EU Chief Calls on Apple CEO Tim Cook to Open Hardware and Software Ecosystem

[webkit]

Further, software ownership should be encouraged rather than rental software, there is no reason for some software to be subscription based other than greed and consumers should be protected from this greed.

What would be the case that it harms consumers and/or competition? Software potentially costing more in the long run (versus one time purchase if that was available) is not necessarily enough for regulators to get involved, especially as software costs have come down so much over time. For example, you could probably get around 15 years of Microsoft 365 Personal (at current price if paid yearly) for what the inflation adjusted retail price of just one standard version of Microsoft Office was 30 or so years ago.

 

[djphat2000]

Any chance you have evidence of this or are you speaking anecdotally only? Could it be the case usb c and lightning have the same failure rate?

I personally don't. However, I have not had 1 lightning cable go bad on me. Same for USB-C. However, I'm not an animal with my stuff so, EMMV. I do prefer the lightning connector. USB-C having that thin piece in the middle of the connection just looks fragile.

Well it is considereing it’s a philosophical disagreement on ownership. The phone and software contained on the device is seen as private property of the individual who purchased it. Allowing Apple to dictate how that’s done is antithetical to the definition of ownership

Many of the things within the phone (Software) is licensed. So full ownership isn't as black and white as it would appear based off just purchasing it. I understand the EU doesn't view Licensing the same as the US. But, generally you don't own the software or the technology that makes up the hardware. I.E you have a Qualcomm 5G modem within the phone. You don't own the tech that makes the chip to provide 5G service. You have a right to use it as is. You can if you know how to, modify it. However, you can't resell your modification. So you have the right to mess with it as you see fit. Apple nor anyone else have to make that process of messing with it, easy or technically feasible to you. Another example would be to say you have full rights and ownership to take the iPhone and drop it into the deepest part of the ocean. Its yours. But, to dissect the device and re-work it to your liking, sell it for profit isn't.

Personal responsibility my friend. You don’t have the responsibility to help technically illiterate people. Phishing and clicking the wrong link in an email is a bigger threat than installing harmful software.

Apple "kind've" operates on making it simple for the end user. It's what makes them Apple and not Microsoft.
They don't even want the perception that it would be that easy to get hacked on their platform.

Come back when an android phone can run iOS software you already purchased, until then they aren’t even indirectly connected.

Generally speaking you can't run Microsoft Windows software on Mac OS. Or Android on iOS or Linux on any other OS directly. I know Windows has a subsystem for Linux now, but I can't just install x86 coded software on ARM and so forth. Not without translation (Rosetta or whatever Windows calls it).
However, most software is free to download on iOS and I'm sure Android. And more so they use another account to ID the user using it. They tend to have versions for both iOS and Android. So just logging into it will get you back to where you had been on the other.
For the software that is exclusive to their respective platforms. That isn't just an issue on mobile devices.

The market in question is for developers, if they want to target android users, they can as many options are available. But if they want to target iOS individuals, then they are prevented from doing that in every way except by following apples rules.

And yet somehow, they seem to be doing pretty well on iOS with those rules.

It’s a guideline, to make sure a fine won’t actually bankrupt a company and to discourage future violations of the law. Having a fixed sum on the books makes no sense and if a company manages to produce leprechaun magic and do clever book keeping to move all the revenue outside of EU, then you could let’s say theoretically go from earning a yearly revenue of 1 billion € a year to barely 10million € a year and wipe away large parts of the fine.

But if it’s the companies total revenue irrespective of its origin then it becomes harder to escape that fine.

Those leprechauns. Always moving their pots of gold.
I'll stick with let the EU eat cake and pull out of the market. Specifically, the iPhone. Since that's the only thing in question here.

 

[djphat2000]

What is innovative about making it impossible for the user to upgrade the SSD in the M processor Macs?

Speed
less power
Less space taken up
But, you don't have to buy it.

 

[GMShadow]

Only the EU and a few other countries will get browser and App Store choice (initially). If you're in the USA, don't worry. And it's not worth getting angry about something that won't even affect you.

Until people realise that they like the choice that they have in the EU and there is increasing clamour to have it in the USA too...

It's true that the EU missed the boat on the smartphone revolution - like RIM, Nokia was making a tonne of money on handsets and failed to innovate.

But it wasn't regulation that caused Nokia to fai.

Just like RIM, they did it to themselves, by failing to innovate.

And true, Europe was pretty bad at grasping the Internet and the web. I'm not sure why, I'm sure that there's a book needing to be written about that.

