Recommended Posts

As long as we get an excellent and superbly long-term standard, I'll be okay with it. But it could kill innovation in this area. 

 

Apple did one up on everyone with its newest port. 

 

 

But what this would really help is the environment, I guess. We wouldn't need a new charger with every phone. 


And this would definitely have serious global implications. EU is no small market. 

How does one innovate on these connectors now?  Does it have to become a new standard?

Companies are free to come up with a new standard that, if accepted, will roll out. For now, we have Micro-USB as standaard, but we might move to USB 3.1 type-c by 2017.

  • Like 1

Companies are free to come up with a new standard that, if accepted, will roll out. For now, we have Micro-USB as standaard, but we might move to USB 3.1 type-c by 2017.

 

So one company has to put a lot of money into R&D (and know, that it is a lot of money) and then if they want to incorporate it into their device in the EU they're forced to make it and the patents available to all other OEMs?  Free of charge or FRAND?  

 

If it's free then there's no incentive for the first company to invest money.  If it's FRAND, then there's no incentive for other OEMs to spend more. 

 

Am I missing something?  I'm not saying that it's not a good thing to have a common charging port and accessories between devices - it is a really good thing.  BUT, eventually something new will be required and who's going to invest money into that if there's no return?  Is there going to be a new ubur entity that all OEMs contribute money towards to develop the next standard?

So one company has to put a lot of money into R&D (and know, that it is a lot of money) and then if they want to incorporate it into their device in the EU they're forced to make it and the patents available to all other OEMs?  Free of charge or FRAND?  

 

If it's free then there's no incentive for the first company to invest money.  If it's FRAND, then there's no incentive for other OEMs to spend more. 

 

Am I missing something?  I'm not saying that it's not a good thing to have a common charging port and accessories between devices - it is a really good thing.  BUT, eventually something new will be required and who's going to invest money into that if there's no return?  Is there going to be a new ubur entity that all OEMs contribute money towards to develop the next standard?

 

I don't see why companies could not add extra pins to their connectors to do whatever other stuff they want and keep that R&D for themselves.

 

The point is that you should be able to charge every phone with the same charger, not that you can't require different non-standard cables for other stuff besides charging (eg. syncing).

So one company has to put a lot of money into R&D (and know, that it is a lot of money) and then if they want to incorporate it into their device in the EU they're forced to make it and the patents available to all other OEMs?  Free of charge or FRAND?  

 

If it's free then there's no incentive for the first company to invest money.  If it's FRAND, then there's no incentive for other OEMs to spend more. 

 

Am I missing something?  I'm not saying that it's not a good thing to have a common charging port and accessories between devices - it is a really good thing.  BUT, eventually something new will be required and who's going to invest money into that if there's no return?  Is there going to be a new ubur entity that all OEMs contribute money towards to develop the next standard?

the incentive is that the new connector can be plugged in either way, it is physically sturdier, it is compliant with usb 3.1 so speeds are really fast and it can deliver more current. It will be a great standard that all manufacturers will want.

I don't really care what gets standardized as long as something gets standardized. Micro-USB is fine with me, especially since some places I go to now just leave micro-USB cords hard-wired into the walls for the purpose of being able to charge your phone while out.

  • Like 1

Makes it easier to just use any charger nearby now, as someone always ends up using mine when they misplace theirs in my house

 

Yeah, 3/4 of people at my workplace now have either Android or Windows Phone, which use the Micro USB standard so charger sharing is easier now. Although since getting a Note 3 with its Micro-USB 3 cable, I'm special now because only my note 3 works on that charger, it fits into nobodies phone. Even the iPhone users can share with each other. But I'm a special snowflake, the upside to my selfishness is I can still use everyone elses charger because Micro-USB 2 still fits into a Micro-USB 3 port.

 

1382374076.jpg

  • Like 1

i would not be surprised if all mobile makers would have to comply with apples lightning port.

I would, as good as apple may or may not be, they're not the first, nor are they the only smartphone manufacturer, cost is another factor, (and I doubt all manufacturers would be willing to pay apple royalties)

(it's almost like bringing out a new mains plug, <although not as dramatic> the existing ecosystem is too well established)

To be honest, it would of been better if they forced all mobiles to use the lightning connector. Since I feel it's better in terms of that it is reversible and doesn't have that tongue inside the port that can be broken/collect dust that is a pain to get out again. However, it'll never happen because Apple generally do not share. They patent the hell out of things and sue anyone who even thinks about using them (bleating that it's stealing the hard work of their engineers/designers). This ruling will annoy Samsung though, they are moving to micro USB 3 ports on their devices and this will force them to ditch it and go back to micro USB 2 again :/

To be honest, it would of been better if they forced all mobiles to use the lightning connector. Since I feel it's better in terms of that it is reversible and doesn't have that tongue inside the port that can be broken/collect dust that is a pain to get out again. However, it'll never happen because Apple generally do not share. They patent the hell out of things and sue anyone who even thinks about using them (bleating that it's stealing the hard work of their engineers/designers). This ruling will annoy Samsung though, they are moving to micro USB 3 ports on their devices and this will force them to ditch it and go back to micro USB 2 again :/

 

Isn't it technically the same standard, just the next version of it? It's backwards compatible, just not forwards. Note users can use everyone elses charger cable but not the other way around. Maybe other phones will make the jump to USB 3.

