The pumpkin or the record? Which got crushed?

I agree with your final point. Market competition is great. This law doesn't provide that, in my opinion. It will drive smaller players that cannot afford this adaptation out of the market.

And Microsoft and Linux can run on many things, but not without issue. There's a great cost to develop such systems with a lot of compatibility in mind. Vertical integration is more efficient. Regardless if you like apple or not, they have provided the best laptop by far because of this, in recent times. There isn't anything on the market to top the battery life to performance of the last pro lineup, and this is coming from a thinkpad fan. But this argument hasn't much to do with port choice. Apple can change that with ease and it will lead to more sales. They can take the cost now for sales later. I care more about the smaller companies that won't have a choice but to switch to type C. They might not be able to do the same

Ok, we were going off the article with those examples. The law (at least the June proposal that was up for debate) does say this:

Apply to the following categories or classes
of radio equipment:
a) handheld mobile phones,
b) tablets,
c) digital cameras,
d) headphones,
e) headsets,
f) handheld videogame consoles,
g) portable speakers,
h) e-readers,
i) keyboards,
j) mice,
k) portable navigation systems,
l) earbuds,
m) laptops,

We can have similar debates about any of the items on the list, with examples that go in the same direction.

The part where I generally disagree is this: > I'm sure they thought of all those things you mention I don't think so. And I believe it is up to us to scrutinize any and all laws that get adopted to ensure that they do think about it and that others do so too.

>It's better to have this and maybe be a bit more sluggish with innovations than let ting the current situation continu.

Actually I don't see why. The e waste generated off of this will be huge and detrimental to the environment. I don't see the added value here. A bit of convenience because I don't have to carry 2 cables? Not worth it for me.

I read the provisional agreement form June. It doesn't include the word smartphone anywhere in it: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2014_2019/plmrep/COMMITTEES/IMCO/AG/2022/07-11/1259528EN.pdf

Neither does this: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52020IP0024&qid=1664977809509 But uses the term "radio devices" which is even worse as anything with a Bluetooth connector, wifi connector etc. is a "radio device"

Would you be so kind to tell me where you read it?

That's a good point. The issue I see with this is that as a start-up I can't build something cheaper with older connectors now.

Do I also have to compete for connectors now with the big players, while everyone makes the switch? This might open opportunities for some new manufacturers to build type c connectors, to cover the new demand, sure. I don't think that's how it will go though.

Some devices also don't need faster connections. I would rather have my sport's smartwatch be more waterproof rather than have it's data bandwidth increase.

I don't know. It will be interesting to see what happens.

Well legislation is notoriously slow. And that is one issue that might halt progress. Do we have to wait for the law to change to release a new products with new connections? This law for example has been debated for more than a year now. How long will it take to add new acceptable connectors to the list? And at that point if apple develops one that is ground Breaking, and a smaller entity another, which one has the resources to lobby for this new standard to be adopted?

I also don't know that I agree with the statement that that we know what a smartphone is. I think intuitively we do, but to argue in court about such matters is more complicated. Is it a phone with a touch screen? If so when does a phone become a tablet? What about new possible voice UIs? Ok, if it's not the input method maybe it is functionality. What's the threshold to call a phone "smart"? Is it internet connectivity? Is it a camera? Does it have to have either? What if it has none?

I know it sounds easy in theory, but in practice it is not. In court it's a different story and only the big guys will have the resources to argue such matters. This means that small start-ups might not be able to disrupt the market with new products. Remember that a Mac computer is not a PC. Why would an iPhone be a smartphone?

An item that is not in that list and uses a different connector: a smartwatch. Sport smart watches from Garmin for example would never be as waterproof with a type C connector. There's no need for faster data connections for some of these devices, like the ones for diving. Why would a niche manufacturer invest in building new devices with such connectors that are more expensive?

I'm just saying it's complicated. This seems like a good idea but it might not be.

So what will happen later when we find new ways to transfer data blazingly fast? Will we need 2 ports for that? Does this assume everything is going wireless? What is a smartphone? Do lawmakers decide what that is now?

I'm not suggesting this is bad legislation, but there are some outstanding questions around evolution.