But if the whole world adopted this kind of regulatory stance, there would be much less incentive to invent that better cable because you now have huge regulatory bodies that may block its adoption and thus mean most of that work was money and time wasted. This kind of thing may tilt the risk / reward of research towards the riskier end of the spectrum.
I’m not saying it’s a bad thing— just that it’s not without consequences.
> if the whole world adopted this kind of regulatory stance, there would be much less incentive to invent that better cable because you now have huge regulatory bodies
Imagine you didnt have law on shape and voltage of ordinsry power plugs in a house, and if you buy a samsung power socket to ibstall in your house, you mist buy samsung fridge and samsung washing machine and samsung hair dryer
This was exactly the phone charging situation before the EU made a similar proposal[0]. Previously every phone brand and model used a bespoke charger so that you were forced to buy a spare charger from the vendor. Of course Apple continued to do its own thing by skirting the intent of the law.
That hasn't been true in quite a while, the market has unified around two standards (lightning and usb-c) without EU's intervention. Their previous recommendation from 2010 was for micro-usb and it was toothless as it wasn't a mandate.
The current authoritarian power play for pushing usb-c on Apple is completely unwarranted by the market conditions. It's pure politics.
Pretty disingenuous representation. The market unified around USB-C, except for Apple, who continued to be the sole player pushing proprietary charging ports
Therefore, regulation is actually only impacting one player, and is extremely likely to reduce electronics waste, which makes it quite a nice political move. The claim of "authoritarianism" makes no sense, because governments are regulatory bodies and this regulatory move has clear motivations and positive expected outcomes, plus is incredibly easy to enforce.
My electric razor uses a different cable connector to charge, my battery charger, my bicycle lamps (two different brands) ... All purchased in the last 5 years. The EU regulation isn't just about mobile phones.
> Imagine you didnt have law on shape and voltage of ordinsry power plugs in a house, and if you buy a samsung power socket to ibstall in your house, you mist buy samsung fridge and samsung washing machine and samsung hair dryer
You seem to be conflating the wall socket with the on-device socket.
I have several AC powered devices that use the same wall socket plug but have different on-device sockets - some with very different shapes. Even a single manufacturer may require different power cables: the original PS2, PS3, and PS4 all have different and incompatible power sockets and cables (squared/polarized 2-prong, "standard" 3-prong, and figure-8 2-prong, respectively).
US homes often have 220V sockets for large appliances (electric clothes dryers) as well as 110V sockets for smaller appliances (handheld hair dryers.) The sockets/plugs/cables are different and are not compatible.
As I understand it, every iPhone already comes with a charging cable in the box that plugs into a standard USB C power socket. Already better than anything with a wall wart power supply.
But I'm pretty much in favor of addressing the absurd proliferation of incompatible wall warts and other DC power supplies, even though they plug into the same wall socket.
Perhaps that's a clearer version of what PP was trying to say? But the analogy doesn't hold up well, because:
1. There are currently several kinds of wall power voltages and plugs/receptacles commonly in use the US. Notable examples are the various 220-240V NEMA receptacles and the various 110-120V receptacles such as polarized 2-prong, unpolarized 2-prong, and 3-prong/grounded.
2. Although there are code requirements (e.g requiring that new outlets be grounded and polarized, or requiring ground fault protection in bathrooms) it doesn't appear that they mandate a particular plug or receptacle design (?) Though the NEMA (trade association) developed plugs can and do conform to the code requirements.
3. Power cords and on-device sockets aren't entirely standardized, but it's not nearly as big a deal as if there were dozens of 110-120V wall socket types rather than the three in common use.
But we already kind of have this problem. If I order a microwave from the UK and ship it to my other European country, then I'm already dealing with a power plug that is incompatible. This also means that the power plugs can't be optimal (ie there's room to improve), because all the different variants can't all be optimal at the same time.
And yet, actually ever improving the power plug design is probably never going to happen.
Unfortunately the UK is no longer in the European Union, so their plug is never going to be unified.
The EU seriously considered unifying wall sockets, but in the end it turned out to not really be worth the effort. Most devices have either a Europlug or CEE 7/7 plug, which are compatible with virtually all wall sockets in the EU.
Italy and Denmark are slowly switching their proprietary wall sockets to the more common Schuko variant, if I recall correctly, so improving it isn't impossible!
Within the EU, if you order a microwave from France to be delivered to Ireland it should be provided with the correct plug.
