentioned above, the EU did a commendable job when it comes to enforcing transparency in data access and processing. At the same time, they have fucked up in certain other areas. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This new legislation would have been a useful thing if it had happened 20 years ago, and if it had specified 'any ISO standard connector'. As it is today, manufacturers have already standardised on USB-C, and there is no need for a law to make them do so. (yes, I know Apple don't do it on some of their kit, but anyone that buys into Apple will already have an Apple cable for their new iThing). I am already power-limited on my home setup because USB-C can only supply 100w, until the new USB4 standard gets adopted. It won't be long before USB4 gets maxed out, and this EU law will hugely hold back development of a new standard. It's well-meaning, but it's too late, and too restrictive. The one good bit is that that it forces manufacturers to offer their devices without the bundled USB charger and lead. That should save on a bit of waste." Agreed with most of it. I used to believe that most of these rules are usually well-meaning but they just have not thought it through. At the same time, I find it hard to believe that they are too naive to oversee the practical issues with such rules. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am sure when a new standard is proposed, the EU will look at it and allow it. It's to stop monopoly on accessories and doubt will still be using USB-C chargers and sockets in 2059. It will also stop USB keep changing without good reason. USB-C has a lot of future built into it, even if only 5yrs to USB-D, then a least many tonnes won't end up nine landfill. The EU, damned if they do, damned if they don't. That's the issue, the EU got blamed for everything that was 'wrong' but reality, for many reasons we were much better off for many of their rulings. So when a new technology comes, EU will allow that to co-exist with USB-C? How much lightning charges will end in landfill when Apple is forced to implement USB C? This is one of the things EU had no business interfering with. Looks more like a populist move that makes people believe that it's all for good when in reality, it will have negative impact. I think you are missing the point of this by more than a country mile. Technology advances in batteries and chargers will continue, while the older less functional charging tech dies out along with the hardware it powers. Consumers benefit from a standard and tech firms know the baseline for improvements. Apple will also be forced to stop mixing their charging methods, lightning, USB-C, being used on their devices already. When I go away, I need the charging lead for the iphone, the ipad and watch, all different and a ballache if I damage one as I need to replace it, not use another lead I already have. " I think you are the one missing the point here. You say that old technologies will die out and will be replaced by new technologies. The transition happens smoothly in free markets but will be hard when there are such standards forced. A new technology is always expensive to begin with until it reaches economy of scale. Until its price reduces, the old technology is still in use for people who could not afford that. Then the old technology slowly gets phased out completely at the point when the new technology is as expensive as the old one. USB C followed the exact same path to market domination replacing Micro USB 2. Right now, still majority of under 100£ phones use micro USB because the price difference is non-negligibe. When USB C gets further cheaper, even cheaper phones will adapt USB C. By enforcing a standard, you are creating two problems. New technologies will not be available even on high end phones in EU until the standards are set. Cheaper phones become more expensive than before once a new standard is set because they are forced to adapt new standards even if they are expensive. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Existing cheaper phones will still use micro USB, nothing is changing there. Same with lightning cables, you can still use them with your existing iPhone. No one is suddenly throwing them away. In the long term this will result in less waste as all devices will be able to use the same chargers and cables. It's why most phones don't come with chargers and most people have a compatible charger from an old phone. USB C is forward compatible. Like I mentioned, it's just a connector not a protocol. It's compatible with USB 3 (and soon to be USB 4), Thunderbolt etc. We are a very, very long way from adopting a new USB connector standard. The USB-IF aren't stupid. They will work with manufacturers and the EU to adopt a new standard once it's developed like they always have done. No manufacturer is going to release a phone with USB C in Europe and a new connector elsewhere. The EU has been very good at keeping up with developments coming out and integrating them into newer regulation. " Yes, cheaper phones and apple phones don't have to change immediately and they have until 2024. But isn't this something that would also naturally happen if USB C becomes as cheap as micro USB by 2024? If not, we are back to the original problem that you are forcing cheaper phones to adapt a more expensive technology. As things stand, USB C is forward compatible. But it need not be the case in a few years. Technologies and devices keep changing rapidly. Micro USB was considered to be the way forward first when it replaced mini USB. Now we have USB C replacing micro USB. Not saying USB-IF are stupid. They are the best placed to choose what is the best technology to standardise. But there will always be consumers who have reasons to use non-standard ones for various reasons. I am saying the ruling body is stupid to enforce such laws. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" 1) Without these standards, prices were coming down already. What the standard does is block the development of new technology. Imagine this rule was applied when all phones were using Micro USB and the standard applied was micro USB. No would have incentive to create a new standard and hence we would not have fast charging. 2) The idea of establishing a "standard" on an ever-evolving technology is not smart. It is downright stupid. " 1) that is not true.. you are trying to say that the standard can’t change because it stifles development… but it has changed.. micro USB was the standard… then came USB-b… now it’s USB-c USB were the ones who set the standard, so if something better comes along that benefits everyone then that will become the new standard! You are making out that USB is a singular body… it’s not! All the electronic manufacturers are part of the USB body, so they all have some say in what the standard is! If something came along that was much better, don’t you think they would all jump on it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" 1) Without these standards, prices were coming down already. What the standard does is block the development of new technology. Imagine this rule was applied when all phones were using Micro USB and the standard applied was micro USB. No would have incentive to create a new standard and hence we would not have fast charging. 2) The idea of establishing a "standard" on an ever-evolving technology is not smart. It is downright stupid. 1) that is not true.. you are trying to say that the standard can’t change because it stifles development… but it has changed.. micro USB was the standard… then came USB-b… now it’s USB-c USB were the ones who set the standard, so if something better comes along that benefits everyone then that will become the new standard! You are making out that USB is a singular body… it’s not! All the electronic manufacturers are part of the USB body, so they all have some say in what the standard is! If something came along that was much better, don’t you think they would all jump on it? " Jump on it fuck me have you not seen by now the eu never does anything at speed but love your optimism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" 1) Without these standards, prices were coming down already. What the standard does is block the development of new technology. Imagine this rule was applied when all phones were using Micro USB and the standard applied was micro USB. No would have incentive to create a new standard and hence we would not have fast charging. 2) The idea of establishing a "standard" on an ever-evolving technology is not smart. It is downright stupid. 1) that is not true.. you are trying to say that the standard can’t change because it stifles development… but it has changed.. micro USB was the standard… then came USB-b… now it’s USB-c USB were the ones who set the standard, so if something better comes along that benefits everyone then that will become the new standard! You are making out that USB is a singular body… it’s not! All the electronic manufacturers are part of the USB body, so they all have some say in what the standard is! If something came along that was much better, don’t you think they would all jump on it? " We need to come into an agreement on what standard means here. What I meant was banning everything that is not the standard. You seem to mention a common standard that is not forced. But what the EU is doing now is forcing a standard on everyone. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wow, seems like a nice split for and against. But what about other systems, fuel pump nozzles, electric car chargers, many would be pissed off if each manufacturer had it own unique charging cable or tank filling requirement. USB C might be overtaken in the future but it looks like it will be with us for sometime as I don't see devices needing anything more than USB C in the near future. " It depends on the product. In case of chargers, both the charger and device are owned by you. Not the case with fuel pumps. So standardisation happened there quickly because not following a standard will kill the company. Even when it comes to charging, they were reaching the point of unifying. Remember the days a decade back when charger of one Nokia phone won't work on another? Different brand? Forget reusing the charger. From there, we moved to micro USB, USB C and lightning. Free markets were doing their work perfectly fine. There was no need of passing a rule which makes things worse. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wow, seems like a nice split for and against. But what about other systems, fuel pump nozzles, electric car chargers, many would be pissed off if each manufacturer had it own unique charging cable or tank filling requirement. USB C might be overtaken in the future but it looks like it will be with us for sometime as I don't see devices needing anything more than USB C in the near future. It depends on the product. In case of chargers, both the charger and device are owned by you. Not the case with fuel pumps. So standardisation happened there quickly because not following a standard will kill the company. Even when it comes to charging, they were reaching the point of unifying. Remember the days a decade back when charger of one Nokia phone won't work on another? Different brand? Forget reusing the charger. From there, we moved to micro USB, USB C and lightning. Free markets were doing their work perfectly fine. There was no need of passing a rule which makes things worse." Only worse in your opinion... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wow, seems like a nice split for and against. But what about other systems, fuel pump nozzles, electric car chargers, many would be pissed off if each manufacturer had it own unique charging cable or tank filling requirement. USB C might be overtaken in the future but it looks like it will be with us for sometime as I don't see devices needing anything more than USB C in the near future. It depends on the product. In case of chargers, both the charger and device are owned by you. Not the case with fuel pumps. So standardisation happened there quickly because not following a standard will kill the company. Even when it comes to charging, they were reaching the point of unifying. Remember the days a decade back when charger of one Nokia phone won't work on another? Different brand? Forget reusing the charger. From there, we moved to micro USB, USB C and lightning. Free markets were doing their work perfectly fine. There was no need of passing a rule which makes things worse. Only worse in your opinion..." I have put down my arguments on why it's bad. Got any logical argument against it or is your plan just to make useless comments like this? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wow, seems like a nice split for and against. But what about other systems, fuel pump nozzles, electric car chargers, many would be pissed off if each manufacturer had it own unique charging cable or tank filling requirement. USB C might be overtaken in the future but it looks like it will be with us for sometime as I don't see devices needing anything more than USB C in the near future. It depends on the product. In case of chargers, both the charger and device are owned by you. Not the case with fuel pumps. So standardisation happened there quickly because not following a standard will kill the company. Even when it comes to charging, they were reaching the point of unifying. Remember the days a decade back when charger of one Nokia phone won't work on another? Different brand? Forget reusing the charger. From there, we moved to micro USB, USB C and lightning. Free markets were doing their work perfectly fine. There was no need of passing a rule which makes things worse. Only worse in your opinion... I have put down my arguments on why it's bad. Got any logical argument against it or is your plan just to make useless comments like this?" I have already responded in the thread. I have an opinion as do you. Your opinion is not fact so my comment is quite valid. It was not a criticism as your argument is well presented however it is your argument and your opinion. Therefore the rule only makes things worse in your opinion. Okay? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wow, seems like a nice split for and against. But what about other systems, fuel pump nozzles, electric car chargers, many would be pissed off if each manufacturer had it own unique charging cable or tank filling requirement. USB C might be overtaken in the future but it looks like it will be with us for sometime as I don't see devices needing anything more than USB C in the near future. It depends on the product. In case of chargers, both the charger and device are owned by you. Not the case with fuel pumps. So standardisation happened there quickly because not following a standard will kill the company. Even when it comes to charging, they were reaching the point of unifying. Remember the days a decade back when charger of one Nokia phone won't work on another? Different brand? Forget reusing the charger. From there, we moved to micro USB, USB C and lightning. Free markets were doing their work perfectly fine. There was no need of passing a rule which makes things worse." The only reason we moved on to Micro USB was due to an EU ruling for a common charger. If left to the free market we'd still be using proprietary chargers and cables. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wow, seems like a nice split for and against. But what about other systems, fuel pump nozzles, electric car chargers, many would be pissed off if each manufacturer had it own unique charging cable or tank filling requirement. USB C might be overtaken in the future but it looks like it will be with us for sometime as I don't see devices needing anything more than USB C in the near future. It depends on the product. In case of chargers, both the charger and device are owned by you. Not the case with fuel pumps. So standardisation happened there quickly because not following a standard will kill the company. Even when it comes to charging, they were reaching the point of unifying. Remember the days a decade back when charger of one Nokia phone won't work on another? Different brand? Forget reusing the charger. From there, we moved to micro USB, USB C and lightning. Free markets were doing their work perfectly fine. There was no need of passing a rule which makes things worse. Only worse in your opinion... I have put down my arguments on why it's bad. Got any logical argument against it or is your plan just to make useless comments like this? I have already responded in the thread. I have an opinion as do you. Your opinion is not fact so my comment is quite valid. It was not a criticism as your argument is well presented however it is your argument and your opinion. Therefore the rule only makes things worse in your opinion. Okay? " So any logical argument anyone puts forth is just an opinion? I don't think that's how reality and logical reasoning works. Maybe theory of evolution and gravity were just opinions in your opinion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wow, seems like a nice split for and against. But what about other systems, fuel pump nozzles, electric car chargers, many would be pissed off if each manufacturer had it own unique charging cable or tank filling requirement. USB C might be overtaken in the future but it looks like it will be with us for sometime as I don't see devices needing anything more than USB C in the near future. It depends on the product. In case of chargers, both the charger and device are owned by you. Not the case with fuel pumps. So standardisation happened there quickly because not following a standard will kill the company. Even when it comes to charging, they were reaching the point of unifying. Remember the days a decade back when charger of one Nokia phone won't work on another? Different brand? Forget reusing the charger. From there, we moved to micro USB, USB C and lightning. Free markets were doing their work perfectly fine. There was no need of passing a rule which makes things worse. The only reason we moved on to Micro USB was due to an EU ruling for a common charger. If left to the free market we'd still be using proprietary chargers and cables." No. Mobile devices in every other country in the world moved to micro USB. EU just got companies which volunteered to work together and come up with some standard. The keyword here is "volunteered". Nothing was forced on them. These companies still had devices of low cost which used different chargers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wow, seems like a nice split for and against. But what about other systems, fuel pump nozzles, electric car chargers, many would be pissed off if each manufacturer had it own unique charging cable or tank filling requirement. USB C might be overtaken in the future but it looks like it will be with us for sometime as I don't see devices needing anything more than USB C in the near future. It depends on the product. In case of chargers, both the charger and device are owned by you. Not the case with fuel pumps. So standardisation happened there quickly because not following a standard will kill the company. Even when it comes to charging, they were reaching the point of unifying. Remember the days a decade back when charger of one Nokia phone won't work on another? Different brand? Forget reusing the charger. From there, we moved to micro USB, USB C and lightning. Free markets were doing their work perfectly fine. There was no need of passing a rule which makes things worse. The only reason we moved on to Micro USB was due to an EU ruling for a common charger. If left to the free market we'd still be using proprietary chargers and cables. No. Mobile devices in every other country in the world moved to micro USB. EU just got companies which volunteered to work together and come up with some standard. The keyword here is "volunteered". Nothing was forced on them. These companies still had devices of low cost which used different chargers." Here is the kicker… USB is a voluntary body that all the mobile manufacturers signed up to.. even Apple! So if there are any really big developments they all benefit! Apple are pissed not on technological grounds but on financial ones are they make a shed load not on just making there own specific accessories… but get a ton in licensing agreements from others making stuff because the Apple ecosystem is so big!! I like the decision because could you imagine for example having a us spec, and a Chinese spec and an eu spec… and having different accessories or each, and you’d need to take each for travelling, which in theory they could do at the moment ( they wouldn’t because of economies of scale!) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wow, seems like a nice split for and against. But what about other systems, fuel pump nozzles, electric car chargers, many would be pissed off if each manufacturer had it own unique charging cable or tank filling requirement. USB C might be overtaken in the future but it looks like it will be with us for sometime as I don't see devices needing anything more than USB C in the near future. It depends on the product. In case of chargers, both the charger and device are owned by you. Not the case with fuel pumps. So standardisation happened there quickly because not following a standard will kill the company. Even when it comes to charging, they were reaching the point of unifying. Remember the days a decade back when charger of one Nokia phone won't work on another? Different brand? Forget reusing the charger. From there, we moved to micro USB, USB C and lightning. Free markets were doing their work perfectly fine. There was no need of passing a rule which makes things worse. The only reason we moved on to Micro USB was due to an EU ruling for a common charger. If left to the free market we'd still be using proprietary chargers and cables. No. Mobile devices in every other country in the world moved to micro USB. EU just got companies which volunteered to work together and come up with some standard. The keyword here is "volunteered". Nothing was forced on them. These companies still had devices of low cost which used different chargers. Here is the kicker… USB is a voluntary body that all the mobile manufacturers signed up to.. even Apple! So if there are any really big developments they all benefit! Apple are pissed not on technological grounds but on financial ones are they make a shed load not on just making there own specific accessories… but get a ton in licensing agreements from others making stuff because the Apple ecosystem is so big!! I like the decision because could you imagine for example having a us spec, and a Chinese spec and an eu spec… and having different accessories or each, and you’d need to take each for travelling, which in theory they could do at the moment ( they wouldn’t because of economies of scale!) " USB is a voluntary body, yes. They can recommend new standards. But forcing market adaptations is wrong. I don't understand how this would save you from travelling problems. The USB connector for your phone is going to be the same already for your phone even if you are travelling. But the plug points will be different in these countries which means you have to buy a new charger or an adapter for the plug point. This problem is not going to be solved by the new rule. You will still have to buy an adapter or new charger it you are travelling to these countries. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So any logical argument anyone puts forth is just an opinion? I don't think that's how reality and logical reasoning works. Maybe theory of evolution and gravity were just opinions in your opinion." I am glad to see that your understanding of the English language is improving. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So any logical argument anyone puts forth is just an opinion? I don't think that's how reality and logical reasoning works. Maybe theory of evolution and gravity were just opinions in your opinion. I am glad to see that your understanding of the English language is improving." Care to elaborate? Or is it just another meaningless statement that you post because you don't have anything valid to say? Market economics has been a well researched subject. And I reasoned how this rule will make transitions difficult and also cheaper phones more expensive. Haven't heard a single argument from you to say what's wrong with my reasoning other than making some erroneous assumptions that I am a UK nationalist. All you can say is "it's just your opinion"? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Am I the only one concerned by the problems withe the new USB standards rule passed by EU? I understand that some people are so happy that they can use USB C cables on Apple devices. I agree that there are some advantages to it and may potentially reduce wastage. My problem with standards though are different. If you look at phones under 100£, they all use micro USB instead of USB C simply because they are relatively cheaper to implement. People buying the phones don't care about fast charging. Now they will be forced to adapt USB-C and raise prices. This is just an example. In the future, if someone invents a better charging solution that's even better than USB-C, how exactly is the adaption supposed to happen? The newer charging solution might be much better than USB C but expensive. Should USB C be still forced? When exactly will the standards be updated? Someone finds a charging method that works brilliantly for laptops but not so for phones? Same problem. As someone working in tech, I have seen some good rules related to tech passed by EU. For instance, the data privacy requirements and access rights by GDPR. At the same time, there are some downright stupid laws like forcing everyone to implement a cookie banner that pops up on all sites which most people don't understand or don't care about. Unfortunately, I find the USB rule to fall into the latter category. Apple was right to criticise that the rule will stifle innovation and affect end users in long run." Standards really are a problem. Three point plugs of the same shape with a fuse are a terrible idea. So is a single mobile phone standard. Having a common accident safety standards for all of Europe is also a real problem. There will never be any innovation in any of these areas ever again and such unnecessary complexity... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Am I the only one concerned by the problems withe the new USB standards rule passed by EU? I understand that some people are so happy that they can use USB C cables on Apple devices. I agree that there are some advantages to it and may potentially reduce wastage. My problem with standards though are different. If you look at phones under 100£, they all use micro USB instead of USB C simply because they are relatively cheaper to implement. People buying the phones don't care about fast charging. Now they will be forced to adapt USB-C and raise prices. This is just an example. In the future, if someone invents a better charging solution that's even better than USB-C, how exactly is the adaption supposed to happen? The newer charging solution might be much better than USB C but expensive. Should USB C be still forced? When exactly will the standards be updated? Someone finds a charging method that works brilliantly for laptops but not so for phones? Same problem. As someone working in tech, I have seen some good rules related to tech passed by EU. For instance, the data privacy requirements and access rights by GDPR. At the same time, there are some downright stupid laws like forcing everyone to implement a cookie banner that pops up on all sites which most people don't understand or don't care about. Unfortunately, I find the USB rule to fall into the latter category. Apple was right to criticise that the rule will stifle innovation and affect end users in long run. Standards really are a problem. Three point plugs of the same shape with a fuse are a terrible idea. So is a single mobile phone standard. Having a common accident safety standards for all of Europe is also a real problem. There will never be any innovation in any of these areas ever again and such unnecessary complexity..." It's a trade off between the cost of changing it and the value you get out of new technology. There is lot of innovation possible around plug points. But the trade off is for all houses and every electrical equipment to change their product. For instance, the British sockets are safer than the sockets in other countries. Other countries cannot just adapt it as the changes required are on a massive scale. But people buy new mobile phones every two years. Mobile phone technologies have evolved so fast over the last decade. Enforcing standard does more harm there than good. And I never said standards are bad. Just like most other things, they are good im some cases and bad in others. Your argument is like saying uniforms work well in schools and we need to apply them in offices too. Different situations, different solutions. Uniforms do work well in some work places but have no point in other work places. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Am I the only one concerned by the problems withe the new USB standards rule passed by EU? I understand that some people are so happy that they can use USB C cables on Apple devices. I agree that there are some advantages to it and may potentially reduce wastage. My problem with standards though are different. If you look at phones under 100£, they all use micro USB instead of USB C simply because they are relatively cheaper to implement. People buying the phones don't care about fast charging. Now they will be forced to adapt USB-C and raise prices. This is just an example. In the future, if someone invents a better charging solution that's even better than USB-C, how exactly is the adaption supposed to happen? The newer charging solution might be much better than USB C but expensive. Should USB C be still forced? When exactly will the standards be updated? Someone finds a charging method that works brilliantly for laptops but not so for phones? Same problem. As someone working in tech, I have seen some good rules related to tech passed by EU. For instance, the data privacy requirements and access rights by GDPR. At the same time, there are some downright stupid laws like forcing everyone to implement a cookie banner that pops up on all sites which most people don't understand or don't care about. Unfortunately, I find the USB rule to fall into the latter category. Apple was right to criticise that the rule will stifle innovation and affect end users in long run. Standards really are a problem. Three point plugs of the same shape with a fuse are a terrible idea. So is a single mobile phone standard. Having a common accident safety standards for all of Europe is also a real problem. There will never be any innovation in any of these areas ever again and such unnecessary complexity... It's a trade off between the cost of changing it and the value you get out of new technology. There is lot of innovation possible around plug points. But the trade off is for all houses and every electrical equipment to change their product. For instance, the British sockets are safer than the sockets in other countries. Other countries cannot just adapt it as the changes required are on a massive scale. But people buy new mobile phones every two years. Mobile phone technologies have evolved so fast over the last decade. Enforcing standard does more harm there than good. And I never said standards are bad. Just like most other things, they are good im some cases and bad in others. Your argument is like saying uniforms work well in schools and we need to apply them in offices too. Different situations, different solutions. Uniforms do work well in some work places but have no point in other work places." You are literally a voice of 1. I wish you well on your campaign to prevent a common standard for device interfaces.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Am I the only one concerned by the problems withe the new USB standards rule passed by EU? I understand that some people are so happy that they can use USB C cables on Apple devices. I agree that there are some advantages to it and may potentially reduce wastage. My problem with standards though are different. If you look at phones under 100£, they all use micro USB instead of USB C simply because they are relatively cheaper to implement. People buying the phones don't care about fast charging. Now they will be forced to adapt USB-C and raise prices. This is just an example. In the future, if someone invents a better charging solution that's even better than USB-C, how exactly is the adaption supposed to happen? The newer charging solution might be much better than USB C but expensive. Should USB C be still forced? When exactly will the standards be updated? Someone finds a charging method that works brilliantly for laptops but not so for phones? Same problem. As someone working in tech, I have seen some good rules related to tech passed by EU. For instance, the data privacy requirements and access rights by GDPR. At the same time, there are some downright stupid laws like forcing everyone to implement a cookie banner that pops up on all sites which most people don't understand or don't care about. Unfortunately, I find the USB rule to fall into the latter category. Apple was right to criticise that the rule will stifle innovation and affect end users in long run. Standards really are a problem. Three point plugs of the same shape with a fuse are a terrible idea. So is a single mobile phone standard. Having a common accident safety standards for all of Europe is also a real problem. There will never be any innovation in any of these areas ever again and such unnecessary complexity... It's a trade off between the cost of changing it and the value you get out of new technology. There is lot of innovation possible around plug points. But the trade off is for all houses and every electrical equipment to change their product. For instance, the British sockets are safer than the sockets in other countries. Other countries cannot just adapt it as the changes required are on a massive scale. But people buy new mobile phones every two years. Mobile phone technologies have evolved so fast over the last decade. Enforcing standard does more harm there than good. And I never said standards are bad. Just like most other things, they are good im some cases and bad in others. Your argument is like saying uniforms work well in schools and we need to apply them in offices too. Different situations, different solutions. Uniforms do work well in some work places but have no point in other work places. You are literally a voice of 1. I wish you well on your campaign to prevent a common standard for device interfaces. "I wish you well on succumbing to political brainwashing and blindly believing that forcing standards on everyone always works and won't affect cheap phone manufacturers and won't delay new technologies being adapted in EU | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Am I the only one concerned by the problems withe the new USB standards rule passed by EU? I understand that some people are so happy that they can use USB C cables on Apple devices. I agree that there are some advantages to it and may potentially reduce wastage. My problem with standards though are different. If you look at phones under 100£, they all use micro USB instead of USB C simply because they are relatively cheaper to implement. People buying the phones don't care about fast charging. Now they will be forced to adapt USB-C and raise prices. This is just an example. In the future, if someone invents a better charging solution that's even better than USB-C, how exactly is the adaption supposed to happen? The newer charging solution might be much better than USB C but expensive. Should USB C be still forced? When exactly will the standards be updated? Someone finds a charging method that works brilliantly for laptops but not so for phones? Same problem. As someone working in tech, I have seen some good rules related to tech passed by EU. For instance, the data privacy requirements and access rights by GDPR. At the same time, there are some downright stupid laws like forcing everyone to implement a cookie banner that pops up on all sites which most people don't understand or don't care about. Unfortunately, I find the USB rule to fall into the latter category. Apple was right to criticise that the rule will stifle innovation and affect end users in long run. Standards really are a problem. Three point plugs of the same shape with a fuse are a terrible idea. So is a single mobile phone standard. Having a common accident safety standards for all of Europe is also a real problem. There will never be any innovation in any of these areas ever again and such unnecessary complexity... It's a trade off between the cost of changing it and the value you get out of new technology. There is lot of innovation possible around plug points. But the trade off is for all houses and every electrical equipment to change their product. For instance, the British sockets are safer than the sockets in other countries. Other countries cannot just adapt it as the changes required are on a massive scale. But people buy new mobile phones every two years. Mobile phone technologies have evolved so fast over the last decade. Enforcing standard does more harm there than good. And I never said standards are bad. Just like most other things, they are good im some cases and bad in others. Your argument is like saying uniforms work well in schools and we need to apply them in offices too. Different situations, different solutions. Uniforms do work well in some work places but have no point in other work places. You are literally a voice of 1. I wish you well on your campaign to prevent a common standard for device interfaces.
