Hacker News Reader

Comment by mentalgear | Hacker News Reader

It took a decade, but the EU has finally achieved what no other major union of countries has done: mandating a single universal connector. As the world's largest single consumer market (500 million people), this decision sets a global standard, with the rest of the world following suit.

The delay was largely due to intense lobbying from manufacturers, especially Apple, which profited significantly from licensing their proprietary Lightning port.

Next up on the EU's list for 2026: Easily Changeable Batteries (you know, what every cell phone 20 years ago had before Apple).

View on HN

I’m happy to have batteries glued to my smartphone (replaceable, but only in the sense the main logic board is replaceable) if it saves even a few % in weight, rigidity or how waterproof it is. The times when phones had battery hatches were the dark ages. I used 2-3 batteries in every smartphone I used and the replacement was always cheap ($50 or so). That’s enough. Adding the possibility to user-replace it for half that by adding some design compromise like a hatch wouldn’t be interesting to consumers. For every battery replaced, how many screens are replaced? 3? Yet no one seems to be talking about making it easier for end users to replace screens?

The real next step is standardizing battery sizes. Think of all the other gadgets that have replaceable batteries. (Eg. Power tools)

Most of those batteries are standard at the wholesale level. But a thin plastic layer added to house the battery makes it proprietary due to the connection interface. And now it’s a world of incompatible batteries and price gouging for replacement batteries.

I guess the real next step is to keep selling thick old devices as the EU SKU and modern innovative stuff to the rest of the world. Apple already has to do that on the software side for their AI features. Given the current GDP/capita trajectory of the EU, that is likely all they will be able to afford anyway. :)

I recommend you to read this Aesop's fable: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Fables_of_Æsop_(Jacobs)/T...

Except your analogy does not hold because you can simply choose not to buy the product with the connector you don't like or can no longer afford as a result of socialism.

It appears much harder to opt out of said socialism without leaving the country though, so read that again with this pretext perhaps?

Standardisation can lead to innovation or be an innovation in itself. Think about containers - shipping containers or docker containers - the most exciting innovation in phones is not in the form of the chargers or batteries.

Sure. Standardization led to USB-C which is great. Mandate led to nothing and is bad and unnecessary.

Arguably achieved nothing as Android was already on USB-C and Apple too on everything but iPhone and would have switched anyway soon for speed reasons regardless. Arguably, the switch was too early and a disservice to iPhone users.

apple would _not_ switch for speed reasons, they are interested in you syncing files though their cloud. Similar to google and android, you "can" sync/backup with a cable, but usability is a nightmare.

Speed is not just useful for syncing files to a computer, which is not the primary use case of iPhone USB-C. The computer is no longer the center of your digital world. The iPhone is (and the cloud). Most iPhone users don't even have a Mac. The use case is to connect the iPhone to other accessories like displays, fetch photos from cameras, etc.

That said, I stand by my comment that most iPhone users would have been better off with Lightning. For many of us who carry Macs as well as phones, having a singular charger is beneficial (less so now that you'd wanna use MagSafe with the Mac, again), but still years of Lightning cables make them easy to find in any iPhone household.

They had already switched iPad Pros long before EU mandate was a thing, so I don't think your would've-not-been theory is substantiated by evidence. If I were to speculate, Apple's evolution would be towards killing the port altogether and do everything wirelessly which is an admirable goal (I'm sure will be downvoted to the oblivion in this community for saying this, but that's also the sentiment of the initial MacBook Air release in 2008 which now defines the modern laptop).

For sending files, Apple has perfected wireless AirDrop and that's quite speedy.

> The real next step is standardizing battery sizes. Think of all the other gadgets that have replaceable batteries. (Eg. Power tools)

I don't think we are at that point yet. There is still a lot of innovation happening in batteries on the cell and pack level. Cell sizes are mostly standardized indeed, but packs not. For high performance and reliability, you might want to glue those cells in-place. Or some manufacturer may decide to use a more capable battery management system, which then requires more space. I think that enforcing standardization would be a major hindrance for innovation.