Generally, something larger like a microwave or TV would come with an alternative power cord. Something smaller comes with a 2-prong European plug and a semi-permanent UK/Ireland adapter.
(Incidentally, the EU considered changing to a single mains plug, but wisely decided it wasn't worth the hassle.)
>That's a really strange thing to see here on HN. Where did you get this idea?
Why is this strange? I see this kind of ignorant nonsense here all the time.
This site is absolutely full of software people who, because of Dunning-Kruger, think they're experts at everything technical. Electrical engineering isn't that far from the software world (computers are electrical, and their design is within the EE world), so software people frequently think they're experts at anything EE when in fact they don't even understand Kirchoff's Laws, much less the realities of modern-day AC and DC power transmission.
There's been multiple discussions here in recent months with these people advocating absolutely idiotic stuff like a whole-house 5V DC supply, showing they don't even understand Ohm's Law.
On a side note, it's very frequent that I see posts here from people who apparently have never heard of an ad-blocker, yet are complaining about ads.
I guess you never been in a data center in the last 10 years. All modern DCs run on DC power because stepping down voltage is easy and 95%+ efficient. Why do we backhaul electricity across the country by DC and convert into AC to our house and then back into DC for our stuff? Add renewable energy generation like solar cells and battery storage and AC makes no sense.
Theres a reason why china is spinning up DC power grids while posts like mine get bashed on.
Data Centers that use DC still have AC to the racks, then a UPS or similar device converts to DC and distributes to the equipment on the rack. DC is inefficient for long distance, unless you are talking HVDC which is another story and it is disingenuous to act like they are comparable.
Three phase to the home?! Whaattt?! If you want to rectify yourself some DC power, 3-phase is awesome.
Are there three phase sockets available? I'd think you could build things like high power audio amplifiers or power supplies at radically better price points, if this were actually usable from the wall in places.
There is IEC 60309, but those are too bulky to be practical for home use. Three-phase power is basically only used for permanently installed equipment, like an electric stove, heat pump, car charger, or solar panels.
3 phase is 120 degrees out of phase. Wall power only has a single phase, 360 degrees. Via +/- rectification the situation gets more complex. The key thing, as the other commenter points out, is that there is always always power available. Where-as with wall-power you literally drop to zero voltage as you go + to - & back.
You always have power available at any instant. The capacitor is only for smoothing the ripple, not holding energy while none is being delivered. 3-phase motors just work too.
Fact that the US main power distribution network(eg: pacific DC intertie)runs on DC that we concert back to AC for regional distribution and then back to DC to power our houses like lights, tv, electronics etc. AC is inefficient long distances and still needs to be converted to DC to power our stuff.
Rectifiers (which convert AC to DC) are quite efficient. Apparently up to 98% [0]
And then there is the voltage conversion, which traditionally happened on the AC side (inexpensive and simple AC transformers are generally why the transmission and distribution systems are AC). Modern power supplies allow for buck/boost on the DC side.
I think you can make a legal arguement that the way the standards are enshrined in law and there are legal consequences for straying from agreed upon standards, that it is indeed standardized by force of law.
Further to the de jure standardization related to consumer safety laws and civil cases, the insurance industry has created a de facto standardization by refusing to cover or pay out if non-standard electric plugs and receptacles are or were used.
No, you can have receptacles of any shape in the USA, at least at the federal level.
However it's not uncommon for this to be enforced by law, for example it is a legal requirement that in the UK all goods sold must adhere to the BS 1363-1 standard.
Ok, how about at most state levels then? I seriously doubt you could wire up new construction in a completely nonstandard way and then expect to pass inspection.
I'm pretty sore 100% of all US states mandate that all new construction adhere to the National Electrical Code (NEC). Specifically, NFPA 70. They just delegate the authority as to what's "standard" to that non-governmental body.
Every few years the National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA)--which is a non-governmental nonprofit--publishes an updated standard and then it's up to all the state legislatures to update the laws to require the new standard.
The problem is that the NFPA doesn't just post the NEC for free on the Internet. You have to pay for it (which is ridiculous) and it's copyrighted and as such, illegal to just give away. There was a lawsuit in Georgia that was supposed to determine whether or not that situation was OK (having laws that require expensive fees to view may be unconstitutional since that's like having secret laws). I don't know what the outcome was of that though.
> I'm pretty [sure] 100% of all US states mandate that all new construction adhere to the National Electrical Code (NEC).
There are four states who have not adopted the NEC on a statewide basis, leaving any such decision to the local authorities having jurisdiction: Arizona, Illinois, Mississippi, and Missouri.