I wish you well on succumbing to political brainwashing and blindly believing that forcing standards on everyone always works and won't affect cheap phone manufacturers and won't delay new technologies being adapted in EU"It will not delay new technologies and it will not effect lower end mobile phone manufacturing other than bring them into line with a standard set of principals. You keep banging on about the cost, tell me the cost differential and the impact it will have on bottom tier mobile manufacturing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We don't tend to notice when things are standardised. Imagine if every car had a different shapes petrol nozzle (that said Tesla) Where we have standardisation we are probably blind to if it's a market consensus ... Or a rule. That said, I get the innovation concern. Imo the EU are legislating the wrong bit. Ban selling leads with the mobiles. Manufacturers will then either need to get on board with the curren standatd .... Or add on an explicit cost to the customers basket. And ppl like free (included in the price). They don't like paying more. " You are right. But no one had to enforce rules on petrol nozzles and still it eventually standardised. Where it is absolutely essential, markets will adapt standardisation. We did it for all internet protocols without governments having to force it. Tesla and many car companies have charging stations for cars. Nio, a new Chinese car company has manufactured cars where the battery itself will be replaced in Nio charging centres in 5 minutes instead of waiting for hours to charge. Should we pass a rule to enforce standards that blocks companies like Nio from innovating? Standards are not bad in themselves. There are levels to it. It's one thing to have recommended standards which most companies adapt voluntarily based on the product and it's another to have it blindly forced upon everyone. I admit that there are cases where government forcing it actually works because of better trade offs. But mobile phone chargers are just not that. I agree with more nuanced solutions like the ones you mentioned. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We don't tend to notice when things are standardised. Imagine if every car had a different shapes petrol nozzle (that said Tesla) Where we have standardisation we are probably blind to if it's a market consensus ... Or a rule. That said, I get the innovation concern. Imo the EU are legislating the wrong bit. Ban selling leads with the mobiles. Manufacturers will then either need to get on board with the curren standatd .... Or add on an explicit cost to the customers basket. And ppl like free (included in the price). They don't like paying more. You are right. But no one had to enforce rules on petrol nozzles and still it eventually standardised. Where it is absolutely essential, markets will adapt standardisation. We did it for all internet protocols without governments having to force it. Tesla and many car companies have charging stations for cars. Nio, a new Chinese car company has manufactured cars where the battery itself will be replaced in Nio charging centres in 5 minutes instead of waiting for hours to charge. Should we pass a rule to enforce standards that blocks companies like Nio from innovating? Standards are not bad in themselves. There are levels to it. It's one thing to have recommended standards which most companies adapt voluntarily based on the product and it's another to have it blindly forced upon everyone. I admit that there are cases where government forcing it actually works because of better trade offs. But mobile phone chargers are just not that. I agree with more nuanced solutions like the ones you mentioned. " You do know that the USB is more than a charger, don't you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Am I the only one concerned by the problems withe the new USB standards rule passed by EU? I understand that some people are so happy that they can use USB C cables on Apple devices. I agree that there are some advantages to it and may potentially reduce wastage. My problem with standards though are different. If you look at phones under 100£, they all use micro USB instead of USB C simply because they are relatively cheaper to implement. People buying the phones don't care about fast charging. Now they will be forced to adapt USB-C and raise prices. This is just an example. In the future, if someone invents a better charging solution that's even better than USB-C, how exactly is the adaption supposed to happen? The newer charging solution might be much better than USB C but expensive. Should USB C be still forced? When exactly will the standards be updated? Someone finds a charging method that works brilliantly for laptops but not so for phones? Same problem. As someone working in tech, I have seen some good rules related to tech passed by EU. For instance, the data privacy requirements and access rights by GDPR. At the same time, there are some downright stupid laws like forcing everyone to implement a cookie banner that pops up on all sites which most people don't understand or don't care about. Unfortunately, I find the USB rule to fall into the latter category. Apple was right to criticise that the rule will stifle innovation and affect end users in long run. Standards really are a problem. Three point plugs of the same shape with a fuse are a terrible idea. So is a single mobile phone standard. Having a common accident safety standards for all of Europe is also a real problem. There will never be any innovation in any of these areas ever again and such unnecessary complexity... It's a trade off between the cost of changing it and the value you get out of new technology. There is lot of innovation possible around plug points. But the trade off is for all houses and every electrical equipment to change their product. For instance, the British sockets are safer than the sockets in other countries. Other countries cannot just adapt it as the changes required are on a massive scale. But people buy new mobile phones every two years. Mobile phone technologies have evolved so fast over the last decade. Enforcing standard does more harm there than good. And I never said standards are bad. Just like most other things, they are good im some cases and bad in others. Your argument is like saying uniforms work well in schools and we need to apply them in offices too. Different situations, different solutions. Uniforms do work well in some work places but have no point in other work places. You are literally a voice of 1. I wish you well on your campaign to prevent a common standard for device interfaces.
I wish you well on succumbing to political brainwashing and blindly believing that forcing standards on everyone always works and won't affect cheap phone manufacturers and won't delay new technologies being adapted in EU
It will not delay new technologies and it will not effect lower end mobile phone manufacturing other than bring them into line with a standard set of principals.
You keep banging on about the cost, tell me the cost differential and the impact it will have on bottom tier mobile manufacturing."I made all my arguments clear about why it will delay new technologies and why it will affect cheaper phone manufacturers. Majority of phones under 100£ now still use micro-USB. The micro USB port itself doesn't make a big difference. There circuitry you need to support USB C which is more expensive compared to micro USB. There are numerous articles on internet around this topic. Even if it's small, when you look at it from large scale with the number of such devices sold, it affects both the manufacturer and cheap phone users. As for new technologies, I am going to rehash the same thing I mentioned in a different post. If a new technology is invented, it is usually expensive to begin with. Expensive phones will start using them first. Slowly the cost of the technology drops and other phones begin adapting it eventually dethroning the old technology. It works well both for customer and the manufacturer. People can buy the old technology until they can afford new technology. When exactly will the new standard be implemented in Europe? Will they wait till the rest of the world adapts it completely or will they do it as soon as a new technology becomes available no matter what's the cost? The former will delay the availablity of new technology and the latter increases prices of cheap phones. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We don't tend to notice when things are standardised. Imagine if every car had a different shapes petrol nozzle (that said Tesla) Where we have standardisation we are probably blind to if it's a market consensus ... Or a rule. That said, I get the innovation concern. Imo the EU are legislating the wrong bit. Ban selling leads with the mobiles. Manufacturers will then either need to get on board with the curren standatd .... Or add on an explicit cost to the customers basket. And ppl like free (included in the price). They don't like paying more. You are right. But no one had to enforce rules on petrol nozzles and still it eventually standardised. Where it is absolutely essential, markets will adapt standardisation. We did it for all internet protocols without governments having to force it. Tesla and many car companies have charging stations for cars. Nio, a new Chinese car company has manufactured cars where the battery itself will be replaced in Nio charging centres in 5 minutes instead of waiting for hours to charge. Should we pass a rule to enforce standards that blocks companies like Nio from innovating? Standards are not bad in themselves. There are levels to it. It's one thing to have recommended standards which most companies adapt voluntarily based on the product and it's another to have it blindly forced upon everyone. I admit that there are cases where government forcing it actually works because of better trade offs. But mobile phone chargers are just not that. I agree with more nuanced solutions like the ones you mentioned. You do know that the USB is more than a charger, don't you?" I work in tech. I know very well about what USB is. I can use the same argument for data transfer too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Am I the only one concerned by the problems withe the new USB standards rule passed by EU? I understand that some people are so happy that they can use USB C cables on Apple devices. I agree that there are some advantages to it and may potentially reduce wastage. My problem with standards though are different. If you look at phones under 100£, they all use micro USB instead of USB C simply because they are relatively cheaper to implement. People buying the phones don't care about fast charging. Now they will be forced to adapt USB-C and raise prices. This is just an example. In the future, if someone invents a better charging solution that's even better than USB-C, how exactly is the adaption supposed to happen? The newer charging solution might be much better than USB C but expensive. Should USB C be still forced? When exactly will the standards be updated? Someone finds a charging method that works brilliantly for laptops but not so for phones? Same problem. As someone working in tech, I have seen some good rules related to tech passed by EU. For instance, the data privacy requirements and access rights by GDPR. At the same time, there are some downright stupid laws like forcing everyone to implement a cookie banner that pops up on all sites which most people don't understand or don't care about. Unfortunately, I find the USB rule to fall into the latter category. Apple was right to criticise that the rule will stifle innovation and affect end users in long run. Standards really are a problem. Three point plugs of the same shape with a fuse are a terrible idea. So is a single mobile phone standard. Having a common accident safety standards for all of Europe is also a real problem. There will never be any innovation in any of these areas ever again and such unnecessary complexity... It's a trade off between the cost of changing it and the value you get out of new technology. There is lot of innovation possible around plug points. But the trade off is for all houses and every electrical equipment to change their product. For instance, the British sockets are safer than the sockets in other countries. Other countries cannot just adapt it as the changes required are on a massive scale. But people buy new mobile phones every two years. Mobile phone technologies have evolved so fast over the last decade. Enforcing standard does more harm there than good. And I never said standards are bad. Just like most other things, they are good im some cases and bad in others. Your argument is like saying uniforms work well in schools and we need to apply them in offices too. Different situations, different solutions. Uniforms do work well in some work places but have no point in other work places. You are literally a voice of 1. I wish you well on your campaign to prevent a common standard for device interfaces.
I wish you well on succumbing to political brainwashing and blindly believing that forcing standards on everyone always works and won't affect cheap phone manufacturers and won't delay new technologies being adapted in EU
It will not delay new technologies and it will not effect lower end mobile phone manufacturing other than bring them into line with a standard set of principals.
You keep banging on about the cost, tell me the cost differential and the impact it will have on bottom tier mobile manufacturing.
I made all my arguments clear about why it will delay new technologies and why it will affect cheaper phone manufacturers.
Majority of phones under 100£ now still use micro-USB. The micro USB port itself doesn't make a big difference. There circuitry you need to support USB C which is more expensive compared to micro USB. There are numerous articles on internet around this topic. Even if it's small, when you look at it from large scale with the number of such devices sold, it affects both the manufacturer and cheap phone users.
As for new technologies, I am going to rehash the same thing I mentioned in a different post. If a new technology is invented, it is usually expensive to begin with. Expensive phones will start using them first. Slowly the cost of the technology drops and other phones begin adapting it eventually dethroning the old technology. It works well both for customer and the manufacturer. People can buy the old technology until they can afford new technology. When exactly will the new standard be implemented in Europe? Will they wait till the rest of the world adapts it completely or will they do it as soon as a new technology becomes available no matter what's the cost? The former will delay the availablity of new technology and the latter increases prices of cheap phones."If a new data transfer technology comes along that exceeds the capacity of the USB-C, a new USB will be designed to carry the data. It is really that simple and why advancement will not be hindered, with early adopters being the first to pay the premium for the new technology. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Am I the only one concerned by the problems withe the new USB standards rule passed by EU? I understand that some people are so happy that they can use USB C cables on Apple devices. I agree that there are some advantages to it and may potentially reduce wastage. My problem with standards though are different. If you look at phones under 100£, they all use micro USB instead of USB C simply because they are relatively cheaper to implement. People buying the phones don't care about fast charging. Now they will be forced to adapt USB-C and raise prices. This is just an example. In the future, if someone invents a better charging solution that's even better than USB-C, how exactly is the adaption supposed to happen? The newer charging solution might be much better than USB C but expensive. Should USB C be still forced? When exactly will the standards be updated? Someone finds a charging method that works brilliantly for laptops but not so for phones? Same problem. As someone working in tech, I have seen some good rules related to tech passed by EU. For instance, the data privacy requirements and access rights by GDPR. At the same time, there are some downright stupid laws like forcing everyone to implement a cookie banner that pops up on all sites which most people don't understand or don't care about. Unfortunately, I find the USB rule to fall into the latter category. Apple was right to criticise that the rule will stifle innovation and affect end users in long run. Standards really are a problem. Three point plugs of the same shape with a fuse are a terrible idea. So is a single mobile phone standard. Having a common accident safety standards for all of Europe is also a real problem. There will never be any innovation in any of these areas ever again and such unnecessary complexity... It's a trade off between the cost of changing it and the value you get out of new technology. There is lot of innovation possible around plug points. But the trade off is for all houses and every electrical equipment to change their product. For instance, the British sockets are safer than the sockets in other countries. Other countries cannot just adapt it as the changes required are on a massive scale. But people buy new mobile phones every two years. Mobile phone technologies have evolved so fast over the last decade. Enforcing standard does more harm there than good. And I never said standards are bad. Just like most other things, they are good im some cases and bad in others. Your argument is like saying uniforms work well in schools and we need to apply them in offices too. Different situations, different solutions. Uniforms do work well in some work places but have no point in other work places." No, it really is not like school uniforms at all. There is nothing to stop manufacturers moving forward with the next evolution of USB when it's agreed. However, I know that you are never ever wrong and that you will post relentlessly, so we will all just have to accept that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Am I the only one concerned by the problems withe the new USB standards rule passed by EU? I understand that some people are so happy that they can use USB C cables on Apple devices. I agree that there are some advantages to it and may potentially reduce wastage. My problem with standards though are different. If you look at phones under 100£, they all use micro USB instead of USB C simply because they are relatively cheaper to implement. People buying the phones don't care about fast charging. Now they will be forced to adapt USB-C and raise prices. This is just an example. In the future, if someone invents a better charging solution that's even better than USB-C, how exactly is the adaption supposed to happen? The newer charging solution might be much better than USB C but expensive. Should USB C be still forced? When exactly will the standards be updated? Someone finds a charging method that works brilliantly for laptops but not so for phones? Same problem. As someone working in tech, I have seen some good rules related to tech passed by EU. For instance, the data privacy requirements and access rights by GDPR. At the same time, there are some downright stupid laws like forcing everyone to implement a cookie banner that pops up on all sites which most people don't understand or don't care about. Unfortunately, I find the USB rule to fall into the latter category. Apple was right to criticise that the rule will stifle innovation and affect end users in long run. Standards really are a problem. Three point plugs of the same shape with a fuse are a terrible idea. So is a single mobile phone standard. Having a common accident safety standards for all of Europe is also a real problem. There will never be any innovation in any of these areas ever again and such unnecessary complexity... It's a trade off between the cost of changing it and the value you get out of new technology. There is lot of innovation possible around plug points. But the trade off is for all houses and every electrical equipment to change their product. For instance, the British sockets are safer than the sockets in other countries. Other countries cannot just adapt it as the changes required are on a massive scale. But people buy new mobile phones every two years. Mobile phone technologies have evolved so fast over the last decade. Enforcing standard does more harm there than good. And I never said standards are bad. Just like most other things, they are good im some cases and bad in others. Your argument is like saying uniforms work well in schools and we need to apply them in offices too. Different situations, different solutions. Uniforms do work well in some work places but have no point in other work places. No, it really is not like school uniforms at all. There is nothing to stop manufacturers moving forward with the next evolution of USB when it's agreed. However, I know that you are never ever wrong and that you will post relentlessly, so we will all just have to accept that "I like to have debates who like to have rational arguments instead of making blanket claims without evidence or going around in circles the moment you don't have an answer. I still haven't received an answer of what happens when a phone manufacturer like Samsung finds a new technology that will charge much faster but have to replace USB C and is expensive and hence they want to use it on their high end phones. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Am I the only one concerned by the problems withe the new USB standards rule passed by EU? I understand that some people are so happy that they can use USB C cables on Apple devices. I agree that there are some advantages to it and may potentially reduce wastage. My problem with standards though are different. If you look at phones under 100£, they all use micro USB instead of USB C simply because they are relatively cheaper to implement. People buying the phones don't care about fast charging. Now they will be forced to adapt USB-C and raise prices. This is just an example. In the future, if someone invents a better charging solution that's even better than USB-C, how exactly is the adaption supposed to happen? The newer charging solution might be much better than USB C but expensive. Should USB C be still forced? When exactly will the standards be updated? Someone finds a charging method that works brilliantly for laptops but not so for phones? Same problem. As someone working in tech, I have seen some good rules related to tech passed by EU. For instance, the data privacy requirements and access rights by GDPR. At the same time, there are some downright stupid laws like forcing everyone to implement a cookie banner that pops up on all sites which most people don't understand or don't care about. Unfortunately, I find the USB rule to fall into the latter category. Apple was right to criticise that the rule will stifle innovation and affect end users in long run. Standards really are a problem. Three point plugs of the same shape with a fuse are a terrible idea. So is a single mobile phone standard. Having a common accident safety standards for all of Europe is also a real problem. There will never be any innovation in any of these areas ever again and such unnecessary complexity... It's a trade off between the cost of changing it and the value you get out of new technology. There is lot of innovation possible around plug points. But the trade off is for all houses and every electrical equipment to change their product. For instance, the British sockets are safer than the sockets in other countries. Other countries cannot just adapt it as the changes required are on a massive scale. But people buy new mobile phones every two years. Mobile phone technologies have evolved so fast over the last decade. Enforcing standard does more harm there than good. And I never said standards are bad. Just like most other things, they are good im some cases and bad in others. Your argument is like saying uniforms work well in schools and we need to apply them in offices too. Different situations, different solutions. Uniforms do work well in some work places but have no point in other work places. You are literally a voice of 1. I wish you well on your campaign to prevent a common standard for device interfaces.
I wish you well on succumbing to political brainwashing and blindly believing that forcing standards on everyone always works and won't affect cheap phone manufacturers and won't delay new technologies being adapted in EU
It will not delay new technologies and it will not effect lower end mobile phone manufacturing other than bring them into line with a standard set of principals.
You keep banging on about the cost, tell me the cost differential and the impact it will have on bottom tier mobile manufacturing.
I made all my arguments clear about why it will delay new technologies and why it will affect cheaper phone manufacturers.
Majority of phones under 100£ now still use micro-USB. The micro USB port itself doesn't make a big difference. There circuitry you need to support USB C which is more expensive compared to micro USB. There are numerous articles on internet around this topic. Even if it's small, when you look at it from large scale with the number of such devices sold, it affects both the manufacturer and cheap phone users.
As for new technologies, I am going to rehash the same thing I mentioned in a different post. If a new technology is invented, it is usually expensive to begin with. Expensive phones will start using them first. Slowly the cost of the technology drops and other phones begin adapting it eventually dethroning the old technology. It works well both for customer and the manufacturer. People can buy the old technology until they can afford new technology. When exactly will the new standard be implemented in Europe? Will they wait till the rest of the world adapts it completely or will they do it as soon as a new technology becomes available no matter what's the cost? The former will delay the availablity of new technology and the latter increases prices of cheap phones.
If a new data transfer technology comes along that exceeds the capacity of the USB-C, a new USB will be designed to carry the data. It is really that simple and why advancement will not be hindered, with early adopters being the first to pay the premium for the new technology. "But a law is in place that actually blocks using anything other than USB C. When exactly will this new technology be allowed by the standards committee? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Am I the only one concerned by the problems withe the new USB standards rule passed by EU? I understand that some people are so happy that they can use USB C cables on Apple devices. I agree that there are some advantages to it and may potentially reduce wastage. My problem with standards though are different. If you look at phones under 100£, they all use micro USB instead of USB C simply because they are relatively cheaper to implement. People buying the phones don't care about fast charging. Now they will be forced to adapt USB-C and raise prices. This is just an example. In the future, if someone invents a better charging solution that's even better than USB-C, how exactly is the adaption supposed to happen? The newer charging solution might be much better than USB C but expensive. Should USB C be still forced? When exactly will the standards be updated? Someone finds a charging method that works brilliantly for laptops but not so for phones? Same problem. As someone working in tech, I have seen some good rules related to tech passed by EU. For instance, the data privacy requirements and access rights by GDPR. At the same time, there are some downright stupid laws like forcing everyone to implement a cookie banner that pops up on all sites which most people don't understand or don't care about. Unfortunately, I find the USB rule to fall into the latter category. Apple was right to criticise that the rule will stifle innovation and affect end users in long run. Standards really are a problem. Three point plugs of the same shape with a fuse are a terrible idea. So is a single mobile phone standard. Having a common accident safety standards for all of Europe is also a real problem. There will never be any innovation in any of these areas ever again and such unnecessary complexity... It's a trade off between the cost of changing it and the value you get out of new technology. There is lot of innovation possible around plug points. But the trade off is for all houses and every electrical equipment to change their product. For instance, the British sockets are safer than the sockets in other countries. Other countries cannot just adapt it as the changes required are on a massive scale. But people buy new mobile phones every two years. Mobile phone technologies have evolved so fast over the last decade. Enforcing standard does more harm there than good. And I never said standards are bad. Just like most other things, they are good im some cases and bad in others. Your argument is like saying uniforms work well in schools and we need to apply them in offices too. Different situations, different solutions. Uniforms do work well in some work places but have no point in other work places. You are literally a voice of 1. I wish you well on your campaign to prevent a common standard for device interfaces.
I wish you well on succumbing to political brainwashing and blindly believing that forcing standards on everyone always works and won't affect cheap phone manufacturers and won't delay new technologies being adapted in EU
It will not delay new technologies and it will not effect lower end mobile phone manufacturing other than bring them into line with a standard set of principals.
You keep banging on about the cost, tell me the cost differential and the impact it will have on bottom tier mobile manufacturing.
I made all my arguments clear about why it will delay new technologies and why it will affect cheaper phone manufacturers.
Majority of phones under 100£ now still use micro-USB. The micro USB port itself doesn't make a big difference. There circuitry you need to support USB C which is more expensive compared to micro USB. There are numerous articles on internet around this topic. Even if it's small, when you look at it from large scale with the number of such devices sold, it affects both the manufacturer and cheap phone users.
As for new technologies, I am going to rehash the same thing I mentioned in a different post. If a new technology is invented, it is usually expensive to begin with. Expensive phones will start using them first. Slowly the cost of the technology drops and other phones begin adapting it eventually dethroning the old technology. It works well both for customer and the manufacturer. People can buy the old technology until they can afford new technology. When exactly will the new standard be implemented in Europe? Will they wait till the rest of the world adapts it completely or will they do it as soon as a new technology becomes available no matter what's the cost? The former will delay the availablity of new technology and the latter increases prices of cheap phones.
If a new data transfer technology comes along that exceeds the capacity of the USB-C, a new USB will be designed to carry the data. It is really that simple and why advancement will not be hindered, with early adopters being the first to pay the premium for the new technology.
But a law is in place that actually blocks using anything other than USB C. When exactly will this new technology be allowed by the standards committee?"It does not prevent the development of new USB technology, it removes the use of old USB technology by bringing everything up to C | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Am I the only one concerned by the problems withe the new USB standards rule passed by EU? I understand that some people are so happy that they can use USB C cables on Apple devices. I agree that there are some advantages to it and may potentially reduce wastage. My problem with standards though are different. If you look at phones under 100£, they all use micro USB instead of USB C simply because they are relatively cheaper to implement. People buying the phones don't care about fast charging. Now they will be forced to adapt USB-C and raise prices. This is just an example. In the future, if someone invents a better charging solution that's even better than USB-C, how exactly is the adaption supposed to happen? The newer charging solution might be much better than USB C but expensive. Should USB C be still forced? When exactly will the standards be updated? Someone finds a charging method that works brilliantly for laptops but not so for phones? Same problem. As someone working in tech, I have seen some good rules related to tech passed by EU. For instance, the data privacy requirements and access rights by GDPR. At the same time, there are some downright stupid laws like forcing everyone to implement a cookie banner that pops up on all sites which most people don't understand or don't care about. Unfortunately, I find the USB rule to fall into the latter category. Apple was right to criticise that the rule will stifle innovation and affect end users in long run. Standards really are a problem. Three point plugs of the same shape with a fuse are a terrible idea. So is a single mobile phone standard. Having a common accident safety standards for all of Europe is also a real problem. There will never be any innovation in any of these areas ever again and such unnecessary complexity... It's a trade off between the cost of changing it and the value you get out of new technology. There is lot of innovation possible around plug points. But the trade off is for all houses and every electrical equipment to change their product. For instance, the British sockets are safer than the sockets in other countries. Other countries cannot just adapt it as the changes required are on a massive scale. But people buy new mobile phones every two years. Mobile phone technologies have evolved so fast over the last decade. Enforcing standard does more harm there than good. And I never said standards are bad. Just like most other things, they are good im some cases and bad in others. Your argument is like saying uniforms work well in schools and we need to apply them in offices too. Different situations, different solutions. Uniforms do work well in some work places but have no point in other work places. You are literally a voice of 1. I wish you well on your campaign to prevent a common standard for device interfaces.
