Switzerland Moves Toward a Universal Phone Charger Standard (vice.com)

Press2ToContinue writes: Apple's Lightning cable cartel be damned: Switzerland is moving forward with a plan for a single, universal phone charger across the country, standardizing phone chargers across the board. While the exact standard hasn't been mentioned yet, it wouldn't be hard to guess the standard: Micro USB, used across phone platforms, most especially Android, which has a gigantic chunk of the cell phone market worldwide.

The likely loser? Apple, which has relied on proprietary chargers since introducing the iPhone in 2007. While many companies have tried releasing generic cables, Apple often relies on DRM software to ensure that it's an Apple certified cable, charging $19 a piece for the Lightning charger used by the iPhone 5 and 6 and similar models.

What do you think -- are government-mandated standards for chargers a good idea? Despite the success of the standard household 3-prong electrical plug, doesn't this hamper progress? China seems to have done most of the work on the wall-circuit side of the equation,several years ago. But as to the "standard" 3-prong plug, any particular plug type is only as universal as the sockets and voltages they supply.

Comments

No

[Anonymous Coward]

Switzerland movies nothing, our Government just tries to suck up to the EU wherever they can and copy their laws... and, it just mandates a USB-Plug *on the charger*, so even for the crap from Cuppertino it does not change anything...

Re: No

[Sique]

We had that "let innovation run and the market will decide" for two decades, and the result was that we had new formats for charger, plugs and phone sockets twice a year, and none of them actually got more functionality. But instead we had cars full of 12 V plug-ins, we went frantically to the next store when we found out that the one charger we just need was broken or left at home. Our drawers filled with cables and converters and plugs, and we couldn't remember which device belongs to which.

Now I have exactly one plug in my car, it features two USB ports, and I can charge about everything, camera, each phone of my family, the tablets, and even my shaver. And I have three chargers, and they are sufficient to power all the devices too, and they will fit to each of them.

Sorry, mate. Chargers, plugs and cables were the sign of a big market failure. It was like the old times in the U.S. rail before the Great Pacific Railway, when going from Philadelphia to Charleston required seven changes of trains because of different gauges.

Government should enforce more standards

[NotInHere]

Standards are the basis of a free market, and proprietary "standards" are the basis of proprietary lock-in.

Governments are given the oversight to ensure that there still is a free market.

Examples for proprietary "standards" being used for proprietary lock-in:

-> microsoft office to make interopability with their formats hard

-> whatsapp's messaging protocol. its basically xmpp, but they still only allow the official client to communicate

-> printer cartriges, even used to lie to the customer by lowering the price for the printer.

Re:Government should enforce more standards

[angel'o'sphere]

Government mandated standards may or may not be a good idea, but they are certainly not "the basis of a free market" because they represent an intervention by government in the forces of supply and demand.
This is nonsense. The parent was right.
The underlying supply, mor important, demand, does not change, just because the suppliers need to meet a certain standard. And by all being forced to adhere to the same standard, a single supplier can not abuse his artificial monopoly.

Re:Government should enforce more standards

[dejitaru]

Sigh... i'm still waiting for the U.S. to move to the metric system :|

Re:Government should enforce more standards

[amiga3D]

Your statement may be true but still standards are not the basis of a free market.

Re:Government should enforce more standards

[sunderland56]

Yes. However, there is no world government; so planetary adoption of standards is still hard.

the success of the standard household 3-prong electrical plug

Haha. Right. All the proposed regulation does is to make *one* end of the charger a standard. Good luck with the other end. There is no "standard household outlet"; countries can't even agree on what the voltage should be, or the AC frequency, never mind the number of, arrangement, size, and shape of prongs.

Re:Government should enforce more standards

[ShanghaiBill]

A free market is a ...

That is ONE definition of a "free market", as a market free of government regulation. Another definition of a "free market" is a competitive market with negligible barriers to entry, and the inability of a single participant (either buyer or seller) to unilaterally set prices. In practice, these two definitions are opposites, since completely unregulated markets tend to be rigged.

Re:Government should enforce more standards

[PopeRatzo]

Your statement may be true but still standards are not the basis of a free market.

They are in a very important way. For example, legal standards are an absolute necessity for what you call a "free market" (which isn't really free, but that's a different discussion). If there were no standard for what happens to people who don't perform on contracts, created by government and enforced by government courts, then there could be no market at all, much less a "free" one.