Part of the Georgia problem is that our laws are the same way! The legislators would vote to adopt case law that had added notes/ guidance by a third party, the third party would change fees to view what is then now the law!
> But if the whole world adopted this kind of regulatory stance, there would be much less incentive to invent that better cable because you now have huge regulatory bodies that may block its adoption and thus mean most of that work was money and time wasted.
Actually, the only incentive left is to make significantly better cables; the incentive to make marginal "improvements" in order to achieve vendor lock-in is removed.
It's USB-C but we reformulated the cable plastic for slightly longer release so it's now USB-Cxr. New patent, double the price but we're going to reuse the certification.
If the whole world adopted this stance maybe I wouldn’t an overflowing box of useless, obsolete cables. Maybe I wouldn’t need separate chargers and cables for my phone, tablet, ebook reader, and other assorted devices.
The amount of waste produced because companies are incentivized to produce incompatible devices like charger cables is staggering. The additional cost burden on users is unnecessary. The theoretical benefit of a better cable is not worth it.
Can you help me understand what you're saying? It comes off as so over the top that I find it absurd, but maybe we just have different backgrounds/experience.
1) Companies are not incentivized to produce incompatible cables, the industry has done a remarkably good job of settling on basically a single standard, so the incentives seem to run counter to what you say. The major hold out introduced their own cable standard 2 years _before_ USB-C even existed, and even they were rumored to be moving to USB-C anyways. (I'm sure people will credit the law with this even if it had nothing to do with it.) Would it have been good if they had switched to USB-C earlier? Sure, but that would mean... people throwing out their old cables that worked perfectly fine.
2.) Would the amount of charging cables you have purchased in your lifetime even fill up one regular-sized (13 gallon-ish) trash bag? I don't know how many charging cables you are buying or what your uses are, but I'm struggling to see how it's a "staggering" amount of waste. I'm a somewhat avid electronic geek, I own multiple Raspberry Pis and other hobbyist electronics. No way would I even come close. When I do buy new cables, 90% of the time it's for reasons like the old ones have worn out, or I have a new device that needs to be permanently plugged in.
~~~Edited to add~~~ All my consumer electronics devices have stopped needing their own charger for years now. I use the same charger and swap out a cord.
There is an entire product category of "universal power adapters"[1] that wouldn't exist if GP's problem weren't an issue - and that was back when most adapters were just "dumb" power sources that provided a fixed voltage with fixed maximum current.
There is no way to combine Micro USB, USBC, Thunderbolt and whatever Microsoft was doing with Surface devices into one adapter without separate electronics for each port.
> 1) Companies are not incentivized to produce incompatible cables
They absolutely are. I figure, it's not even greed (most of the adapters were included with the devices) but simply "designer convenience". It's certainly easier to design a device if you can choose an arbitrary input voltage and max power for your device.
It'll also certainly make your life as a manufacturer easier if you only have to provide warranty for devices that are run with your own power adapter.
Also, Apple in particular seems to have an aversion to follow any kind of standard not set by themselves if they can in any way avoid it. See Lightning, Thunderbolt, MagSafe, etc.
Doesn't mean this is better for anyone else except from the manufacturer.
> 2.) Would the amount of charging cables you have purchased in your lifetime even fill up one regular-sized (13 gallon-ish) trash bag?
I haven't measured but this isn't the point for me. But it used to be that the amount of adapters that you had to take with you were increasing: I.e. if laptop, phone and ipod all had different adapers and you were travelling, you had to take three of them with you.
> All my consumer electronics devices have stopped needing their own charger for years now.
As someone who designs device, I would HATE having to use a proprietary connector/device/protocol. I'm small time, so maybe engineering departments at major companies see it differently.
Right now I can design a product that uses one of the USB standards and pick from literally thousands of different pre-made parts that handle all the silly things for me. If I'm fine with 5v/2a power, I can just drop a $.0292 (that's the prototype price, it drops drastically at higher volumes) piece into the design and know that any cable and charger will work with it.
If I need more power than 10 watts I can spend $.50 on a usb-c plug and PD controller.
I truly don't understand why companies would fight this for most devices.
The one thing I'm worried about is what happens when someone comes up with something truly innovative (say, a phone battery that can charge at faster than 100 watts). Does that mean they will be penalized if they have to use a proprietary connector since usb-c is unable to meet that?
Then last part, I think, is the question. They could certainly … use a port with the same form-factor and eMarkers to indicate capability, submitting their new technology to the USB-IF as a proposition for standard/enhancement.