I wish you well on succumbing to political brainwashing and blindly believing that forcing standards on everyone always works and won't affect cheap phone manufacturers and won't delay new technologies being adapted in EU
It will not delay new technologies and it will not effect lower end mobile phone manufacturing other than bring them into line with a standard set of principals.
You keep banging on about the cost, tell me the cost differential and the impact it will have on bottom tier mobile manufacturing.
I made all my arguments clear about why it will delay new technologies and why it will affect cheaper phone manufacturers.
Majority of phones under 100£ now still use micro-USB. The micro USB port itself doesn't make a big difference. There circuitry you need to support USB C which is more expensive compared to micro USB. There are numerous articles on internet around this topic. Even if it's small, when you look at it from large scale with the number of such devices sold, it affects both the manufacturer and cheap phone users.
As for new technologies, I am going to rehash the same thing I mentioned in a different post. If a new technology is invented, it is usually expensive to begin with. Expensive phones will start using them first. Slowly the cost of the technology drops and other phones begin adapting it eventually dethroning the old technology. It works well both for customer and the manufacturer. People can buy the old technology until they can afford new technology. When exactly will the new standard be implemented in Europe? Will they wait till the rest of the world adapts it completely or will they do it as soon as a new technology becomes available no matter what's the cost? The former will delay the availablity of new technology and the latter increases prices of cheap phones.
If a new data transfer technology comes along that exceeds the capacity of the USB-C, a new USB will be designed to carry the data. It is really that simple and why advancement will not be hindered, with early adopters being the first to pay the premium for the new technology.
But a law is in place that actually blocks using anything other than USB C. When exactly will this new technology be allowed by the standards committee?
It does not prevent the development of new USB technology, it removes the use of old USB technology by bringing everything up to C"Two simple questions. If Samsung invents a new technology of charging that does away with USB C but is expensive and wants it to be a feature only on its high end phones to begin with, it won't be possible. How is that any good? Why do you want to force USB C on cheap phone manufacturers that will force them to increase price of their devices because micro USB is cheaper than USB C? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Two simple questions. If Samsung invents a new technology of charging that does away with USB C but is expensive and wants it to be a feature only on its high end phones to begin with, it won't be possible. How is that any good? Why do you want to force USB C on cheap phone manufacturers that will force them to increase price of their devices because micro USB is cheaper than USB C?" USB C supports up to 240W. Samsung has already released a 45W charger but due to battery technology it doesn't charge much faster than a 25W charger. The limiting factor here is battery tech, not the USB C port. I would imagine the cost of USB C vs Micro USB is negligible. At most the additional cost of USB C interface is a few £. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Two simple questions. If Samsung invents a new technology of charging that does away with USB C but is expensive and wants it to be a feature only on its high end phones to begin with, it won't be possible. How is that any good? Why do you want to force USB C on cheap phone manufacturers that will force them to increase price of their devices because micro USB is cheaper than USB C? USB C supports up to 240W. Samsung has already released a 45W charger but due to battery technology it doesn't charge much faster than a 25W charger. The limiting factor here is battery tech, not the USB C port. I would imagine the cost of USB C vs Micro USB is negligible. At most the additional cost of USB C interface is a few £. " USB-C already supporting a higher ceiling is a fair argument. There will be need for support of higher wattage only many years later although it's hard to predict. As for micro USB, if it is as negligible, the cheaper phones would have already used USB C. When the phone is cheaper, even a few pounds make a big difference. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Two simple questions. If Samsung invents a new technology of charging that does away with USB C but is expensive and wants it to be a feature only on its high end phones to begin with, it won't be possible. How is that any good? Why do you want to force USB C on cheap phone manufacturers that will force them to increase price of their devices because micro USB is cheaper than USB C?" There is nothing stopping Samsung developing a new technology, it only needs to be proven that USB-C is not up to the job of the new tech, in other words USB-C would be holding back advancements. I think you are looking at Apple being forced into using USB-C as the standard and having to ditch the lightning port. The lightning port offers no advantage over USB-C and causes a conflict and cost to consumers in terms of lack of choice. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Am I the only one concerned by the problems withe the new USB standards rule passed by EU? I understand that some people are so happy that they can use USB C cables on Apple devices. I agree that there are some advantages to it and may potentially reduce wastage. My problem with standards though are different. If you look at phones under 100£, they all use micro USB instead of USB C simply because they are relatively cheaper to implement. People buying the phones don't care about fast charging. Now they will be forced to adapt USB-C and raise prices. This is just an example. In the future, if someone invents a better charging solution that's even better than USB-C, how exactly is the adaption supposed to happen? The newer charging solution might be much better than USB C but expensive. Should USB C be still forced? When exactly will the standards be updated? Someone finds a charging method that works brilliantly for laptops but not so for phones? Same problem. As someone working in tech, I have seen some good rules related to tech passed by EU. For instance, the data privacy requirements and access rights by GDPR. At the same time, there are some downright stupid laws like forcing everyone to implement a cookie banner that pops up on all sites which most people don't understand or don't care about. Unfortunately, I find the USB rule to fall into the latter category. Apple was right to criticise that the rule will stifle innovation and affect end users in long run. Standards really are a problem. Three point plugs of the same shape with a fuse are a terrible idea. So is a single mobile phone standard. Having a common accident safety standards for all of Europe is also a real problem. There will never be any innovation in any of these areas ever again and such unnecessary complexity... It's a trade off between the cost of changing it and the value you get out of new technology. There is lot of innovation possible around plug points. But the trade off is for all houses and every electrical equipment to change their product. For instance, the British sockets are safer than the sockets in other countries. Other countries cannot just adapt it as the changes required are on a massive scale. But people buy new mobile phones every two years. Mobile phone technologies have evolved so fast over the last decade. Enforcing standard does more harm there than good. And I never said standards are bad. Just like most other things, they are good im some cases and bad in others. Your argument is like saying uniforms work well in schools and we need to apply them in offices too. Different situations, different solutions. Uniforms do work well in some work places but have no point in other work places. No, it really is not like school uniforms at all. There is nothing to stop manufacturers moving forward with the next evolution of USB when it's agreed. However, I know that you are never ever wrong and that you will post relentlessly, so we will all just have to accept that
I like to have debates who like to have rational arguments instead of making blanket claims without evidence or going around in circles the moment you don't have an answer.
I still haven't received an answer of what happens when a phone manufacturer like Samsung finds a new technology that will charge much faster but have to replace USB C and is expensive and hence they want to use it on their high end phones."As you are well aware, the cable does not limit the charge speed. It's battery, software and charger. All of which are free to change. If the cable becomes a limit, then there is a regulation update discussion to be had. Just like any number of other industries. You are complaints are vague and generalised, and is no different to saying that we should have no standards for anything ever in case something "better" is developed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Two simple questions. If Samsung invents a new technology of charging that does away with USB C but is expensive and wants it to be a feature only on its high end phones to begin with, it won't be possible. How is that any good? Why do you want to force USB C on cheap phone manufacturers that will force them to increase price of their devices because micro USB is cheaper than USB C? There is nothing stopping Samsung developing a new technology, it only needs to be proven that USB-C is not up to the job of the new tech, in other words USB-C would be holding back advancements. I think you are looking at Apple being forced into using USB-C as the standard and having to ditch the lightning port. The lightning port offers no advantage over USB-C and causes a conflict and cost to consumers in terms of lack of choice. " I am not looking at lightning cables. Apple already uses USB C for all their MacBooks. Forcing them to ditch lightning cables is one of the postives out of this rule. I didn't say that USB C will stop Samsung from developing new technology. Say if Samsung designs a really expensive phone that has high scaled features with different battery needs. They are better off supporting cable and ports which work well with their model. If the new cable is expensive, will the standards committee agree this new cable even before it has been tested in the market? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Am I the only one concerned by the problems withe the new USB standards rule passed by EU? I understand that some people are so happy that they can use USB C cables on Apple devices. I agree that there are some advantages to it and may potentially reduce wastage. My problem with standards though are different. If you look at phones under 100£, they all use micro USB instead of USB C simply because they are relatively cheaper to implement. People buying the phones don't care about fast charging. Now they will be forced to adapt USB-C and raise prices. This is just an example. In the future, if someone invents a better charging solution that's even better than USB-C, how exactly is the adaption supposed to happen? The newer charging solution might be much better than USB C but expensive. Should USB C be still forced? When exactly will the standards be updated? Someone finds a charging method that works brilliantly for laptops but not so for phones? Same problem. As someone working in tech, I have seen some good rules related to tech passed by EU. For instance, the data privacy requirements and access rights by GDPR. At the same time, there are some downright stupid laws like forcing everyone to implement a cookie banner that pops up on all sites which most people don't understand or don't care about. Unfortunately, I find the USB rule to fall into the latter category. Apple was right to criticise that the rule will stifle innovation and affect end users in long run. Standards really are a problem. Three point plugs of the same shape with a fuse are a terrible idea. So is a single mobile phone standard. Having a common accident safety standards for all of Europe is also a real problem. There will never be any innovation in any of these areas ever again and such unnecessary complexity... It's a trade off between the cost of changing it and the value you get out of new technology. There is lot of innovation possible around plug points. But the trade off is for all houses and every electrical equipment to change their product. For instance, the British sockets are safer than the sockets in other countries. Other countries cannot just adapt it as the changes required are on a massive scale. But people buy new mobile phones every two years. Mobile phone technologies have evolved so fast over the last decade. Enforcing standard does more harm there than good. And I never said standards are bad. Just like most other things, they are good im some cases and bad in others. Your argument is like saying uniforms work well in schools and we need to apply them in offices too. Different situations, different solutions. Uniforms do work well in some work places but have no point in other work places. No, it really is not like school uniforms at all. There is nothing to stop manufacturers moving forward with the next evolution of USB when it's agreed. However, I know that you are never ever wrong and that you will post relentlessly, so we will all just have to accept that
I like to have debates who like to have rational arguments instead of making blanket claims without evidence or going around in circles the moment you don't have an answer.
I still haven't received an answer of what happens when a phone manufacturer like Samsung finds a new technology that will charge much faster but have to replace USB C and is expensive and hence they want to use it on their high end phones.
As you are well aware, the cable does not limit the charge speed. It's battery, software and charger. All of which are free to change.
If the cable becomes a limit, then there is a regulation update discussion to be had.
Just like any number of other industries.
You are complaints are vague and generalised, and is no different to saying that we should have no standards for anything ever in case something "better" is developed."All cables have limits which will be broken at some point. When micro USB was launched long back, it was considered the answer to all our problems. And here we are trying to charge 5000 mAh batteried and transferring 4K videos from mobile phones. Regulation update has the problem I mentioned above? When does it happen? If you force it too soon, you are forcing an expensive tech on both manufacturers and consumers. If you do it much later when the tech is available cheaper, you are stopping people who can buy expensive tech from using it. My complaint is not vague. I have given you plenty of examples. Markets can handle the transition from one technology to another technology much better than a forced regulation in this particular case. The move from micro USB to USB C happened well. USB C started off in high end phones while mid priced and low end phones still used micro USB as it was cheaper. As USB C becomes available for cheap, we have seen much better adaptation of USB C and only low end phones use micro USB. How is forcing a standard going to make this better? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another excuse to stop the freedom of choice they wont be happy until we all have the same eu phone, drive a eu car etc it reminds me of the old soviet union. "The UK is not in the EU and doesn't need to comply with this EU standardisation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another excuse to stop the freedom of choice they wont be happy until we all have the same eu phone, drive a eu car etc it reminds me of the old soviet union.
The UK is not in the EU and doesn't need to comply with this EU standardisation. "exactly thank god for that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another excuse to stop the freedom of choice they wont be happy until we all have the same eu phone, drive a eu car etc it reminds me of the old soviet union.
The UK is not in the EU and doesn't need to comply with this EU standardisation. exactly thank god for that. "Yes excellent. Non-standard more expensive products. Amazing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another excuse to stop the freedom of choice they wont be happy until we all have the same eu phone, drive a eu car etc it reminds me of the old soviet union.
The UK is not in the EU and doesn't need to comply with this EU standardisation. exactly thank god for that.
Yes excellent. Non-standard more expensive products.
Amazing
"Of course sorry i forgot you think the world ends at the eu.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another excuse to stop the freedom of choice they wont be happy until we all have the same eu phone, drive a eu car etc it reminds me of the old soviet union.
The UK is not in the EU and doesn't need to comply with this EU standardisation. "The manufacture of this tech happens outside the UK in most cases, and I would assume that no manufacturer is going to develop an individual device for the UK alone. It could however sell its back catalogue of outdated tech to the UK. to manage their surplus. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Am I the only one concerned by the problems withe the new USB standards rule passed by EU? I understand that some people are so happy that they can use USB C cables on Apple devices. I agree that there are some advantages to it and may potentially reduce wastage. My problem with standards though are different. If you look at phones under 100£, they all use micro USB instead of USB C simply because they are relatively cheaper to implement. People buying the phones don't care about fast charging. Now they will be forced to adapt USB-C and raise prices. This is just an example. In the future, if someone invents a better charging solution that's even better than USB-C, how exactly is the adaption supposed to happen? The newer charging solution might be much better than USB C but expensive. Should USB C be still forced? When exactly will the standards be updated? Someone finds a charging method that works brilliantly for laptops but not so for phones? Same problem. As someone working in tech, I have seen some good rules related to tech passed by EU. For instance, the data privacy requirements and access rights by GDPR. At the same time, there are some downright stupid laws like forcing everyone to implement a cookie banner that pops up on all sites which most people don't understand or don't care about. Unfortunately, I find the USB rule to fall into the latter category. Apple was right to criticise that the rule will stifle innovation and affect end users in long run. Standards really are a problem. Three point plugs of the same shape with a fuse are a terrible idea. So is a single mobile phone standard. Having a common accident safety standards for all of Europe is also a real problem. There will never be any innovation in any of these areas ever again and such unnecessary complexity... It's a trade off between the cost of changing it and the value you get out of new technology. There is lot of innovation possible around plug points. But the trade off is for all houses and every electrical equipment to change their product. For instance, the British sockets are safer than the sockets in other countries. Other countries cannot just adapt it as the changes required are on a massive scale. But people buy new mobile phones every two years. Mobile phone technologies have evolved so fast over the last decade. Enforcing standard does more harm there than good. And I never said standards are bad. Just like most other things, they are good im some cases and bad in others. Your argument is like saying uniforms work well in schools and we need to apply them in offices too. Different situations, different solutions. Uniforms do work well in some work places but have no point in other work places. No, it really is not like school uniforms at all. There is nothing to stop manufacturers moving forward with the next evolution of USB when it's agreed. However, I know that you are never ever wrong and that you will post relentlessly, so we will all just have to accept that
I like to have debates who like to have rational arguments instead of making blanket claims without evidence or going around in circles the moment you don't have an answer.
I still haven't received an answer of what happens when a phone manufacturer like Samsung finds a new technology that will charge much faster but have to replace USB C and is expensive and hence they want to use it on their high end phones.
As you are well aware, the cable does not limit the charge speed. It's battery, software and charger. All of which are free to change.
If the cable becomes a limit, then there is a regulation update discussion to be had.
Just like any number of other industries.
You are complaints are vague and generalised, and is no different to saying that we should have no standards for anything ever in case something "better" is developed.
All cables have limits which will be broken at some point. When micro USB was launched long back, it was considered the answer to all our problems. And here we are trying to charge 5000 mAh batteried and transferring 4K videos from mobile phones.
Regulation update has the problem I mentioned above? When does it happen? If you force it too soon, you are forcing an expensive tech on both manufacturers and consumers.
If you do it much later when the tech is available cheaper, you are stopping people who can buy expensive tech from using it.
My complaint is not vague. I have given you plenty of examples. Markets can handle the transition from one technology to another technology much better than a forced regulation in this particular case. The move from micro USB to USB C happened well. USB C started off in high end phones while mid priced and low end phones still used micro USB as it was cheaper. As USB C becomes available for cheap, we have seen much better adaptation of USB C and only low end phones use micro USB. How is forcing a standard going to make this better?"I really cannot find any coherant arguement from you against this ruling. Cheap phones in the past used their own connectors and now they use micro USB. Now any future cheap phones will use USB C. They aren't suddenly going to cost double because of USB C. What new tech are you talking about? For phones we want higher transfer speeds and faster charging. As I mentioned, USB 3 through a USB C port supports 240w and has a max transfer rate of 10Gbit/s. If supported with Thunderbolt that goes up to 40Gbit/s. Like I and others have mentioned, the battery is what's holding up charging speed. Fast charging causes the battery to heat up. If there are any new developments in the above then the USB standard gets updated and implemented into USB C. USB C is just a protocol. It's not fixed tech that becomes obsolete. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I still haven't received an answer of what happens when a phone manufacturer like Samsung finds a new technology that will charge much faster but have to replace USB C and is expensive and hence they want to use it on their high end phones." Samsung would take it to USB… everyone then shares that technology (Samsung would have the patent rights) and if most agree then that would be the new USB standard which they can implement…. It’s not that hard!!!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another excuse to stop the freedom of choice they wont be happy until we all have the same eu phone, drive a eu car etc it reminds me of the old soviet union.
The UK is not in the EU and doesn't need to comply with this EU standardisation. exactly thank god for that.
Yes excellent. Non-standard more expensive products.
Amazing
Of course sorry i forgot you think the world ends at the eu. "That’s a silly argument… if they just built for a uk market it would cost manufacturers more and would in turn cost consumers more!!! I know you are blinded by all things brexit but sometimes keeping silent prevents people knowing just how silly you are!!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Samsung would take it to USB… everyone then shares that technology (Samsung would have the patent rights) ... " That's a terrible idea. There have been several occasions where companies have proposed a new standard, waited for it to be adopted, then suddenly asserted their patent rights to corner the market. Some standards organisations don't allow patented technology for exactly that reason. "... if most agree then that would be the new USB standard which they can implement." That's the problem with the new law. If everyone agreed that USB-D was better than USB-C, and they were all set to adopt it, the new law doesn't allow them to do so. How long do you think it would take the EU to alter the law to allow a new connector? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I really cannot find any coherant arguement from you against this ruling. Cheap phones in the past used their own connectors and now they use micro USB. Now any future cheap phones will use USB C. They aren't suddenly going to cost double because of USB C. " No one said a phone is going to cost double. But people buy cheap phones for a reason. For them even a 5 or 10£ increase in cost is expensive. There are so many 80£ phones with micro USB but a very few USB C phones at around 90£. Why would anyone give up on USB C and buy the 80£ phone? Because the 10£ matters to the person buying? I don't see how this argument is incoherent. " What new tech are you talking about? For phones we want higher transfer speeds and faster charging. " Yes. Phones about 5 years back mostly had 1500 mAh batteries while many phones these days pack 5000 mAh batteries. Fast charging technology we have now may not really be fast charging in another 5 years because battery needs are higher. Same with data transfers. The pictures we took on phones a decade back were close to 3MB. Now we are taking 4K videos with phones. So our data transfer requirements will also eventually outgrow the tech we have now. " Like I and others have mentioned, the battery is what's holding up charging speed. Fast charging causes the battery to heat up. " How fast a battery can charge depends on voltage and current a battery takes. Just like a battery has a limit on how much voltage and current it takes, the cable and connector also have limits. " If there are any new developments in the above then the USB standard gets updated and implemented into USB C. USB C is just a protocol. It's not fixed tech that becomes obsolete." USB C is not just a protocol. It's a standard on how connectors are designed. By your logic, USB 2.0 can also be "just a protocol" and we could have implemented all new developments over it. But we had to move on to USB C didn't we? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"USB C is just a protocol. It's not fixed tech that becomes obsolete." "USB C is not just a protocol ..." USB-C is not at all a protocol, it's a hardware standard. The protocol is USB 3.2 (or 4.0 if you're on the cutting edge). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I really cannot find any coherant arguement from you against this ruling. Cheap phones in the past used their own connectors and now they use micro USB. Now any future cheap phones will use USB C. They aren't suddenly going to cost double because of USB C. No one said a phone is going to cost double. But people buy cheap phones for a reason. For them even a 5 or 10£ increase in cost is expensive. There are so many 80£ phones with micro USB but a very few USB C phones at around 90£. Why would anyone give up on USB C and buy the 80£ phone? Because the 10£ matters to the person buying? I don't see how this argument is incoherent. What new tech are you talking about? For phones we want higher transfer speeds and faster charging. Yes. Phones about 5 years back mostly had 1500 mAh batteries while many phones these days pack 5000 mAh batteries. Fast charging technology we have now may not really be fast charging in another 5 years because battery needs are higher. Same with data transfers. The pictures we took on phones a decade back were close to 3MB. Now we are taking 4K videos with phones. So our data transfer requirements will also eventually outgrow the tech we have now. Like I and others have mentioned, the battery is what's holding up charging speed. Fast charging causes the battery to heat up. How fast a battery can charge depends on voltage and current a battery takes. Just like a battery has a limit on how much voltage and current it takes, the cable and connector also have limits. If there are any new developments in the above then the USB standard gets updated and implemented into USB C. USB C is just a protocol. It's not fixed tech that becomes obsolete. USB C is not just a protocol. It's a standard on how connectors are designed. By your logic, USB 2.0 can also be "just a protocol" and we could have implemented all new developments over it. But we had to move on to USB C didn't we?" This is where I can jump in
USB 2.0 is a standard whereas USB C is a port. They are different things.
USB A has been used since the inception of USB, and is still used today with USB 3.X. There has been USB A with USB 1.X, 2.0, 3.X, and it will eventually be used with 4.0
Do you see where we're going here? The same port is being used for new USB standards.
It's no different with USB C, which started with USB 3.1, and now supports USB 3.2. It will be updated to support USB 4.0.
Is this crystal clear? The same port is updated for new USB standards. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I really cannot find any coherant arguement from you against this ruling. Cheap phones in the past used their own connectors and now they use micro USB. Now any future cheap phones will use USB C. They aren't suddenly going to cost double because of USB C. No one said a phone is going to cost double. But people buy cheap phones for a reason. For them even a 5 or 10£ increase in cost is expensive. There are so many 80£ phones with micro USB but a very few USB C phones at around 90£. Why would anyone give up on USB C and buy the 80£ phone? Because the 10£ matters to the person buying? I don't see how this argument is incoherent. What new tech are you talking about? For phones we want higher transfer speeds and faster charging. Yes. Phones about 5 years back mostly had 1500 mAh batteries while many phones these days pack 5000 mAh batteries. Fast charging technology we have now may not really be fast charging in another 5 years because battery needs are higher. Same with data transfers. The pictures we took on phones a decade back were close to 3MB. Now we are taking 4K videos with phones. So our data transfer requirements will also eventually outgrow the tech we have now. Like I and others have mentioned, the battery is what's holding up charging speed. Fast charging causes the battery to heat up. How fast a battery can charge depends on voltage and current a battery takes. Just like a battery has a limit on how much voltage and current it takes, the cable and connector also have limits. If there are any new developments in the above then the USB standard gets updated and implemented into USB C. USB C is just a protocol. It's not fixed tech that becomes obsolete. USB C is not just a protocol. It's a standard on how connectors are designed. By your logic, USB 2.0 can also be "just a protocol" and we could have implemented all new developments over it. But we had to move on to USB C didn't we? This is where I can jump in
USB 2.0 is a standard whereas USB C is a port. They are different things.
USB A has been used since the inception of USB, and is still used today with USB 3.X. There has been USB A with USB 1.X, 2.0, 3.X, and it will eventually be used with 4.0
Do you see where we're going here? The same port is being used for new USB standards.
It's no different with USB C, which started with USB 3.1, and now supports USB 3.2. It will be updated to support USB 4.0.
Is this crystal clear? The same port is updated for new USB standards."What about USB-PD a subset of 3.1 … Does this help to sharpen the crystal clear | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wow this is the most ludicrous discussion I have ever come across on Fab! " it's got the most facts in for sure. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I really cannot find any coherant arguement from you against this ruling. Cheap phones in the past used their own connectors and now they use micro USB. Now any future cheap phones will use USB C. They aren't suddenly going to cost double because of USB C. No one said a phone is going to cost double. But people buy cheap phones for a reason. For them even a 5 or 10£ increase in cost is expensive. There are so many 80£ phones with micro USB but a very few USB C phones at around 90£. Why would anyone give up on USB C and buy the 80£ phone? Because the 10£ matters to the person buying? I don't see how this argument is incoherent. What new tech are you talking about? For phones we want higher transfer speeds and faster charging. Yes. Phones about 5 years back mostly had 1500 mAh batteries while many phones these days pack 5000 mAh batteries. Fast charging technology we have now may not really be fast charging in another 5 years because battery needs are higher. Same with data transfers. The pictures we took on phones a decade back were close to 3MB. Now we are taking 4K videos with phones. So our data transfer requirements will also eventually outgrow the tech we have now. Like I and others have mentioned, the battery is what's holding up charging speed. Fast charging causes the battery to heat up. How fast a battery can charge depends on voltage and current a battery takes. Just like a battery has a limit on how much voltage and current it takes, the cable and connector also have limits. If there are any new developments in the above then the USB standard gets updated and implemented into USB C. USB C is just a protocol. It's not fixed tech that becomes obsolete. USB C is not just a protocol. It's a standard on how connectors are designed. By your logic, USB 2.0 can also be "just a protocol" and we could have implemented all new developments over it. But we had to move on to USB C didn't we? This is where I can jump in
USB 2.0 is a standard whereas USB C is a port. They are different things.
USB A has been used since the inception of USB, and is still used today with USB 3.X. There has been USB A with USB 1.X, 2.0, 3.X, and it will eventually be used with 4.0
Do you see where we're going here? The same port is being used for new USB standards.
It's no different with USB C, which started with USB 3.1, and now supports USB 3.2. It will be updated to support USB 4.0.
Is this crystal clear? The same port is updated for new USB standards."Thank you  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another excuse to stop the freedom of choice they wont be happy until we all have the same eu phone, drive a eu car etc it reminds me of the old soviet union.
