Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Cellphones Power

Universal Phone Charger Approved By UN Body 220

Posted by Soulskill
from the but-i-like-the-seventeen-i-have dept.
andylim writes "Plans for a universal mobile phone charger have been approved by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a United Nations body. The charger has a micro-USB port at the connecting end, using technology similar to what is commonly used with digital cameras. It is not compulsory for manufacturers to adopt the new chargers, but the ITU says that some have already signed up to it. 'We are planning to launch the universal charger internationally during the first half of 2010,' Aldo Liguori, spokesperson for Sony Ericsson told the BBC."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Universal Phone Charger Approved By UN Body

Comments Filter:
  • by Idimmu Xul (204345) on Saturday October 24, 2009 @07:22AM (#29855717) Homepage Journal

    Although it is funny to watch all the iPhone users I work with scrabble about sharing one cable at work between them whilst we drown in a sea of standard USB cabling!

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 24, 2009 @07:24AM (#29855739)

    This folks is one of the two UN organisations (both older than the UN) who could run the WWW better than ICANN. The other being the Postal Union (UPU or IPU I think they changed their name).

    So, there you go, the UN is not just the political shit. The ITU is what means that you can phone from point A to point B, they are the logical choice for control over the WWW and domain name system.

  • by XPeter (1429763) * on Saturday October 24, 2009 @07:28AM (#29855759) Homepage

    Not true at all.

    My blackberry Tour has it. My Blackberry Storm had it, and so did my LG Dare.

    Definitely not limited to Nokia.

  • Finally (Score:3, Insightful)

    by hcdejong (561314) <hobbes@xm s n e t.nl> on Saturday October 24, 2009 @07:42AM (#29855829)

    It's good to have a standard, pity it's 10 years late. Also, why the hell is this not mandatory?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 24, 2009 @07:47AM (#29855855)

    Wait is micro usb different from the "mini" usb that's on my camcorder, extnl hard drive, and several other things i've got lying around?

    I guess so; wik has "the now-deprecated (but standardized) Mini-A and the currently standard Mini-B, Micro-A, and Micro-B connectors"

    wtf? After standardizing *on the micro connector, someone will need to look into standardizing *it.

  • Micro-USB? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Colonel Sponsz (768423) on Saturday October 24, 2009 @07:49AM (#29855869)

    Great. Now I can have everything limited to charging at, at a maximum, 500 mA @ 5 V! Just what I've always want... oh wait, I think the charging times for most of my gadgets are already too long. If you can't charge to full capacity within a lunch break, it takes too damned long.

  • Re:Micro-USB? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by vadim_t (324782) on Saturday October 24, 2009 @08:00AM (#29855933) Homepage

    That's just what the current USB standard says a port must provide.

    But it doesn't stop a wall charger from providing as much as the cable can bear, which has got to be quite a bit more.

  • by Plunky (929104) on Saturday October 24, 2009 @08:04AM (#29855957)

    After standardizing *on the micro connector, someone will need to look into standardizing *it.

    Yes, reading the wikipedia page it seems that the micro socket is rated for many many more insertions than the older "mini" socket

    On the other hand, I would prefer that my mobile phone in the future didn't have any kind of socket. I want to see induction charging where you just lay it on a charging plate (possibly with other devices at the same time) and just use Bluetooth or whatever for data connectivity.

  • Important (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tsa (15680) on Saturday October 24, 2009 @08:07AM (#29855969) Homepage

    Why this was tagged !important is beyond me. This only has plus points! It is a very important step in reducing carbon- and other needless emissions. Imagine how much this saves in copper and other materials! The price of phones and other appliances can go down a small bit because the consumer doesn't have to pay for a charger every time it buys a new one. Packages become smaller so shipping new phones costs less energy. Shops can store more phones in the same space, so the chance that the phone you want is out of stock will become smaller... I could go on and on. This is a giant leap for the environment and the consumer!

  • Re:Whew! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bloobloo (957543) on Saturday October 24, 2009 @08:09AM (#29855991) Homepage

    Because ITU members would otherwise be working on world peace?