> price gouging

Can we stop using this term? It's a meaningless word used by politicians to scapegoat businesses. If they really wanted to solve problems, they would go after monopolies or cartels. Both hinder competition and thus make it less likely that the consumer gets a good deal. "Price gouging" on the other hand is about whether a price is "fair" or not. Unlike monopolies or cartels, there is no clear definition for "fairness". I can call something fair while you would call it unfair. You cannot solve people being unfair to other people, but you can solve a lack of competition. So that's where the aim should be.

Right, and unless there is some significant barrier to entry, whether a natural moat created by past performance by the company, or an unnatural moat created by some kind of corruption, price gouging alone makes it easier for competitors to enter the market since there is some slop available in the market rate for whatever good it is.

50 is not cheap. There are a lot of phones not worth a $50 repair. They work just fine if it wasn't that they need to be charged often. Disposal is also a problem. They have their own bin here.

I was thinking a smartphone from $500 at least.

You are thinking of the new price. I mean second hand value. In mint condition a phone from a few years ago is almost worthless. If it has scratches, a small crack or a dirty charge port it isn't worth anything anymore. You can buy the same model without the defects (and a reasonable battery) for less than the battery swap costs.

If we assume a batter needs replacement, that is likely to be years after a new phone. A years old used phone with an old battery will usually have a bad battery too, though. It is more about whether older hardware is worth it to invest with a new battery in the first place.

Sure, but that's objectively more environmentally wasteful than just replacing specific components, convenience be damned.

Old phones are refurbed and sold. New screen and battery and it’s often as good as new. A 5 year old iPhone 11 with a new battery and screen is great value at maybe $200. It’s important that the battery replacement done at those shops is easy enough otherwise the used phones become waste rather than refurbished. But whether my mom can replace the battery I don’t feel is very important.

A very clumsy person can replace the battery of a flashlight or a radio with greater success rate than a repair shop disassembling a phone and looking into your personal information while you are stranded by the side of the road unaware of the forest fire and the alien invasion while you struggle with HN withdrawal symptoms.

Waterproofing being a problem was always a myth. The Samsung Galaxy S5 was IP67 certified and had a removable battery.

I think this removability is part of a broader push for the EU to become a circular economy - at the end of life of the phone the user would discard the device and battery into separate bins.

That is at least the official goal regarding EV batteries and there are efforts underway to make it happen.

It still compromises something I’m sure. Weight/thickness/rigidity or something else. The phone already has a hatch for the battery: the shell. If it takes 1 hour to replace a battery or 30 seconds feels like it doesn’t matter since you need to replace the battery every 5 years and in that time you are likely to take it apart for screen repair anyway.

Perhaps my lack of understanding comes from using more expensive phones? I use iPhones and keep them for 5 years and usually replace 1-2 screens in that time. And since the phone is $1k new it feels completely irrelevant if a battery replacement costs $50 to have it done at a shop or $25 do do myself. If I used a $200 phone there could be a difference of course.

GP comment: factual statement using a specific device as a counterexample

Parent comment: handwavy "still compromises something", but can't be certain what, then gives a personal anecdote.

Of course it’s a design drawback. Otherwise it would be the design.

The drawback could be as simple as “higher cost to manufacture” or “higher risk of consumers using incorrect/third party batteries”. I’d argue the latter is a real problem, but everyone might not agree.

As for parent comment it was about an android phone. I never used or owned one so can’t comment.

The 'drawback' could also be "unnecessarily extends the product's lifetime and hurts sales of next year's model".

My main point was that the batteries are replaced anyway, if the product still has life in it (os updates, decent perf) because people have shops replace batteries or they trade them in when upgrading and they are refurbished and resold. But all of this hinges on the product being a high cost/long support product to begin with, like iPhone. Cheaper androids don’t fit this description.

> The drawback could be as simple as “higher cost to manufacture” or “higher risk of consumers using incorrect/third party batteries”

This wouldn’t be an issue if we had some kind of standards around batteries for cellphones rather than making unique batteries for every single model.

If you could just buy a “Type B” format phone battery for a phone this would eliminate the issue. It would be similar to the charger market, where different manufacturers could compete. This is _toward_ the market economics that capitalists so love, unless they’re benefiting from market capture of proprietary parts.

One-off designs are wasteful and drive up costs and drive down quality.

That battery would inevitably be thicker than necessary and have less capacity. Would also more or less stop any potential innovation.