The UK is not in the EU and doesn't need to comply with this EU standardisation. "
We have no choice. We will get whatever Apple decides we get with no say in the matter.
If they choose that everything in Europe follows the EU standards due to economies of scale then that's what we get, unless we legislate specifically not to, which is ludicrous.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another excuse to stop the freedom of choice they wont be happy until we all have the same eu phone, drive a eu car etc it reminds me of the old soviet union.
The UK is not in the EU and doesn't need to comply with this EU standardisation.
We have no choice. We will get whatever Apple decides we get with no say in the matter.
If they choose that everything in Europe follows the EU standards due to economies of scale then that's what we get, unless we legislate specifically not to, which is ludicrous.
"Apple is not the only brand of phone out there. So you have a choice. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... people buy cheap phones for a reason. For them even a 5 or 10£ increase in cost is expensive ..." I don't believe that the phones would increase in price. The USB-C receptacle itself costs the same as a USB micro, and they don't need to update the protocol as you can run the old ones over USB-C. Apart from a change to the slot in the case, I can't see any other expense in changing over. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... people buy cheap phones for a reason. For them even a 5 or 10£ increase in cost is expensive ... I don't believe that the phones would increase in price. The USB-C receptacle itself costs the same as a USB micro, and they don't need to update the protocol as you can run the old ones over USB-C. Apart from a change to the slot in the case, I can't see any other expense in changing over." Apparently having USB C requires major circuit change. There is a Reddit thread titled "It's kinda annoying how many companies keep micro-USB alive" I don't know if I am allowed to share Reddit links. But you can do a Google search of the above text. The first answer explains why manufacturers use micro-USB to keep down costs | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apparently having USB C requires major circuit change. There is a Reddit thread titled "It's kinda annoying how many companies keep micro-USB alive"" Thanks for pointer to that Reddit thread. The first reason given there is pin density. If the pins are closer together, you need to have a high precision circuit board, which can significantly increase the cost. This explains why Bluetooth speakers and torches might not want to go with USB-C, but phones already require high precision boards, so that's not an issue. The second reason given is cost. I just checked my normal supplier (CPC) and they are asking £1.06 for micro, and £1.52 for USB-C. Both of those are retail price for a single item. I'd expect phone manufacturers buying them in bulk would see tiny differences in price. it seems to me that the cost of changing the tooling to reshape the slot in the case is going to be more expensive than buying in the new connectors, and that we're talking about a few pennies of extra cost at most. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another excuse to stop the freedom of choice they wont be happy until we all have the same eu phone, drive a eu car etc it reminds me of the old soviet union.
The UK is not in the EU and doesn't need to comply with this EU standardisation.
We have no choice. We will get whatever Apple decides we get with no say in the matter.
If they choose that everything in Europe follows the EU standards due to economies of scale then that's what we get, unless we legislate specifically not to, which is ludicrous.
Apple is not the only brand of phone out there. So you have a choice."You do understand that any company can have any connector that they like as long as there is a USB-C too, don't you?
The point that I was actually making here is that the UK "not having to" comply with EU regulations is not going to be our choice. It will be the choice of suppliers of which Apple is the main noncompliant supplier. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apparently having USB C requires major circuit change. There is a Reddit thread titled "It's kinda annoying how many companies keep micro-USB alive" Thanks for pointer to that Reddit thread. The first reason given there is pin density. If the pins are closer together, you need to have a high precision circuit board, which can significantly increase the cost. This explains why Bluetooth speakers and torches might not want to go with USB-C, but phones already require high precision boards, so that's not an issue. The second reason given is cost. I just checked my normal supplier (CPC) and they are asking £1.06 for micro, and £1.52 for USB-C. Both of those are retail price for a single item. I'd expect phone manufacturers buying them in bulk would see tiny differences in price. it seems to me that the cost of changing the tooling to reshape the slot in the case is going to be more expensive than buying in the new connectors, and that we're talking about a few pennies of extra cost at most." That's interesting. I didn't know phones already have that circuitry | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another excuse to stop the freedom of choice they wont be happy until we all have the same eu phone, drive a eu car etc it reminds me of the old soviet union.
The UK is not in the EU and doesn't need to comply with this EU standardisation.
We have no choice. We will get whatever Apple decides we get with no say in the matter.
If they choose that everything in Europe follows the EU standards due to economies of scale then that's what we get, unless we legislate specifically not to, which is ludicrous.
Apple is not the only brand of phone out there. So you have a choice.
You do understand that any company can have any connector that they like as long as there is a USB-C too, don't you?
The point that I was actually making here is that the UK "not having to" comply with EU regulations is not going to be our choice. It will be the choice of suppliers of which Apple is the main noncompliant supplier. "You do know that mobile phones have to optimise for size as much as possible right? For instance, one of the main reasons why apple came with the airpod idea is that an audio jock takes up lot of space and circuitry in mobile phones. Removing allowed phone manufacturers to reduce the size big time or use the size for some other purpose. And your phenomenal idea is to add an extra port just for the sake of a regulation? Suppliers have the choice of choosing a connector that makes business sense to them. We have the choice of choosing whichever phone with whichever connector that works for us. So people who prefer lightning cables will continue to use those phones. Same with people who prefer to use micro USB or USB C. Both consumer and supplier have a choice. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A general rule is that governments need to step in when markets aren't working properly. I think the micro USB problem will eventually solve itself due to economies of scale, so the real problem here is Apple. I don't have any problem in principal with the EU bringing in a law that forces Apple to fall in line with everyone else - that's just what governments do and the only difference here is that the EU is a big enough market to make it stick, while smaller markets like the UK just have to take whatever the big boys decide. As the OP has said, there is a question about how this law will be updated, but I'm willing to wait and see on that one. Standards bodies are not quick, and the suppliers will be lobbying the EU for a change long before one comes out. And yes, it will stop Apple coming up with a new connector that they claim is better in some way, but really they're just looking to charge more for no real benefit. Personally I think that's a price worth paying to fix the current broken market, but we'll see. " Agree that government needs to step in when markets aren't working properly. But the markets were working totally fine. From the times when different models from the same maker had different connectors, we have reached a spot where there are only three major connectors to speak of, with one of them in the process of being deprecated. Framing such a rule that impacts every product just because a single company is not doing what they want is ludicrous. Apple is not the only company that's going to be affected by this in the future. Any company that wants to innovate is going to be. I share your concerns with regulatory bodies taking time. I understand that the main reason for this ruling is to reduce electronic waste. I think the amount of waste it reduces itself is questionable to begin with. Even if it did, the trade off of disrupting the market is not really a good one. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A general rule is that governments need to step in when markets aren't working properly. I think the micro USB problem will eventually solve itself due to economies of scale, so the real problem here is Apple. I don't have any problem in principal with the EU bringing in a law that forces Apple to fall in line with everyone else - that's just what governments do and the only difference here is that the EU is a big enough market to make it stick, while smaller markets like the UK just have to take whatever the big boys decide. As the OP has said, there is a question about how this law will be updated, but I'm willing to wait and see on that one. Standards bodies are not quick, and the suppliers will be lobbying the EU for a change long before one comes out. And yes, it will stop Apple coming up with a new connector that they claim is better in some way, but really they're just looking to charge more for no real benefit. Personally I think that's a price worth paying to fix the current broken market, but we'll see. Agree that government needs to step in when markets aren't working properly. But the markets were working totally fine. From the times when different models from the same maker had different connectors, we have reached a spot where there are only three major connectors to speak of, with one of them in the process of being deprecated. Framing such a rule that impacts every product just because a single company is not doing what they want is ludicrous. Apple is not the only company that's going to be affected by this in the future. Any company that wants to innovate is going to be. I share your concerns with regulatory bodies taking time. I understand that the main reason for this ruling is to reduce electronic waste. I think the amount of waste it reduces itself is questionable to begin with. Even if it did, the trade off of disrupting the market is not really a good one." Your premise is that regulation will stifle innovation which is just a polemical argument backed up with all manner of facts which are current. It’s not adding up to me | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A general rule is that governments need to step in when markets aren't working properly. I think the micro USB problem will eventually solve itself due to economies of scale, so the real problem here is Apple. I don't have any problem in principal with the EU bringing in a law that forces Apple to fall in line with everyone else - that's just what governments do and the only difference here is that the EU is a big enough market to make it stick, while smaller markets like the UK just have to take whatever the big boys decide. As the OP has said, there is a question about how this law will be updated, but I'm willing to wait and see on that one. Standards bodies are not quick, and the suppliers will be lobbying the EU for a change long before one comes out. And yes, it will stop Apple coming up with a new connector that they claim is better in some way, but really they're just looking to charge more for no real benefit. Personally I think that's a price worth paying to fix the current broken market, but we'll see. Agree that government needs to step in when markets aren't working properly. But the markets were working totally fine. From the times when different models from the same maker had different connectors, we have reached a spot where there are only three major connectors to speak of, with one of them in the process of being deprecated. Framing such a rule that impacts every product just because a single company is not doing what they want is ludicrous. Apple is not the only company that's going to be affected by this in the future. Any company that wants to innovate is going to be. I share your concerns with regulatory bodies taking time. I understand that the main reason for this ruling is to reduce electronic waste. I think the amount of waste it reduces itself is questionable to begin with. Even if it did, the trade off of disrupting the market is not really a good one. Your premise is that regulation will stifle innovation which is just a polemical argument backed up with all manner of facts which are current. It’s not adding up to me" Maybe "stiffling innovation" is a wrong term because not all countries in the world are passing a rule like this. As mentioned in my previous posts, the process of adapting a new innovation is going to be much worse than it was with markets doing it themselves. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe "stiffling innovation" is a wrong term because not all countries in the world are passing a rule like this. As mentioned in my previous posts, the process of adapting a new innovation is going to be much worse than it was with markets doing it themselves." While you may be right in the purest principle, you do have to take pragmatism into account as well. The truth is that there hasn't been any single company innovation in this area in many, many years. All the innovation we've seen came via standards bodies. All the innovative effort is going into wireless charging which isn't affected by this rule. So in all likelihood we're risking zilch by breaking your principal, and getting a positive benefit in practice in that Apple will have to use a compatible connector, and will have to take any future improvements to the standards body where everyone can benefit from them. In any case it's not our decision. The EU will decide what's right for them, and Apple aren't going to have EU only products, so we'll just have to live with whatever the EU decide is best for them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe "stiffling innovation" is a wrong term because not all countries in the world are passing a rule like this. As mentioned in my previous posts, the process of adapting a new innovation is going to be much worse than it was with markets doing it themselves. While you may be right in the purest principle, you do have to take pragmatism into account as well. The truth is that there hasn't been any single company innovation in this area in many, many years. All the innovation we've seen came via standards bodies. All the innovative effort is going into wireless charging which isn't affected by this rule. So in all likelihood we're risking zilch by breaking your principal, and getting a positive benefit in practice in that Apple will have to use a compatible connector, and will have to take any future improvements to the standards body where everyone can benefit from them. In any case it's not our decision. The EU will decide what's right for them, and Apple aren't going to have EU only products, so we'll just have to live with whatever the EU decide is best for them. " I am not idealogue by any means. I like free markets. But I am well aware of their problems and limits. That's why I said regulations around data access and privacy are really good. That's a rule that has good trade offs. As for companies contributing to innovation, every major tech company has major participation in these "standard bodies" in tech. Look at who worked on USB C standardisation: 9to5mac[dot]com/2015/03/14/apple-invent-usb-type-c/ In fact, about 18 engineers from apple worked on its certification. The only positive benefit that comes out of it is Apple moving to USB C for now. Them having to take any new innovation they come up with to some regulatory body is not good for consumers in anyway. It only affects consumers negatively. It's obviously not our decision. EU is making decision for rest of European countries. Just saying it's a bad and short sighted decision. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe "stiffling innovation" is a wrong term because not all countries in the world are passing a rule like this. As mentioned in my previous posts, the process of adapting a new innovation is going to be much worse than it was with markets doing it themselves. While you may be right in the purest principle, you do have to take pragmatism into account as well. The truth is that there hasn't been any single company innovation in this area in many, many years. All the innovation we've seen came via standards bodies. All the innovative effort is going into wireless charging which isn't affected by this rule. So in all likelihood we're risking zilch by breaking your principal, and getting a positive benefit in practice in that Apple will have to use a compatible connector, and will have to take any future improvements to the standards body where everyone can benefit from them. In any case it's not our decision. The EU will decide what's right for them, and Apple aren't going to have EU only products, so we'll just have to live with whatever the EU decide is best for them. I am not idealogue by any means. I like free markets. But I am well aware of their problems and limits. That's why I said regulations around data access and privacy are really good. That's a rule that has good trade offs. As for companies contributing to innovation, every major tech company has major participation in these "standard bodies" in tech. Look at who worked on USB C standardisation: 9to5mac[dot]com/2015/03/14/apple-invent-usb-type-c/ In fact, about 18 engineers from apple worked on its certification. The only positive benefit that comes out of it is Apple moving to USB C for now. Them having to take any new innovation they come up with to some regulatory body is not good for consumers in anyway. It only affects consumers negatively. It's obviously not our decision. EU is making decision for rest of European countries. Just saying it's a bad and short sighted decision." When this rule comes into force will it affect places like Japan, asia and America. Will phones being sold in those places have to comply, not because of rules but because, as others have said, it does not make sense to have different designs for different areas | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe "stiffling innovation" is a wrong term because not all countries in the world are passing a rule like this. As mentioned in my previous posts, the process of adapting a new innovation is going to be much worse than it was with markets doing it themselves. While you may be right in the purest principle, you do have to take pragmatism into account as well. The truth is that there hasn't been any single company innovation in this area in many, many years. All the innovation we've seen came via standards bodies. All the innovative effort is going into wireless charging which isn't affected by this rule. So in all likelihood we're risking zilch by breaking your principal, and getting a positive benefit in practice in that Apple will have to use a compatible connector, and will have to take any future improvements to the standards body where everyone can benefit from them. In any case it's not our decision. The EU will decide what's right for them, and Apple aren't going to have EU only products, so we'll just have to live with whatever the EU decide is best for them. I am not idealogue by any means. I like free markets. But I am well aware of their problems and limits. That's why I said regulations around data access and privacy are really good. That's a rule that has good trade offs. As for companies contributing to innovation, every major tech company has major participation in these "standard bodies" in tech. Look at who worked on USB C standardisation: 9to5mac[dot]com/2015/03/14/apple-invent-usb-type-c/ In fact, about 18 engineers from apple worked on its certification. The only positive benefit that comes out of it is Apple moving to USB C for now. Them having to take any new innovation they come up with to some regulatory body is not good for consumers in anyway. It only affects consumers negatively. It's obviously not our decision. EU is making decision for rest of European countries. Just saying it's a bad and short sighted decision. When this rule comes into force will it affect places like Japan, asia and America. Will phones being sold in those places have to comply, not because of rules but because, as others have said, it does not make sense to have different designs for different areas" That's an interesting question. How will companies react to it? They could take the lazy way out, succumb to the rules, make only models which are allowed under EU rules and sell them all over the world. The other option is to make different models when new technology arrives and sell them in other countries. I think Apple will do option 1 short term and move to option 2 long term while cheap phone companies will stick to option 2. This is my reasoning - Most countries have their own ingenious phone manufacturers who do not really sell much in the EU market. For them, the EU rules are not of any bother. The moment a new technology is available, they are going to include them in the devices and sell them. Global brands like Samsung, Apple, Google will have their hands forced to compete with them and make new models for these countries. It's just a prediction though. Hard to say for sure | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I never knew charging your phone was q volatile subject. I just plug it in and don't think about it. Its amazing how many things people get upset about." That's because there is a lot of progress that you don't even notice. Out battery capacity has increased by 5 times while our charging time has actually reduced over time. If the battery capacity increased with the old charging technology, we will be having our phones plugged to chargers all the time. No one passed a rule to "standardise" any of this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I never knew charging your phone was q volatile subject. I just plug it in and don't think about it. Its amazing how many things people get upset about. That's because there is a lot of progress that you don't even notice. Out battery capacity has increased by 5 times while our charging time has actually reduced over time. If the battery capacity increased with the old charging technology, we will be having our phones plugged to chargers all the time. No one passed a rule to "standardise" any of this." So fascinating | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe "stiffling innovation" is a wrong term because not all countries in the world are passing a rule like this. As mentioned in my previous posts, the process of adapting a new innovation is going to be much worse than it was with markets doing it themselves. While you may be right in the purest principle, you do have to take pragmatism into account as well. The truth is that there hasn't been any single company innovation in this area in many, many years. All the innovation we've seen came via standards bodies. All the innovative effort is going into wireless charging which isn't affected by this rule. So in all likelihood we're risking zilch by breaking your principal, and getting a positive benefit in practice in that Apple will have to use a compatible connector, and will have to take any future improvements to the standards body where everyone can benefit from them. In any case it's not our decision. The EU will decide what's right for them, and Apple aren't going to have EU only products, so we'll just have to live with whatever the EU decide is best for them. I am not idealogue by any means. I like free markets. But I am well aware of their problems and limits. That's why I said regulations around data access and privacy are really good. That's a rule that has good trade offs. As for companies contributing to innovation, every major tech company has major participation in these "standard bodies" in tech. Look at who worked on USB C standardisation: 9to5mac[dot]com/2015/03/14/apple-invent-usb-type-c/ In fact, about 18 engineers from apple worked on its certification. The only positive benefit that comes out of it is Apple moving to USB C for now. Them having to take any new innovation they come up with to some regulatory body is not good for consumers in anyway. It only affects consumers negatively. It's obviously not our decision. EU is making decision for rest of European countries. Just saying it's a bad and short sighted decision. When this rule comes into force will it affect places like Japan, asia and America. Will phones being sold in those places have to comply, not because of rules but because, as others have said, it does not make sense to have different designs for different areas That's an interesting question. How will companies react to it? They could take the lazy way out, succumb to the rules, make only models which are allowed under EU rules and sell them all over the world. The other option is to make different models when new technology arrives and sell them in other countries. I think Apple will do option 1 short term and move to option 2 long term while cheap phone companies will stick to option 2. This is my reasoning - Most countries have their own ingenious phone manufacturers who do not really sell much in the EU market. For them, the EU rules are not of any bother. The moment a new technology is available, they are going to include them in the devices and sell them. Global brands like Samsung, Apple, Google will have their hands forced to compete with them and make new models for these countries. It's just a prediction though. Hard to say for sure "Well I certainly do not understand the tech side of it that you guys have been discussing. It occured to me that if other poster are correct and the phone people only produce phones with this port then an EU rule effectively becomes a world rule. On the other hand if the phone people decide to do an EU phone and a non EU phone, could people in the UK buy the non EU phone? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe "stiffling innovation" is a wrong term because not all countries in the world are passing a rule like this. As mentioned in my previous posts, the process of adapting a new innovation is going to be much worse than it was with markets doing it themselves. While you may be right in the purest principle, you do have to take pragmatism into account as well. The truth is that there hasn't been any single company innovation in this area in many, many years. All the innovation we've seen came via standards bodies. All the innovative effort is going into wireless charging which isn't affected by this rule. So in all likelihood we're risking zilch by breaking your principal, and getting a positive benefit in practice in that Apple will have to use a compatible connector, and will have to take any future improvements to the standards body where everyone can benefit from them. In any case it's not our decision. The EU will decide what's right for them, and Apple aren't going to have EU only products, so we'll just have to live with whatever the EU decide is best for them. I am not idealogue by any means. I like free markets. But I am well aware of their problems and limits. That's why I said regulations around data access and privacy are really good. That's a rule that has good trade offs. As for companies contributing to innovation, every major tech company has major participation in these "standard bodies" in tech. Look at who worked on USB C standardisation: 9to5mac[dot]com/2015/03/14/apple-invent-usb-type-c/ In fact, about 18 engineers from apple worked on its certification. The only positive benefit that comes out of it is Apple moving to USB C for now. Them having to take any new innovation they come up with to some regulatory body is not good for consumers in anyway. It only affects consumers negatively. It's obviously not our decision. EU is making decision for rest of European countries. Just saying it's a bad and short sighted decision. When this rule comes into force will it affect places like Japan, asia and America. Will phones being sold in those places have to comply, not because of rules but because, as others have said, it does not make sense to have different designs for different areas That's an interesting question. How will companies react to it? They could take the lazy way out, succumb to the rules, make only models which are allowed under EU rules and sell them all over the world. The other option is to make different models when new technology arrives and sell them in other countries. I think Apple will do option 1 short term and move to option 2 long term while cheap phone companies will stick to option 2. This is my reasoning - Most countries have their own ingenious phone manufacturers who do not really sell much in the EU market. For them, the EU rules are not of any bother. The moment a new technology is available, they are going to include them in the devices and sell them. Global brands like Samsung, Apple, Google will have their hands forced to compete with them and make new models for these countries. It's just a prediction though. Hard to say for sure
Well I certainly do not understand the tech side of it that you guys have been discussing. It occured to me that if other poster are correct and the phone people only produce phones with this port then an EU rule effectively becomes a world rule. On the other hand if the phone people decide to do an EU phone and a non EU phone, could people in the UK buy the non EU phone?"Most probably, the people in UK will be getting the non-EU phones. It will be interesting to see how such a situation will play out within EU though. If someone from EU wants a non-EU phone, they should be able to buy when they are travelling. But can they order it from another country online? Sellers may not be allowed to do that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I never knew charging your phone was q volatile subject. I just plug it in and don't think about it. Its amazing how many things people get upset about. That's because there is a lot of progress that you don't even notice. Out battery capacity has increased by 5 times while our charging time has actually reduced over time. If the battery capacity increased with the old charging technology, we will be having our phones plugged to chargers all the time. No one passed a rule to "standardise" any of this." Despite many people in this thread explaining charging times is not the fault of the USB port, you seem to still want to use it as an excuse to moan about an EU ruling. Why? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When this rule comes into force will it affect places like Japan, asia and America. Will phones being sold in those places have to comply, not because of rules but because, as others have said, it does not make sense to have different designs for different areas" They already make different phones for different locations. The radio frequencies used in Europe are different to those used in the USA, and different again to those used in Asia. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I never knew charging your phone was q volatile subject. I just plug it in and don't think about it. Its amazing how many things people get upset about. That's because there is a lot of progress that you don't even notice. Out battery capacity has increased by 5 times while our charging time has actually reduced over time. If the battery capacity increased with the old charging technology, we will be having our phones plugged to chargers all the time. No one passed a rule to "standardise" any of this. Despite many people in this thread explaining charging times is not the fault of the USB port, you seem to still want to use it as an excuse to moan about an EU ruling. Why? " Because I explained back saying that battery is not the only factor and USB ports matter too. All parts from the charging point to the cable to the port to the battery have limits on amperage and voltage which you can't go above and affect the speed of charging the battery. I have reasons to moan. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When this rule comes into force will it affect places like Japan, asia and America. Will phones being sold in those places have to comply, not because of rules but because, as others have said, it does not make sense to have different designs for different areas They already make different phones for different locations. The radio frequencies used in Europe are different to those used in the USA, and different again to those used in Asia." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I never knew charging your phone was q volatile subject. I just plug it in and don't think about it. Its amazing how many things people get upset about. That's because there is a lot of progress that you don't even notice. Out battery capacity has increased by 5 times while our charging time has actually reduced over time. If the battery capacity increased with the old charging technology, we will be having our phones plugged to chargers all the time. No one passed a rule to "standardise" any of this. Despite many people in this thread explaining charging times is not the fault of the USB port, you seem to still want to use it as an excuse to moan about an EU ruling. Why? Because I explained back saying that battery is not the only factor and USB ports matter too. All parts from the charging point to the cable to the port to the battery have limits on amperage and voltage which you can't go above and affect the speed of charging the battery. I have reasons to moan." What do you think of F1? Rules and regs about engine size, tyres and the list goes on. Every year engineers work to push those regs to make their cars faster, more reliable and so on. You seem to have an IT desktop / help-desk support mentality, is that where you work in tech? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All I am interested in is whether I can charge my phone.....setting standards of whether I can use this cable or that isn't important. More important to me personally is whether the current charger will fit the next phone or whether I need to purchase a different cable when I charge my phone elsewhere . Surely it is greener to keep using the same cable rather than having to buy different fittings every time somebody deems a certain cable as the norm?" Would you have preferred Micro USB being the norm to charge bigger batteries which are found in most phones today? I agree with your argument to stay green and reduce wastage. It's all about trade offs though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I never knew charging your phone was q volatile subject. I just plug it in and don't think about it. Its amazing how many things people get upset about. That's because there is a lot of progress that you don't even notice. Out battery capacity has increased by 5 times while our charging time has actually reduced over time. If the battery capacity increased with the old charging technology, we will be having our phones plugged to chargers all the time. No one passed a rule to "standardise" any of this. Despite many people in this thread explaining charging times is not the fault of the USB port, you seem to still want to use it as an excuse to moan about an EU ruling. Why? Because I explained back saying that battery is not the only factor and USB ports matter too. All parts from the charging point to the cable to the port to the battery have limits on amperage and voltage which you can't go above and affect the speed of charging the battery. I have reasons to moan. What do you think of F1? Rules and regs about engine size, tyres and the list goes on. Every year engineers work to push those regs to make their cars faster, more reliable and so on. You seem to have an IT desktop / help-desk support mentality, is that where you work in tech?" I don't work in help desk. I work as a backend software programmer. And what exactly is a help-desk mentality? Seems a bit patronising. About F1 rules, how exactly is that same as the USB standards? I have repeatedly said that standards are not bad in themselves. Blindly believing that all standards are bad is as stupid as blindly believing all standards are good. You need to look at each situation and weigh the trade offs. In case of F1, they need better competition. Plus, it's not a huge market with moving parts like a mobile phone industry is. So central planning works better in F1 compared to mobile chargers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All I am interested in is whether I can charge my phone.....setting standards of whether I can use this cable or that isn't important. More important to me personally is whether the current charger will fit the next phone or whether I need to purchase a different cable when I charge my phone elsewhere . Surely it is greener to keep using the same cable rather than having to buy different fittings every time somebody deems a certain cable as the norm? Would you have preferred Micro USB being the norm to charge bigger batteries which are found in most phones today? I agree with your argument to stay green and reduce wastage. It's all about trade offs though." I couldn't give a monkey's as long as I plug in and it charges. I am actually more concerned about phones that have hard wired batteries rather than removable ones. This encourages folks to change phones unnecessarily once the battery life begins to fade. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another excuse to stop the freedom of choice they wont be happy until we all have the same eu phone, drive a eu car etc it reminds me of the old soviet union.
