If there is no better connector, why should the committee put any effort into developing anything better?

Tech history, and human history in general, is littered with examples. Especially in the old Warsaw Pact states.

Regulation has always been a part of government, to increase the efficiency of the open market. But in regards to your first point:

> why should the committee put any effort into developing anything better?

The EU is absolutely not in the business of developing any connector whatsoever. They wanted _a_ standard (for eco/market reasons), and asked the industry to create one. This became USB and the USB Forum. Now they make it mandatory to follow that standard. In the act they passed, the power to set the specific standard is deferred to the European Commission, to make it easier to update it if necessary. These are called delegated acts [0]. If a new physical connector is ever necessary, the USB forum will write the standard, ask the EU if they can update the reference, which is easy since it's only a matter of pushing paperwork. _Not_ hardcoding a feature like this, and following what industry wants is an explicit goal of the legislative process. It has worked extremely well in these sorts of circumstances. The only risk I could see is a technical innovation for connectors, which the USB Forum refuses to implement for some reason. This could happen, but I don't see it as being any different then current industry practices.

[0]: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM...

"Tech history" is littered with example, like micro-usb? Or like MRIs?

Because they always did, and never needed Apple to compete. USB comitee is filled with companies competing with each other, and Apple is one of these companies.