It's hard to forsee companies wanting to annoy users on purpose.
> So is writing a law that phone ports must be USBC and forgetting about wireless charging standards.
What's the problem here? Wireless charging is already using a single standard.
But more importantly, “phones must have a USBC port if they have a port” doesn’t implement “phones must charge from a USBC charger” and so users could go out and buy portless phones and discover they still have to carry around a charger, the problem you were supposedly solving.
Qi won, though. Nobody is deploying new non-qi powermat, and supposedly there are firmware updates to make those compatible.
> But more importantly, “phones must have a USBC port if they have a port” doesn’t implement “phones must charge from a USBC charger” and so users could go out and buy portless phones and discover they still have to carry around a charger, the problem you were supposedly solving.
Buying and keeping a phone with no charging port is a very intentional act and I'm not overly worried about that.
And it's still much better to have two ways to charge, one wired and one wireless, than to have three.
Unintended results are part of writing the laws. So is writing a law that phone ports must be USBC and forgetting about wireless charging standards. When the DMA starts enforcement and makes it impossible to block messaging spam because all messengers have to trust each other, that’ll be part of it too.
> If this was true, this ruling would be a nothingburger because everyone would voluntarily opt into the targeted advertising so they can get all that "value" you're speaking of.
No, not all markets clear. If you get a smaller market because not everyone opts in there’s just going to be less stuff in it.
(And I actually think Instagram’s ads are more interesting than, say, my family members who’ve decided to become influencers.)