• TenderfootGungi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    32
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m not sure about the SA one, but the EU variant of that law already has this thought through.

      It has allowances already for new emerging standards. If USB-D came out, there would be zero law changes required.

      • Corhen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        always amazed by people who think “well, if we accept USB-C, we will never be able to have any future tech!” as if the regulation hasnt thought of that.

          • Corhen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That would be clause 9:

            "It is also necessary to provide the basis for adaptation to any future scientific and technological progress or market developments, which will be continuously monitored by the Commission