As to European companies being crushed by regulation...

Along with Boeing, Airbus (France) is a major global player in making commercial aeroplanes.

Germany and Italy's car industry wasn't too shabby the last I looked.

France is a global leader in making nuclear power stations.

Ericson and Nokia are both world leaders in mobile telecommunications infrastructure.

Denmark has LEGO. Sweden has IKEA.

There's probably loads of other companies and industries that I haven't even mentioned or thought of too.

The EU is doing OK despite all of that regulation.

Airbus is heavily subsidized to remain afloat.

Germany's car industry is already beginning to crumble under the latest regulations. Italy's is a basket case that has had to be 'saved' time and time again, and often relies on selling old, high-margin designs in America to fund their failing home operations.

Honestly I died laughing at the idea Lego was some multinational global conglomerate so I can't respond to the rest of this other than to say it's patently ridiculous.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Opening up software—it’s pretty obvious what that means (plus there are examples in the article). But what does opening up hardware mean? Use an Android case on an iPhone?

Opening up hardware would mean NFC can be used by other as well example an alternative wallet app

Whatever. But companies have no incentive to move the needle.

Oh so why was USB-C invented? And between 2014-2022 it became almost completely universal with a small exception of phones using lightning or micro USB and

I don’t miss the days of worrying about viruses. iOS is virtually virus free.

Viruses already exist in the AppStore with a few famous cases. And why would you even worry more? Staying in the AppStore isn’t prohibited

That's why I included Chrome and Edge together because they both include the Chrome browser engine. Browsers are running untested code from other sites and programmers, and they run before you can look at the code. That's why browsers are so vulnerable and most social engineering directs the users to the browsers to go to sites that run malicious code. So, why are you stating that browsers are not vulnerable?

I think we are having some misunderstanding. I agree browsers are vulnerable, but WebKit being the only allowed browser engine on iOS doesn’t make it more secure from social engineering than normal to install malicious code and certificates. It would be no difference if chromium or geko was used.

You can right now side load apps, but that’s only because an exploit of enterprise certificates etc as you can see in the video when I test an emulator that doesn’t exist in the AppStore

 

[bcortens]

What would be the case that it harms consumers and/or competition? Software potentially costing more in the long run (versus one time purchase if that was available) is not necessarily enough for regulators to get involved, especially as software costs have come down so much over time. For example, you could probably get around 15 years of Microsoft 365 Personal (at current price if paid yearly) for what the inflation adjusted retail price of just one standard version of Microsoft Office was 30 or so years ago.

If a person loses their job they shouldn't lose access to things like Word or Excel. It's more of a principle of ownership that I think should be supported rather than just assuming everything is rented forever now. Rental should be an option but it should not be the only option.

 

[h.gilbert]

If Apple allows sideloading that is as easy as it is with Android I will immediately get an iPhone.

How can people disagree that I will get an iPhone if it happens?

 

[bcortens]

Airbus is heavily subsidized to remain afloat.

Germany's car industry is already beginning to crumble under the latest regulations. Italy's is a basket case that has had to be 'saved' time and time again, and often relies on selling old, high-margin designs in America to fund their failing home operations.

Honestly I died laughing at the idea Lego was some multinational global conglomerate so I can't respond to the rest of this other than to say it's patently ridiculous.

So? Boeing is subsidized too... the way the USA pretends that its own companies aren't subsidized (CHIPS act anyone?) and that no other country should subsidize their key industries is just weird.

We aren't talking about Germany but the EU. One reason that Germany is suffering in the auto industry is that places like Czechia and other Eastern European countries are starting to become more equal in economic power and are finally starting to fully shake off their decades of soviet subjugation.

The EU has a variety of big pharmaceutical companies such as Sanofi, Roche and more, there is also, as I mentioned, ASML and as others have mentioned Nokia and Ericson are both still big names in telecom back-end tech.


Most of the regulation people complain about has nothing to do with R&D and innovation.

One of the reasons it is so hard for anyone to innovate and take market share from Apple/Google (even when they try) is because at the scale these two companies operate it is difficult to reach the required critical mass to actual break into the market. Apple and Google now have 15+ years of software behind them in cell phones, to try and break into that with a new OS would require so much money and a willingness to lose money for so long that it isn't viable. In the absence of the reasonable ability to disrupt these markets the EU has (sensibly) decided that they need to be regulated as gatekeepers.