> drive down quality.

How so?

I’m under the impression (probably created by Apple) that anything not tailor made by them is worse. I can charge my phone with any 5V source and the right connector but it’s always slower than an Apple charger. Why, I don’t know. Could be that the phone just recognizes the Apple charger and refuses to charge full speed otherwise. But is there anything that could be done about that? It’s malicious compliance at worst or just a lowest common denominator standard at best. I use third party batteries and the phone refuses to reliably gauge their health (understandable) which makes them objectively worse. The list goes on. It’s bad for the wallet and the environment but people still want to pay for complete tailor made ecosystems and I’m not optimistic that it can change completely via regulation. USB-C standardization lets me charge with a third party charger in a pinch but it still doesn’t rid me of Apple’s monopoly on good iPhone chargers!

The glue makes the device stiffer. If you want drop resistance you need rigidity or softness. A phone with glass won't be soft, so it has to be stiff.

There are ways to make a phone stiff, such as a rigid metal shell around the battery. Or glue.

That’s a cheap looking (by modern standards) plasticky device. Can the same be done with a glass/metal chassis? Can you explain how exactly?

Adding another datapoint: My iPhone 11 is 3 years old (from Apple Center brand new) and battery is already at 73%, prompting me to replace it.

Phone costed me 600€, replacement after recent Apple price hike costs another 100€. I’m already considering just buying another iPhone next year since replacement costs so much.

Since my first Nokia 5110 I’ve replaced 0 screens, 2-3 screen protectors, 1 keypad, and so many batteries. Ofc this is all anecdotal, for me batteries, lack of updates and non-extendable storage have been the main reasons killing otherwise perfectly useable iPhones.

100 euro doesn’t sound all that much to spend on a consumable like a phone battery that will keep it alive for at least another three years…

Apple does not guarantee waterproofness after 1 or 2 years, so it’s a bs argument again

FWIW it took me 15 minutes to replace the screen on my Pixel, took some basic tools but it's a reasonable tradeoff for waterproofing. The battery seemed like an easy swap as well, though I didn't need to at the time. Smartphone repair kits should be sold right along the phones.

It makes it sound like you don’t care what the downside exactly is, which in turn makes you sound very proselytic and not interested in any discussion.

Yes replaceable batteries make your phone thicker, ok. The upside outweighs this downside by a far margin for me.

The reason it does not exist is definitely not because people do not want it, it’s because it ensures a higher revenue to smartphone constructors, it is basic capitalism (and I don’t mean capitalism is bad, it just will always tend to maximise profit, it’s its nature)

Finally, it is less wasteful to be able to replace components.

And to add an anecdote: replacing my battery on my iPhone was so complicated that the apple technician broke the screen (it was replaced free of charge) and it cost me 50% of the residual value of my phone. Wasteful and expensive, in summary. Replaceable batteries would solve this.

Apple profited from their phones, nothing was close to as good as lightning when it came out. They showed the world how nice it would be with a simple reversible charger.

Thankfully usb c is standardized but it wouldn’t have happened nearly as quickly without Apple.

"As the world's largest single consumer market (500 million people)"

What, China doesn't exist? India too?

On HN only US exists.

Europeans still have significantly more money and therefore consume more than the Chinese. India is not even remotely close because of how poor it is.

How is Europe the largest single consumer market at 500 million people? Are you unaware of China, and also India? What am I missing? Even if you measure in economic size and not population, you’re still wrong.

I’m also curious, how and when will it be decided that it’s eventually time to move onto a new/better standard? If the law came into force 20 years ago, would we still be stuck with the standard of that time? Who decides when a new standard is worth upgrading?

Edit: I see now others mentioned China already.

They spend more per capita than the Chinese do? Are you unaware of that? Seems rather obvious..

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_consumer_mar...

I think part of the delay is just that USB-C didn't really take off for cheap devices until like 2018.

Before that there was no connector that was suitable for a universal charger, we barely even knew if dynamic voltage negotiation was going to be safe or not(I remember thinking it was going to try devices with bugs).

MicroUSB was craptastic, barrel jacks aren't voltage standardized in practice, but pretty much every average consumer adores USB-C. It's like a shining example of what tech can be.

