Hacker News Reader

Comment by dexen | Hacker News Reader

Bad move, an unforced error. This will stifle innovation needlessly, similarly to how US' (previously) mandated single model of sealed beam headlights stifled their automobile headlights innovation for several decades.

Seems some bureaucrat has dusted off the bad old "Everything that can be invented has been invented." quote.

The only possible upside would be manufacturers standardizing on wireless charging in all devices just to avoid this limitation.

For reference: sealed-beam headlamps were introduced in 1939, becoming standard equipment across all American-market vehicles starting in 1940 and remaining the only type allowed for almost four and a half decades, until the 1984 model year. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabolic_aluminized_reflector...

View on HN

> This will stifle innovation needlessly

Do we have any room left for innovation in charging ports? USB-C provides 24 pins, up to 240W Power Delivery (negotiable), up to 40 Gbit/s, ability to negotiate alternate modes (so manufacturer can implement new proprietary protocol if they want/need to and put basically anything over those 24 pins).

>Do we have any room left for innovation in charging ports?

Absolutely!

The sheer amount of optional features in USB-C cables makes charging - in particular fast charging, and charging tablet/laptop sized devices - a hit-or-miss game.

USB-C's design was made to balance of costs with regards to client device complexity: 12 pins in total, three twisted pair signalling pathways, of which two are optional. All this is because both of need for backwards compatibility, and also current limitations on low-power, low-cost USB devices that need compat back to USB 1.1. Two thirds could conceivably be done away, using two pins for power and two for singalling. On a large volume production, a smaller number of pins pays off in costs - once Super Speed-grade transceivers are cheap enough for all devices. Alternatively, once optical interconnect becomes cheap enough, we could return to that technology - two power pins & one optical connector. For example Thunderbolt originally started out as optical connector [1], and was only later shifted to copper due to still costly technology.

A phone would also benefit from a contact connector similar to Apple's magsafes (attached via magnets) rather than insertion plug; both due to mechanical concerns and also savings on internal space. That we are stuck with plugs and sockets is largely artifact of requirements for uses other than charging, including pendrives & other USB dongles.

Lastly, a clear directionality hint to charging cables would be good: if you connect a phone to a tablet, which should charge which? Some sort of marking or indicator for the (rare) ambiguous case would be nice.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbolt_(interface)#Copper...

> Alternatively, once optical interconnect becomes cheap enough, we could return to that technology - two power pins & one optical connector.

Why would we need to? Smartphones don't even use USB 3.0, because smartphone can't realistically saturate 480 Mbit/s of USB 2.0. Of course, power of smartphones will increase over time, but, assuming current speed of progress in technology, we won't exceed USB4 speeds (40Gbit/s) before 2040.

> A phone would also benefit from a contact connector similar to Apple's magsafes (attached via magnets) rather than insertion plug

Magnetic cables already exist and aren't really popular.

> savings on internal space

USB-C port is 8.4mm2.6mm6.65mm = 145mm^3 = 0.000145L. Volumetric density of modern batteries is around 210 Watt-hours/liter, so, with saved space, you can store 0.03 Wh. It's 6 mAh at 5V.

Though, connectors based on magnetic pins are easier to waterproof (but it's still possible with USB-C).

> That we are stuck with plugs and sockets is largely artifact of requirements for uses other than charging, including pendrives & other USB dongles.

These things aren't going anywhere.

> Lastly, a clear directionality hint to charging cables would be good: if you connect a phone to a tablet, which should charge which?

None should charge other by default. User should be able to decide directionality of charging.

> USB-C's design was made to balance of costs with regards to client device complexity

Actually usb has and always has been made to confuse users about what cables they should buy.

"640K of memory ought to be enough for anybody“ :-)

It was an absolute disaster before somewhat unified chargers and there was some legislation forcing that unification as well.

Being able to reliably find a charger or borrow others' has been crucial for smart phone adoption.

> there was some legislation forcing that unification as well.

FWIW there was not.

There was the threat of legislation, which led to an MoU, and the EC expressed satisfaction with the results. In fact multiple manufacturers effectively reconducted the MoU unrequired (but probably to show good faith and further mitigate the risk of legislative action)

I have a giant bin of old chargers that says you’ve chosen the wrong analogy.

Not really comparable. Apple could both innovate and comply by having two charging ports, one EU approved and one Lightning. Come to think of it, I would love a phone like that — maybe government intervention can force innovation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com