Also, standards as to what constitutes fraud.

Yeah, standards are essential for markets of any kind. Remember, markets do not exist in nature. And there is no such thing as a "free market". None has every existed, none can possibly exist. Free market is like "free energy".

Re:Government should enforce more standards

[Darinbob]

The first definition has proven time and time again to lead to abuses in the market, abuses against rights of citizens, abuses against its own workers, cheating against its own shareholders even.

Re:Government should enforce more standards

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Can you give us an example of an unregulated "free market"? I mean one that actually exists, or has existed.

Well, as a simple example, black markets by their very nature are unregulated. New markets generally also start out unregulated and free; many Internet offerings were originally unregulated. There are historical examples as well. But even if there weren't, what do you think that would show?

Who decided that the voltage coming out of the wall socket should be 120v at 60hz?

(It's 110V 60Hz in the US.) The answer to that is complicated and involves technology, lobbying, economics, and patents. By itself, it's only a convention, but it then became mandatory as part of building codes and public safety regulations.

Where does the silly notion that there are a certain number of ounces to the pound come from?

Those aren't mandatory regulations, they are simply measures that people can choose to use or not.

Why shouldn't I be able to sell 14oz "pounds" of coffee?

Yes, why shouldn't you be able to?

And what do you think the word "government" means?

There are many forms of government and many definitions of government, but all government involves some notion of a "society" and the use of force or threat of force of some members of that society against other members of society, ostensibly for "the benefit of society as a whole".

Let me leave you with this quote from Bastiat:

Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.

Objecting to government-mandated standards is not the same as objecting to standards. Having standard voltages and frequencies, safety standards, and measurement standards is a good thing, but there are many ways and better ways to provide those than through government coercion.

Re:Government should enforce more standards

[PopeRatzo]

A totally free market would be anarchy.

That's the point.

So what you want is not a "totally free market", but rather, a regulated market. The only discussion left then is a negotiation regarding where to set the level of regulation. In other words, you want an attenuated freedom...a limited freedom. I guess, freedom ain't free.

I suggest we set the "freedom dial" to the setting that has provided people with the highest level of economic security, economic mobility, standard of living and lowest level of poverty. I think you see where this is going. See you in Gothenburg, comrade. Bernie 2016.

Re:Government should enforce more standards

[sjames]

(Don't give me the example of people trying to "corner the market" or "get a monopoly by buying up all competitors", that just doesn't work.)

Tell that to DeBeers.

Re:Government should enforce more standards

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

You would be wrong. As someone who spent a fair amount of time in Belgrade during the troubles there in the '90s, I've seen first hand how black markets work. They use currency (govt) and weights and measures (govt) and almost certainly local police are involved (or they couldn't function)

The criterion for a free market is that people conduct business transactions voluntarily and without having terms or conditions imposed on them by others. How does the voluntary use of government currency and the voluntary use of government weights and measures make the market non-free?

As for police involvement, you're engaging in circular reasoning: you assume that police are necessary for markets to function, then infer that police were "almost certainly involved", and then use that to argue that government is necessary for markets to function. In fact, police are not necessary for markets to function; many markets function perfectly well without police, laws, or a legal system to back them up. Reputation and repeat business are sufficient in and of themselves to make sure people live up to their commitments.

But it's a quote about something that doesn't have anything to do with the fact that you still can't offer a single instance of a "free market".

I have offered several instances; if you don't understand them why they are free markets, that's your problem. But you haven't explained why this is even relevant. Can you offer historical instances of societies with gender equality? Historical instances of societies that have eliminated economic inequality? Nationally recognized gay rights and gay marriage? Would the lack of historical precedent convince you that those things are bad ideas?

Good, then offer some examples of safety and measurement standards being "provided" (and by this, I assume you mean "enforced") without government.

That question is rife with several logical fallacies.

In any case, I'll just refer you to the literature, for example http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/p...

Rothbard's "For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto" also has a pretty good explanation of how these things work, and provides ample historical precedent.

Re:Government should enforce more standards

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

So basically a free market is where who ever has the most power can just take what they want

"Taking whatever they want" is not a "voluntary transaction", so, no, that's not a free market.

Remember, none of that pesky government regulation so things like private property only exist if you can defend them.