If you made a law requiring any other connector, people would probably be angry. We could probably learn to live with a barrel jack, but most likely wrong voltage connection accidents would have happened at least occasionally.

Every battery is changeable. The fact that you can't replace them without a screwdriver and a heat gun doesn't make them irreplaceable. You're also unlikely to fix the TV, but you have no questions about it.

This is stating the obvious without addressing the point. It is implicit that we are discussing user replaceable batteries. Your average user does not own a heat gun or the knowledge of how to use it to replace their own battery. Removing the requirement for the majority of users to have to take their phone to a technician to do the replacement will undoubtedly result in less eWaste. To the best of my knowledge, my TV does not contain a consumable battery which is core to its primary function. Sure the display panel and other components may have a finite lifetime but these are long enough to not be considered consumables by either consumers or manufacturers like batteries are.

I would wager that at least 50% of the population owns a heat gun. They just call it something different.

User-replaceable batteries will require additional space on your phone's body. I'm not willing to trade convenience for a rare battery replacement case.

If you want - you can buy modular phones, pay for that, don't force other people

And I'll go and pay a couple dozen bucks for this work, like all normal people. But eco-activists are starting to say that eWaste is caused by non-replaceable batteries, not by the obsolescence of devices. No one will change the battery in an outdated device, even if it is replaceable.

eWaste is caused by all kinds of things and one thing that is easily solvable is replaceable batteries. I also hope that it will be forced for all phones, people shouldn't be able to pay a little extra to destroy the planet

I remember well the time of replaceable batteries, they were changed much more often than they should have been. More batteries are changed - more lithium waste. And I also remember very well how when the phone fell, these batteries flew out and were damaged, and I also remember well how these batteries burn from mechanical damage and they cannot be extinguished, because it is a chemical reaction.

There are pros and cons everywhere, so far I see more cons.

I have replaced more screens on my phone than batteries.

I don’t feel like focusing on fixing things at home is the best way to ensure device longevity.

Creating a demand for technicians that can replace all kinds of things on our phones makes it so there’s always some phone repair shop nearby. Every mall I frequent has one. This creates a lower threshold for keeping the phone alive no matter what goes wrong with it.

The battery on my last phone outlasted the phones useful lifespan, so it’s not like batteries on modern phones is a part that’s particularly likely to need replacement. Every user is different of course, some go through a lot more charge cycles. But then there’s others that often break their screens. Or their charge port. If all these things should be easily user replaceable without tools, the phone would become very bulky.

I feel like we’re pretty close to a good compromise, now that Apple has a program to do these kind of replacement at home if you want. It’s really not that difficult.

A battery is a 'consumable component'. The closest thing to a consumable component in a TV is capacitors, which can live as long as two or three decades.

The TV doesn't have a deterministic failure mode. Currently batteries just don't last forever.

Unless they happen to be LTO but that would make a phone like three times bulkier.

If a TV has something like flash memory wear issues, it absolutely should make the part that wears into a microSD or m.2 card.

Those changeable batteries were horribly unreliable! I've had over a dozen different brand of phones and eventually they all started to black out occasionally when the connections got corroded or otherwise loosened up. I really hope soldered batteries stay an option or I will be buying my phone outside the EU.

Outside the EU, in many cases, device batteries will also be user-swappable.

Companies like Apple greatly prefer (well, when they're not petulantly trying to show the EU who's boss) to ship one design to the whole world. It's a nuisance to have separate design processes, manufacturing processes, marketing materials, etc.

This is why, once it became affordable, the entire industry started making auto-switching power supplies.

Unless hardware manufacturers finagle a way to continue selling soldered batteries in the EU, user-swappable batteries will become the norm again.

At least for e-bike battery, that's precisely what we're building at https://get.gouach.com :)

> profited significantly from licensing their proprietary Lightning port.

How significant? Doubtful it moves the needle for Apple.

People often forget Lightning is much superior to microUSB which was the alternative at the time (also mechanically superior to USB-C), and that Apple was instrumental in widespread USB-C adoption by taking a heat for the longest time on their butterfly MacBooks.

And yes, while I am happy with USB-C today, I totally believe mandating it does stifle innovation. Imagine if we mandated microUSB in 2010.

Which other company sells short USB cables for £60?

