Check the companies involved in any standardised connector/protocol currently used. For example USB implementers forum includes HP, NEC, Microsoft, Intel and... Apple. HDMI forum includes... Apple. NVMe contributors includes... Apple. The times of one company doing their own proprietary thing are close to gone.
You're talking about the company that just re-introduced MagSafe, its widely praised proprietary power connector, and claiming the times of one company doing their own proprietary thing are close to gone? Apple is cleaning up in the PC market and has been for years by being as proprietary as possible.
They reintroduced it in addition to USB charging and only on the most recent MBP models. They're doing both standard and proprietary thing at the same time which is quite different from the connector battles we had in the past.
They’re supporting both standard and proprietary. My MacBook Pro is connected to a multi port USB-C charger 99% of the time, which also charges my phone and my headset. MagSafe sits in the backpack when I need to work somewhere else than my desk, which doesn’t happen much. I’d argue it’s the best of both worlds.
If it only supported MagSafe I’d be seriously annoyed.
You do see that we're discussing the underlying principle here, right? Please, try to put aside the specifics of the exact hardware and understand that what matters here is the EU's descent into attempting to centrally plan technology. This tendency isn't specific to power cables, it's a clear trend across many sectors.
The EU had already centrally planned my 240V wall sockets and RJ-45 Ethernet plugs and I’m seriously grateful for it. I’ll happily accept USB-C for low voltage low amp DC charging on that list.
The are multiple wall power plugs standards in use today in EU. And I am not aware on any being mandated on the device itself. And RJ-45 is so big that it wouldn't even fit on the slim edge of my MacBook Air - I would love for it to be replaced with some modern alternative.
They reintroduced the non-standard connector because usb-c limits were slowing down the charging time. Its not just a preference thing, its a functionality thing. Macbooks charge faster with magsafe.
Magsafe delivers 140 watts compared to 100 watts for usb-c. That difference is not insignificant for people who aren't plugged in all day.
Magsafe 3 uses USB-C on the other end of the cable. It uses the support for up to 240 watts that the USB forum announced a few months before Magsafe 3 was announced.
And if they weren't stingy with the patent, it could become the standard if everyone else agreed as well. And I say this as someone who prefers magsafe over usb-c.
In Europe those times are indeed gone now. If that's the natural way of things, why force anyone in the first place? Forcing a company to throw away their battle-tested technology? And all the equipment and cables with it? What kind of a huge bureaucratic fuck-up is this? This is not helping anyone, not the environment, not people. Well, it is helping some bureaucrats to justify their existence.
> However, the MoU also allowed for the use of proprietary charging interfaces, and one such solution continued to be used (and still is) by a major mobile phone manufacturer, thus preventing full interoperability. In addition, the MoU never addressed the environmental issues arising from the continued existence of those different charging interfaces and charging communication protocols.
So the reasons are:
1. We want everyone to do the same, no exceptions. In particular, we don't like Apple and the lightning standard.
2. It's better for the environment.
Now, 2. is clearly wrong, as now just all the people already in the Apple ecosystem need to switch their lightning equipment to USB-C equipment, adding tons of waste.
And 1., well, is no reason at all. It's how you successfully stop innovation.
> 2. is clearly wrong, as now just all the people already in the Apple ecosystem need to switch their lightning equipment to USB-C equipment, adding tons of waste.
As opposed to now, when I buy twice as many cables on their own wear lifecycles because my phone doesn't connect to the same thing as my Switch or my Laptop?
If you say 2. is clearly wrong, what are your numbers specifically that disagree with the research summarised in the "Impact" section? Or do you disagree with some part of the linked study? (Which does already take the forced replacement into account)
Yes, of course I disagree with these numbers. First, the study says it doesn't take into account the impact of wireless charging. Well, all I do is wireless charging these days, so already the study is worthless in that respect. Furthermore, a lot of benefits it attributes to unbundling, which Apple already also does for quite a while. Finally, these are made up make-belief numbers without any solid backing, given that all these factors are not really included. Personally, I didn't need another cable for the last 5 years, and I am a heavy Apple user. Somebody else was complaining that they need another cable between their switch, laptop, and iPhone. Yes, the cable is what makes the environmental difference here. Ridiculous.