Defense of private property is something quite different from government regulations of markets, so your comment is missing the point. Nevertheless, government is not necessary in order to defend private property; voluntary, private mechanisms are sufficient.

I guess the early middle ages was an example of free markets. Powerless government with a rich class fighting amongst themselves to take and defend their property.

You got it backwards: the middle ages were characterized by a political ruling class (whose power was rooted in military strength) that enriched themselves through government coercion. Their oppressive rule was ended through increasing wealth from private businesses. Nobility forced to marry wealthy commoners became a common trope in the literature at the end of the Middle Ages and later.

Re:Government should enforce more standards

[sjames]

No, you claimed that a market can't be rigged if the transactions are voluntary. I showed three examples off the top of my head of rigged markets where the transactions were voluntary. You further claimed that cornering the market doesn't work. I would say the fantastic profits of DeBeers show that it DOES work. Nothing lasts forever, but it doesn't have to in order to be immensely profitable to a few and damaging to many.

If you're going to move the goalposts all over the place, I'm not going to bother playing.

That includes re-defining voluntary to include coerced by circumstance.

Re:Government should enforce more standards

[Half-pint HAL]

That's even more amazing, since the US has some of the strictest consumer protection and environmental protection in the world.

Surely you can point to studies showing that!

In any case, which part of "Objecting to government-mandated standards is not the same as objecting to standards." did you not understand?

None. But I disagree with you, because when industries create voluntary standards, companies have a tendency to push the boundaries as there is no comeback on them if they fail to meet the standard.

Re:Government should enforce more standards

[Half-pint HAL]

That's free marketism to the extreme.

Really? Telling people that price fixing agreements are likely not to be optimal for one or the other party is "free marketism to the extreme"???

The guy in question was happy with the advice. As a child, he found it a very valuable lesson, and more money. But you refuse to accept his view of the experience as positive because "interfering with markets". That's extremist free marketism, stating that the invisible hand is more important than anything, even the education of a child.

Talking about hobbies, one of the problems in (literal) markets is that professionals often end up competing with hobbyists. [...] most hobbyists set their prices based on material cost (yarn in the crocheted hat example) -- they see their time as zero-cost because they're engaged in their hobby anyway. But that undermines those who want to be pros

And the problem with that would be... what?

The inability of anyone to make a bloody living.

Re:Government should enforce more standards

[david_thornley]

What did she do wrong in Benghazi? Last I pushed someone hard on that issue, it would up as a claim that Clinton should have micromanaged the situation better while being an ocean away.

There was nothing wrong with having a private email server when she did it.

I don't hate you, I just think you're a "useful idiot" of the right wing.

Douglas Adams had an opinion:

[Alien7]

http://www.douglasadams.com/dna/980707-03-a.html

Re:Douglas Adams had an opinion:

[ffkom]

That article is pretty old and pretty outdated. As he already mentions in his post-script, the EU issued an "has to be chargeable via USB" regulation, and most airlines operating in the EU have USB power outlets in the front seat even in coach on long-haul flights.

Re:Douglas Adams had an opinion:

[Anonymous Coward]

Cut the man some slack, he's been dead almost 14 years, and as far as anyone can tell, not for tax purposes.

Re:OLD NEWS

[NotInHere]

These articles are about EU adopting an universal phone standard. Switzerland isn't a part of the EU, only schengen.

The current story is about switzerland adopting the law.

The swiss people are smart: they only adopt the EU laws that make sense.

why?

[Noah Haders]

Where does it say that the purpose of govt is to regulate the free market? Why would the govt know better than industry which things should be standardized or not? Innovation is a Good Thing, and mandated standards pee on this.

Re:why?

[Insanity Defense]

The government must be involved to prevent the formation of monopolies or cartels that remove the "free" from free market.

Re:why?

[FrankSchwab]

Well, the Bell System WAS a government created monopoly, which fought tooth and nail against every attempt to nibble away at any part of it. All the government had to do to dismantle it was to repeal the laws the prevented any competition.

Standard Oil, on the other hand, was a market created monopoly where the government had to take aggressive action to dismantle it.

Re:why?

[Darinbob]

"True free market" is one of those religious notions I think. In the absence of a government there can't be a well functioning market, so perhaps a "true" free market means a dysfunctional one? Trying to learn economics from libertarian pamphlets is not a good idea.

that's just the EU standard

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

The EU has mandated USB-style chargers by law for a couple of years now. These regulations do not prohibit proprietary charge connectors, just the ability to charge a phone from USB through an adapter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Given technologies like USB-C and various wireless chargers, it's not clear that these regulations really are very meaningful.

