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

    • GitHub removes manual model selection from Copilot free and student plans by Karthik Mudaliar GitHub is removing the ability to manually select an AI model from its Copilot Free and Student plans, making its automatic routing system the default and only way to choose a model. This means users on these tiers will no longer be able to deliberately select a particular OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, or Microsoft model for a task. In its announcement, GitHub said Copilot Auto will dynamically choose what it considers the best model for each request. Free and Student accounts will retain access to models from multiple families, although the available selection will continue to depend on the restrictions attached to each plan. GitHub did not identify a fixed pool of models that Auto will always use, and its documentation warns that model availability can change over time. GitHub describes Auto as more than a random fallback system. On supported surfaces, its task-optimization technology evaluates the complexity of a request alongside real-time information about model health and availability. Straightforward prompts can be routed to faster and less expensive models, while more demanding coding tasks may be sent to higher-cost reasoning models. The company says this approach should reduce rate limiting, latency, and failed requests. Auto generally selects one model along natural prompt-caching boundaries rather than repeatedly switching models during a session, as GitHub found that mid-session changes increased costs without producing sufficient improvements in output quality. Users can still check which model generated a response. In Copilot Chat, the information appears when hovering over an answer, while Copilot CLI and the Copilot cloud agent display the selected model alongside their output. Auto is available in Copilot Chat, Copilot CLI, and the cloud agent, with the exact implementation and release status varying between supported development environments. The latest restriction follows several months of adjustments to Copilot’s individual plans. GitHub temporarily halted new Pro, Pro+, and Student subscriptions in April as it sought to manage demand and service reliability. It later introduced token-based billing and began gradually reopening individual-plan registrations on June 17. Alongside the picker change, GitHub is retiring the “Preview” label from Microsoft-developed models. It argues that the label is no longer necessary because Auto handles model routing and models are continuously updated behind the scenes.
    • Look up 'inflation' kid. Ask an AI for the numbers between both games.
    • Google reportedly set to lose two key Gemini and DeepMind researchers to Anthropic by Karthik Mudaliar Google is reportedly preparing to lose two more prominent artificial intelligence researchers, with Gemini contributors Jonas Adler and Alexander Pritzel planning to join rival AI developer Anthropic. According to a report from Bloomberg, both researchers are viewed internally as important contributors to Google’s flagship Gemini model family. Adler worked on Google’s AI coding efforts, while Pritzel was involved in the process used to train AI systems. Neither company has publicly confirmed the moves. The report also does not say when the researchers will formally leave Google or what positions they will hold at Anthropic. Training a large AI model requires decisions covering its architecture, data preparation, distributed computing infrastructure, and post-training methods that shape how the finished system behaves. Researchers with experience operating at the scale of Gemini are consequently difficult to replace quickly. Both Adler and Pritzel have previously contributed to Google DeepMind’s scientific research as well. They are listed among the authors of the company’s work on expanding AlphaFold protein-structure predictions across entire proteomes, alongside AlphaFold researchers including John Jumper. The reported departures arrive shortly after another important change within Google’s Gemini organization. Gemini co-lead Noam Shazeer is leaving Google for OpenAI, after returning to the search company in 2024 through its deal with Character.AI. Shazeer is particularly well known as one of the authors of the Transformer paper, whose architecture became the foundation for most modern large language models. Anthropic, meanwhile, has been recruiting recognizable figures from other leading laboratories. OpenAI co-founder and former Tesla AI director Andrej Karpathy joined Anthropic’s pre-training team in May. His move, followed by the reported recruitment of several Google researchers, suggests Anthropic is strengthening the research teams responsible for the core capabilities of future Claude models rather than concentrating solely on product and enterprise sales. The competition is complicated by the companies’ extensive commercial relationships. Anthropic competes directly with Google’s Gemini models, but it also relies on Google as an infrastructure partner. In April, Anthropic announced an expanded agreement with Google and Broadcom covering multiple gigawatts of next-generation Tensor Processing Unit capacity. TPUs are Google-designed accelerators used to train and run large AI models. via Bloomberg
    • This article makes my head hurt. Lots of confusing words
    • Google adds built-in computer control to Gemini 3.5 flash by Karthik Mudaliar Google has added Computer Use as a built-in tool in Gemini 3.5 Flash, giving developers a single model that can reason about a task and operate graphical interfaces across browsers, mobile devices, and desktop environments. The feature is available through the Gemini API and Google’s Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform, although it remains a preview feature for now. Computer Use enables an AI agent to examine screenshots and return actions such as mouse clicks, scrolling, and keyboard input. A developer’s application must execute those actions, capture the resulting screen, and send it back to Gemini, creating a continuous loop until the task is completed. Google says the integration can be used for activities including repetitive form filling, application testing, research across multiple websites, and longer enterprise workflows. Gemini 3.5 Flash can work with browser, mobile, and desktop environments, whereas Google’s earlier standalone Computer Use model was primarily positioned around browser interaction. The main change is consolidation. Computer control was previously offered through the separate Gemini 2.5 Computer Use preview model. As Neowin reported when that model was introduced, it was designed to interpret a visual interface and generate actions without requiring a website-specific API. Google later brought Computer Use to preview versions of Gemini 3 Pro and Gemini 3 Flash in January 2026. The latest release now incorporates the tool into the stable Gemini 3.5 Flash model rather than requiring developers to select a specialized model solely for interface automation. Gemini 3.5 Flash itself was announced in May as Google’s latest fast model for coding and multi-step agent workflows. It supports a one-million-token input context window and up to 65,000 output tokens, along with adjustable thinking levels that let developers trade additional reasoning for lower latency and cost. Google also added that Gemini 3.5 Flash received targeted adversarial training for computer-use scenarios. The company is also offering safeguards that can require user confirmation before sensitive or irreversible actions and automatically stop a workflow when suspected prompt injection is detected. Its developer documentation describes configurable protections for areas such as financial transactions and changes to sensitive records. Google isn't the first to bring Computer Use to its platform. Anthropic has made computer control available through Claude, while OpenAI has continued improving computer-use performance in its recent models. Microsoft has also applied the concept to business workflows, including a Computer Use capability for the Researcher agent in Microsoft 365 Copilot.
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      463
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      124
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      79
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!