Edit: A little more on subsidies - the USA pretends its own industries aren't subsidized and then insists that other countries stop subsidizing their own industries and gets in trade disputes over subsidies is just an example of American imperialism more than it is their supposed embrace of the "free market".

 

[GMShadow]

So? Boeing is subsidized too... the way the USA pretends that its own companies aren't subsidized (CHIPS act anyone?) and that no other country should subsidize their key industries is just weird.

We aren't talking about Germany but the EU. One reason that Germany is suffering in the auto industry is that places like Czechia and other Eastern European countries are starting to become more equal in economic power and are finally starting to fully shake off their decades of soviet subjugation.

The EU has a variety of big pharmaceutical companies such as Sanofi, Roche and more, there is also, as I mentioned, ASML and as others have mentioned Nokia and Ericson are both still big names in telecom back-end tech.


Most of the regulation people complain about has nothing to do with R&D and innovation.

One of the reasons it is so hard for anyone to innovate and take market share from Apple/Google (even when they try) is because at the scale these two companies operate it is difficult to reach the required critical mass to actual break into the market. Apple and Google now have 15+ years of software behind them in cell phones, to try and break into that with a new OS would require so much money and a willingness to lose money for so long that it isn't viable. In the absence of the reasonable ability to disrupt these markets the EU has (sensibly) decided that they need to be regulated as gatekeepers.


Edit: A little more on subsidies - the USA pretends its own industries aren't subsidized and then insists that other countries stop subsidizing their own industries and gets in trade disputes over subsidies is just an example of American imperialism more than it is their supposed embrace of the "free market".

You say sensibly, I say criminally. A functioning US government would agree and make them pay for this behavior.

 

[bluecoast]

Airbus is heavily subsidized to remain afloat.

Germany's car industry is already beginning to crumble under the latest regulations. Italy's is a basket case that has had to be 'saved' time and time again, and often relies on selling old, high-margin designs in America to fund their failing home operations.

Honestly I died laughing at the idea Lego was some multinational global conglomerate so I can't respond to the rest of this other than to say it's patently ridiculous.

I was talking about EU companies that are international and globally well known.

Care to substantiate your points?

And do you think the USA doesn't subsidise its industries as well?

I mean look at the US federal CHIPS act - which is basically there to bail out Intel and try and help it to regain global leadership in chip design and leadership after incredibly poor execution for the last 15 years, whilst getting a last gen process fab TMSC plant on US soil in case anything bad happens in Taiwan. Better than nothing, I guess.

Not to mention the various state level carve outs to support key industries/companies in those states.

That the US is the home of free enterprise and the free market and lets the market rule at all costs, is patently untrue.

There is significant market distortion / support from the federal and state level governments - which then starts to look pretty similar to the EU.

 

[bcortens]

You say sensibly, I say criminally. A functioning US government would agree and make them pay for this behavior.

So the EU should start criminal investigations into US agriculture sector, US pharmaceuticals, US tech companies, US electric vehicle firms, Boeing etc.... ??

Edit: The US government stands on castles of sand on this topic

Edit 2: Given that trade agreements often provide local governments the options of incentivizing and subsidizing their own industries on what grounds would these subsidies be criminal anyway?

 

[bluecoast]

So? Boeing is subsidized too... the way the USA pretends that its own companies aren't subsidized (CHIPS act anyone?) and that no other country should subsidize their key industries is just weird.

We aren't talking about Germany but the EU. One reason that Germany is suffering in the auto industry is that places like Czechia and other Eastern European countries are starting to become more equal in economic power and are finally starting to fully shake off their decades of soviet subjugation.

The EU has a variety of big pharmaceutical companies such as Sanofi, Roche and more, there is also, as I mentioned, ASML and as others have mentioned Nokia and Ericson are both still big names in telecom back-end tech.


Most of the regulation people complain about has nothing to do with R&D and innovation.

One of the reasons it is so hard for anyone to innovate and take market share from Apple/Google (even when they try) is because at the scale these two companies operate it is difficult to reach the required critical mass to actual break into the market. Apple and Google now have 15+ years of software behind them in cell phones, to try and break into that with a new OS would require so much money and a willingness to lose money for so long that it isn't viable. In the absence of the reasonable ability to disrupt these markets the EU has (sensibly) decided that they need to be regulated as gatekeepers.


Edit: A little more on subsidies - the USA pretends its own industries aren't subsidized and then insists that other countries stop subsidizing their own industries and gets in trade disputes over subsidies is just an example of American imperialism more than it is their supposed embrace of the "free market".