Re:OLD NEWS

[DamonHD]

EFTA membership is important here I suspect:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/...

In this case ...

[SwashbucklingCowboy]

... government standardization would be a good thing since the vendors obviously aren't going to do it themselves. Proprietary connectors mostly help the vendors with lock-in due to patents which only helps to pad the balance sheets of those vendors.

Jeunism

[Max_W]

The problem with chargers cables is that it seems they are designed by young designers, who have a perfect vision.

But after fifty years almost everyone experiences a deterioration of vision. It is so simple to make an explicit clear design of a plug, still I am to put on my glasses just to connect a smartphone to a charger.

It is not only with cables, it's with everything, an iron, a headphones, etc. About everything is designed by young cool people with perfect youthful vision.

Re:Govt mandated?

[NotInHere]

The digital industry is filled with almost monopolies. Microsoft is almost monopolist for the desktop (and its office suite is almost monopolist was well), intel is almost monopolist for the desktop CPU market. Google is almost monopolist for internet search. If these companies now use their monopoly to promote only a part of the market they control, its an abuse of their monopoly.

Its hard if a company wants to improve a product, yes. But here the thought of a free market is more important than wanting to improve cabled charger technology.

Imagine if you bought a house with apple IOT, and apple sells thousands of these houses, and after they sold them, they declare that only devices will work with the house's power grid that are certified by apple. This will be their next money printing machine. Modifying the house would be forbidden because of the strong IP laws, and patents apple has on the house. Your only option would be to tear down. Would you want this? And what is if only such houses are on the market, if nobody can build a normal house anymore, without vendor lock in?

Re:Govt mandated?

[Fire_Wraith]

Standards, whether they come from the government or from an industry group, are going to serve the interests of that group. It's whose interests those are that are key, because you can have industry standards designed to enrich a minority of players through proprietary formats - for instance, Blu-ray. Or look at the whole Net Neutrality debate - would you really want an "industry consortium" of internet service providers (Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner, etc) setting the rules for that, or would you prefer the FCC do it?

Contrary to popular belief in America, Government is not inherently bad, so long as it's actually serving the interests of the people, rather than rich/corporate/etc interests. Ironically, the same people who have been trying to convince Americans that "Government is bad" often tend to be the same people sucking up to those rich/corporate/etc interests. Government certainly can be subverted, but that's partly on us as citizens, to not let it happen, and more importantly to fight for a system where it's not easy to have that sort of regulatory capture occur.

If the industry actually had to pay...

[ffkom]

... for the environmental cost of dumping the toxic waste that is millions of perfectly fine but "obsolete" chargers every year, they might also rethink this pseudo-innovation stuff.

However, regulating the production seems to be just more practical than searching through all trash cans for illegal dumping of toxic waste.

Re:Govt mandated?

[angel'o'sphere]

Govt overreach?
Yes, lucky you live in the states so idiots like you can not vote here.
That is exactly what a government is for.

Perhaps you missed the news: Swizerland is not the first country demanding universal chargers.

There are people that don't want to carry half a dozen different chargers around just because they have so many devices.
If the companies are to dumb to realize that then the government has to force them. That is for what I pay taxes.

Govt mandated standards always make things worse and serve to enrich a minority of players. That does not sound plausible. Any example for that?

I'm conflicted about this...

[Bearhouse]

On the one hand, I have drawers full of old phones and chargers...so I reckon standards are good.
On the other, my kids (and to a lesser extent I) enjoyed the extended functionality that iPhone sockets brought to (cheap, non-Apple) peripherals like bedside alarms, autonomous amp/speakers in the bathroom or by the pool, replacement car stereos...access to contacts, charging, music and all without Apple or Android "car OS" bullshit. And no, bluetooth alternatives for non-Apple devices do not count...only recently have they become remotely equivalent in reliability of connection, integration and ease of use.
The cheapo Chinese iThings mostly "Just Worked"...(OK, albeit with hilariously poor and inconsistent interfaces)
Well, up to iPhone 4s anyway.