To be honest, it would of been better if they forced all mobiles to use the lightning connector. Since I feel it's better in terms of that it is reversible and doesn't have that tongue inside the port that can be broken/collect dust that is a pain to get out again. However, it'll never happen because Apple generally do not share. They patent the hell out of things and sue anything who even thinks about using them (bleating that it's stealing the hard work of their engineers/designers). This ruling will annoy Samsung though, they are moving to micro USB 3 ports on their devices and this will force them to ditch it and go back to micro USB 2 again :/

Ok, and that's fair, but you mention the inner 'tongue' can be broken? I didn't think that was possible, (but that's only speaking from personal experience as I still have old chargers and even with the abuse they've received, I've never broken one)

Now if this does happen, and a lot, then I can see why switching to any (including apple's) 'regulation' port would be a good idea

Isn't it technically the same standard, just the next version of it? It's backwards compatible, just not forwards. Note users can use everyone elses charger cable but not the other way around. Maybe other phones will make the jump to USB 3.

 

Yes, technically they are the same and I actually forgot you can use a USB 2 cable with it  :pinch:. So if companies migrated to USB 3 and dropped USB 2 that aspect would be a moot point.

 

Ok, and that's fair, but you mention the inner 'tongue' can be broken? I didn't think that was possible, (but that's only speaking from personal experience as I still have old chargers and even with the abuse they've received, I've never broken one)

Now if this does happen, and a lot, then I can see why switching to any (including apple's) 'regulation' port would be a good idea

 

I've never broken it but I've come close  :s. My main gripe though is that the port fills up with dust and eventually it'll stop working properly (this has happened to me) and it's a pain in the arse to get the dust out because it all get caught around the tongue bit.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Researchers claim Microsoft's quantum breakthrough is flawed by basic Python errors by Karthik Mudaliar Microsoft's aggressive roadmap to deliver a commercial quantum supercomputer by 2029 has now hit a bit of a snag, and it's not because of a complex sub-zero dilution refrigerator, but rather because of a few lines of basic Python code. A new critique published in the scientific journal Nature argues that simple software errors effectively manufactured the breakthrough that Microsoft's foundational research claimed back in 2025 into Majorana-based topological qubits. Topological quantum computing, the path that Microsoft chose for its research, relies on creating and controlling "Majorana zero modes." These are exotic quasiparticles that theoretically offer vastly superior error resistance compared to the highly sensitive superconducting qubits currently being championed by rivals like Google and IBM. However, physically proving you have created these particles requires sifting through massive amounts of complex electrical conductance data to isolate a specific "topological gap." Because of the sheer volume of data, physicists rely heavily on custom software pipelines to process the results. This is where the Python scripts come in. Now, according to the critique, Microsoft’s data processing software contained fundamental programming errors that ultimately skewed the published results. By mishandling data arrays or deploying incorrect logic within the Python script, the software supposedly discarded "noisy" or contradictory data. Which is why it only highlighted the specific electrical measurements that supported the topological-gap claim. The researchers behind the critique argued that this makes the findings invalid, suggesting the heralded "quantum leap" was actually a false positive generated by bad code and not a product of groundbreaking physics. However, Microsoft is pushing back hard against these allegations. The Redmond giant has formally rejected the criticism, saying that it's just a minor anomaly rather than a fatal flaw. According to the company, while there may have been a minor oversight in the data parsing scripts, it does not alter the fundamental reality of their physical experiment. Just weeks ago, Microsoft unveiled the Majorana 2 quantum processor, a milestone so significant that the company boldly accelerated its timeline for a commercial quantum supercomputer from 2035 down to 2029. But the new software allegations reopen an old wound. Microsoft's quantum division faced a remarkably similar crisis when a landmark 2018 paper on Majorana particles was famously retracted in 2021 after independent physicists discovered the data had been inappropriately cropped. That historical baggage makes the current Python-related allegations particularly sensitive. If the foundational math and data processing for the 2025 breakthrough are genuinely flawed, the highly anticipated 2029 commercial timeline could easily be delayed or, worse, cancelled.
    • Because of what they have done to VMware I will never buy anything Broadcom again.
    • AMD releases hotfix for driver install issues on Windows 10 PCs by Taras Buria Earlier this week, AMD released an important graphics driver update. Version 26.6.2 brought AMD FSR 4.1 support to the previous-gen Radeon lineup, the RX 7000 series, giving users better upscaling tech that was previously locked to the newest GPUs. However, the driver turned out to be a little buggy, with users reporting installation issues on systems still running Windows 10. AMD quickly acknowledged the bug and today released a hotfix to resolve the problem. The AMD 26.6.3 Hotfix update is now available for download from the official website. Given that it is a hotfix release, it has only one change in its release notes: AMD announced the update on its official X account and added that a WHQL driver update with the necessary fixes would be released next week. Meanwhile, users can apply the hotfix or roll back to the previous driver using the official AMD Cleanup Utility. You can download AMD Software: Adrenalin Edition 26.6.3 Hotfix Preview Driver from the official website here. It is compatible with all currently supported graphics cards and 64-bit Windows 10 and 11. Full release notes are available on the same page.
    • With Microsoft now listening to its core audience and acting upon received feedback, fans can finally expect a much better version of Windows 11 than what was available five years ago. Here is to five more years, Windows 11! I guess we all need a good laugh now and again...
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      D0nn13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Rookie
      +ChiefOfNeo went up a rank
      Rookie
    • One Year In
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      466
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      123
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      82
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!