Amen. I just made similar arguments to you, but you did so far more eloquently than I did

 

[KPOM]

Opening up hardware would mean NFC can be used by other as well example an alternative wallet app

Oh so why was USB-C invented? And between 2014-2022 it became almost completely universal with a small exception of phones using lightning or micro USB and

Lightning pre-dates USB-C. In part the latter was a response to the success of the reversible Lightning port and the desire to have a reversible USB port.

USB-C took a concerted effort by a lot of companies, including Apple, who was one of the first companies to adopt the port in a commercial device (the 12” MacBook). But since it is now the common denominator there is little incentive for anyone to innovate further. It’s far from perfect, though.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

You really haven't spent much time in Europe (I am European). That map is missing the Italian plug (used almost exclusively in Italy & Chile), Danish plug (Type K), France (Type E), but shows the Swiss plug (Type J), and the UK plug and the green German plug which has been picked as the standard. https://www.worldstandards.eu/electricity/spread-plug-types-map/?location=it

I think it’s quite standardized in the direction of ungrounded. Only grounded K&L plugs being an issue because of the pin on the cable. Otherwise a standard schukoC/E/F/K/L combination outlets will work with a Schuko-French hybrid plug

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I am not against what the EU is doing, and I really would like all of the browsers on iOS to not be Safari in disguise. But, when an EU bureaucrat makes a statement about technology that they are not qualified to make and speaks like they believe that they have real authority in the subject it is honestly funny or frightening. Apple knows more about IT Security than the bureaucrat. So therefore, when Apple winds up supporting third party app markets on iOS that is great, I just hope that if a user like me opts out of using third party stores that I will not be impacted by the security holes that the EU bureaucrats forced them to open. I have used third party markets on Android and the experience for me was not worth the security risks.

You seem to be unaffected currently of the workaround to side load applications? So why would this affect you if the workaround with using enterprise certificates won’t be needed anymore?

 

[NEPOBABY]

I was talking about EU companies that are international and globally well known.

Care to substantiate your points?

And do you think the USA doesn't subsidise its industries as well?

I mean look at the US federal CHIPS act - which is basically there to bail out Intel and try and help it to regain global leadership in chip design and leadership after incredibly poor execution for the last 15 years, whilst getting a last gen process fab TMSC plant on US soil in case anything bad happens in Taiwan. Better than nothing, I guess.

Not to mention the various state level carve outs to support key industries/companies in those states.

That the US is the home of free enterprise and the free market and lets the market rule at all costs, is patently untrue.

There is significant market distortion / support from the federal and state level governments - which then starts to look pretty similar to the EU.

Both the EU and US are in a chaotic shambles anyway, the politicians and celebs easily bought with Saudi oil money, Chinese money laundering and Russian stolen money.

Been happening for years and they turned a blind eye to it.

Now they pretend to wake up and say oh nooo it was so bad that we take their money.

But they are still being bought off.

The BRICS nations are trying to take advantage of all this chaos, but BRICS have the highest level of corruption and hate each other anyway.

In the end, the power will shift to Japan. They will patiently sit and watch all these countries above make stupid decisions. Japan will wait and wait and wait until they are ready to rise.

Japan can afford to do that because there is only one Japan, a united country with tough immigration laws and they didn't let parasite foreign property investors buy up all their land, drain the money out of the country with parasitic rents, and didn't sell their politicians to oil barons.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Many of the things within the phone (Software) is licensed. So full ownership isn't as black and white as it would appear based off just purchasing it. I understand the EU doesn't view Licensing the same as the US. But, generally you don't own the software or the technology that makes up the hardware. I.E you have a Qualcomm 5G modem within the phone. You don't own the tech that makes the chip to provide 5G service. You have a right to use it as is. You can if you know how to, modify it. However, you can't resell your modification. So you have the right to mess with it as you see fit. Apple nor anyone else have to make that process of messing with it, easy or technically feasible to you. Another example would be to say you have full rights and ownership to take the iPhone and drop it into the deepest part of the ocean. Its yours. But, to dissect the device and re-work it to your liking, sell it for profit isn't.

Well it’s much more black and white than you think, at least here. The problem is if a license is in practice indefinite it is understood as a transfer of ownership.

Just as the transaction of money is understood as transfer of ownership irrespective of potential license agreements as you are unable to review and approve it without opening and starting to use it.