All that came to a grinding halt with later iPhones / iOS.
Since my kids and cats routinely lose, loan, or just simply destroy chargers and cables, I have a bunch of hard-wired armoured micro-USB cables all around the house, the garden, the cars etc.
Fine for me and the wife with Android 'phones; for kids and visitors a small "tip" that converted the mini-USB to Lightening was attached with a steel flying wire near the end, (fishing line header, if you're interested...)
Neat little thing, bought for cheap. Worked fine.
Until an "update" rendered them useless...

Fuck you Apple.

Oh, and don't get me started on how later iOS updates rendered the user interface LESS usable.

Fuck you again, boys, and BTW fuck iTunes while we're at it.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to mow the lawn.
 

Re:Lightning Charger? Bias Much?

[Anonymous Coward]

The cable should be a dumb piece of conductor. A Lightning cable isn't. You might think that the ability to insert it either way would rely on special hardware in the phone, but that's because you're not thinking like a piece of shit that wants to force everyone to buy overpriced cables. In the Lightning cable, the hardware to determine the cable orientation and get everything hooked up right is IN THE CABLE.

That little bump before the Lightning plug? That's a chip. That's where the "insert either direction" magic happens.

About the fifth time you get the this accessory is not supported by this iPhone message on the included cable and charger, you'll start to realize why the whole Lightning system is a horrible idea.

FWIW I rather pay a "premium" on a cable that will not fry my hardware and might burn my house down.

That's the charger, not the cable. Poorly built chargers can catch fire, and they can do that just fine with an Apple approved Lightning cable.

Of course, you also need an Apple approved charger, because iOS won't draw anything past the absolute minimum USB charge if not connected to an official Apple charger.

Hopefully NOT USB Micro B

[CharlieG]

USB-C is a way better connector - No schrodinger's cat problem where the ports direction isn't determined until you try it the first time, so it always takes 3 tries. Aupports higher power etc - just a way better standard than Micro B

Re:Hopefully NOT USB Micro B

[craighansen]

Bzzt. Sorry. You made the unwarranted assumption that the voltage is limited to 5V, devices can negotiate up to 20V. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Hopefully NOT USB Micro B

[NormalVisual]

Thanks for the link. I hadn't known 20V was on the table.

That said, it's still sounding like it's going to need a fairly big cable to accommodate the current safely.

Re:The likely loser ?

[Black Parrot]

Apple hasn't had much pull in Switzerland since the days of William Tell.

UBA

[kybred]

Does it work in Europe?
IBM UBA

Re: Govt mandated?

[Vapula]

They sold a billion units... with 2 or 3 different connectors...

in comparison to several billion product sold by all other PLUS pther devices which also decided to standardize on micro-USB (like HP Prime calculator, some bank card reader for e-banking, raspberry pi and other (Bannana pi, Beagle Bone, ...) and so on...

Apple is the outsider, not a standard...

Oh come on!

[wbean]

Don't you remember all the different chargers? I love being able to use any micro USB charger with any phone or camera. No more digging around to find the proprietary charger that I may have labelled to identify the device that it works with. It may pay the individual companies to design their own proprietary chargers and still be better for the consumer for the government to insist on a single design standard. The "free market" isn't some wonder drug.

Re:Bad timing

[whoever57]

Are you really bitching that there MUST be a law to force Apple to deliver a 25â adapter?

Deliver, no. Make their phones compatible with micro-USB chargers, yes. Governments impose regulations and pass laws requiring standards compliance on products all the time. Especially in the EU, where there are laws which do such things as force standard sizes for foods (for example, in the UK, manufacturers were forced to sell products in sizes that were round numbers in grams and not just conversions from the old imperial units).

Negative connotation of harmonization to EU

[tepples]

Except a title like "Switzerland Harmonizes Phone Power Plug Rule to EU" might have a negative ring among Slashdot users because "harmonizing rules to the EU" was the excuse to push things like the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998.

standarizing phone chargers

[unixisc]

I fail to see why that's a problem. Having a type A slot on the charger means that any phone w/ the correct cord can be charged - not just Apple or Android but also past generations of phones that may have used other types, like mini USB (used on the old Moto Razrs) or the proprietary types from Nokia, Samsung or LG.

Only issue as far as charging goes is iToys sometimes refusing to charge when not using the original white Apple made connectors. But even that happens only in certain environments, like a car's USB port.