The UK is not in the EU and doesn't need to comply with this EU standardisation.
We have no choice. We will get whatever Apple decides we get with no say in the matter.
If they choose that everything in Europe follows the EU standards due to economies of scale then that's what we get, unless we legislate specifically not to, which is ludicrous.
Apple is not the only brand of phone out there. So you have a choice.
You do understand that any company can have any connector that they like as long as there is a USB-C too, don't you?
The point that I was actually making here is that the UK "not having to" comply with EU regulations is not going to be our choice. It will be the choice of suppliers of which Apple is the main noncompliant supplier.
You do know that mobile phones have to optimise for size as much as possible right? For instance, one of the main reasons why apple came with the airpod idea is that an audio jock takes up lot of space and circuitry in mobile phones. Removing allowed phone manufacturers to reduce the size big time or use the size for some other purpose. And your phenomenal idea is to add an extra port just for the sake of a regulation?
Suppliers have the choice of choosing a connector that makes business sense to them. We have the choice of choosing whichever phone with whichever connector that works for us. So people who prefer lightning cables will continue to use those phones. Same with people who prefer to use micro USB or USB C. Both consumer and supplier have a choice."The manufacturer can choose. Some choose to include a 3mm audio jack to allow cheap wired connections to headphones and speakers and some don't. If a cable is really such a game changer that they feel that it will give them an advantage, they'll fit it. What do you think the hardware cost is on a handset of several hundred to a thousand pounds? That's where new innovation is introduced. Cheap handsets will remain cheap, especially as only a single standard will lead to huge economies of scale. The UK may well get the EU handset and standard as there is little logic in shipping a different phone to the same geographical region. Of the EU market is big enough it will become a global standard. You are, actually, unable to describe a current or near future or even medium term problem. Only a theoretical concern for some unspecified point on the future In fact, the reason that competition exists in many technical fields is regulation stability allowing optimisation and manufacturing scale to make things better and cheaper. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When this rule comes into force will it affect places like Japan, asia and America. Will phones being sold in those places have to comply, not because of rules but because, as others have said, it does not make sense to have different designs for different areas They already make different phones for different locations. The radio frequencies used in Europe are different to those used in the USA, and different again to those used in Asia." Ok that makes sense. I suppose in theory we may end up with a choice of EU phone and non EU phone instead of one or the other. If there is a market for it, business usually spots it and provides | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I never knew charging your phone was q volatile subject. I just plug it in and don't think about it. Its amazing how many things people get upset about. That's because there is a lot of progress that you don't even notice. Out battery capacity has increased by 5 times while our charging time has actually reduced over time. If the battery capacity increased with the old charging technology, we will be having our phones plugged to chargers all the time. No one passed a rule to "standardise" any of this. Despite many people in this thread explaining charging times is not the fault of the USB port, you seem to still want to use it as an excuse to moan about an EU ruling. Why? Because I explained back saying that battery is not the only factor and USB ports matter too. All parts from the charging point to the cable to the port to the battery have limits on amperage and voltage which you can't go above and affect the speed of charging the battery. I have reasons to moan. What do you think of F1? Rules and regs about engine size, tyres and the list goes on. Every year engineers work to push those regs to make their cars faster, more reliable and so on. You seem to have an IT desktop / help-desk support mentality, is that where you work in tech? I don't work in help desk. I work as a backend software programmer. And what exactly is a help-desk mentality? Seems a bit patronising. About F1 rules, how exactly is that same as the USB standards? I have repeatedly said that standards are not bad in themselves. Blindly believing that all standards are bad is as stupid as blindly believing all standards are good. You need to look at each situation and weigh the trade offs. In case of F1, they need better competition. Plus, it's not a huge market with moving parts like a mobile phone industry is. So central planning works better in F1 compared to mobile chargers." Not meant to be patronising. I mean a person who supports a service or product for a customer and only sees one point of view, also not close enough to the engineering to make any change or add influence, however is consumed by what is given to them to support. To me you come over as obsessed by this and from my point of view, I wouldn't care less as I know tech companies are paying lots to very qualified people to provide me with the best possible product. I will leave the worrying to them | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The manufacturer can choose. Some choose to include a 3mm audio jack to allow cheap wired connections to headphones and speakers and some don't. If a cable is really such a game changer that they feel that it will give them an advantage, they'll fit it. " What are you talking about? My point was in reply to your grand idea that devices can still use USB C and some other technology they want to support. Having two different pieces of hardware in a phone is the last things phone manufacturers will want these days. Do you really think consumers will be happy with a brick sized iphone because they had to have one for innovation and one to satisfy a rule? Why put all this unnecessary workload and expenses on both manufacturers and consumers when free markets were doing just fine? " What do you think the hardware cost is on a handset of several hundred to a thousand pounds? That's where new innovation is introduced. " Yes it does. And the innovation to reduce costs doesn't happen overnight. It happens slowly depending on how multiple industries related to it progress. Free markets are a beautiful way to handle this situation because they know exactly when to move from one tech to the next tech. Just like USB C penetrated the market starting with high end devices to low end devices. " Cheap handsets will remain cheap, especially as only a single standard will lead to huge economies of scale. " How exactly? A phone today that costs 80£ with micro USB will need to add a few quid to include USB C. So they will get more expensive. " The UK may well get the EU handset and standard as there is little logic in shipping a different phone to the same geographical region. " That depends on the source of manufacture. If it's in the EU, it may make sense. But most factories are in China. So they can give devices meant for other countries to UK. " Of the EU market is big enough it will become a global standard. " Flash news! It's not. If their standards are so great, we will be seeing cookie consent on all banners outside EU too. Other countries are clever enough to identify the good standards and just pick and choose them. Some states in US, India and a few other countries decided to just copy the data privacy regulations from the EU. " You are, actually, unable to describe a current or near future or even medium term problem. Only a theoretical concern for some unspecified point on the future " I gave the progress from micro USB to USB C as an example. So it's not really a theoretical concern. " In fact, the reason that competition exists in many technical fields is regulation stability allowing optimisation and manufacturing scale to make things better and cheaper." How does a central entity telling companies "This is how you do stuff" increase competition? The competition remains same. But the innovation is stiffled because they have to think within the box of their rules. Luckily in this case, other country markets are much bigger and innovation will continue. It's just that the EU will be late to adapt or too early to adapt which will cause rise in prices while other countries will have a natural way of adoption. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I never knew charging your phone was q volatile subject. I just plug it in and don't think about it. Its amazing how many things people get upset about. That's because there is a lot of progress that you don't even notice. Out battery capacity has increased by 5 times while our charging time has actually reduced over time. If the battery capacity increased with the old charging technology, we will be having our phones plugged to chargers all the time. No one passed a rule to "standardise" any of this. Despite many people in this thread explaining charging times is not the fault of the USB port, you seem to still want to use it as an excuse to moan about an EU ruling. Why? Because I explained back saying that battery is not the only factor and USB ports matter too. All parts from the charging point to the cable to the port to the battery have limits on amperage and voltage which you can't go above and affect the speed of charging the battery. I have reasons to moan. What do you think of F1? Rules and regs about engine size, tyres and the list goes on. Every year engineers work to push those regs to make their cars faster, more reliable and so on. You seem to have an IT desktop / help-desk support mentality, is that where you work in tech? I don't work in help desk. I work as a backend software programmer. And what exactly is a help-desk mentality? Seems a bit patronising. About F1 rules, how exactly is that same as the USB standards? I have repeatedly said that standards are not bad in themselves. Blindly believing that all standards are bad is as stupid as blindly believing all standards are good. You need to look at each situation and weigh the trade offs. In case of F1, they need better competition. Plus, it's not a huge market with moving parts like a mobile phone industry is. So central planning works better in F1 compared to mobile chargers. Not meant to be patronising. I mean a person who supports a service or product for a customer and only sees one point of view, also not close enough to the engineering to make any change or add influence, however is consumed by what is given to them to support. To me you come over as obsessed by this and from my point of view, I wouldn't care less as I know tech companies are paying lots to very qualified people to provide me with the best possible product. I will leave the worrying to them "One of the biggest issues economists point out about EU is that they keep stiffling companies with regulations where they are not really needed. While some of them are really good the others are completely stupid. It's not just the industries which should worry about it. It's also the consumers who will be affected by it through prices or lack of availability of better tech. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The manufacturer can choose. Some choose to include a 3mm audio jack to allow cheap wired connections to headphones and speakers and some don't. If a cable is really such a game changer that they feel that it will give them an advantage, they'll fit it. What are you talking about? My point was in reply to your grand idea that devices can still use USB C and some other technology they want to support. Having two different pieces of hardware in a phone is the last things phone manufacturers will want these days. Do you really think consumers will be happy with a brick sized iphone because they had to have one for innovation and one to satisfy a rule? Why put all this unnecessary workload and expenses on both manufacturers and consumers when free markets were doing just fine? What do you think the hardware cost is on a handset of several hundred to a thousand pounds? That's where new innovation is introduced. Yes it does. And the innovation to reduce costs doesn't happen overnight. It happens slowly depending on how multiple industries related to it progress. Free markets are a beautiful way to handle this situation because they know exactly when to move from one tech to the next tech. Just like USB C penetrated the market starting with high end devices to low end devices. Cheap handsets will remain cheap, especially as only a single standard will lead to huge economies of scale. How exactly? A phone today that costs 80£ with micro USB will need to add a few quid to include USB C. So they will get more expensive. The UK may well get the EU handset and standard as there is little logic in shipping a different phone to the same geographical region. That depends on the source of manufacture. If it's in the EU, it may make sense. But most factories are in China. So they can give devices meant for other countries to UK. Of the EU market is big enough it will become a global standard. Flash news! It's not. If their standards are so great, we will be seeing cookie consent on all banners outside EU too. Other countries are clever enough to identify the good standards and just pick and choose them. Some states in US, India and a few other countries decided to just copy the data privacy regulations from the EU. You are, actually, unable to describe a current or near future or even medium term problem. Only a theoretical concern for some unspecified point on the future I gave the progress from micro USB to USB C as an example. So it's not really a theoretical concern. In fact, the reason that competition exists in many technical fields is regulation stability allowing optimisation and manufacturing scale to make things better and cheaper. How does a central entity telling companies "This is how you do stuff" increase competition? The competition remains same. But the innovation is stiffled because they have to think within the box of their rules. Luckily in this case, other country markets are much bigger and innovation will continue. It's just that the EU will be late to adapt or too early to adapt which will cause rise in prices while other countries will have a natural way of adoption." Yes, you are struggling. No grand idea. It's simple. Products are designed around regulations all the time. They also choose which features to add or delete. A 3mm jack is physically big. Some mid and even high end phones have them. They choose to. Any idea how much an additional connector would package relative to a 3mm jack? What is the price of the change from micro-USB to USB-C? Any idea, or are you just guessing? High end phones introduce new technology, so price is not an issue. If it is an advantage, they'll fit it, demonstrate its superiority and the market will shift. If the improvement is marginal, then they won't bother. Alternatively there will be a negotiation to an improved common format. You only seem able to see one option for everything. If they are sending a big ship from China to Europe, and guess where the UK is, then it will be cheaper for them to fill it up with a single phone design and distribute as appropriate. Seven years from micro USB (2007) to USB-C (2014) and now it's 2022 and nowhere near obsolete. You seem obsessed with comptetion. Innovation works around fixed regulation as much as with a clean sheet. Another poster referenced Formula 1. You didn't seem to get it. A lot of competition. A lot of regulation. Surely all regulation stifles development? Should there be no regulation? How do you pick and choose what to regulate and what not to? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No grand idea. It's simple. Products are designed around regulations all the time. They also choose which features to add or delete. A 3mm jack is physically big. Some mid and even high end phones have them. They choose to. Any idea how much an additional connector would package relative to a 3mm jack? " An additional connector comes with its own chip set to handle the connections. From a mobile product perspective, every gram matters. Every mm matters. If you go into a mobile product design meeting and say that you will add an additional port because of regulation, you will be laughed at your face and sent out. In your example, what happens if a rule mandates a 3mm jack and company manages to make it smaller? Have both the jacks? You are seriously bending over backwards to prove that there is magically some choice here. Mobile phones can have only one connector. Manufacturers must have the right to choose whatever connector works for their phone and pricing. Saying that you can have an additional connector without thinking about how much it affects the phone specs and cost is laughable. " What is the price of the change from micro-USB to USB-C? Any idea, or are you just guessing? " Every internet article I read about it says it's higher. The connector itself is around 1.xx£ expensive. They say the chipset needs change too. But no one has mentioned that cost clearly. But does that matter? If the difference is 4£, it may not be a big deal to you, but it is to someone else. " High end phones introduce new technology, so price is not an issue. If it is an advantage, they'll fit it, demonstrate its superiority and the market will shift. If the improvement is marginal, then they won't bother. Alternatively there will be a negotiation to an improved common format. " Yes? How exactly will this happen with a regulation that forces one connector? I want you to tell the exact time when a new technology will be forced by regulation. As soon as it's available when it's expensive or as late as possible there by denying its a availability to consumers? " If they are sending a big ship from China to Europe, and guess where the UK is, then it will be cheaper for them to fill it up with a single phone design and distribute as appropriate. " What a lousy argument!! UK is an island. First of all, it's not like one phone company owns an entire ship to send goods. There are ships going to Europe mainland. There are ships going to UK. They carry lot of goods and the phone companies can send different packages through different routes. Even if you believe that a single ship is doing delivery job to all countries, they can realistically use a ship going to American east coast to do a stop in between. " Seven years from micro USB (2007) to USB-C (2014) and now it's 2022 and nowhere near obsolete. " It's because it took that long for price of USB C to fall. The reason why I say this regulation is stupid. " You seem obsessed with comptetion. Innovation works around fixed regulation as much as with a clean sheet. Another poster referenced Formula 1. You didn't seem to get it. A lot of competition. A lot of regulation. " When you set regulations, you limit the boundaries within which you can innovate. If you set limits on the engine parameters, there is no reason for them to try anything beyond that. It works for F1 racing because they do not want the game to end up one sided. There is no point in setting such limits to real world technological growth. " Surely all regulation stifles development? Should there be no regulation? How do you pick and choose what to regulate and what not to?" Not all regulations stifle development. Most do. But sometimes, the trade offs are good enough to justify it. A regulation asking for food products to show nutrients on the cover? Great! Doesn't stifle development. Transparency to consumers improves public health. In fact, most regulations around health hazards provide good trade off even if they stifle innovation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another excuse to stop the freedom of choice they wont be happy until we all have the same eu phone, drive a eu car etc it reminds me of the old soviet union.
Nope…. Nope…. Nope!! Bad read!!
It’s being done for two reasons
1) a million different standards means more gadgets with different ends.. what did does is reduce waste as everyone is now manufacturing for the same standard.. it should also bring down costs as in effect there is more competition over the same space
2) the EU were actually kinda smart here in that they let USB (which is actually an independent organisation standard all the manufacturers are actually signed up to anyway) set what we would call the standard rather than them dictating it
Think of it like vhs and Betamax… it didn’t help everything had to produce everything twice and it protects one group from potentially being penalised or left out in progress "The issue is innovation though. The issue with forcing one standard is that there can be no forward shift from USB-C until the EU votes to change it so the EU region gets left behind. C | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also the fact that fast charging cuts your battery life in half so people will end up changing their phones a bit sooner than normal not realising this fact." Where did you get that idea from? It isn't true. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another excuse to stop the freedom of choice they wont be happy until we all have the same eu phone, drive a eu car etc it reminds me of the old soviet union.
Nope…. Nope…. Nope!! Bad read!!
It’s being done for two reasons
1) a million different standards means more gadgets with different ends.. what did does is reduce waste as everyone is now manufacturing for the same standard.. it should also bring down costs as in effect there is more competition over the same space
2) the EU were actually kinda smart here in that they let USB (which is actually an independent organisation standard all the manufacturers are actually signed up to anyway) set what we would call the standard rather than them dictating it
Think of it like vhs and Betamax… it didn’t help everything had to produce everything twice and it protects one group from potentially being penalised or left out in progress
The issue is innovation though. The issue with forcing one standard is that there can be no forward shift from USB-C until the EU votes to change it so the EU region gets left behind.
C"Balderdash! Innovation will happen no matter what rules are in place | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also the fact that fast charging cuts your battery life in half so people will end up changing their phones a bit sooner than normal not realising this fact. Where did you get that idea from? It isn't true." Why isn't it true? Rapid charging makes cells hotter. That is not usually good for them. Phones don't have easily replaceable batteries any more. Are you suggesting that wasn't a trade driven move? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Balderdash! Innovation will happen no matter what rules are in place " Utter piffle. It cannot happen in the EU as this standard is now locked in under law. They cannot push a new standard in the EU due to law so it would need more than mere innovation to move forward. It is basics. If something is locked in under law then progress can't take place due to process of law. Only big corps can push change due to the money involved. Vig vorps have rarely ever innovated anything, rather they buy the inventor. C | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another excuse to stop the freedom of choice they wont be happy until we all have the same eu phone, drive a eu car etc it reminds me of the old soviet union. "Next thing you'll be trying to say brexit has benefits | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also the fact that fast charging cuts your battery life in half so people will end up changing their phones a bit sooner than normal not realising this fact." "Where did you get that idea from? It isn't true." "Why isn't it true?" Well it just isn't. There's no evidence for it, no theory as to how it might happen, and no reputable website suggesting that it does happen. "Rapid charging makes cells hotter. That is not usually good for them." True, rapid charging does make batteries hotter than slow charging. In extreme circumstances this could make the battery fail. What it won't do is somehow remove some of the battery's theoretical life. Either it fails, or it doesn't. "Phones don't have easily replaceable batteries any more. Are you suggesting that wasn't a trade driven move?" There are lots of reasons for fixed batteries in phones, but the main ones are fashion (making a phone as slim as possible), and liability (people buying cheap Chinese copy batteries kept getting injured when they blew up). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Balderdash! Innovation will happen no matter what rules are in place Utter piffle. It cannot happen in the EU as this standard is now locked in under law. They cannot push a new standard in the EU due to law so it would need more than mere innovation to move forward. It is basics. If something is locked in under law then progress can't take place due to process of law. Only big corps can push change due to the money involved. Vig vorps have rarely ever innovated anything, rather they buy the inventor. C" That is the most astonishingly inane argument yet! Innovation happens. Standards change. The USB standard will change. Wireless charging will become the norm. Batteries will become more efficient and people will get on with life. The thrust of this long long thread is as usual a load of anti EU sentiment wrapped up in woolly facts. If you don’t believe it that’s your rabbit hole to climb down but the world won’t stop turning!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"this new ruling on charger plugs is clearly a masterclass of how to govern. "Taking back control over trivial things, what a joke, where’s the Tax cuts, where the change? They will never get it right, because they are short sighted and crooked. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That is the most astonishingly inane argument yet! Innovation happens. Standards change. The USB standard will change. Wireless charging will become the norm. Batteries will become more efficient and people will get on with life. The thrust of this long long thread is as usual a load of anti EU sentiment wrapped up in woolly facts. If you don’t believe it that’s your rabbit hole to climb down but the world won’t stop turning! "Odd. Innovation cannot happen until the EU allow it in their huge region and the EU area is famous for not debating change for 2 years (2 years for debate and is before they even consider law changes). Anti-EU sentiment is there for a reason, nobody like authoritarianism in any age. C | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That is the most astonishingly inane argument yet! Innovation happens. Standards change. The USB standard will change. Wireless charging will become the norm. Batteries will become more efficient and people will get on with life. The thrust of this long long thread is as usual a load of anti EU sentiment wrapped up in woolly facts. If you don’t believe it that’s your rabbit hole to climb down but the world won’t stop turning!
Odd. Innovation cannot happen until the EU allow it in their huge region and the EU area is famous for not debating change for 2 years (2 years for debate and is before they even consider law changes).
Anti-EU sentiment is there for a reason, nobody like authoritarianism in any age.
C"Did you get this straight off the Daily Mail or do you actually have any facts? You cannot seriously think that innovation will be stifled by this can you? Your premise is that the EU is a huge area and therefore it slows down progress by a minimum of two years? Innovation and bringing a product to market are two different things and if you want to call out things that are actually stifling innovation then our departure from the EU and specifically it’s Horizon project is far more damaging than USB ports. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That is the most astonishingly inane argument yet! Innovation happens. Standards change. The USB standard will change. Wireless charging will become the norm. Batteries will become more efficient and people will get on with life. The thrust of this long long thread is as usual a load of anti EU sentiment wrapped up in woolly facts. If you don’t believe it that’s your rabbit hole to climb down but the world won’t stop turning!
Odd. Innovation cannot happen until the EU allow it in their huge region and the EU area is famous for not debating change for 2 years (2 years for debate and is before they even consider law changes).
Anti-EU sentiment is there for a reason, nobody like authoritarianism in any age.
C"What innovation has the EU prevented? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That is the most astonishingly inane argument yet! Innovation happens. Standards change. The USB standard will change. Wireless charging will become the norm. Batteries will become more efficient and people will get on with life. The thrust of this long long thread is as usual a load of anti EU sentiment wrapped up in woolly facts. If you don’t believe it that’s your rabbit hole to climb down but the world won’t stop turning!
Odd. Innovation cannot happen until the EU allow it in their huge region and the EU area is famous for not debating change for 2 years (2 years for debate and is before they even consider law changes).
Anti-EU sentiment is there for a reason, nobody like authoritarianism in any age.
C
What innovation has the EU prevented?"Think, McFly. It stops further innovation as myself and others have pointed out. C | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It stops further innovation as myself and others have pointed out. C" the fact is that it doesn't | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That is the most astonishingly inane argument yet! Innovation happens. Standards change. The USB standard will change. Wireless charging will become the norm. Batteries will become more efficient and people will get on with life. The thrust of this long long thread is as usual a load of anti EU sentiment wrapped up in woolly facts. If you don’t believe it that’s your rabbit hole to climb down but the world won’t stop turning!
Odd. Innovation cannot happen until the EU allow it in their huge region and the EU area is famous for not debating change for 2 years (2 years for debate and is before they even consider law changes).
Anti-EU sentiment is there for a reason, nobody like authoritarianism in any age.
C
What innovation has the EU prevented?
Think, McFly.
It stops further innovation as myself and others have pointed out.
C"Your argument holds about as much water as a sieve | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That is the most astonishingly inane argument yet! Innovation happens. Standards change. The USB standard will change. Wireless charging will become the norm. Batteries will become more efficient and people will get on with life. The thrust of this long long thread is as usual a load of anti EU sentiment wrapped up in woolly facts. If you don’t believe it that’s your rabbit hole to climb down but the world won’t stop turning!
Odd. Innovation cannot happen until the EU allow it in their huge region and the EU area is famous for not debating change for 2 years (2 years for debate and is before they even consider law changes).
Anti-EU sentiment is there for a reason, nobody like authoritarianism in any age.
C
What innovation has the EU prevented?
Think, McFly.
It stops further innovation as myself and others have pointed out.
C"Perhaps you didn't understand the question. What Innovation HAS The EU Prevented? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That is the most astonishingly inane argument yet! Innovation happens. Standards change. The USB standard will change. Wireless charging will become the norm. Batteries will become more efficient and people will get on with life. The thrust of this long long thread is as usual a load of anti EU sentiment wrapped up in woolly facts. If you don’t believe it that’s your rabbit hole to climb down but the world won’t stop turning!
Odd. Innovation cannot happen until the EU allow it in their huge region and the EU area is famous for not debating change for 2 years (2 years for debate and is before they even consider law changes).
Anti-EU sentiment is there for a reason, nobody like authoritarianism in any age.
C
What innovation has the EU prevented?
Think, McFly.
It stops further innovation as myself and others have pointed out.
C
Perhaps you didn't understand the question.
What
Innovation
HAS
The
EU
Prevented?"How can someone name an innovation that didn't happen? Anyway, as I mentioned above, the USB ruling will not stop innovation as the rest of the world is sane enough to not do anything like this. As for EU slowing down innovation, I can point out GDPR. It does have some good rules about handling user data and privacy. But the problem is that it hit the small companies worse than bigger companies. The GDPR regulations are not simple. They had a huge set of requirements. All companies had to hire new lawyers just to understand how these rules are applicable to them . And then there is the necessity to divert all their IT folks to work on making the site GDPR compliant. For a big company, hiring a few engineers and lawyers and getting them to work on it for months is negligible expense. It's the small companies which were hit hard. They had to apply brakes on whatever they were doing and invest their time and money on this. Time and money they could have spent on innovating and making their products better. Same with the ePrivacy Directive. But hey. At least we all see a nice cookie consent pop up which none of us care about. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That is the most astonishingly inane argument yet! Innovation happens. Standards change. The USB standard will change. Wireless charging will become the norm. Batteries will become more efficient and people will get on with life. The thrust of this long long thread is as usual a load of anti EU sentiment wrapped up in woolly facts. If you don’t believe it that’s your rabbit hole to climb down but the world won’t stop turning!