Mind you it doesn’t grant you rights to copy and redistribute it, but the unique copy you purchased is your own to modify and sell if you want. Example me buying iPhones, jailbreaking them and reselling it as a citizen as long as it’s the original software. You aren’t allowed to keep copies if you sold the original product.

but the rules aren’t the same if a company does it.

Apple "kind've" operates on making it simple for the end user. It's what makes them Apple and not Microsoft.
They don't even want the perception that it would be that easy to get hacked on their platform.

Well perspective and transparency over the possible threat is distinct. And I mean more you as a person don’t need to babysit other adults.

Generally speaking you can't run Microsoft Windows software on Mac OS. Or Android on iOS or Linux on any other OS directly. I know Windows has a subsystem for Linux now, but I can't just install x86 coded software on ARM and so forth. Not without translation (Rosetta or whatever Windows calls it).
However, most software is free to download on iOS and I'm sure Android. And more so they use another account to ID the user using it. They tend to have versions for both iOS and Android. So just logging into it will get you back to where you had been on the other.
For the software that is exclusive to their respective platforms. That isn't just an issue on mobile devices.

And yet somehow, they seem to be doing pretty well on iOS with those rules.

Well all this might be true, but it doesn’t address the issue of distribution of iOS software prohibits third party competition and solutions to be used.

Just take steam on Mac as an example as it is a direct competitor to the Mac AppStore that does allow cross platform ownership. But the iOS AppStore isn’t ever competing with the play store or Samsung store as the user base and developers aren’t even cross competitors and will not have an affect on iOS developers.

Those leprechauns. Always moving their pots of gold.
I'll stick with let the EU eat cake and pull out of the market. Specifically, the iPhone. Since that's the only thing in question here.

Absolutely, the ball is in apples court and it’s less than 6months left.

Lightning pre-dates USB-C. In part the latter was a response to the success of the reversible Lightning port and the desire to have a reversible USB port.

Well Apple is on the board of USB

USB-C took a concerted effort by a lot of companies, including Apple, who was one of the first companies to adopt the port in a commercial device (the 12” MacBook). But since it is now the common denominator there is little incentive for anyone to innovate further. It’s far from perfect, though.

What would be the reason for no other innovation to be made? We have thunderbolt and USB-C is developing fast.

And we still have many ports still used on computers. And considering how long Apple allowed the lightning port to depreciate and everyone defending that it didn’t need an update from a standard from 1999, and that’s including the fact USB 3.0 hade existed as long as the iPhone

don’t think it would have a significant impact if a superior standard is made.

 

[webkit]

If a person loses their job they shouldn't lose access to things like Word or Excel. It's more of a principle of ownership that I think should be supported rather than just assuming everything is rented forever now. Rental should be an option but it should not be the only option.

While someone losing their job can potentially create a variety of problems, I don't think it's typically something factored into antitrust decision making.

From an antitrust standpoint, one could argue that software subscriptions with free trials, lower upfront costs, ability to cancel, renew or switch anytime, etc. help make software more accessible and the market more competitive than it used to be.

However, I agree that giving consumers a choice of subscription OR one-time purchase is a good thing. I just don't necessarily see it as an antitrust issue for the EU or any other country/region.

 

[subjonas]

Opening up hardware would mean NFC can be used by other as well example an alternative wallet app

Ah ok thanks for answering that. Does it just mean opening up NFC? Or are a lot of people wanting other parts of the hardware to open up as well? Like Face/Touch ID? There are some things I really don’t want open.

 

[KPOM]

Well Apple is on the board of USB

What would be the reason for no other innovation to be made? We have thunderbolt and USB-C is developing fast.

And we still have many ports still used on computers. And considering how long Apple allowed the lightning port to depreciate and everyone defending that it didn’t need an update from a standard from 1999, and that’s including the fact USB 3.0 hade existed as long as the iPhone

don’t think it would have a significant impact if a superior standard is made.

I’m talking about the physical port. Yes, Apple is one of many members of the USB Board. It was when it released the Lightning port. Lightning had the advantage over other physical ports/plug combinations in that it is reversible and easy to make water-resistant. Micro-USB was neither. That’s the standard the EU originally wanted companies to adopt. Lightning gave Apple a competitive advantage for a few years, which prompted competitors to gravitate around USB-C. It’s difficult to see how we move beyond the USB-C port to a better port if the EU is essentially declaring it the end-all-be-all.