As far as standardizing goes, USB has a pretty sordid record itself. Type A & Type B was fine, then you had mini, then micro, now Type C is coming out that is symmetric... Why can't the USB committee just standardize on Apple's lightning connector, instead of reinventing the wheel?

Re:standarizing phone chargers

[jmac_the_man]

Apple is using the lightning connectors (and the associated data transfer standards) to lock customers in to only purchasing from Apple. Letting the USB committee standardize on Lightning would defeat the purpose

Re:standarizing phone chargers

[tlhIngan]

I fail to see why that's a problem. Having a type A slot on the charger means that any phone w/ the correct cord can be charged - not just Apple or Android but also past generations of phones that may have used other types, like mini USB (used on the old Moto Razrs) or the proprietary types from Nokia, Samsung or LG.

Only issue as far as charging goes is iToys sometimes refusing to charge when not using the original white Apple made connectors. But even that happens only in certain environments, like a car's USB port.

As far as standardizing goes, USB has a pretty sordid record itself. Type A & Type B was fine, then you had mini, then micro, now Type C is coming out that is symmetric... Why can't the USB committee just standardize on Apple's lightning connector, instead of reinventing the wheel?

Well, several problems with the summary.

1) Micro USB sucks. I mean, USB Type C is coming out and for good reason - plugging in cables without doing the twist-around dance is a good thing. Rumor has it Apple actually gave that design to the USB forum because well, uni-directional connectors stink especially on mobile. Heck, there are several designs for the old Type A connector that are... reversible! Unfortunately, the design of the Type A means they are fragile

2) USB lightning cables aren't expensive, nor proprietary. The chip only comes into play if you want to do anything more than connect a sync/charge cable. You can pick up a ton of sync/charge USB to lightning cables on eBay/DealExtreme/monoprice/Alibaba for $5 shipped these days. There's a lot of clone cables out there. Hell, even licensed cables are only $10 on sale nowadays.

3) The chip allows lightning to do fancy things like send audio or video data out of it. USB has no such functionality directly (except through USB Host ports faking OTG - no one implements real OTG), so it's considered a "value add".

4) Reversible connectors are good. Imagine trying to design a phone accessory that uses the USB port - if you want to support a lot of phones, it's hard because half will have the USB plug one way, the other half will be the opposite, so you get stuck with releasing a product with a pigtail and some hokey attachment option.

5) Apple chargers have special resistors to tell you how much current the charger allows. USB Charging spec shorts D+/D-, offering no clue as to how much you can draw. And it's changed - 500mA, 800mA, 1A and 2A are valid. And devices that draw 2A have been known to explode/set on fire cheap chargers. Why the USB folks couldn't have adopted the Apple system (which is cheap, requires no special hardware (the resistors pull the D+/D- lines to logical 0 and 1 states) to measure or use and lets you mix and match chargers at will, I have no idea. I mean, why can't the charger tell the device it only supports 500mA? (FYI - the circuits to detect a USB charger are the same as Apple resistors - the D+/D- short coupled with "special resistors" inside the device across ground and Vbus means you detect it because the USB lines go a certain way)

6) Government mandating USB Micro is already limiting - consumers won't get Type C style connectors on their phone. I mean it's good it's standardized, but you really want to harm innovation like this? Of course, you can allow adapters for the Apple folks, and the Type C phone folks as well. (And face it - more phones are coming with Type C nowadays).

SO no, I'm sure Apple's really worried. Because likely the adapter provision will have to say, or you're going to really deny people the ability to buy phones that have USB Type C?

Re:Why do we need a universal plug?

[sjames]

You must not remember before the EU insisted on USB charging. Pretty much every manufacturer had it's own plug and charger 'standard'. Replacement chargers, if available at all, were priced as if they were plated in platinum for the simple reason that there was nowhere else to get one from. There was no option for a universal charger or even a charger that might work on more than one phone.

Manufacturers shouldn't waste the people's time and money on non-standard chargers. They had plenty of opportunity to get together and come up with a standard and they didn't even try, so they needed one imposed on them.

Re:Why do we need a universal plug?

[angel'o'sphere]

This is absurd.
No, the situations before those laws where absurd.

We have far bigger problems and government should not waste the people's time on stupid issues like charging cables.

A la contrair: the government should spend most of its time on all stupid issues regarding where citizens are robbed by companies which are to stupid to follow common sense.