The Courier & Advertiser (Fife Edition)
One charger for all to help reduce e-waste?
There has been pressure for some time to try to standardise many types of common electronic devices like phone chargers.
Last week, the European Commission announced a proposal to standardise charging cables across the EU.
The main objective is to reduce the estimated 11,000 tonnes of waste generated by discarded cables each year.
Given the UK is no longer in the EU, it need not follow this but it is likely manufacturers would sell the same devices in the UK as in the EU.
The EU proposal is to standardise around the USB-C charger model. Many devices use this already but plenty others, notably Apple, don’t.
Unsurprisingly, Apple is opposed on the basis standardisation stifles innovation and has also raised concerns that modern iPhone handsets may be too thin to incorporate a USB-C port.
This proposal is significant in two respects. Principally, it would further restrict the autonomy of device manufacturers to adopt to their own specification, at least in relation to charging connections, where inter-operability would be required – there is no voluntary element to this proposal.
Design, at least of this aspect, will be determined at a regulatory level, rather than being a creative decision by manufacturers based on technical or performance requirements. And, to the extent manufacturers benefit from limited inter-operability with other devices and are able to sell premiumpriced accessories, that might become a lot more difficult.
Apple, in particular, has regularly changed key features of its handsets. The current lightning connector, removed backwards compatibility with iPod docks and devices. It removed the headphone jack from the iPhone 7.
In these cases it will have to balance whether customer irritation is offset by the opportunities to sell upgraded devices or improve device performance.
Presently, this is just a European Commission proposal and there is some way to go before it could become law. It is estimated that any laws which are enacted as part of this process will not take effect until 2025.
Between now and then, the debate will consider the cost of implementing the new rules; the actual environmental benefits and the merits of the idea overall and the principle of requiring technology to be designed around prescribed outcomes.
What this does remind us of, though, is how much more slowly the law changes than technology. It’s possible that, by 2025, most phones will be charged wirelessly and will need far fewer charging cables anyway.