  • Re:Finally (Score:5, Insightful)

    by commodore64_love (1445365) on Saturday October 24, 2009 @08:10AM (#29855993) Journal

    Because the UN was never given the power to mandate an electronic design. They can offer an opinion (recommendation) but that's it.

    Nor should the UN make that grab for power, because once you go down that road, eventually the UN will start mandating what kind of roof you can install on your house. It's bad enough I have Congress telling me how much corn/potatoes I can or cannot grow in my own backyard. They were never granted that power under the Constitution, but since the mid-1930s they've exercised the power. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn [wikipedia.org]

  • by lordandmaker (960504) on Saturday October 24, 2009 @08:13AM (#29856015) Homepage
    What was wrong with the already approaching-de-facto standard of mini usb? Or is it only that popular where I am?

    Mini USB is one of those things that *everyone* has a lead for, they come with cameras and mp3 players and the like. What's better about micro usb?
  • Re:Micro-USB? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Yvan256 (722131) on Saturday October 24, 2009 @08:45AM (#29856213) Homepage Journal

    By using micro USB, they did paint themselves in a corner for the 5 volts. However, the current provided has to be a minimum of 500mA according to the USB specs.

    Having a power adapter able to supply more than 500mA won't blow up anything since the device should also work within spec and work with a minimum of 500mA.

    Chargers being able to supply 5 volts at 2A won't blow up anything and recharge devices four times faster, if required/supported by the device. If not, the device will only take 500mA and the charger just won't be working at its full capacity of 2A.

    I wonder if the new phone charger standard mentions a "from 500mA up to X amps" specification or not.

  • Re:Great! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Antique Geekmeister (740220) on Saturday October 24, 2009 @08:56AM (#29856301)

    Not all phones will recharge this way without extra work. A co-worker and I just had a look at his new Blackberry, which refused to charge from his laptop unless proprietary software was also installed, and it refused to work with a discharged battery until at least 10 minutes after he first reconnected power and it had recharged the battery somewhat. Every other phone or portable device I've worked with worked _immediately_ after providing external power.

    Standards are helpful, and I'd love to see a drop in the number of stupid adapters on the shelves of hardware stores and Staples, but amazingly stupid behavior like that Blackberry's can still be layered on top of good standards.

  • Re:Finally (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TheRaven64 (641858) on Saturday October 24, 2009 @09:18AM (#29856445) Journal
    I'd have rather that they licensed the dock connector. It's a nice design and can carry power, FireWire, USB, audio and video signals. Going to USB seems like a step backwards.
  • Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by lastchance_000 (847415) on Saturday October 24, 2009 @09:30AM (#29856523)
    I'd be happy if they simply killed off the wall wart.
  • Universal? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by bhebing (741840) on Saturday October 24, 2009 @09:32AM (#29856543)
    Surely they mean terrestrial, not universal. Or are we really hoping that the Xymoleians from Sirius B will adapt to this standard?
  • Re:Great! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MPAB (1074440) on Saturday October 24, 2009 @09:48AM (#29856631)

    (just don't buy them at the airport where they'll probably charge you 20€ for a crappy universal travel adapter).

    Don't worry. Someone will find the way to make a terrorist threat out of socket adapters and they'll be forbidden to travel with unless bought sealed at the airport.

  • by raju1kabir (251972) on Saturday October 24, 2009 @11:44AM (#29857465) Homepage

    This folks is one of the two UN organisations (both older than the UN) who could run the WWW better than ICANN

    1. ICANN doesn't run the www.

    2. ITU is incredibly internet-hostile. The ITU's vision of the internet is a closed network run by national telco monopolies where everything is charged for. If they had their way you'd be paying $10,000 for copies of each IETF document.

  • Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by BrokenHalo (565198) on Saturday October 24, 2009 @11:46AM (#29857489)
    Manufacturers don't actually need to use a wall-wart as such. They could easily use a length of cable terminated by a normal plug, with the "wart" part of it at some point on the cable away from the socket.

    That way, we wouldn't have that continual problem with running out of usable power outlets because of some fucking wall-wart taking up more than its fair share of space.

In the sciences, we are now uniquely priviledged to sit side by side with the giants on whose shoulders we stand. -- Gerald Holton

Working...