> Innovation is overrated. And standardising is not blocking.
Hard disagree? Both lightning and USB C were massive improvements in durability compared to Micro USB - I'd argue lightning is still better in that regard, because there's no thin piece inside the phone that can break (did phone repair, and 99% of the time a "broken" iphone port was just stuck lint).
USB C is not universally better then then Micro, namely it has a much larger footprint both on the connector side and the PCB.
> Will EU block innovation?
So my question is - if there's a new USB standard connector that's smaller, or is inside-out for better durability - is it now prevented from being used?
Granted this isn't the fault of the connector, but USB-C is certainly a mess. My Nintendo Switch uses USB-C charging, but I can't use my MacBook charger for it. There are different cables, ratings, etc. "make everything USB-C" is asking for confusion. As much as I hate having a different cable for every device, at least when I pick up a (Apple-branded) lightning cable, I know it will work correctly for my iPhone.
Isn't the switch a notorious outlier and oddball with respect to its usb-c implementation though? I think it's more just that Nintendo screwed up one product than the standard is bad.
It's certainly the most popular example of poor implementation. But one could argue that USB-C isn't even implemented and they just used the connector/form factor for their cable. I recall the RPI4 also having issues early on with power over USB-C.
But that's precisely my problem with this - if we're forcing every device to merely adopt a USB-C port, that does nothing to ensure they're actually using USB-C specifications or interoperable. Game System X and Phone Y may only work with USB-C cables/chargers X and Y, which satisfy the requirement without fixing the compatibility problem.
> …if we're forcing every device to merely adopt a USB-C port, that does nothing to ensure they're actually using USB-C specifications or interoperable.
You certainly need more than just the physical port. IMHO the minimum reasonable requirement would be that the device must charge at near the maximum supported rate (minimum of the device's, cable's, and charger's advertised rates) with any combination of compliant charger & cable. There wouldn't be much point in mandating the use of USB-C ports otherwise.
> My Nintendo Switch uses USB-C charging, but I can't use my MacBook charger for it.
Then I guess you got one from the first hardware revision. I have a 2018 Switch (second hardware revision as far as I understand), and I have in the past charged it successfully with Apple chargers and Lenovo chargers.
I really like what USB-C has done for peripherals and non-iphone devices, but I agree with you.
I'd be fine with a new USB-D that fixed all these issues. USB-C is just mostly better than the other alternatives for Android and charging laptops. Its far from perfect.
I've read that USB-C is a durability improvement over micro USB. This surprised me because I've never had the USB port on a phone fail on me until I got a USB-C phone.
Hard disagree? Both lightning and USB C were massive improvements in durability compared to Micro USB - I'd argue lightning is still better in that regard, because there's no thin piece inside the phone that can break (did phone repair, and 99% of the time a "broken" iphone port was just stuck lint).
USB C is not universally better then then Micro, namely it has a much larger footprint both on the connector side and the PCB.
> Will EU block innovation?
So my question is - if there's a new USB standard connector that's smaller, or is inside-out for better durability - is it now prevented from being used?