We already have, though, a glut of the pre-made components you talk about that cut every corner as close as they can-hopefully not so far as to start a fire, because you can’t sell to dead customers, but up to then? Go for it.
The number of implementations of PD has been a mess, with various chunks of a particular profile unavailable, inconsistently, along with no meaningful distinction between various versions of PD on most devices. Cables are often trash, and there is no certification for them required at all, until you get up to the point that Intel will smack you with a folder of lawyers if you try to call something a Thunderbolt cable without getting it certified. So we can all go out and buy just Thunderbolt cables and be sure it’ll work with everything else, and it’s all well and good until our wallet notices the hit.
Surely it can’t be that hard to just … check that stuff meets the standard, as in cGMP-style adapted to electronics (to the extent it isn’t already). Right?
Thunderbolt cables are extra thick to support the signaling that thunderbolt requires, so unless you're actually using that cable for data, it's more cumbersome. And shorter - max of 10ft. Which may be fine for you, but no thanks. And also, optical Thunderbolt cables can't carry power, so there's no guarantee that a thunderbolt cable will even do power delivery. If it's longer than 10 ft, then it won't.
"Companies are not incentivized to produce incompatible cables, the industry has done a remarkably good job of settling on basically a single standard"
If constrained to cell phones and tablets only I might sort-of agree with you, but right now the rest of the industry is fragmented to the point that it's not advantageous for any vendor to have its own weird cable except for Apple.
Even still, laptops can charge and dock via USB-C but they still often have their own weird-ass connectors and chargers.
But this also ignores the pre-Android years of every cell phone manufacturer having their own chargers, etc.
"Would the amount of charging cables you have purchased in your lifetime even fill up one regular-sized (13 gallon-ish) trash bag?"
If we're only talking about cell phones, close but no. But if we include similar devices that have used similar chargers and now use USB-C (ebook readers, MP3 players, tablets, handheld gaming devices) then yes. Easily.
Starting in the late 90s, I've owned something like 15 cell phones, and I think ~10 of them had unique chargers. Several MP3 players starting with the Creative Nomad and ending with a Fiio X5 (I think? I lost it on a plane). Three or four handheld gaming devices including a Sony PSP, IIRC.
And that doesn't include things like smart speakers (Amazon Echo devices now use USB-C I think? But the first few didn't), and a slew of other devices that could've used the prevailing standard (USB micro or mini or now USB-C) but didn't.
And that doesn't even include the parade of assorted data connection cables...
And, finally, that is only my personal use. I have a family, so when I say a "staggering" amount of waste I'm taking into account all of the various unique and now dead-end devices/connectors/cables that my wife and kids have churned through.
So - would I trade the potential for innovation on the off chance someone is going to come up with a super-duper nifty new cable vs. having a legislated standard? Yep. Happily.
This happened because the EU forced them to agree on a single charger/cable standard and it happened to be micro-usb for a while. Before this every mobile manufacturer had their own version of a charging AND data cable, separately..
USB-C is also inferior to lightning for laptops, but here we are. It's got this stupid internal tongue on the recepticals that will break if you try and clean the port with an office standard paperclip with any real force.
Hope you don't do anything involving tiny particles like sand or wood or cloth (like is found inside of pocket in the form of lint)!
That "stupid internal tongue" is why USB-C can now carry 160 Gbps, while Lightning can only do 0.45 Gbps. Yes, it kinda sucks for cleaning, but it makes it future-proof.
Lightning is that limited because Apple chooses for it to be, not because of the port. They made a double-sided variant with high speed data before.
The port can't directly drive all the weird miscellaneous pins that USB-C has, but it does have four high speed lanes, the same as USB-C. On a physical level it can reach the same speeds.
They absolutely did. "Sort it out or we will make a law" is what enforcement looks like.
Before that, everyone had their own variant of the barrel plug. A few crappy low price vendors just used micro usb instead, since they couldn't possibly have a proprietary moat to speak of anyway.
It's one of the examples where consumer legislation worked.
struggling to see how it's a "staggering" amount of waste
multiply the quite low volume of cable/adapter trash the average individual consumer has by the very large number of consumers. Now picture all that junk in a landfill taking up space and leaking various chemicals as the sun and weather slowly degrade all the plastics, glue etc.
I'm not disagreeing that less waste is good, but really, we're talking about an area about 500 meters on a side and 10 meters deep -- for the entire world. Car tires take up roughly 30 times as much space.
