> it’s an order of magnitude more difficult to change that legislation
The previous attempt is from 2009. A review every 10-15 years or so is not that difficult, when there is widespread political agreement on consumer matters.
> Lastly, is interoperability even a problem?
Before the EU committees stepped in, the market was a jungle of custom adapters. You don't remember the last time you had a problem partially because they forced the market to stop with shenanigans, and most manufacturer complied at least in the most visible sector (phones - stuff like watches is still a jungle, but they are less popular and definitely not as essential as phones). Some convergence was already happening but EU rules accelerated adoption and ensured it would happen across the board. Only Apple insisted in ignoring the spirit of the decision, so this is meant to force their hand somewhat to play ball (while also giving them something, since the unbundled charger was at risk of being challenged as anti-consumer).
> Similarly, are these chargers a major source of e-waste?
Yes.
> And how much of that is this legislation going to change?
More than the alternative of doing nothing.
Are you sure about that?
- Apple managed to get through all the regulation "mandates" without any serious repercussion to their operations, showing the complete lack of effectiveness of said regulations.
- market conditions and the development timeline of the technology (USB-C with power delivery) can alone explain the gradual change in the Apple product line.
Those are the facts. Now let's go to the opinion part and apply Occam's razor here: between the explanation that requires believing that Apple is changing its products out of fear from EU regulatory bodies (despite historical evidence of the contrary) and the explanation that says changes were bound to happen anyway due to being sensible business, which one is simpler? Which one is more likely to be correct?
aren't you forgetting that governments hand out and enforce patents/monopolies/IP?
also it's hard for small groups to compete with giants when those giants have plundered the commons and more and more scientific and technological research is locked up behind their corporate firewalls.
at this point ignoring that plundering is wilful, not due to ignorance. [1]
[1] https://www.resilience.org/stories/2017-08-03/book-day-corru...
In general, "handing out and enforcing monopolies" is a bug in democratic governments, not a feature. So by way of your own analogy, this legislation would be another bug.
> also it's hard for small groups to compete with giants when those giants have plundered the commons and more and more scientific and technological research is locked up behind their corporate firewalls.
I'm already sold on the idea that corporations have too much power and corporations often abuse it. We probably agree here, but I don't think that has anything to do with this case in particular--all of the mainstream connector/power protocols are already open. We're not talking about smaller tech companies being unable to manufacture and sell Lightning chargers (or whatever the tech is called, I've already forgotten).
In the particular case of USB-C, it’s a bit puzzling since it’s not actually an interoperable standard. For example, while the charger shape is the same, I can’t charge my laptop with my phone charger. Maybe the legislation accounts for this, but it’s a bit of a disappointing standard to cement.
> “legislation isn’t set in stone”
I suspect it’s an order of magnitude more difficult to change that legislation than it would be for the market to bring another standard. You might say, “if the Americans have some new fangled charger, the Europeans might demand change from their government”, but it’s pretty unlikely that anyone will invest on a new charger that they won’t be able to sell in Europe. For example, most phone manufacturers are unlikely to make a Euro-only variant, but will rather make a USB-C phone for the whole world, much like how Americans have to suffer through GDPR cookie notifications even though GDPR doesn’t apply to us.
Lastly, is interoperability even a problem? I remember the bad old days before USB and interoperability didn’t really exist because every adapter was proprietary and expensive, but I can’t remember the last time I had an issue. Similarly, are these chargers a major source of e-waste? And how much of that is this legislation going to change? Cords will still wear our and be thrown away whether they are USB-C or Thunderbolt.