Are you referring to Apple Thunderbolt cables? They are active cables with circuits in them. Otherwise, I am not sure which cable you are referring to that sells for that much.

I understand as a consumer you get emotional and pissed, but even if true, that is a drop in the bucket and not "significant" profit for Apple.

The true value of MFi licensing to Apple would be influencing the accessory market, not peanuts in dongle sales.

$5 Type c cables also have "circuits" in them. It's not that hard or expensive to implement an e-markee chip.

If you think it is the same, then you are free not to purchase the cable from Apple. Either way to claim that such cable constitutes "significant" revenue to Apple Inc. is just hyperbolic/preposterous.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBWnb0ZIlEA

The revenue is in one more chain locking the user into the ecosystem. Hard to quantify.

You're taking things literally, but the point is that everything is overpriced with apple and they're getting away with it because of the cult following they've cultured and are now milking. In my previous comment, I simply picked one of the ridiculous things cult followers pay for.

They're going to keep milking their followers no matter how ridiculous each point seems when someone puts it in writing. That's how "the needle moves".

So you're suggesting because everything is overpriced with Apple and they are a cult leader (your opinion) the government should step in and dictate the price and behavior?

Last time I checked some European countries have not only tax-free churches, they also facilitate collecting taxes and funding them.

Instead of policing cults and dictating pricing, I suggest simply not purchasing what you don't like.

(While we are on the subject of forcing behavior changes, let's mandate air conditioning and a singular electrical wall outlet. Why not?)

My reply was to the following comment:

> How significant? Doubtful it moves the needle for Apple.

I made no claims about governments dictating prices anywhere.

Dictating behaviour, however, is already being done in many areas, especially consumer protection, anti competitiveness and others.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AD5aAd8Oy84

Maybe you could consider Apple cables to be overengineered, but I can readily understand why a cable built this way - irrespective of manufacturer - is not overpriced. And it's not just about a chip.

The cable is simply factually better on every metric than the hand-soldered 4 wire el cheapo one at 15~16 min. There is no cult in that.

Now if one only needs to carry USB 2.0 speeds or a limited amount of power it'd be ridiculous to buy a 100+ or even 50+ cable. That doesn't make the cable overpriced either, merely overspecced for that use case.

It's hard to do this: https://www.lumafield.com/article/usb-c-cable-charger-head-t...

There are about 10 different types of usb c cables, not all of them are certified at 40 Gbit.

Not the same thing. Thunderbolt cables have amplifiers in the plugs (that’s why they get hot…)

So you’re saying that USB-C cables are more expensive than Lightning ones?

Not that AFAIK iPhones support Thunderbolt anyway so how is this relevant?

Agreed.

Lightening was most likely a combination of:

* The connection interface was superior to USB-A Micro/Mini in both size and reliability - and this was the contemporary connector in 2012.

* They had undergone a physical connector change only once, and it was not received well by vendors.

* USB-C was not anywhere near ready for the iPhone 5, and the 40 pin would not do well in that type of device.

* USB-C and Lightening are comparable on size and reliability (saying nothing about speed) - so even after USB- started gaining adoption there was not a strong incentive to switch over. It wasn't superior.

* USB-C charging only would be fine, but people would expect drivers for storage, HDMI, radio docks etc. Easy to undersell this effort in hindsight.

I also doubt that it was a profit motive.

let’s not forget that Apple themselves helped design USB-C and pushed for it to be the standard. I guess they couldn't wait for it to be ready, and given the iPhone 5 came out in 2012 and the first commercially successful USB-C devices came in 2016 I guess they were right.

Precisely. The irony is that almost all non-MacBook computer still come with at least one USB-A port to this day. If it weren't for Apple pushing USB-C only on the MacBook, that connector's universal adoption as the primary data/video interface wouldn't have been as widespread. They legitimized the connector by forcing it on MacBook users.

> I also doubt that it was a profit motive.

One of the most profitable companies in the world trying to build more of a moat of incompatibilities with the rest of the non-apple world with no profit or ulterior motive? /s

Once a for-profit company gets large enough doing anything other than “maximize profit up to the point of illegality” becomes a Herculean task. It’s a natural consequence of capitalism, greed, and large organizations.