It's not the regulatory bodies deciding. It's the industry agreeing on when to move on. If they co-operate and design the new version in the open, there's no risk of wasted time. If they don't... it's a good lesson I guess.
Of course it's the regulatory bodies deciding. What do you think they're doing right now, what this article is about? There is no mechanism for "industry agreeing" that the rule should be discarded.
If only there was a specific document which talks about the consolations with industry experts to ensure future developments update the requirements... (There may be a more recent version of that doc available) https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/46755/attachments/3/...
In other words the regulatory bodies decide. They might, if they feel like it, ask some people who actually know something in the process of making that decision, but that doesn't mean they'll listen or care. Why are you denying this basic reality?
If you have a jaded view of the EU out to get you by (checking notes) ignoring the directive and not consulting with the experts so that they can force you to use a specific connector even when better options get created... Sure, I don't think we see the same reality.
I am interested in examples of similar legal systems working as expected/desired. I live in the USA and the trope that I am exposed to here is that of bureaucracy slowing things down unnecessarily, special interests capturing regulatory[1] bodies and having undue control to the detriment of progress or society as a whole while benefiting said special interests.
> Sure, I don't think we see the same reality.
Possibly exposure to different governments acting different ways.
First the bureaucrats would need to care. That’s a pretty big hump - people don’t like change. Instead of people going “yay, we’ll all finally be on the same connector” you’re going to have people going “no, I already have all of these cables and USB-C is good enough!”
You’ll also need the various players on the other side to invest in development for something new with absolutely no guarantee that the EU will approve it. Honestly, if they wanted to mandate this they should have at least just said it’s in effect for ___ number of years and no longer.
But this seems like a perfectly valid argument to have. I hate that I currently have at least 5 different "usb-like" cable types in my household: usbc to usbc, usbc to lightning, usba to usbc, usba to lightning, usba to microusb, and I probably still have some mini USB cables in some boxes.
I'd really hope that if something new is proposed it will be only once every player have decided to put their weight behind it to propose and push for a change.
The EU doesn't need to be out to get anyone for this to be true. Why make up an argument and argue against it, instead of reading and thinking before replying?
I didn't read the person you responded to as saying the EU was out to get anybody, I think that's an unfair characterization. They were just saying regulatory bodies move slowly, which is a completely reasonable statement, and indeed may be considered a feature of regulatory bodies.
On the topic of whether they will or not, I don't see a point in speculating: we'll find out soon enough.
If your connector really is better, so much as to obsolete USB-C, then you may be able to get the authorities to make your connector the new standard. So there is still incentive, and an incentive to make something that is genuinely better, not just for vendor lock-in.
Also to keep in mind that this regulation is a consequence of how the market developed in the last 20 years. The EU gave the industry a chance to sort out the situation before regulation, to which it mostly did with USB-C, but Apple refused to play along, also, cables haven't improved since USB-C, 9 years ago. So with a lack of substantial progress both in terms of standardization and technical improvement, the EU took the decision to regulate.
> cables haven't improved since USB-C, 9 years ago
Not to distract from your point, which I agree with, but that is just plainly untrue. A USB-C cable from 9 years ago almost certainly doesn’t support current standards for power delivery and data transfer.
I may be recalling it incorrectly, but wasn't the EU's stance on chargers the reason phones stopped shipping with proprietary chargers and started using USB? Accessories were big money for phone manufacturers so I don't think they would have done it without regulatory intervention. I think the adoption of Micro USB (and now USB C) was a huge improvement for consumers and the environment.
There is already very much reduced need to invent a better plug that isn't backwards compatible because USB-C is extremely flexible in that you can negotiate what will go over the pins.
E.g. USB power delivery has already been ramped up several times to the point where it can deliver up to 240W (USDB PD 3.1)
That doesn't require any regulatory body to agree, just the USB Implementers Forum.
While there may well eventually be a reason to upgrade the actual plug, there should be resistance to that to encourage people to try to find ways to make it work that's backwards compatible with current equipment first.
I feel this argument is like saying there's no point in developing free and open software because there are already other pieces of software that were adopted, and are de facto standard.
In my opinion, this actually promotes the development of technology to be shared for the benefit of everyone, not just to help with vendor lock-in.
If you are talking of MS Office... I am afraid that yes, the various free/open alternatives (especially to Word) were a wasted effort (of course, it could be that MS made their products more affordable in part because they were worried by the possibility that Open Office etc. could become "good enough" to make people switch, but honestly, this March I got a perfectly legal copy of Office for Mac for less than 75 USD... and I bought it because I was asked to prepare some slide for a professional group and I preferred to buy the whole packet out of my pocket than risking issues with "export to Powerpoint" from Keynote).
