Saying there was no mandate is only technically true. The EU gave an ultimatum to phone companies to make a compatible charger "or else", which led to a "Memorandum of Understanding" [1] deciding on Micro-USB.

Apple didn't follow that Memorandum, the EU got pissed, so now we reached the "or else" part (it took quite some time considering the Memorandum was more than 10 years ago).

[1] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/MEMO_1...

> Apple didn't follow that Memorandum, the EU got pissed

Just to add a step: Samsung got pissed, and told the EU either regulate, or we do our own thing too like Apple.

I wasn't aware of that, thanks!

Replying to sibling: that 30-pin connector predates the Memorandum. It's exactly such chargers that the EU wanted to regulate at the time. Every company had their own incompatible charger.

Samsung actually had done their own thing - their early tablet lineup also had a 30-pin connector, and of course incompatible with Apple's 30-pin connector.

[1] https://www.amazon.de/Original-Samsung-USB-lDatenkabel-ECC1D...

> and of course incompatible with Apple's 30-pin connector

“Of course” also because Apple's 30-pin connector was only approved for purchase and use by certified (read: paying) third parties.

Thankfully the Samsung one was black while the Apple ones were white, making it obvious which one went to my iPod Classic v. my Galaxy Tab 2 :)

But yeah, I absolutely do not miss those 30-pin connectors.

Apple did release a micro USB -> lightning adapter for 19 €, which I believe was to ”comply” with the rules

The EU should have required that all marketing must depict a standard connector phone.

So all their ads in the EU would have to show a stupid dongle hanging off the phone, like a vestigial tail.

Curious that the "or else" stage doesn't actually enforce the micro-B connector of the original MoU.

If that original legislation was binding, we likely never would have gotten USB-C in the first place.

'Memorandums of Understanding' are not binding within the EU, not even between different departments in Brussels. They are, at best, strongly worded suggestions.

So this is a significant difference.

As a EU mandate implies that organizations can be prosecuted for ignoring it.

The writing has been on the wall for years and years that manufacturers have agree on a standard charging plug. Had micro-usb been the direction we were still heading, that would have become the mandated standard.

This law is by all intents and purposes a law directed at Apple, who is the sole hold-out of the large mobile phone manufacturers regarding proprietary charging connectors.

> There were no mandates to adopt micro-usb in the EU.

... huh ? https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_11_...

> Following a mandate from the European Commission, the European Standardisation Bodies CEN-CENELEC and ETSI issued the harmonised standards to be adhered to by data-enabled mobile phones compatible with the new common charger as of 2011. The common charger solution is based in the Micro-USB connector technology

They mandated the standards bodies to issue standards to adopt for those who wanted to, but didn't mandate manufacturers to adopt the standards.

Or they would have spent the past 10 years fining Apple for violating them.

There is no mandate that states that if a party fails to abide by a mandate that you are mandated to fine them.

And yet a plausible threat of negative consequences is the only thing that could possibly distinguish a mandate from a suggestion.

The regulation is the negative consequence.

This is how self regulation can work. And in this case it nearly worked, Apple pretty much being the lone holdout.

When an order has no consequences for non-compliance it is, by definition, not an order.

Thank goodness, micro-usb kinda sucked, especially compared to USB-C (which seems quite good).

It is sort of weird that they decided to mandate USB-C rather than creating an ongoing group to keep track of charging and update the rules accordingly (like in the US, where many of our laws create an agency to regulate something rather than having congress pass a new, slightly different law every couple years)

They did.

The law states that the European Commission shall monitor market development, market fragmentation, and technological progress, and report on it every few years.

But note that market development is only possible because the EU's reach is limited and it doesn't have any phone makers of its own. Technological progress requires market fragmentation, because progress doesn't turn up on everyone's doorstep simultaneously. So the EU is betting that it can engage in trivial populism like this whilst not losing out on any actual progress, because other parts of the world will 'bail it out' and continue researching such tech. Of course, it just solidifies the situation in which the EU has a pitiful tech sector because why bother introducing new ideas to the market when the EU might at any time randomly ban "fragmentation".

The problem with the US approach is that now we have a bunch of agencies effectively inventing laws without anywhere near the same degree of oversight or public accountability. Sometimes that's a feature rather than a bug, but not always.

Am I missing something here?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.engadget.com/amp/2010-12-29...

Non-AMP link: https://www.engadget.com/2010-12-29-european-standardization...

Clicking that link in Firefox prompts me to download a font. LOL

On Chrome under linux, it actually does nothing other than download the font! lmao

There were non-binding agreements. i.e. the EU hoped that the major players would standardize on one connecter, but this did not have the force of law behind it.

The EU created a technical standard (which basically just says, "use USB Micro-B"). Phone manufacturers voluntarily signed a Memorandum of Understanding, stating that they all agreed to abide by the standard.

None of it was binding or involuntary. Which is why Apple never released a micro-B phone and all other manufacturers were able to upgrade to USB-C.

Of course it was binding and involuntary, as the EU is now proving by binding the ones that didn't volunteer. "Do it or else" doesn't make it voluntary because the institution doing the "or else" part is slow.

The point is about innovation.

Maybe you think the original nonbinding agreement had a threat of force behind it, but it had no immediate consequences if manufacturers changed ports. Manufacturers were allowed to upgrade to new ports. And they did. That is how we got the innovation of USB-C.

Manufacturers are no longer able to upgrade to better ports. People saying "this won't stifle innovation because we still got USB-C" have things totally backwards.

It looks like you shared an AMP link. AMP is controversial because of concerns over privacy and the Open Web [0].

Fully-cached AMP pages like the one you shared are especially problematic.

Maybe check out the canonical page instead:

https://www.engadget.com/2010-12-29-european-standardization...

[0]: https://old.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z