Odd. Innovation cannot happen until the EU allow it in their huge region and the EU area is famous for not debating change for 2 years (2 years for debate and is before they even consider law changes).
Anti-EU sentiment is there for a reason, nobody like authoritarianism in any age.
C
What innovation has the EU prevented?
Think, McFly.
It stops further innovation as myself and others have pointed out.
C
Perhaps you didn't understand the question.
What
Innovation
HAS
The
EU
Prevented?
How can someone name an innovation that didn't happen?
Anyway, as I mentioned above, the USB ruling will not stop innovation as the rest of the world is sane enough to not do anything like this.
As for EU slowing down innovation, I can point out GDPR. It does have some good rules about handling user data and privacy. But the problem is that it hit the small companies worse than bigger companies. The GDPR regulations are not simple. They had a huge set of requirements. All companies had to hire new lawyers just to understand how these rules are applicable to them . And then there is the necessity to divert all their IT folks to work on making the site GDPR compliant. For a big company, hiring a few engineers and lawyers and getting them to work on it for months is negligible expense. It's the small companies which were hit hard. They had to apply brakes on whatever they were doing and invest their time and money on this. Time and money they could have spent on innovating and making their products better.
Same with the ePrivacy Directive. But hey. At least we all see a nice cookie consent pop up which none of us care about."And in a world where tech companies can do what they like you have “Cambridge Analytica” disrupting elections and using personal data to unduly influence political outcomes. If you want the Wild West that’s up to you but I don’t. I want a world where important information is protected from the morally bankrupt and where innovation is balanced with the needs of legacy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That is the most astonishingly inane argument yet! Innovation happens. Standards change. The USB standard will change. Wireless charging will become the norm. Batteries will become more efficient and people will get on with life. The thrust of this long long thread is as usual a load of anti EU sentiment wrapped up in woolly facts. If you don’t believe it that’s your rabbit hole to climb down but the world won’t stop turning!
Odd. Innovation cannot happen until the EU allow it in their huge region and the EU area is famous for not debating change for 2 years (2 years for debate and is before they even consider law changes).
Anti-EU sentiment is there for a reason, nobody like authoritarianism in any age.
C
What innovation has the EU prevented?
Think, McFly.
It stops further innovation as myself and others have pointed out.
C
Perhaps you didn't understand the question.
What
Innovation
HAS
The
EU
Prevented?
How can someone name an innovation that didn't happen?
Anyway, as I mentioned above, the USB ruling will not stop innovation as the rest of the world is sane enough to not do anything like this.
As for EU slowing down innovation, I can point out GDPR. It does have some good rules about handling user data and privacy. But the problem is that it hit the small companies worse than bigger companies. The GDPR regulations are not simple. They had a huge set of requirements. All companies had to hire new lawyers just to understand how these rules are applicable to them . And then there is the necessity to divert all their IT folks to work on making the site GDPR compliant. For a big company, hiring a few engineers and lawyers and getting them to work on it for months is negligible expense. It's the small companies which were hit hard. They had to apply brakes on whatever they were doing and invest their time and money on this. Time and money they could have spent on innovating and making their products better.
Same with the ePrivacy Directive. But hey. At least we all see a nice cookie consent pop up which none of us care about.
And in a world where tech companies can do what they like you have “Cambridge Analytica” disrupting elections and using personal data to unduly influence political outcomes. If you want the Wild West that’s up to you but I don’t. I want a world where important information is protected from the morally bankrupt and where innovation is balanced with the needs of legacy "I agree that data privacy regulations that restrict sharing of data with third parties. But as always, EU went overboard with that. Seriously, who gives a damn about the cookie consent prompts that pop-up on every site? Big tech can easily handle these things. It's the small companies that suffer. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"this is clearly the usual far righty EU hate for hates sake. get over it, we are not part of europe "Didn't know you were a mind reader. Thanks for your valuable contribution to the debate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That is the most astonishingly inane argument yet! Innovation happens. Standards change. The USB standard will change. Wireless charging will become the norm. Batteries will become more efficient and people will get on with life. The thrust of this long long thread is as usual a load of anti EU sentiment wrapped up in woolly facts. If you don’t believe it that’s your rabbit hole to climb down but the world won’t stop turning!
Odd. Innovation cannot happen until the EU allow it in their huge region and the EU area is famous for not debating change for 2 years (2 years for debate and is before they even consider law changes).
Anti-EU sentiment is there for a reason, nobody like authoritarianism in any age.
C
What innovation has the EU prevented?
Think, McFly.
It stops further innovation as myself and others have pointed out.
C
Perhaps you didn't understand the question.
What
Innovation
HAS
The
EU
Prevented?
How can someone name an innovation that didn't happen?
Anyway, as I mentioned above, the USB ruling will not stop innovation as the rest of the world is sane enough to not do anything like this.
As for EU slowing down innovation, I can point out GDPR. It does have some good rules about handling user data and privacy. But the problem is that it hit the small companies worse than bigger companies. The GDPR regulations are not simple. They had a huge set of requirements. All companies had to hire new lawyers just to understand how these rules are applicable to them . And then there is the necessity to divert all their IT folks to work on making the site GDPR compliant. For a big company, hiring a few engineers and lawyers and getting them to work on it for months is negligible expense. It's the small companies which were hit hard. They had to apply brakes on whatever they were doing and invest their time and money on this. Time and money they could have spent on innovating and making their products better.
Same with the ePrivacy Directive. But hey. At least we all see a nice cookie consent pop up which none of us care about."So with absolute certainty you state that the EU "stifles innovation", but have no way of knowing if it has and have no ability to see that regulation just as easily drives innovation. The F1 example still holds even if other posters cannot get their heads around it. The cost of GDPR is a cost of doing business. Just like food hygiene standards which "stifles innovation" by preventing the pharmaceutical industry from investing heavily in new salmonella treatments. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That is the most astonishingly inane argument yet! Innovation happens. Standards change. The USB standard will change. Wireless charging will become the norm. Batteries will become more efficient and people will get on with life. The thrust of this long long thread is as usual a load of anti EU sentiment wrapped up in woolly facts. If you don’t believe it that’s your rabbit hole to climb down but the world won’t stop turning!
Odd. Innovation cannot happen until the EU allow it in their huge region and the EU area is famous for not debating change for 2 years (2 years for debate and is before they even consider law changes).
Anti-EU sentiment is there for a reason, nobody like authoritarianism in any age.
C
What innovation has the EU prevented?
Think, McFly.
It stops further innovation as myself and others have pointed out.
C
Perhaps you didn't understand the question.
What
Innovation
HAS
The
EU
Prevented?
How can someone name an innovation that didn't happen?
Anyway, as I mentioned above, the USB ruling will not stop innovation as the rest of the world is sane enough to not do anything like this.
As for EU slowing down innovation, I can point out GDPR. It does have some good rules about handling user data and privacy. But the problem is that it hit the small companies worse than bigger companies. The GDPR regulations are not simple. They had a huge set of requirements. All companies had to hire new lawyers just to understand how these rules are applicable to them . And then there is the necessity to divert all their IT folks to work on making the site GDPR compliant. For a big company, hiring a few engineers and lawyers and getting them to work on it for months is negligible expense. It's the small companies which were hit hard. They had to apply brakes on whatever they were doing and invest their time and money on this. Time and money they could have spent on innovating and making their products better.
Same with the ePrivacy Directive. But hey. At least we all see a nice cookie consent pop up which none of us care about.
And in a world where tech companies can do what they like you have “Cambridge Analytica” disrupting elections and using personal data to unduly influence political outcomes. If you want the Wild West that’s up to you but I don’t. I want a world where important information is protected from the morally bankrupt and where innovation is balanced with the needs of legacy
I agree that data privacy regulations that restrict sharing of data with third parties. But as always, EU went overboard with that. Seriously, who gives a damn about the cookie consent prompts that pop-up on every site? Big tech can easily handle these things. It's the small companies that suffer."It tells you very clearly how many companies will have access to your data. It also tells you which companies make it easy to exercise your right to not have your data sold by giving you a one click option and which ones do not. So I do give a damn. You don't have to. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That is the most astonishingly inane argument yet! Innovation happens. Standards change. The USB standard will change. Wireless charging will become the norm. Batteries will become more efficient and people will get on with life. The thrust of this long long thread is as usual a load of anti EU sentiment wrapped up in woolly facts. If you don’t believe it that’s your rabbit hole to climb down but the world won’t stop turning!
Odd. Innovation cannot happen until the EU allow it in their huge region and the EU area is famous for not debating change for 2 years (2 years for debate and is before they even consider law changes).
Anti-EU sentiment is there for a reason, nobody like authoritarianism in any age.
C
What innovation has the EU prevented?
Think, McFly.
It stops further innovation as myself and others have pointed out.
C
Perhaps you didn't understand the question.
What
Innovation
HAS
The
EU
Prevented?
How can someone name an innovation that didn't happen?
Anyway, as I mentioned above, the USB ruling will not stop innovation as the rest of the world is sane enough to not do anything like this.
As for EU slowing down innovation, I can point out GDPR. It does have some good rules about handling user data and privacy. But the problem is that it hit the small companies worse than bigger companies. The GDPR regulations are not simple. They had a huge set of requirements. All companies had to hire new lawyers just to understand how these rules are applicable to them . And then there is the necessity to divert all their IT folks to work on making the site GDPR compliant. For a big company, hiring a few engineers and lawyers and getting them to work on it for months is negligible expense. It's the small companies which were hit hard. They had to apply brakes on whatever they were doing and invest their time and money on this. Time and money they could have spent on innovating and making their products better.
Same with the ePrivacy Directive. But hey. At least we all see a nice cookie consent pop up which none of us care about.
And in a world where tech companies can do what they like you have “Cambridge Analytica” disrupting elections and using personal data to unduly influence political outcomes. If you want the Wild West that’s up to you but I don’t. I want a world where important information is protected from the morally bankrupt and where innovation is balanced with the needs of legacy
I agree that data privacy regulations that restrict sharing of data with third parties. But as always, EU went overboard with that. Seriously, who gives a damn about the cookie consent prompts that pop-up on every site? Big tech can easily handle these things. It's the small companies that suffer.
It tells you very clearly how many companies will have access to your data.
It also tells you which companies make it easy to exercise your right to not have your data sold by giving you a one click option and which ones do not.
So I do give a damn. You don't have to."Your post shows that you don't even understand the difference between data sharing policies and cookie policies. Are you really saying that you read through those numerous pages of cookies or data access policies they link to in each of these prompts and you understand the legal jargon they throw at you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That is the most astonishingly inane argument yet! Innovation happens. Standards change. The USB standard will change. Wireless charging will become the norm. Batteries will become more efficient and people will get on with life. The thrust of this long long thread is as usual a load of anti EU sentiment wrapped up in woolly facts. If you don’t believe it that’s your rabbit hole to climb down but the world won’t stop turning!
Odd. Innovation cannot happen until the EU allow it in their huge region and the EU area is famous for not debating change for 2 years (2 years for debate and is before they even consider law changes).
Anti-EU sentiment is there for a reason, nobody like authoritarianism in any age.
C
What innovation has the EU prevented?
Think, McFly.
It stops further innovation as myself and others have pointed out.
C
Perhaps you didn't understand the question.
What
Innovation
HAS
The
EU
Prevented?
How can someone name an innovation that didn't happen?
Anyway, as I mentioned above, the USB ruling will not stop innovation as the rest of the world is sane enough to not do anything like this.
As for EU slowing down innovation, I can point out GDPR. It does have some good rules about handling user data and privacy. But the problem is that it hit the small companies worse than bigger companies. The GDPR regulations are not simple. They had a huge set of requirements. All companies had to hire new lawyers just to understand how these rules are applicable to them . And then there is the necessity to divert all their IT folks to work on making the site GDPR compliant. For a big company, hiring a few engineers and lawyers and getting them to work on it for months is negligible expense. It's the small companies which were hit hard. They had to apply brakes on whatever they were doing and invest their time and money on this. Time and money they could have spent on innovating and making their products better.
Same with the ePrivacy Directive. But hey. At least we all see a nice cookie consent pop up which none of us care about.
And in a world where tech companies can do what they like you have “Cambridge Analytica” disrupting elections and using personal data to unduly influence political outcomes. If you want the Wild West that’s up to you but I don’t. I want a world where important information is protected from the morally bankrupt and where innovation is balanced with the needs of legacy
I agree that data privacy regulations that restrict sharing of data with third parties. But as always, EU went overboard with that. Seriously, who gives a damn about the cookie consent prompts that pop-up on every site? Big tech can easily handle these things. It's the small companies that suffer.
It tells you very clearly how many companies will have access to your data.
It also tells you which companies make it easy to exercise your right to not have your data sold by giving you a one click option and which ones do not.
So I do give a damn. You don't have to.
Your post shows that you don't even understand the difference between data sharing policies and cookie policies. Are you really saying that you read through those numerous pages of cookies or data access policies they link to in each of these prompts and you understand the legal jargon they throw at you? "Fair point. The cookie policies are part of GDPR not their entirety. Have you read through the entirety of food hygiene regulations? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That is the most astonishingly inane argument yet! Innovation happens. Standards change. The USB standard will change. Wireless charging will become the norm. Batteries will become more efficient and people will get on with life. The thrust of this long long thread is as usual a load of anti EU sentiment wrapped up in woolly facts. If you don’t believe it that’s your rabbit hole to climb down but the world won’t stop turning!
Odd. Innovation cannot happen until the EU allow it in their huge region and the EU area is famous for not debating change for 2 years (2 years for debate and is before they even consider law changes).
Anti-EU sentiment is there for a reason, nobody like authoritarianism in any age.
C
What innovation has the EU prevented?
Think, McFly.
It stops further innovation as myself and others have pointed out.
C
Perhaps you didn't understand the question.
What
Innovation
HAS
The
EU
Prevented?
How can someone name an innovation that didn't happen?
Anyway, as I mentioned above, the USB ruling will not stop innovation as the rest of the world is sane enough to not do anything like this.
As for EU slowing down innovation, I can point out GDPR. It does have some good rules about handling user data and privacy. But the problem is that it hit the small companies worse than bigger companies. The GDPR regulations are not simple. They had a huge set of requirements. All companies had to hire new lawyers just to understand how these rules are applicable to them . And then there is the necessity to divert all their IT folks to work on making the site GDPR compliant. For a big company, hiring a few engineers and lawyers and getting them to work on it for months is negligible expense. It's the small companies which were hit hard. They had to apply brakes on whatever they were doing and invest their time and money on this. Time and money they could have spent on innovating and making their products better.
Same with the ePrivacy Directive. But hey. At least we all see a nice cookie consent pop up which none of us care about.
And in a world where tech companies can do what they like you have “Cambridge Analytica” disrupting elections and using personal data to unduly influence political outcomes. If you want the Wild West that’s up to you but I don’t. I want a world where important information is protected from the morally bankrupt and where innovation is balanced with the needs of legacy
I agree that data privacy regulations that restrict sharing of data with third parties. But as always, EU went overboard with that. Seriously, who gives a damn about the cookie consent prompts that pop-up on every site? Big tech can easily handle these things. It's the small companies that suffer.
It tells you very clearly how many companies will have access to your data.
It also tells you which companies make it easy to exercise your right to not have your data sold by giving you a one click option and which ones do not.
So I do give a damn. You don't have to.
Your post shows that you don't even understand the difference between data sharing policies and cookie policies. Are you really saying that you read through those numerous pages of cookies or data access policies they link to in each of these prompts and you understand the legal jargon they throw at you?
Fair point. The cookie policies are part of GDPR not their entirety.
Have you read through the entirety of food hygiene regulations?"Cookie policies are part of ePrivacy Directive. I don't have to read and click a button to accept food regulations every time I eat something. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I don't have to read and click a button to accept food regulations every time I eat something." YET !!? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That is the most astonishingly inane argument yet! Innovation happens. Standards change. The USB standard will change. Wireless charging will become the norm. Batteries will become more efficient and people will get on with life. The thrust of this long long thread is as usual a load of anti EU sentiment wrapped up in woolly facts. If you don’t believe it that’s your rabbit hole to climb down but the world won’t stop turning!
Odd. Innovation cannot happen until the EU allow it in their huge region and the EU area is famous for not debating change for 2 years (2 years for debate and is before they even consider law changes).
Anti-EU sentiment is there for a reason, nobody like authoritarianism in any age.
C
What innovation has the EU prevented?
Think, McFly.
It stops further innovation as myself and others have pointed out.
C
Perhaps you didn't understand the question.
What
Innovation
HAS
The
EU
Prevented?
How can someone name an innovation that didn't happen?
Anyway, as I mentioned above, the USB ruling will not stop innovation as the rest of the world is sane enough to not do anything like this.
As for EU slowing down innovation, I can point out GDPR. It does have some good rules about handling user data and privacy. But the problem is that it hit the small companies worse than bigger companies. The GDPR regulations are not simple. They had a huge set of requirements. All companies had to hire new lawyers just to understand how these rules are applicable to them . And then there is the necessity to divert all their IT folks to work on making the site GDPR compliant. For a big company, hiring a few engineers and lawyers and getting them to work on it for months is negligible expense. It's the small companies which were hit hard. They had to apply brakes on whatever they were doing and invest their time and money on this. Time and money they could have spent on innovating and making their products better.
Same with the ePrivacy Directive. But hey. At least we all see a nice cookie consent pop up which none of us care about.
And in a world where tech companies can do what they like you have “Cambridge Analytica” disrupting elections and using personal data to unduly influence political outcomes. If you want the Wild West that’s up to you but I don’t. I want a world where important information is protected from the morally bankrupt and where innovation is balanced with the needs of legacy
I agree that data privacy regulations that restrict sharing of data with third parties. But as always, EU went overboard with that. Seriously, who gives a damn about the cookie consent prompts that pop-up on every site? Big tech can easily handle these things. It's the small companies that suffer.
It tells you very clearly how many companies will have access to your data.
It also tells you which companies make it easy to exercise your right to not have your data sold by giving you a one click option and which ones do not.
So I do give a damn. You don't have to.
Your post shows that you don't even understand the difference between data sharing policies and cookie policies. Are you really saying that you read through those numerous pages of cookies or data access policies they link to in each of these prompts and you understand the legal jargon they throw at you?
Fair point. The cookie policies are part of GDPR not their entirety.
Have you read through the entirety of food hygiene regulations?
Cookie policies are part of ePrivacy Directive.
I don't have to read and click a button to accept food regulations every time I eat something."The restaurant and any factory has to read and comply with all regulations and be inspected and certified. Whatever size the organisation, they pay for that, as do you, ultimately. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That is the most astonishingly inane argument yet! Innovation happens. Standards change. The USB standard will change. Wireless charging will become the norm. Batteries will become more efficient and people will get on with life. The thrust of this long long thread is as usual a load of anti EU sentiment wrapped up in woolly facts. If you don’t believe it that’s your rabbit hole to climb down but the world won’t stop turning!
Odd. Innovation cannot happen until the EU allow it in their huge region and the EU area is famous for not debating change for 2 years (2 years for debate and is before they even consider law changes).
Anti-EU sentiment is there for a reason, nobody like authoritarianism in any age.
C
What innovation has the EU prevented?
Think, McFly.
It stops further innovation as myself and others have pointed out.
C
Perhaps you didn't understand the question.
What
Innovation
HAS
The
EU
Prevented?
How can someone name an innovation that didn't happen?
Anyway, as I mentioned above, the USB ruling will not stop innovation as the rest of the world is sane enough to not do anything like this.
As for EU slowing down innovation, I can point out GDPR. It does have some good rules about handling user data and privacy. But the problem is that it hit the small companies worse than bigger companies. The GDPR regulations are not simple. They had a huge set of requirements. All companies had to hire new lawyers just to understand how these rules are applicable to them . And then there is the necessity to divert all their IT folks to work on making the site GDPR compliant. For a big company, hiring a few engineers and lawyers and getting them to work on it for months is negligible expense. It's the small companies which were hit hard. They had to apply brakes on whatever they were doing and invest their time and money on this. Time and money they could have spent on innovating and making their products better.
Same with the ePrivacy Directive. But hey. At least we all see a nice cookie consent pop up which none of us care about.
And in a world where tech companies can do what they like you have “Cambridge Analytica” disrupting elections and using personal data to unduly influence political outcomes. If you want the Wild West that’s up to you but I don’t. I want a world where important information is protected from the morally bankrupt and where innovation is balanced with the needs of legacy
I agree that data privacy regulations that restrict sharing of data with third parties. But as always, EU went overboard with that. Seriously, who gives a damn about the cookie consent prompts that pop-up on every site? Big tech can easily handle these things. It's the small companies that suffer.
It tells you very clearly how many companies will have access to your data.
It also tells you which companies make it easy to exercise your right to not have your data sold by giving you a one click option and which ones do not.
So I do give a damn. You don't have to.
Your post shows that you don't even understand the difference between data sharing policies and cookie policies. Are you really saying that you read through those numerous pages of cookies or data access policies they link to in each of these prompts and you understand the legal jargon they throw at you?
Fair point. The cookie policies are part of GDPR not their entirety.
Have you read through the entirety of food hygiene regulations?
Cookie policies are part of ePrivacy Directive.
I don't have to read and click a button to accept food regulations every time I eat something.
The restaurant and any factory has to read and comply with all regulations and be inspected and certified.
Whatever size the organisation, they pay for that, as do you, ultimately."Food regulations are relatively simple to follow compared to the data access regulations. Anyone who is into cooking would know at least the basic dos and don'ts. Also, the difference in available resources between a big tech company and a small start up is multiple times bigger than that of a big restaurant and a small one. So if you consider the resources necessary, resources availability between big and small restaurants, food safety regulations have good trade offs to make them worth it I have said that some data privacy regulations are good. For instance, a website sharing user information for ads is something the user should be aware of. But stuff like getting permission even to process data for performance is unnecessary. Stuff like throwing the cookie consent prompt on the face of a user on all websites is downright annoying. In your example, it's the restaurants that reads regulations and makes changes. They don't throw it on every customer's face before they start eating. In case of cookie contents, it's the latter that's happening. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That is the most astonishingly inane argument yet! Innovation happens. Standards change. The USB standard will change. Wireless charging will become the norm. Batteries will become more efficient and people will get on with life. The thrust of this long long thread is as usual a load of anti EU sentiment wrapped up in woolly facts. If you don’t believe it that’s your rabbit hole to climb down but the world won’t stop turning!
Odd. Innovation cannot happen until the EU allow it in their huge region and the EU area is famous for not debating change for 2 years (2 years for debate and is before they even consider law changes).
Anti-EU sentiment is there for a reason, nobody like authoritarianism in any age.
C
What innovation has the EU prevented?
Think, McFly.
It stops further innovation as myself and others have pointed out.
C
Perhaps you didn't understand the question.
What
Innovation
HAS
The
EU
Prevented?
How can someone name an innovation that didn't happen?
Anyway, as I mentioned above, the USB ruling will not stop innovation as the rest of the world is sane enough to not do anything like this.
As for EU slowing down innovation, I can point out GDPR. It does have some good rules about handling user data and privacy. But the problem is that it hit the small companies worse than bigger companies. The GDPR regulations are not simple. They had a huge set of requirements. All companies had to hire new lawyers just to understand how these rules are applicable to them . And then there is the necessity to divert all their IT folks to work on making the site GDPR compliant. For a big company, hiring a few engineers and lawyers and getting them to work on it for months is negligible expense. It's the small companies which were hit hard. They had to apply brakes on whatever they were doing and invest their time and money on this. Time and money they could have spent on innovating and making their products better.
Same with the ePrivacy Directive. But hey. At least we all see a nice cookie consent pop up which none of us care about.
And in a world where tech companies can do what they like you have “Cambridge Analytica” disrupting elections and using personal data to unduly influence political outcomes. If you want the Wild West that’s up to you but I don’t. I want a world where important information is protected from the morally bankrupt and where innovation is balanced with the needs of legacy
I agree that data privacy regulations that restrict sharing of data with third parties. But as always, EU went overboard with that. Seriously, who gives a damn about the cookie consent prompts that pop-up on every site? Big tech can easily handle these things. It's the small companies that suffer.
It tells you very clearly how many companies will have access to your data.
It also tells you which companies make it easy to exercise your right to not have your data sold by giving you a one click option and which ones do not.
So I do give a damn. You don't have to.
Your post shows that you don't even understand the difference between data sharing policies and cookie policies. Are you really saying that you read through those numerous pages of cookies or data access policies they link to in each of these prompts and you understand the legal jargon they throw at you?
Fair point. The cookie policies are part of GDPR not their entirety.
Have you read through the entirety of food hygiene regulations?
Cookie policies are part of ePrivacy Directive.
I don't have to read and click a button to accept food regulations every time I eat something.
The restaurant and any factory has to read and comply with all regulations and be inspected and certified.
Whatever size the organisation, they pay for that, as do you, ultimately.
Food regulations are relatively simple to follow compared to the data access regulations. Anyone who is into cooking would know at least the basic dos and don'ts. Also, the difference in available resources between a big tech company and a small start up is multiple times bigger than that of a big restaurant and a small one.
So if you consider the resources necessary, resources availability between big and small restaurants, food safety regulations have good trade offs to make them worth it
I have said that some data privacy regulations are good. For instance, a website sharing user information for ads is something the user should be aware of. But stuff like getting permission even to process data for performance is unnecessary. Stuff like throwing the cookie consent prompt on the face of a user on all websites is downright annoying. In your example, it's the restaurants that reads regulations and makes changes. They don't throw it on every customer's face before they start eating. In case of cookie contents, it's the latter that's happening.