LibreOffice and other free and open source alternatives to Microsoft Office are definitely not a "wasted effort". LibreOffice is able to handle just about all of the home and small business use cases of Microsoft Office, and many people are able to skip buying Microsoft Office licenses because this free alternative is available to them. Also, Microsoft Office still does not support Linux outside its feature-limited web app edition, while LibreOffice does.
In my experience, the moment you bring a non-MS Office document to a meeting with people who pay you for the content of your document you are always risking to have problems/complains about one or more images going missing, the fonts acting strange, the print (either on paper or as a PDF) coming out wrong.
Granted, the latest episode was more than 5 years ago, but at 75USD for a local (i.e. non-cloud) licence I prefer not to take any chances.
Maybe "wasted" is too harsh a word, but I cannot say that in more than 30 years of work I ever found any real use case for non-MS documents.
If I am writing personal letters or putting together a few slides for, I dunno, my TTRPG campaign, everything goes, even Google or Apple stuff (both are free, the latter is free because it comes with the HW itself, if you use a Mac).
But when I know that there is a chance to get money for my document, the expectation on the customer's side is to get something that works with their Microsoft stuff, and I will comply.
YMMV of course, and I have surely missed any advance in Libre/Free Office for years. But as I said, I prefer to play it safe, and the cost of a licence is not really low.
An office suite is an essential tool that people expect to have in a computer. Being able to use this tool without needing to pay a license fee makes computing more accessible to everyone. While $75 (USD) might be affordable to someone in the U.S., the price for a Microsoft Office license is considerably higher in developing countries relative to average incomes. (Also, the U.S. retail price for a Microsoft Office Home & Student 2021 license is $149.99.)
Sure, if your employer or client expects you to use a particular piece of software, you're more than likely going to use that software to meet their expectations whether it's Microsoft Office or LibreOffice. However, many people use office suites outside of these specific business arrangements and LibreOffice is there for them if they don't want to pay that $75 to $150.
Tying this back to the original discussion about device connectors, if Microsoft ever neglects Microsoft Office like it once did with Internet Explorer, I can see alternatives eventually overtaking Microsoft Office in the office suite market just as Chrome overtook Internet Explorer in the web browser market. In the USB-C vs. Lightning situation, Lightning is the Internet Explorer of connectors, the proprietary connector that has a much lower maximum data transfer speed and much more limited device compatibility than USB-C. Although USB-C is now the de facto standard for device connectors, just as Microsoft Office is for certain business use cases, neither is guaranteed to stay that way forever. If the design of the USB-C connector is unable to incorporate some important technological advancement, it will certainly be replaced by an alternative just like Internet Explorer was replaced by Chrome and just like Lightning is being replaced by USB-C now.
Too late for edit: "cost of a licence is not really low" should have been "of a licence is NOW really low".
I do not really disagree with the points that were posted in response, anyway.
I just stated that "working in a country where MS Office is the de facto standard", all the other free alternatives (including Apple products - so it's not a dig against non-commercial products) are "not viable alternatives FOR ME" (special emphasis on the last two words).
Come on, there can't be that much better of a cable in the future. You already have speeds that are instantaneous on one file and I bet the transfer time to transfer all your pictures an videos from your phone is under an hour, for an operation you are maybe doing once a year ? Time for a full charge is also probably under an hour, that's not unreasonable.
Being standard is a better feature than speed.
Event if they double the speed, it can wait ten years and who knows in the speed may have quadruple by that next window.
Connectors are dying anyways. I rarely plug my iPhone in to anything, since I’ve moved to wireless charging. I wouldn’t be surprised if an iPhone is released eventually with no port at all.
Wireless charging loses 30% of the energy. It looks bad on the carbon sheets of the products, and Europe is also moving towards regulating carbon a lot.
Depending on the source you read, wireless charging is 75% efficient while wired charging is 85% efficient. MagSafe (the phone kind) should be even more efficient since the magnet focuses charging and so doesn’t create as much heat.
I notice my phone getting hot on normal qi chargers, but not on a MagSafe charger.
In reality it doesn't make any difference at all (especially in comparison to bigger issues) but the numbers do and it's the numbers that will guide the development of low-carbon policies.
I’m not saying it’s a bad thing— just that it’s not without consequences.