 

[mcnallym]

I’m talking about the physical port. Yes, Apple is one of many members of the USB Board. It was when it released the Lightning port. Lightning had the advantage over other physical ports/plug combinations in that it is reversible and easy to make water-resistant. Micro-USB was neither. That’s the standard the EU originally wanted companies to adopt. Lightning gave Apple a competitive advantage for a few years, which prompted competitors to gravitate around USB-C. It’s difficult to see how we move beyond the USB-C port to a better port if the EU is essentially declaring it the end-all-be-all.

Well considering that today that USB-C supports USB4/Thunderbolt 5 which gives 80Gbps and 240W Power Delivery then not sure need to move on from USB-C just yet in terms of mobile devices.

Of course likely to need new cables for the charger to support the higher Wattage etc but the USB-C part is fine for a while.

 

[bcortens]

While someone losing their job can potentially create a variety of problems, I don't think it's typically something factored into antitrust decision making.

From an antitrust standpoint, one could argue that software subscriptions with free trials, lower upfront costs, ability to cancel, renew or switch anytime, etc. help make software more accessible and the market more competitive than it used to be.

However, I agree that giving consumers a choice of subscription OR one-time purchase is a good thing. I just don't necessarily see it as an antitrust issue for the EU or any other country/region.

Yeah - I'm not sure it rises to the level of anti-trust, maybe consumer protection regulations might cover it though, or maybe it is something that would be nice to exist but has too many negative consequences to actually set up and enforce.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

While someone losing their job can potentially create a variety of problems, I don't think it's typically something factored into antitrust decision making.

From an antitrust standpoint, one could argue that software subscriptions with free trials, lower upfront costs, ability to cancel, renew or switch anytime, etc. help make software more accessible and the market more competitive than it used to be.

However, I agree that giving consumers a choice of subscription OR one-time purchase is a good thing. I just don't necessarily see it as an antitrust issue for the EU or any other country/region.

Well there a difference that people purchase something while it’s still treated as a subscription.

And having a subscription for 3 years and 80 years/ or device breaks whatever comes first. It’s deceptive marketing and anti competitive. It’s antithetical to private ownership, private property, selling something when they actually are saying it’s just temporarily renting it out.

Ah ok thanks for answering that. Does it just mean opening up NFC? Or are a lot of people wanting other parts of the hardware to open up as well? Like Face/Touch ID? There are some things I really don’t want open.

NFC is used to compete with other wallets without allowing them to use an essential function, and I can’t see any service that competes with Touch/faceID considering it can be accessed by any app as security mechanisms.

The legislation requires that anything Apple uses that is in direct competition with developers must be granted equal access.

I’m talking about the physical port. Yes, Apple is one of many members of the USB Board. It was when it released the Lightning port. Lightning had the advantage over other physical ports/plug combinations in that it is reversible and easy to make water-resistant. Micro-USB was neither. That’s the standard the EU originally wanted companies to adopt. Lightning gave Apple a competitive advantage for a few years, which prompted competitors to gravitate around USB-C. It’s difficult to see how we move beyond the USB-C port to a better port if the EU is essentially declaring it the end-all-be-all.

How about just removing USB-C port as a legal requirement? As is shown in the legal text, or another port can be adopted as technology progresses as is explicitly explained in the law.

Micro-USB was a legal requirement for chargers and phones, or include a free adapters.

 

[bcortens]

I’m talking about the physical port. Yes, Apple is one of many members of the USB Board. It was when it released the Lightning port. Lightning had the advantage over other physical ports/plug combinations in that it is reversible and easy to make water-resistant. Micro-USB was neither. That’s the standard the EU originally wanted companies to adopt. Lightning gave Apple a competitive advantage for a few years, which prompted competitors to gravitate around USB-C. It’s difficult to see how we move beyond the USB-C port to a better port if the EU is essentially declaring it the end-all-be-all.

Given that the EU made this law 6 years after USB-C arrived I would guess that after something better comes along it will take about 5 years again for that to be made the common standard. Alternatively some standards body (USB or its successor) could come along and make the case that they want everyone to switch to this new thing they came up with so the EU should update the law. Apple was the only real holdout that prevented USB-C from being made the standard far sooner.

 

[KPOM]

Given that the EU made this law 6 years after USB-C arrived I would guess that after something better comes along it will take about 5 years again for that to be made the common standard. Alternatively some standards body (USB or its successor) could come along and make the case that they want everyone to switch to this new thing they came up with so the EU should update the law. Apple was the only real holdout that prevented USB-C from being made the standard far sooner.

Except there is no incentive for anyone to make something better. There would be a lot of resistance from other manufacturers if one starts pushing for a new standard.