Good on EU for being a counter-balance force

* Lightning (no e)

> People often forget Lightning is much superior to microUSB which was the alternative at the time

At the time, yes. But not for years now. Apple could've changed the path by opening this as a standard but choose not to.

> Imagine if we mandated microUSB in 2010.

Apple would include an extra/expanded connector like a number of other device producers. Then they'd talk to the other large companies about moving to a new standard just like the currently introduced law proposes. This is not a "you must use usb-c" law, but rather "you must figure out how to get along" law.

Also, this pretty much happened, just without regulation. EU at the time effectively said "figure it out, or else" and microUSB became a standard for years. Now they felt like they need to push harder.

> Apple could've changed the path by opening this as a standard but choose not to.

Sure, and Apple could have shipped a free pony to every child on earth. But expecting them to do so is childish.

It's not for our benefit. They had a better connector and decided to keep it proprietary. If they made it an open standard, there's a chance the regulation would be enforcing lightning for everyone. They don't get to both keep it proprietary and complain about being forced to sell standard things.

> This is not a "you must use usb-c" law, but rather "you must figure out how to get along" law.

No, this is exactly "you must use USB-C law." Please don't reframe it as a strawman.

> Apple would include an extra/expanded connector like a number of other device producers.

They did mandate such thing IIRC, just not forced directly on device, which is a slightly better IMO, to mandate how something is sold rather than dictating how the device should be built.

It's usb-c currently with an explicit: if there's a consensus, it can be changed. See point 9 of https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%... I mean, the point of the regulation is not usb-c. It's literally called a harmonisation directive, with a currently chosen implementation.

That literally means you have to change the law first, then innovate.

If you read it any other way, you'd be naive.

Good luck getting to "consensus" with the low end Android manufacturers who do not give a flying fuck about the customer experience and want to save $0.02. It just won't happen before they are forced to do it by the market competition, which won't happen now.

It has already happened. This is a change to usb-c from the previously enforced micro-USB which was also done by the EU. So it can be done again.

> Good luck getting to "consensus" with the low end Android manufacturers

Are they going to be more influential than Apple? Because this change happened even with Apple opposing it. And I really don't believe others have a stronger voice in Europe.

MicroUSB was not mandated on the device. The adapter shipped in the box satisfied the requirements. If it weren't for competition from Lightning (2 sided connector) I'm not sure the switch to USB-C would have happened either so no that wasn't a legal transition of the same sort.

Apple is a minority manufacturer in the EU especially now that UK is not part of the EU. Plus EU politicians measure their manhood by sticking it to US companies so they love hating on Apple and Google and favoring China and South Korea.

> This is not a "you must use usb-c" law, but rather "you must figure out how to get along" law.

Correct, thanks for reading the actual regulation

It does specify USB-C as the common charger port for now, of course (with support for future charging protocols over USB-C). And it does allow for technological evolution

(And of course the margin of improvements in wired charging diminishes over time - I think such regulation would have been more problematic before USB-C came along)

> And it does allow for technological evolution

That’s just silly because it doesn’t. Any new standard won’t be able to get any traction because no device would be allowed to use it.

So only major corporations that can afford go lobby EU bureaucrats should have any say? Any small/medium company that wants to introduce any better/improved standard will just be ignored.

If there are competitive advantages they should be able to convince everyone to switch without lobbying the govt

How exactly would that happen? Because this statement seems beyond absurd otherwise (unless it’s sarcasm?)

You need actual functioning devices that people use before any of those hypothetical advantages become obvious.

So superior that I did rarely see a lightning cable that didn't had its connector broken in one or two years maximum...

I had to change a lightning cable once, after years of daily use, and it wasn't the connector the issue. I wonder what was the people owing the cable you saw did with them...

Some people just butcher cables, piles of them; but that's irrespective of port technology.

Mechanically broken? I have never seen a Lightning break or get too loose in years. I’ve used both connectors extensively. USB-C I’ve faced loose female connectors, broken female connector to the degree that it heated up the MacBook because it generated interrupts for kernel to handle. On the male side I’ve seen bent cables and of course even without mechanical failure there are cables that should work and just don’t for different use cases (Charge but no data. Data but no alt mode video.)

We should look at data but USB-C anecdotally have been an order of magnitude worse for me and people around me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com