"I thought session cookies and strictly necessary cookies were exempt from gdpr. If that is true, either they are collecting more than necessary cookies... Or don't know the rules/arese covering. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That is the most astonishingly inane argument yet! Innovation happens. Standards change. The USB standard will change. Wireless charging will become the norm. Batteries will become more efficient and people will get on with life. The thrust of this long long thread is as usual a load of anti EU sentiment wrapped up in woolly facts. If you don’t believe it that’s your rabbit hole to climb down but the world won’t stop turning!
Odd. Innovation cannot happen until the EU allow it in their huge region and the EU area is famous for not debating change for 2 years (2 years for debate and is before they even consider law changes).
Anti-EU sentiment is there for a reason, nobody like authoritarianism in any age.
C
What innovation has the EU prevented?
Think, McFly.
It stops further innovation as myself and others have pointed out.
C
Perhaps you didn't understand the question.
What
Innovation
HAS
The
EU
Prevented?
How can someone name an innovation that didn't happen?
Anyway, as I mentioned above, the USB ruling will not stop innovation as the rest of the world is sane enough to not do anything like this.
As for EU slowing down innovation, I can point out GDPR. It does have some good rules about handling user data and privacy. But the problem is that it hit the small companies worse than bigger companies. The GDPR regulations are not simple. They had a huge set of requirements. All companies had to hire new lawyers just to understand how these rules are applicable to them . And then there is the necessity to divert all their IT folks to work on making the site GDPR compliant. For a big company, hiring a few engineers and lawyers and getting them to work on it for months is negligible expense. It's the small companies which were hit hard. They had to apply brakes on whatever they were doing and invest their time and money on this. Time and money they could have spent on innovating and making their products better.
Same with the ePrivacy Directive. But hey. At least we all see a nice cookie consent pop up which none of us care about.
And in a world where tech companies can do what they like you have “Cambridge Analytica” disrupting elections and using personal data to unduly influence political outcomes. If you want the Wild West that’s up to you but I don’t. I want a world where important information is protected from the morally bankrupt and where innovation is balanced with the needs of legacy
I agree that data privacy regulations that restrict sharing of data with third parties. But as always, EU went overboard with that. Seriously, who gives a damn about the cookie consent prompts that pop-up on every site? Big tech can easily handle these things. It's the small companies that suffer.
It tells you very clearly how many companies will have access to your data.
It also tells you which companies make it easy to exercise your right to not have your data sold by giving you a one click option and which ones do not.
So I do give a damn. You don't have to.
Your post shows that you don't even understand the difference between data sharing policies and cookie policies. Are you really saying that you read through those numerous pages of cookies or data access policies they link to in each of these prompts and you understand the legal jargon they throw at you?
Fair point. The cookie policies are part of GDPR not their entirety.
Have you read through the entirety of food hygiene regulations?
Cookie policies are part of ePrivacy Directive.
I don't have to read and click a button to accept food regulations every time I eat something.
The restaurant and any factory has to read and comply with all regulations and be inspected and certified.
Whatever size the organisation, they pay for that, as do you, ultimately.
Food regulations are relatively simple to follow compared to the data access regulations. Anyone who is into cooking would know at least the basic dos and don'ts. Also, the difference in available resources between a big tech company and a small start up is multiple times bigger than that of a big restaurant and a small one.
So if you consider the resources necessary, resources availability between big and small restaurants, food safety regulations have good trade offs to make them worth it
I have said that some data privacy regulations are good. For instance, a website sharing user information for ads is something the user should be aware of. But stuff like getting permission even to process data for performance is unnecessary. Stuff like throwing the cookie consent prompt on the face of a user on all websites is downright annoying. In your example, it's the restaurants that reads regulations and makes changes. They don't throw it on every customer's face before they start eating. In case of cookie contents, it's the latter that's happening.
I thought session cookies and strictly necessary cookies were exempt from gdpr.
If that is true, either they are collecting more than necessary cookies... Or don't know the rules/arese covering.
"I can't get into the details of the technicalities. But the whole "strictly necessary" is legally ambiguous and there aren't tech solutions that can prove what a cookie is used for. So companies just go with the solution of showing the cookie banner. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't know what I'm more surprised about, the thread having so many posts or the op's ability to have an expert opinion on everything from tech to cooking.... Irony not lost on me that I have also contributed to such a non story. " I work in tech. Cooking is a basic skill almost everyone should know. Don't know what's too surprising about it. If you think this is a non-story, you can just stay out of it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That is the most astonishingly inane argument yet! Innovation happens. Standards change. The USB standard will change. Wireless charging will become the norm. Batteries will become more efficient and people will get on with life. The thrust of this long long thread is as usual a load of anti EU sentiment wrapped up in woolly facts. If you don’t believe it that’s your rabbit hole to climb down but the world won’t stop turning!
Odd. Innovation cannot happen until the EU allow it in their huge region and the EU area is famous for not debating change for 2 years (2 years for debate and is before they even consider law changes).
Anti-EU sentiment is there for a reason, nobody like authoritarianism in any age.
C
What innovation has the EU prevented?
Think, McFly.
It stops further innovation as myself and others have pointed out.
C
Perhaps you didn't understand the question.
What
Innovation
HAS
The
EU
Prevented?
How can someone name an innovation that didn't happen?
Anyway, as I mentioned above, the USB ruling will not stop innovation as the rest of the world is sane enough to not do anything like this.
As for EU slowing down innovation, I can point out GDPR. It does have some good rules about handling user data and privacy. But the problem is that it hit the small companies worse than bigger companies. The GDPR regulations are not simple. They had a huge set of requirements. All companies had to hire new lawyers just to understand how these rules are applicable to them . And then there is the necessity to divert all their IT folks to work on making the site GDPR compliant. For a big company, hiring a few engineers and lawyers and getting them to work on it for months is negligible expense. It's the small companies which were hit hard. They had to apply brakes on whatever they were doing and invest their time and money on this. Time and money they could have spent on innovating and making their products better.
Same with the ePrivacy Directive. But hey. At least we all see a nice cookie consent pop up which none of us care about.
And in a world where tech companies can do what they like you have “Cambridge Analytica” disrupting elections and using personal data to unduly influence political outcomes. If you want the Wild West that’s up to you but I don’t. I want a world where important information is protected from the morally bankrupt and where innovation is balanced with the needs of legacy
I agree that data privacy regulations that restrict sharing of data with third parties. But as always, EU went overboard with that. Seriously, who gives a damn about the cookie consent prompts that pop-up on every site? Big tech can easily handle these things. It's the small companies that suffer.
It tells you very clearly how many companies will have access to your data.
It also tells you which companies make it easy to exercise your right to not have your data sold by giving you a one click option and which ones do not.
So I do give a damn. You don't have to.
Your post shows that you don't even understand the difference between data sharing policies and cookie policies. Are you really saying that you read through those numerous pages of cookies or data access policies they link to in each of these prompts and you understand the legal jargon they throw at you?
Fair point. The cookie policies are part of GDPR not their entirety.
Have you read through the entirety of food hygiene regulations?
Cookie policies are part of ePrivacy Directive.
I don't have to read and click a button to accept food regulations every time I eat something.
The restaurant and any factory has to read and comply with all regulations and be inspected and certified.
Whatever size the organisation, they pay for that, as do you, ultimately.
Food regulations are relatively simple to follow compared to the data access regulations. Anyone who is into cooking would know at least the basic dos and don'ts. Also, the difference in available resources between a big tech company and a small start up is multiple times bigger than that of a big restaurant and a small one.
So if you consider the resources necessary, resources availability between big and small restaurants, food safety regulations have good trade offs to make them worth it
I have said that some data privacy regulations are good. For instance, a website sharing user information for ads is something the user should be aware of. But stuff like getting permission even to process data for performance is unnecessary. Stuff like throwing the cookie consent prompt on the face of a user on all websites is downright annoying. In your example, it's the restaurants that reads regulations and makes changes. They don't throw it on every customer's face before they start eating. In case of cookie contents, it's the latter that's happening.
"Are they? Have you read them and applied them? McDonald's does not have significantly more resource than a high street kebab shop? You want data privacy regulations without giving people the choice or information about what data is being shared and to whom? To not be given the choice to have it shared or not? Service providers have chosen to be obstructive in how they allow the consumer to choose. I will now tend to access the sites with a single click option and not those that force me to individually tick multiple boxes. That has provided me with control as a consumer. Better if they all had to have a one tick option, but that sort of legislation would probably "restrict innovation"
Choosing not to accept hygienically prepared food is not a choice that will be picked by most people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't know what I'm more surprised about, the thread having so many posts or the op's ability to have an expert opinion on everything from tech to cooking.... Irony not lost on me that I have also contributed to such a non story. I work in tech. Cooking is a basic skill almost everyone should know. Don't know what's too surprising about it. If you think this is a non-story, you can just stay out of it." you said and I quote "Food regulations are relatively simple to follow compared to the data access regulations". That is not basic cooking as you have spun it in your response. Tell me a little about food regulations, I would be very interested to know your thoughts on food imports and exports and traceability as a starter for 10. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That is the most astonishingly inane argument yet! Innovation happens. Standards change. The USB standard will change. Wireless charging will become the norm. Batteries will become more efficient and people will get on with life. The thrust of this long long thread is as usual a load of anti EU sentiment wrapped up in woolly facts. If you don’t believe it that’s your rabbit hole to climb down but the world won’t stop turning!
Odd. Innovation cannot happen until the EU allow it in their huge region and the EU area is famous for not debating change for 2 years (2 years for debate and is before they even consider law changes).
Anti-EU sentiment is there for a reason, nobody like authoritarianism in any age.
C
What innovation has the EU prevented?
Think, McFly.
It stops further innovation as myself and others have pointed out.
C
Perhaps you didn't understand the question.
What
Innovation
HAS
The
EU
Prevented?
How can someone name an innovation that didn't happen?
Anyway, as I mentioned above, the USB ruling will not stop innovation as the rest of the world is sane enough to not do anything like this.
As for EU slowing down innovation, I can point out GDPR. It does have some good rules about handling user data and privacy. But the problem is that it hit the small companies worse than bigger companies. The GDPR regulations are not simple. They had a huge set of requirements. All companies had to hire new lawyers just to understand how these rules are applicable to them . And then there is the necessity to divert all their IT folks to work on making the site GDPR compliant. For a big company, hiring a few engineers and lawyers and getting them to work on it for months is negligible expense. It's the small companies which were hit hard. They had to apply brakes on whatever they were doing and invest their time and money on this. Time and money they could have spent on innovating and making their products better.
Same with the ePrivacy Directive. But hey. At least we all see a nice cookie consent pop up which none of us care about.
And in a world where tech companies can do what they like you have “Cambridge Analytica” disrupting elections and using personal data to unduly influence political outcomes. If you want the Wild West that’s up to you but I don’t. I want a world where important information is protected from the morally bankrupt and where innovation is balanced with the needs of legacy
I agree that data privacy regulations that restrict sharing of data with third parties. But as always, EU went overboard with that. Seriously, who gives a damn about the cookie consent prompts that pop-up on every site? Big tech can easily handle these things. It's the small companies that suffer.
It tells you very clearly how many companies will have access to your data.
It also tells you which companies make it easy to exercise your right to not have your data sold by giving you a one click option and which ones do not.
So I do give a damn. You don't have to.
Your post shows that you don't even understand the difference between data sharing policies and cookie policies. Are you really saying that you read through those numerous pages of cookies or data access policies they link to in each of these prompts and you understand the legal jargon they throw at you?
Fair point. The cookie policies are part of GDPR not their entirety.
Have you read through the entirety of food hygiene regulations?
Cookie policies are part of ePrivacy Directive.
I don't have to read and click a button to accept food regulations every time I eat something.
The restaurant and any factory has to read and comply with all regulations and be inspected and certified.
Whatever size the organisation, they pay for that, as do you, ultimately.
Food regulations are relatively simple to follow compared to the data access regulations. Anyone who is into cooking would know at least the basic dos and don'ts. Also, the difference in available resources between a big tech company and a small start up is multiple times bigger than that of a big restaurant and a small one.
So if you consider the resources necessary, resources availability between big and small restaurants, food safety regulations have good trade offs to make them worth it
I have said that some data privacy regulations are good. For instance, a website sharing user information for ads is something the user should be aware of. But stuff like getting permission even to process data for performance is unnecessary. Stuff like throwing the cookie consent prompt on the face of a user on all websites is downright annoying. In your example, it's the restaurants that reads regulations and makes changes. They don't throw it on every customer's face before they start eating. In case of cookie contents, it's the latter that's happening.
Are they? Have you read them and applied them?
McDonald's does not have significantly more resource than a high street kebab shop?
You want data privacy regulations without giving people the choice or information about what data is being shared and to whom? To not be given the choice to have it shared or not?
Service providers have chosen to be obstructive in how they allow the consumer to choose. I will now tend to access the sites with a single click option and not those that force me to individually tick multiple boxes.
That has provided me with control as a consumer.
Better if they all had to have a one tick option, but that sort of legislation would probably "restrict innovation"
Choosing not to accept hygienically prepared food is not a choice that will be picked by most people."Not an expert. But food regulations as far as I know are mostly about hygiene and the kind of ingredients you use. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. McDonalds vs kebab shop difference compared with a billion dollar tech company and a start up or some small shop that just wants a website on their own? The latter has a significant difference. McDonalds has to implement the changes in every shop they own. So in the end it boils to McDonald's investment in that shop vs the neighborhood kebab shop. About data sharing, it's way more complex than you think. A website can share data with Google for so many reasons. It can share it for ads. It can share for reliability and performance. The latter use-case is important for the website to function properly. Now how many users on the internet know how to differentiate it? That's what leads to the different number of controls which you see on many websites. How many even have the time to read what is shown on the dialog? Food safety is something which every consumer understands. How many people know what a cookie on a website means? Most of the consumes hardly gain anything but the rules significantly disrupt a company's functioning. Time they could have spent on doing something genuinely useful for its consumers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't know what I'm more surprised about, the thread having so many posts or the op's ability to have an expert opinion on everything from tech to cooking.... Irony not lost on me that I have also contributed to such a non story. I work in tech. Cooking is a basic skill almost everyone should know. Don't know what's too surprising about it. If you think this is a non-story, you can just stay out of it. you said and I quote "Food regulations are relatively simple to follow compared to the data access regulations". That is not basic cooking as you have spun it in your response. Tell me a little about food regulations, I would be very interested to know your thoughts on food imports and exports and traceability as a starter for 10. " I have seen people discuss Brexit here. Did everyone read through the hundreds of pages of trade agreement before debating that? I think it's fairly just common sense to assume that food regulations are around cleanliness and the ingredients used. Your reasoning that I need to be an expert in the matter to even have a debate, doesn't make sense. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That is the most astonishingly inane argument yet! Innovation happens. Standards change. The USB standard will change. Wireless charging will become the norm. Batteries will become more efficient and people will get on with life. The thrust of this long long thread is as usual a load of anti EU sentiment wrapped up in woolly facts. If you don’t believe it that’s your rabbit hole to climb down but the world won’t stop turning!
Odd. Innovation cannot happen until the EU allow it in their huge region and the EU area is famous for not debating change for 2 years (2 years for debate and is before they even consider law changes).
Anti-EU sentiment is there for a reason, nobody like authoritarianism in any age.
C
What innovation has the EU prevented?
Think, McFly.
It stops further innovation as myself and others have pointed out.
C
Perhaps you didn't understand the question.
What
Innovation
HAS
The
EU
Prevented?
How can someone name an innovation that didn't happen?
Anyway, as I mentioned above, the USB ruling will not stop innovation as the rest of the world is sane enough to not do anything like this.
As for EU slowing down innovation, I can point out GDPR. It does have some good rules about handling user data and privacy. But the problem is that it hit the small companies worse than bigger companies. The GDPR regulations are not simple. They had a huge set of requirements. All companies had to hire new lawyers just to understand how these rules are applicable to them . And then there is the necessity to divert all their IT folks to work on making the site GDPR compliant. For a big company, hiring a few engineers and lawyers and getting them to work on it for months is negligible expense. It's the small companies which were hit hard. They had to apply brakes on whatever they were doing and invest their time and money on this. Time and money they could have spent on innovating and making their products better.
Same with the ePrivacy Directive. But hey. At least we all see a nice cookie consent pop up which none of us care about.
And in a world where tech companies can do what they like you have “Cambridge Analytica” disrupting elections and using personal data to unduly influence political outcomes. If you want the Wild West that’s up to you but I don’t. I want a world where important information is protected from the morally bankrupt and where innovation is balanced with the needs of legacy
I agree that data privacy regulations that restrict sharing of data with third parties. But as always, EU went overboard with that. Seriously, who gives a damn about the cookie consent prompts that pop-up on every site? Big tech can easily handle these things. It's the small companies that suffer.
It tells you very clearly how many companies will have access to your data.
It also tells you which companies make it easy to exercise your right to not have your data sold by giving you a one click option and which ones do not.
So I do give a damn. You don't have to.
Your post shows that you don't even understand the difference between data sharing policies and cookie policies. Are you really saying that you read through those numerous pages of cookies or data access policies they link to in each of these prompts and you understand the legal jargon they throw at you?
Fair point. The cookie policies are part of GDPR not their entirety.
Have you read through the entirety of food hygiene regulations?
Cookie policies are part of ePrivacy Directive.
I don't have to read and click a button to accept food regulations every time I eat something.
The restaurant and any factory has to read and comply with all regulations and be inspected and certified.
Whatever size the organisation, they pay for that, as do you, ultimately.
Food regulations are relatively simple to follow compared to the data access regulations. Anyone who is into cooking would know at least the basic dos and don'ts. Also, the difference in available resources between a big tech company and a small start up is multiple times bigger than that of a big restaurant and a small one.
So if you consider the resources necessary, resources availability between big and small restaurants, food safety regulations have good trade offs to make them worth it
I have said that some data privacy regulations are good. For instance, a website sharing user information for ads is something the user should be aware of. But stuff like getting permission even to process data for performance is unnecessary. Stuff like throwing the cookie consent prompt on the face of a user on all websites is downright annoying. In your example, it's the restaurants that reads regulations and makes changes. They don't throw it on every customer's face before they start eating. In case of cookie contents, it's the latter that's happening.
Are they? Have you read them and applied them?
McDonald's does not have significantly more resource than a high street kebab shop?
You want data privacy regulations without giving people the choice or information about what data is being shared and to whom? To not be given the choice to have it shared or not?
Service providers have chosen to be obstructive in how they allow the consumer to choose. I will now tend to access the sites with a single click option and not those that force me to individually tick multiple boxes.
That has provided me with control as a consumer.
Better if they all had to have a one tick option, but that sort of legislation would probably "restrict innovation"
Choosing not to accept hygienically prepared food is not a choice that will be picked by most people.
Not an expert. But food regulations as far as I know are mostly about hygiene and the kind of ingredients you use. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
McDonalds vs kebab shop difference compared with a billion dollar tech company and a start up or some small shop that just wants a website on their own? The latter has a significant difference. McDonalds has to implement the changes in every shop they own. So in the end it boils to McDonald's investment in that shop vs the neighborhood kebab shop.
About data sharing, it's way more complex than you think. A website can share data with Google for so many reasons. It can share it for ads. It can share for reliability and performance. The latter use-case is important for the website to function properly. Now how many users on the internet know how to differentiate it? That's what leads to the different number of controls which you see on many websites. How many even have the time to read what is shown on the dialog? Food safety is something which every consumer understands. How many people know what a cookie on a website means? Most of the consumes hardly gain anything but the rules significantly disrupt a company's functioning. Time they could have spent on doing something genuinely useful for its consumers.
"You are a master at ignoring the inconvenient point and dwelling on the irrelevant detail. Food hygiene is about sourcing, storing, preparing cleaning and being certified to do so. Somehow small companies have managed to apply GDPR it is a cost to large and small companies just as it is for large and small restaurants. The consequences are the same for an individual consumer regardless of scale. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't know what I'm more surprised about, the thread having so many posts or the op's ability to have an expert opinion on everything from tech to cooking.... Irony not lost on me that I have also contributed to such a non story. I work in tech. Cooking is a basic skill almost everyone should know. Don't know what's too surprising about it. If you think this is a non-story, you can just stay out of it. you said and I quote "Food regulations are relatively simple to follow compared to the data access regulations". That is not basic cooking as you have spun it in your response. Tell me a little about food regulations, I would be very interested to know your thoughts on food imports and exports and traceability as a starter for 10. I have seen people discuss Brexit here. Did everyone read through the hundreds of pages of trade agreement before debating that? I think it's fairly just common sense to assume that food regulations are around cleanliness and the ingredients used. Your reasoning that I need to be an expert in the matter to even have a debate, doesn't make sense." For you to dismiss out of hand the complexity of one set of standards because you can manage basic cooking is laughable. You have made an assumption that data regulations are far more complex that another set of standards and regulations without any knowledge of experience to qualify your comments, other than you can cook so it can't be that hard. You have lost credibility, but that wont stop you replying to tell me I'm wrong will it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That is the most astonishingly inane argument yet! Innovation happens. Standards change. The USB standard will change. Wireless charging will become the norm. Batteries will become more efficient and people will get on with life. The thrust of this long long thread is as usual a load of anti EU sentiment wrapped up in woolly facts. If you don’t believe it that’s your rabbit hole to climb down but the world won’t stop turning!
Odd. Innovation cannot happen until the EU allow it in their huge region and the EU area is famous for not debating change for 2 years (2 years for debate and is before they even consider law changes).
Anti-EU sentiment is there for a reason, nobody like authoritarianism in any age.
C
What innovation has the EU prevented?
Think, McFly.
It stops further innovation as myself and others have pointed out.
C
Perhaps you didn't understand the question.
What
Innovation
HAS
The
EU
Prevented?
How can someone name an innovation that didn't happen?
Anyway, as I mentioned above, the USB ruling will not stop innovation as the rest of the world is sane enough to not do anything like this.
As for EU slowing down innovation, I can point out GDPR. It does have some good rules about handling user data and privacy. But the problem is that it hit the small companies worse than bigger companies. The GDPR regulations are not simple. They had a huge set of requirements. All companies had to hire new lawyers just to understand how these rules are applicable to them . And then there is the necessity to divert all their IT folks to work on making the site GDPR compliant. For a big company, hiring a few engineers and lawyers and getting them to work on it for months is negligible expense. It's the small companies which were hit hard. They had to apply brakes on whatever they were doing and invest their time and money on this. Time and money they could have spent on innovating and making their products better.
Same with the ePrivacy Directive. But hey. At least we all see a nice cookie consent pop up which none of us care about.
And in a world where tech companies can do what they like you have “Cambridge Analytica” disrupting elections and using personal data to unduly influence political outcomes. If you want the Wild West that’s up to you but I don’t. I want a world where important information is protected from the morally bankrupt and where innovation is balanced with the needs of legacy
I agree that data privacy regulations that restrict sharing of data with third parties. But as always, EU went overboard with that. Seriously, who gives a damn about the cookie consent prompts that pop-up on every site? Big tech can easily handle these things. It's the small companies that suffer.
It tells you very clearly how many companies will have access to your data.
It also tells you which companies make it easy to exercise your right to not have your data sold by giving you a one click option and which ones do not.
So I do give a damn. You don't have to.
Your post shows that you don't even understand the difference between data sharing policies and cookie policies. Are you really saying that you read through those numerous pages of cookies or data access policies they link to in each of these prompts and you understand the legal jargon they throw at you?
Fair point. The cookie policies are part of GDPR not their entirety.
Have you read through the entirety of food hygiene regulations?
Cookie policies are part of ePrivacy Directive.
I don't have to read and click a button to accept food regulations every time I eat something.
The restaurant and any factory has to read and comply with all regulations and be inspected and certified.
Whatever size the organisation, they pay for that, as do you, ultimately.
Food regulations are relatively simple to follow compared to the data access regulations. Anyone who is into cooking would know at least the basic dos and don'ts. Also, the difference in available resources between a big tech company and a small start up is multiple times bigger than that of a big restaurant and a small one.
So if you consider the resources necessary, resources availability between big and small restaurants, food safety regulations have good trade offs to make them worth it
I have said that some data privacy regulations are good. For instance, a website sharing user information for ads is something the user should be aware of. But stuff like getting permission even to process data for performance is unnecessary. Stuff like throwing the cookie consent prompt on the face of a user on all websites is downright annoying. In your example, it's the restaurants that reads regulations and makes changes. They don't throw it on every customer's face before they start eating. In case of cookie contents, it's the latter that's happening.
Are they? Have you read them and applied them?
McDonald's does not have significantly more resource than a high street kebab shop?
You want data privacy regulations without giving people the choice or information about what data is being shared and to whom? To not be given the choice to have it shared or not?
Service providers have chosen to be obstructive in how they allow the consumer to choose. I will now tend to access the sites with a single click option and not those that force me to individually tick multiple boxes.
That has provided me with control as a consumer.
Better if they all had to have a one tick option, but that sort of legislation would probably "restrict innovation"
Choosing not to accept hygienically prepared food is not a choice that will be picked by most people.
Not an expert. But food regulations as far as I know are mostly about hygiene and the kind of ingredients you use. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
McDonalds vs kebab shop difference compared with a billion dollar tech company and a start up or some small shop that just wants a website on their own? The latter has a significant difference. McDonalds has to implement the changes in every shop they own. So in the end it boils to McDonald's investment in that shop vs the neighborhood kebab shop.
About data sharing, it's way more complex than you think. A website can share data with Google for so many reasons. It can share it for ads. It can share for reliability and performance. The latter use-case is important for the website to function properly. Now how many users on the internet know how to differentiate it? That's what leads to the different number of controls which you see on many websites. How many even have the time to read what is shown on the dialog? Food safety is something which every consumer understands. How many people know what a cookie on a website means? Most of the consumes hardly gain anything but the rules significantly disrupt a company's functioning. Time they could have spent on doing something genuinely useful for its consumers.
