You missed their point. The EU "locked" devices into micro B but somehow they still managed to switch to USB-C when it became viable. How could they have switched if they were as "locked in" as you think?
I mean the simple fact that every phone manufacturer bar Apple moved to Micro-B indicates that the mandate works, and the fact that they then migrated to USB-C indicates that it doesn't lock manufacturers in forever.
In addition, Apple is known for making loads of dongles, so it wouldn't be remotely weird for them to sell/ship a lightning -> USB-C dongle. So the argument about mandating e-waste doesn't really hold up either.
So you have:
- It works
- It doesn't lock manufacturers in forever
- It doesn't mandate e-waste
Any other reasons you want to give? So far those are the only three I've seen and none of them hold water.
As someone else pointed out, the micro-b thing in the EU was a recommendation and not a mandate so the terms are a bit different here.
I would be happy to have Apple move to Type C, but I do question if an actual mandate (and not a recommendation) could prevent future USB connector adoption in the EU market.
You are broadly right about the last one not being a legal mandate.
It was basically a case of the EU saying "you need to choose one charging port that you all use, we _will_ create a mandate if you don't".
Importantly, the EU has already gone through a shift in charging standards, so they already understand how this stuff advances and have prepared for it in their own legislation (the EU tends to make laws with details on how those laws will be changed in the future etc. since they are at core still a large trade bloc). You can find a Q&A they gave here:
The Commission's proposal aims at providing consumers with an open and interoperable solution and, at the same time, enabling technological innovation. The proposal encourages innovation for wired and wireless technology charging.
Any technological developments in wired charging can be reflected in a timely adjustment of technical requirements/ specific standards under the Radio Equipment Directive. This would ensure that the technology used is not outdated.
At the same time, the implementation of any new standards in further revisions of Radio Equipment Directive would need to be developed in a harmonised manner, respecting the objectives of full interoperability. Industry is therefore expected to continue the work already undertaken on the standardised interface, led by the USB-IF organisation, in view of developing new interoperable, open and non-controversial solutions.
In addition, larger technological developments are expected in the area of wireless charging, which is still a developing technology with a low level of market fragmentation. In order to allow innovation in this field, the proposal does not set specific technical requirements for wireless charging. Therefore, manufacturers remain free to include any wireless charging solution in their products alongside the wired charging via the USB-C port.
To summarize, they'll work with the USB-IF (made up of a whole bunch of companies, including Apple) when the USB-IF makes a new standard in order to ensure that new connection innovations will be propagated to new devices. What they won't allow is a company like Apple having an "innovation" then diverging from how everyone expects devices to charge.
Interestingly they've also said that there's a set of standardized fast-charging capabilities that need to be clearly labelled on products that require/support them. So if you buy a tablet it'll have a label on the box saying "can charge at up to 50w" or whatever, and a charger would say "can charge at up to 50w", so you know it'll charge at full speed. That's a little better than the previous "it supports fast charging" umbrella.
