Though a lot more news-centric in Europe (rightfully so), something that could have some implications on the United States has been being mulled over in the European Union (EU) for the last year. The EU is pushing to require that all smartphone manufacturers within the EU have the same type of charging port.
Apple, which is proudly notorious for having accessories unique to the brand, has been a strong opponent to the EU’s push. As the third-largest smartphone vendor in Europe, they have monetary reasons to be upset, and they also manufacture parts of their phone in Europe. Business analytics predict that the trend may continue beyond Europe, as well.
Here is a look at both sides’ arguments, as well as what kind of effects such a decision would have on people in the United States, if any.
EU’s Side
The EU’s main point is customer convenience, and anyone who has ever been somewhere who has a charger for one type of phone but not their own, can certainly relate. The aim to make something that everyone uses every day a universal item follows the same arguments car companies face when they are forced to follow a new regulation regarding things like gasoline access or emissions. When something is a daily use item, there is often government push to regulate it (small appliances must be powered by 12 volt wall chargers, for instance), and no one can argue that chargers aren’t daily use items.
With universal chargers, energy would be saved as well. This wouldn’t have a enormous effect, as any chargers draw energy, but universal ones could be more regulated. Chargers being discarded as people buy new phones and gadgets is another talking point that the EU brings up, making it a fair environmental argument as well.
Apple’s Side
As a company that claims (and often proves) to be very eco-friendly, Apple’s first defense was against the negative effects that creating new charger types and not adhering to universal port requests is having, related to waste of old chargers. They argue that making everything universal will create an enormous surplus of charger waste as soon as the rules are implemented, citing things like Apple’s sterling customer retention numbers (meaning, for some, this would be the first time any of their devices would require something not manufactured originally by apple).
Their other staunch argument is based simply on company freedoms. Apple products are sold, in huge numbers, all across the globe, and having to create new products simply to serve European customers seems like a lot of work with not a lot (if any) of benefit for the company. Certainly Apple would never consider not selling their products in Europe, but the argument against having to regulate something is a fair one.
Effects
The effects outside of Europe aren’t abundant in the short-term, but the U.S. should take note, with major producers of phones and tablets preparing a game plan if similar legislation would follow in the U.S. However, other pushes in the past have almost always had riders allowing companies to use their own, un-universalized products, so long as they provided an option to purchase an adapter for users to be able to use whatever universal means existed at the time (something Apple also pointed to when discussing waste related to universal chargers).
Government regulation leaves a bad taste in most Americans’ mouths, but it has proven to have a lot of positive effects on the masses, when utilized correctly and fairly. A lot of regulation aims to protect consumers, which making chargers universal doesn’t particularly do. Think of safety protocols for food and automobiles, or making certain products have warnings about being harmful to children.
The other issue is monetary, as government regulation brings with it government spending. As some governments are following more corporate governance structures, any extra money spent is often scoffed at. Following the scoffings, though, most are reviewed and looked into, and with this situation there really are very fair points from both sides. U.S. corporations can consider themselves lucky that they get to watch the process unfold in Europe first. Taking information from that can make stateside companies’ transitions much smoother if similar regulation should follow here.