You are a master at ignoring the inconvenient point and dwelling on the irrelevant detail.
Food hygiene is about sourcing, storing, preparing cleaning and being certified to do so.
Somehow small companies have managed to apply GDPR it is a cost to large and small companies just as it is for large and small restaurants.
The consequences are the same for an individual consumer regardless of scale."You are the master of just not looking at any point that goes against you or acting like you didn't see. What you said about food regulation is what I said so too. Not sure what difference you made. Small companies had a lot of trouble applying GDPR. In fact many aren't even compliant yet. You can see how this affects them here: https://www.i-scoop.eu/gdpr/gdpr-small-medium-businesses/ Individual consumer is affected. They have to go through annoying pop ups which they don't have a clue about. The companies spend a lot of time working on something which most users don't see a value out of. They could have spent that time working on stuff which users would have found genuinely useful. So consumers are losing out. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't know what I'm more surprised about, the thread having so many posts or the op's ability to have an expert opinion on everything from tech to cooking.... Irony not lost on me that I have also contributed to such a non story. I work in tech. Cooking is a basic skill almost everyone should know. Don't know what's too surprising about it. If you think this is a non-story, you can just stay out of it. you said and I quote "Food regulations are relatively simple to follow compared to the data access regulations". That is not basic cooking as you have spun it in your response. Tell me a little about food regulations, I would be very interested to know your thoughts on food imports and exports and traceability as a starter for 10. I have seen people discuss Brexit here. Did everyone read through the hundreds of pages of trade agreement before debating that? I think it's fairly just common sense to assume that food regulations are around cleanliness and the ingredients used. Your reasoning that I need to be an expert in the matter to even have a debate, doesn't make sense. For you to dismiss out of hand the complexity of one set of standards because you can manage basic cooking is laughable. You have made an assumption that data regulations are far more complex that another set of standards and regulations without any knowledge of experience to qualify your comments, other than you can cook so it can't be that hard. You have lost credibility, but that wont stop you replying to tell me I'm wrong will it? " As for your first paragraph, I will keep that in mind anytime you talk about a subject you don't have a PhD in. As for your second paragraph, is that the trick you normally use to silence other people in a debate? Telling them "I know you will want to reply" and guilt them into not replying? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't know what I'm more surprised about, the thread having so many posts or the op's ability to have an expert opinion on everything from tech to cooking.... Irony not lost on me that I have also contributed to such a non story. I work in tech. Cooking is a basic skill almost everyone should know. Don't know what's too surprising about it. If you think this is a non-story, you can just stay out of it. you said and I quote "Food regulations are relatively simple to follow compared to the data access regulations". That is not basic cooking as you have spun it in your response. Tell me a little about food regulations, I would be very interested to know your thoughts on food imports and exports and traceability as a starter for 10. I have seen people discuss Brexit here. Did everyone read through the hundreds of pages of trade agreement before debating that? I think it's fairly just common sense to assume that food regulations are around cleanliness and the ingredients used. Your reasoning that I need to be an expert in the matter to even have a debate, doesn't make sense. For you to dismiss out of hand the complexity of one set of standards because you can manage basic cooking is laughable. You have made an assumption that data regulations are far more complex that another set of standards and regulations without any knowledge of experience to qualify your comments, other than you can cook so it can't be that hard. You have lost credibility, but that wont stop you replying to tell me I'm wrong will it? As for your first paragraph, I will keep that in mind anytime you talk about a subject you don't have a PhD in. As for your second paragraph, is that the trick you normally use to silence other people in a debate? Telling them "I know you will want to reply" and guilt them into not replying? " It isn't talking about a subject that I have arrived at this point, it is you dismissing something out of hand because you have a mere understanding of it and continue to insist you know about it, when clearly your qualification to dismiss it is you can manage basic cooking. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That is the most astonishingly inane argument yet! Innovation happens. Standards change. The USB standard will change. Wireless charging will become the norm. Batteries will become more efficient and people will get on with life. The thrust of this long long thread is as usual a load of anti EU sentiment wrapped up in woolly facts. If you don’t believe it that’s your rabbit hole to climb down but the world won’t stop turning!
Odd. Innovation cannot happen until the EU allow it in their huge region and the EU area is famous for not debating change for 2 years (2 years for debate and is before they even consider law changes).
Anti-EU sentiment is there for a reason, nobody like authoritarianism in any age.
C
What innovation has the EU prevented?
Think, McFly.
It stops further innovation as myself and others have pointed out.
C
Perhaps you didn't understand the question.
What
Innovation
HAS
The
EU
Prevented?
How can someone name an innovation that didn't happen?
Anyway, as I mentioned above, the USB ruling will not stop innovation as the rest of the world is sane enough to not do anything like this.
As for EU slowing down innovation, I can point out GDPR. It does have some good rules about handling user data and privacy. But the problem is that it hit the small companies worse than bigger companies. The GDPR regulations are not simple. They had a huge set of requirements. All companies had to hire new lawyers just to understand how these rules are applicable to them . And then there is the necessity to divert all their IT folks to work on making the site GDPR compliant. For a big company, hiring a few engineers and lawyers and getting them to work on it for months is negligible expense. It's the small companies which were hit hard. They had to apply brakes on whatever they were doing and invest their time and money on this. Time and money they could have spent on innovating and making their products better.
Same with the ePrivacy Directive. But hey. At least we all see a nice cookie consent pop up which none of us care about.
And in a world where tech companies can do what they like you have “Cambridge Analytica” disrupting elections and using personal data to unduly influence political outcomes. If you want the Wild West that’s up to you but I don’t. I want a world where important information is protected from the morally bankrupt and where innovation is balanced with the needs of legacy
I agree that data privacy regulations that restrict sharing of data with third parties. But as always, EU went overboard with that. Seriously, who gives a damn about the cookie consent prompts that pop-up on every site? Big tech can easily handle these things. It's the small companies that suffer.
It tells you very clearly how many companies will have access to your data.
It also tells you which companies make it easy to exercise your right to not have your data sold by giving you a one click option and which ones do not.
So I do give a damn. You don't have to.
Your post shows that you don't even understand the difference between data sharing policies and cookie policies. Are you really saying that you read through those numerous pages of cookies or data access policies they link to in each of these prompts and you understand the legal jargon they throw at you?
Fair point. The cookie policies are part of GDPR not their entirety.
Have you read through the entirety of food hygiene regulations?
Cookie policies are part of ePrivacy Directive.
I don't have to read and click a button to accept food regulations every time I eat something.
The restaurant and any factory has to read and comply with all regulations and be inspected and certified.
Whatever size the organisation, they pay for that, as do you, ultimately.
Food regulations are relatively simple to follow compared to the data access regulations. Anyone who is into cooking would know at least the basic dos and don'ts. Also, the difference in available resources between a big tech company and a small start up is multiple times bigger than that of a big restaurant and a small one.
So if you consider the resources necessary, resources availability between big and small restaurants, food safety regulations have good trade offs to make them worth it
I have said that some data privacy regulations are good. For instance, a website sharing user information for ads is something the user should be aware of. But stuff like getting permission even to process data for performance is unnecessary. Stuff like throwing the cookie consent prompt on the face of a user on all websites is downright annoying. In your example, it's the restaurants that reads regulations and makes changes. They don't throw it on every customer's face before they start eating. In case of cookie contents, it's the latter that's happening.
Are they? Have you read them and applied them?
McDonald's does not have significantly more resource than a high street kebab shop?
You want data privacy regulations without giving people the choice or information about what data is being shared and to whom? To not be given the choice to have it shared or not?
Service providers have chosen to be obstructive in how they allow the consumer to choose. I will now tend to access the sites with a single click option and not those that force me to individually tick multiple boxes.
That has provided me with control as a consumer.
Better if they all had to have a one tick option, but that sort of legislation would probably "restrict innovation"
Choosing not to accept hygienically prepared food is not a choice that will be picked by most people.
Not an expert. But food regulations as far as I know are mostly about hygiene and the kind of ingredients you use. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
McDonalds vs kebab shop difference compared with a billion dollar tech company and a start up or some small shop that just wants a website on their own? The latter has a significant difference. McDonalds has to implement the changes in every shop they own. So in the end it boils to McDonald's investment in that shop vs the neighborhood kebab shop.
About data sharing, it's way more complex than you think. A website can share data with Google for so many reasons. It can share it for ads. It can share for reliability and performance. The latter use-case is important for the website to function properly. Now how many users on the internet know how to differentiate it? That's what leads to the different number of controls which you see on many websites. How many even have the time to read what is shown on the dialog? Food safety is something which every consumer understands. How many people know what a cookie on a website means? Most of the consumes hardly gain anything but the rules significantly disrupt a company's functioning. Time they could have spent on doing something genuinely useful for its consumers.
You are a master at ignoring the inconvenient point and dwelling on the irrelevant detail.
Food hygiene is about sourcing, storing, preparing cleaning and being certified to do so.
Somehow small companies have managed to apply GDPR it is a cost to large and small companies just as it is for large and small restaurants.
The consequences are the same for an individual consumer regardless of scale.
You are the master of just not looking at any point that goes against you or acting like you didn't see.
What you said about food regulation is what I said so too. Not sure what difference you made.
Small companies had a lot of trouble applying GDPR. In fact many aren't even compliant yet. You can see how this affects them here:
https://www.i-scoop.eu/gdpr/gdpr-small-medium-businesses/
Individual consumer is affected. They have to go through annoying pop ups which they don't have a clue about. The companies spend a lot of time working on something which most users don't see a value out of. They could have spent that time working on stuff which users would have found genuinely useful. So consumers are losing out."You are struggling with words then. We did not say "the same thing" about food regulations. Consequences to individual consumers are the same regardless of the scale of the company for food and GDPR. True or not? "Annoying pop-ups" are a consequence of being given choice. How would you do it? This is from Statistia: "I think companies should be held accountable for any misuse of personal data 58% Consumers should reserve the right to permanently delete any personal data from a company's records 41% Explicit consent should be collected before any collection of personal data online 40% I want to see standards brought to safeguarding of personal data 35% I want transparency on advertising/marketing practices 34% I do not trust companies to handle my personal data privacy without these regulations 27%" What's your data? How has this prevented innovation other than in the selling of your data more widely? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That is the most astonishingly inane argument yet! Innovation happens. Standards change. The USB standard will change. Wireless charging will become the norm. Batteries will become more efficient and people will get on with life. The thrust of this long long thread is as usual a load of anti EU sentiment wrapped up in woolly facts. If you don’t believe it that’s your rabbit hole to climb down but the world won’t stop turning!
Odd. Innovation cannot happen until the EU allow it in their huge region and the EU area is famous for not debating change for 2 years (2 years for debate and is before they even consider law changes).
Anti-EU sentiment is there for a reason, nobody like authoritarianism in any age.
C
What innovation has the EU prevented?
Think, McFly.
It stops further innovation as myself and others have pointed out.
C
Perhaps you didn't understand the question.
What
Innovation
HAS
The
EU
Prevented?
How can someone name an innovation that didn't happen?
Anyway, as I mentioned above, the USB ruling will not stop innovation as the rest of the world is sane enough to not do anything like this.
As for EU slowing down innovation, I can point out GDPR. It does have some good rules about handling user data and privacy. But the problem is that it hit the small companies worse than bigger companies. The GDPR regulations are not simple. They had a huge set of requirements. All companies had to hire new lawyers just to understand how these rules are applicable to them . And then there is the necessity to divert all their IT folks to work on making the site GDPR compliant. For a big company, hiring a few engineers and lawyers and getting them to work on it for months is negligible expense. It's the small companies which were hit hard. They had to apply brakes on whatever they were doing and invest their time and money on this. Time and money they could have spent on innovating and making their products better.
Same with the ePrivacy Directive. But hey. At least we all see a nice cookie consent pop up which none of us care about.
And in a world where tech companies can do what they like you have “Cambridge Analytica” disrupting elections and using personal data to unduly influence political outcomes. If you want the Wild West that’s up to you but I don’t. I want a world where important information is protected from the morally bankrupt and where innovation is balanced with the needs of legacy
I agree that data privacy regulations that restrict sharing of data with third parties. But as always, EU went overboard with that. Seriously, who gives a damn about the cookie consent prompts that pop-up on every site? Big tech can easily handle these things. It's the small companies that suffer.
It tells you very clearly how many companies will have access to your data.
It also tells you which companies make it easy to exercise your right to not have your data sold by giving you a one click option and which ones do not.
So I do give a damn. You don't have to.
Your post shows that you don't even understand the difference between data sharing policies and cookie policies. Are you really saying that you read through those numerous pages of cookies or data access policies they link to in each of these prompts and you understand the legal jargon they throw at you?
Fair point. The cookie policies are part of GDPR not their entirety.
Have you read through the entirety of food hygiene regulations?
Cookie policies are part of ePrivacy Directive.
I don't have to read and click a button to accept food regulations every time I eat something.
The restaurant and any factory has to read and comply with all regulations and be inspected and certified.
Whatever size the organisation, they pay for that, as do you, ultimately.
Food regulations are relatively simple to follow compared to the data access regulations. Anyone who is into cooking would know at least the basic dos and don'ts. Also, the difference in available resources between a big tech company and a small start up is multiple times bigger than that of a big restaurant and a small one.
So if you consider the resources necessary, resources availability between big and small restaurants, food safety regulations have good trade offs to make them worth it
I have said that some data privacy regulations are good. For instance, a website sharing user information for ads is something the user should be aware of. But stuff like getting permission even to process data for performance is unnecessary. Stuff like throwing the cookie consent prompt on the face of a user on all websites is downright annoying. In your example, it's the restaurants that reads regulations and makes changes. They don't throw it on every customer's face before they start eating. In case of cookie contents, it's the latter that's happening.
Are they? Have you read them and applied them?
McDonald's does not have significantly more resource than a high street kebab shop?
You want data privacy regulations without giving people the choice or information about what data is being shared and to whom? To not be given the choice to have it shared or not?
Service providers have chosen to be obstructive in how they allow the consumer to choose. I will now tend to access the sites with a single click option and not those that force me to individually tick multiple boxes.
That has provided me with control as a consumer.
Better if they all had to have a one tick option, but that sort of legislation would probably "restrict innovation"
Choosing not to accept hygienically prepared food is not a choice that will be picked by most people.
Not an expert. But food regulations as far as I know are mostly about hygiene and the kind of ingredients you use. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
McDonalds vs kebab shop difference compared with a billion dollar tech company and a start up or some small shop that just wants a website on their own? The latter has a significant difference. McDonalds has to implement the changes in every shop they own. So in the end it boils to McDonald's investment in that shop vs the neighborhood kebab shop.
About data sharing, it's way more complex than you think. A website can share data with Google for so many reasons. It can share it for ads. It can share for reliability and performance. The latter use-case is important for the website to function properly. Now how many users on the internet know how to differentiate it? That's what leads to the different number of controls which you see on many websites. How many even have the time to read what is shown on the dialog? Food safety is something which every consumer understands. How many people know what a cookie on a website means? Most of the consumes hardly gain anything but the rules significantly disrupt a company's functioning. Time they could have spent on doing something genuinely useful for its consumers.
You are a master at ignoring the inconvenient point and dwelling on the irrelevant detail.
Food hygiene is about sourcing, storing, preparing cleaning and being certified to do so.
Somehow small companies have managed to apply GDPR it is a cost to large and small companies just as it is for large and small restaurants.
The consequences are the same for an individual consumer regardless of scale.
You are the master of just not looking at any point that goes against you or acting like you didn't see.
What you said about food regulation is what I said so too. Not sure what difference you made.
Small companies had a lot of trouble applying GDPR. In fact many aren't even compliant yet. You can see how this affects them here:
https://www.i-scoop.eu/gdpr/gdpr-small-medium-businesses/
Individual consumer is affected. They have to go through annoying pop ups which they don't have a clue about. The companies spend a lot of time working on something which most users don't see a value out of. They could have spent that time working on stuff which users would have found genuinely useful. So consumers are losing out.
You are struggling with words then. We did not say "the same thing" about food regulations.
Consequences to individual consumers are the same regardless of the scale of the company for food and GDPR. True or not?
"Annoying pop-ups" are a consequence of being given choice. How would you do it?
This is from Statistia:
"I think companies should be held accountable for any misuse of personal data 58%
Consumers should reserve the right to permanently delete any personal data from a company's records 41%
Explicit consent should be collected before any collection of personal data online 40%
I want to see standards brought to safeguarding of personal data 35%
I want transparency on advertising/marketing practices 34%
I do not trust companies to handle my personal data privacy without these regulations 27%"
What's your data?
How has this prevented innovation other than in the selling of your data more widely?
"All your statistics are about what people feel about data sharing. I mentioned that data sharing regulations are good. But the way they go about it is wrong. Most cookie consent notices are meaningless: https://techcrunch.com/2019/08/10/most-eu-cookie-consent-notices-are-meaningless-or-manipulative-study-finds/ Over 60% of users always click accept button on all websites: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1273012/consent-cookies-worldwide/ These people do not have a choice to just not see the consent prompt on every damn site they open. There are plenty of less invasive ways to do it. And even those who reject them have no clue about what's happening in because of their actions because the cookie consent prompts are manipulative and it's hard for these regulations to be imposed and verified at scale. So companies are wasting their time and money on stuff that's eventually of no use to people instead of doing stuff which would make their products better. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That is the most astonishingly inane argument yet! Innovation happens. Standards change. The USB standard will change. Wireless charging will become the norm. Batteries will become more efficient and people will get on with life. The thrust of this long long thread is as usual a load of anti EU sentiment wrapped up in woolly facts. If you don’t believe it that’s your rabbit hole to climb down but the world won’t stop turning!
Odd. Innovation cannot happen until the EU allow it in their huge region and the EU area is famous for not debating change for 2 years (2 years for debate and is before they even consider law changes).
Anti-EU sentiment is there for a reason, nobody like authoritarianism in any age.
C
What innovation has the EU prevented?
Think, McFly.
It stops further innovation as myself and others have pointed out.
C
Perhaps you didn't understand the question.
What
Innovation
HAS
The
EU
Prevented?
How can someone name an innovation that didn't happen?
Anyway, as I mentioned above, the USB ruling will not stop innovation as the rest of the world is sane enough to not do anything like this.
As for EU slowing down innovation, I can point out GDPR. It does have some good rules about handling user data and privacy. But the problem is that it hit the small companies worse than bigger companies. The GDPR regulations are not simple. They had a huge set of requirements. All companies had to hire new lawyers just to understand how these rules are applicable to them . And then there is the necessity to divert all their IT folks to work on making the site GDPR compliant. For a big company, hiring a few engineers and lawyers and getting them to work on it for months is negligible expense. It's the small companies which were hit hard. They had to apply brakes on whatever they were doing and invest their time and money on this. Time and money they could have spent on innovating and making their products better.
Same with the ePrivacy Directive. But hey. At least we all see a nice cookie consent pop up which none of us care about.
And in a world where tech companies can do what they like you have “Cambridge Analytica” disrupting elections and using personal data to unduly influence political outcomes. If you want the Wild West that’s up to you but I don’t. I want a world where important information is protected from the morally bankrupt and where innovation is balanced with the needs of legacy
I agree that data privacy regulations that restrict sharing of data with third parties. But as always, EU went overboard with that. Seriously, who gives a damn about the cookie consent prompts that pop-up on every site? Big tech can easily handle these things. It's the small companies that suffer.
It tells you very clearly how many companies will have access to your data.
It also tells you which companies make it easy to exercise your right to not have your data sold by giving you a one click option and which ones do not.
So I do give a damn. You don't have to.
Your post shows that you don't even understand the difference between data sharing policies and cookie policies. Are you really saying that you read through those numerous pages of cookies or data access policies they link to in each of these prompts and you understand the legal jargon they throw at you?
Fair point. The cookie policies are part of GDPR not their entirety.
Have you read through the entirety of food hygiene regulations?
Cookie policies are part of ePrivacy Directive.
I don't have to read and click a button to accept food regulations every time I eat something.
The restaurant and any factory has to read and comply with all regulations and be inspected and certified.
Whatever size the organisation, they pay for that, as do you, ultimately.
Food regulations are relatively simple to follow compared to the data access regulations. Anyone who is into cooking would know at least the basic dos and don'ts. Also, the difference in available resources between a big tech company and a small start up is multiple times bigger than that of a big restaurant and a small one.
So if you consider the resources necessary, resources availability between big and small restaurants, food safety regulations have good trade offs to make them worth it
I have said that some data privacy regulations are good. For instance, a website sharing user information for ads is something the user should be aware of. But stuff like getting permission even to process data for performance is unnecessary. Stuff like throwing the cookie consent prompt on the face of a user on all websites is downright annoying. In your example, it's the restaurants that reads regulations and makes changes. They don't throw it on every customer's face before they start eating. In case of cookie contents, it's the latter that's happening.
Are they? Have you read them and applied them?
McDonald's does not have significantly more resource than a high street kebab shop?
You want data privacy regulations without giving people the choice or information about what data is being shared and to whom? To not be given the choice to have it shared or not?
Service providers have chosen to be obstructive in how they allow the consumer to choose. I will now tend to access the sites with a single click option and not those that force me to individually tick multiple boxes.
That has provided me with control as a consumer.
Better if they all had to have a one tick option, but that sort of legislation would probably "restrict innovation"
Choosing not to accept hygienically prepared food is not a choice that will be picked by most people.
Not an expert. But food regulations as far as I know are mostly about hygiene and the kind of ingredients you use. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
McDonalds vs kebab shop difference compared with a billion dollar tech company and a start up or some small shop that just wants a website on their own? The latter has a significant difference. McDonalds has to implement the changes in every shop they own. So in the end it boils to McDonald's investment in that shop vs the neighborhood kebab shop.
About data sharing, it's way more complex than you think. A website can share data with Google for so many reasons. It can share it for ads. It can share for reliability and performance. The latter use-case is important for the website to function properly. Now how many users on the internet know how to differentiate it? That's what leads to the different number of controls which you see on many websites. How many even have the time to read what is shown on the dialog? Food safety is something which every consumer understands. How many people know what a cookie on a website means? Most of the consumes hardly gain anything but the rules significantly disrupt a company's functioning. Time they could have spent on doing something genuinely useful for its consumers.
You are a master at ignoring the inconvenient point and dwelling on the irrelevant detail.
Food hygiene is about sourcing, storing, preparing cleaning and being certified to do so.
Somehow small companies have managed to apply GDPR it is a cost to large and small companies just as it is for large and small restaurants.
The consequences are the same for an individual consumer regardless of scale.
You are the master of just not looking at any point that goes against you or acting like you didn't see.
What you said about food regulation is what I said so too. Not sure what difference you made.
Small companies had a lot of trouble applying GDPR. In fact many aren't even compliant yet. You can see how this affects them here:
https://www.i-scoop.eu/gdpr/gdpr-small-medium-businesses/
Individual consumer is affected. They have to go through annoying pop ups which they don't have a clue about. The companies spend a lot of time working on something which most users don't see a value out of. They could have spent that time working on stuff which users would have found genuinely useful. So consumers are losing out.
You are struggling with words then. We did not say "the same thing" about food regulations.
Consequences to individual consumers are the same regardless of the scale of the company for food and GDPR. True or not?
"Annoying pop-ups" are a consequence of being given choice. How would you do it?
This is from Statistia:
"I think companies should be held accountable for any misuse of personal data 58%
Consumers should reserve the right to permanently delete any personal data from a company's records 41%
Explicit consent should be collected before any collection of personal data online 40%
I want to see standards brought to safeguarding of personal data 35%
I want transparency on advertising/marketing practices 34%
I do not trust companies to handle my personal data privacy without these regulations 27%"
What's your data?
How has this prevented innovation other than in the selling of your data more widely?
All your statistics are about what people feel about data sharing. I mentioned that data sharing regulations are good. But the way they go about it is wrong.
Most cookie consent notices are meaningless:
https://techcrunch.com/2019/08/10/most-eu-cookie-consent-notices-are-meaningless-or-manipulative-study-finds/
Over 60% of users always click accept button on all websites:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1273012/consent-cookies-worldwide/
These people do not have a choice to just not see the consent prompt on every damn site they open. There are plenty of less invasive ways to do it.
And even those who reject them have no clue about what's happening in because of their actions because the cookie consent prompts are manipulative and it's hard for these regulations to be imposed and verified at scale.
So companies are wasting their time and money on stuff that's eventually of no use to people instead of doing stuff which would make their products better.
"Choice. You understand the word and what it means? 40% is enough to elect a government in this country. Of course the prompts are manipulative. That's why you need GDPR to begin with! Now it is at least clear what they are trying to do for those who do care. Sure there are better ways. Should there be more legislation to force a better solution? Won't that prevent "innovation" in your eyes? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The cookie consent law is a good example of crappy EU rule making. Companies now have to write an extra function for their site that asks for my consent, they have to get it legally checked, and they have to prove that it works in all cases. Lots of expense for no gain to the company. On my side, I had to find and install an extension called "I Don't Care About Cookies", which auto clicks all of those pop-ups for me so I don't have to see them. What a waste of time and effort. It would have been much easier to just say 'ban all third party cookies'. That would have had the same effect, the companies would have had a simpler job, and the consumer would never have noticed." why do thied party cookies exist at all... I assume someone is gaining from them ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The cookie consent law is a good example of crappy EU rule making. Companies now have to write an extra function for their site that asks for my consent, they have to get it legally checked, and they have to prove that it works in all cases. Lots of expense for no gain to the company. On my side, I had to find and install an extension called "I Don't Care About Cookies", which auto clicks all of those pop-ups for me so I don't have to see them. What a waste of time and effort. It would have been much easier to just say 'ban all third party cookies'. That would have had the same effect, the companies would have had a simpler job, and the consumer would never have noticed." That would "stifle" innovation and not allow choice. What's the thread about? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
