If you have to make such an argument, you've already lost.
Innovation, particularly disruptive and / or breakthrough innovation, does not happen by committee, no matter how many times over history people tried deluding themselves into thinking that it does.
So no, it's not fine.
This is actually fairly common in Apple-land, now that I look:
- ADB (1986) to PS2 (1987) to USB-A (1996) for HID
- Firewire (1995) to USB 2.0 (2000) to Firewire 800 (2002) to USB 3.0 (2008) for data transfer
- VGA (1987) to ADC (1998) to DVI (1999) for video
A lot of the connectors they proposed are now lost to the mists of time, but I can at least understand the argument that some of these changes were plausibly driven by Apple's rejection of the then-standard in favor of some new benefit (faster speeds, better UX), which lasted only until a new standard was developed to incorporate that benefit, and the process repeats again.
it's actually worse than that, there was extensive discussion of what to do next since micro-B was still obviously flawed, they just couldn't reach a consensus to take any action even after years of debate.
the thing to remember is that USB-IF isn't a benevolent organization of technology companies working together to set a direction for the future - many of them are primarily interested in reducing their own costs, which is why we got the "USB 3.x Gen 2x2 Wave 2: USB Harder" crap. Many of the players at USB-IF are specifically interested in stalling progress as long as it saves them 30 cents on their BOM.
It's weird; cable orientation was (and still is) a big problem with USB-A, but not because having to deal with orientation is a problem that needs to be solved. Orientation is not a problem, at all, with USB-B, mini-B, or micro-B. The own goal in USB-A was delivering a connnector that is sensitive to orientation at the same time that it's visually symmetrical. There was no need to make the connector insensitive to orientation. It would have made at least as much sense to make the asymmetry visible, the way every other connector does.
On the other hand if you compare USB 1.0 to 1.1 it is quite obvious that real implementation experience and throwing out artifacts of the design by committee was quite important for the success.
This sounds like it has some interesting history there; do you have any recommended sources to read about the transition between USB 1.0 and 1.1?
Especially since I know that several people at Digital Equipment Corporation had to do the signal integrity analysis for Intel for the original USB standard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD#History
Never make an absolutist statement. They're always wrong. :-)
Lol. An interesting version of the liars paradox.
Maybe we could put all that innovation and consumer inconvenience into resolving climate change.
We are talking about power cables here. Are you anticipating something major in this space? Is it reasonable to do so?
The big innovation I'd love to have? Having only ONE charger for all my devices, forever. That absolutely destroys any "innovation" Apple or whoever can bring to the table.
If you have to make such an argument... Good luck with that. This one in particular has many existing counterexamples, including USB-C itself.
Innovation is first. Standardisation is second.
That way, more people can make use of and innovate further on the original idea.
(and don't tell me everybody uses Amazon Prime day shipping... people just order new cables when they break. And sure, you can have one common pool of all your cables... sort of! except for the part where cable X or charger X doesn't fast-charge device Y, so you actually need several pools of chargers and cables...)
Failures due to "user error" are still failures that induce cable replacement, and a cable that you interact with less (because it's running to a fixed wireless charger stand/pad) is less likely to have user error failure modes like that. Wireless connection or wireless charging (built into the car, f.ex) removes these modes entirely - you can't break an aux cable that doesn't exist.
You can't just assume "nobody ever breaks a cable" as being a realistic proposition when looking at the lifecycle of these products - I'm not sure I believe you in the first place that you've never broken a cable in 12 years but that's certainly not realistic for the population as a whole.
Also missing from this discussion is the fact that even if the law is only about charging it will define he go-to data-connection for smaller devices for a long time, where an additional port will be dimensionally challenging, more costly to add as well as difficult to make water-resistant.
I am sympathetic for reducing e-waste, but I'm unsure where this will lead us. Crypto-mining is also bad for the environment but might hold unknown positive possibilities if explored properly (maybe reduce bureaucracy, avoid monopolies) that could be extinguished by a premature ban.
I am already paying some of the highest taxes on consumer products compared to other countries in the world, I would rather pay even more for a charger, phone etc., remember an adapter when out and about and keep the freedom of choosing which technologies to support.
*Also just wanted to add that even if OP mentioned the committee, I'm unsure how much you can compare that to EU making laws enforceable in 27 countries.
No, I have no problem with the USB-C mandate. But the analogy seems weird.
I support the idea that regulatory bodies like the EU create stronger software standards in safety critical applications in particular so that software 'engineering' actually starts to deserve that label so I have no problem with a good faith version of that take.
Why does my next phone need a charger? I’d be happy with wireless charging — especially if I have a 3.5mm socket in the phone too.
In 2009, the Commission facilitated a voluntary memorandum of understanding (MoU), signed by major producers, that aimed to guarantee interoperability between chargers and mobile phones on the EU market. The MoU resulted in a significant reduction of available charger types and a convergence to USB Micro-B connectors on the device side: while there were more than 30 proprietary chargers on the EU market in 2009, by 2012 (a year after the MoU started to apply), nine in ten new devices supported the USB Micro-B connection.
(from https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2021/6988...)
You have no evidence to back this up. There's been throughout history many innovative standards that have gone through committee work, including a ton of network protocols.