907
Saudi Arabia mandates all electronic devices to use USB-C charging ports from 2025
(www.gsmarena.com)
this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2023
907 points (97.2% liked)
Technology
59204 readers
3598 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The problem with these types of mandates is it locks us into standards and makes change hard. Imagine if they had done this when the terrible USB port was dominant.
Or, it gives all the power to the USB group. They have a terrible track record (USB-C is a mess).
The other problem is all the cheap devices that have a USB-C port, but will not charge from a real USB-C to USB-C cable. They are the same old USB ports electrically with a new shape.
These are bad laws with good intents.
Standards can be updated. Like the EU standard was from Micro-USB to USB-C. It happens all the time in all fields of technology.
How quickly will a standard be updated if the mandate encourages companies to entrench on the current standard? Industries built around the legislative certainty of the current standard may exert influence to inhibit moves to new standards, even if there are good reasons to move on.
What if we had mandated, by law, that all monitors must use the VGA connector in 1995? Would that have made DVI or HDMI or later technologies less likely to take off?
Suppose a company sees an opportunity for a better standard with such a law in place. They would have to develop the new standard and create the market for the new standard, all while their change is forbidden by law. How can they propose a new standard before actually developing it? Then, after sinking the costs on a hope, they would have to pay more to fight to change the law to encompass the new standard against everyone who likes it the way it is.
Don’t get me wrong. It would be neat if every doodad I had used the same connector. But soon enough, any connector we care to choose is a straitjacket. We raise the standard for improvement from being incremental and iterative to no change short of world shaking all at one go.