user1:

What I'm saying is that when some things serve no other purpose than convenience, it's perfectly fine to regulate it in a way
that might "hinder diversity and competition". Because that diversity does nothing but annoy customers,
and give companies the opportunity to force said customers into giving them a bit more money, through being
forced to buy the only compatible charger. It just sucks. It has absolutely nothing to do with "innovation".

user2:
So is it convenient, or unecessary? Maybe you meant non-essential?
But then a lot of other things are, but still benefit us in enough way to make it worthwhile.
It doesn't restrain the free market either, it just shifts the area in which your product differentiates
itself from your competitor's from the type of cable you need to charge it, to... Well, actual functionality.
There's tons of secondary limitations like this in place already.
Sometimes it's fine to get rid of a minuscule insignificant freedom to make things simpler for everyone.

user3:
> modifications and design improvements become exponentially more difficult.

That's half the point. That one manufacturer can't arbitrarily change it and make it
incompatible with everything else out there already.

> Imagine, for example, if they'd settled on micro usb type b, or, heck the old Nokia style circular charger, or those stupid Sony flat pressure connectors.
The EU already standardized on the micro USB connector.

> Well, we wouldn't have the much more practical type c chargers or whatever could come next.
Unless the body in charge keeps up with changing standards. Or manufacturers follow in Apple's
footsteps and provide an adapter[1].

> I think the government should stay out of technology, period. The government staying out largely until now
No, the EU ruled on this in 2013. This is just the Swiss codifying it in their local laws.

> The "environmental" argument presented in the draft is a canard.
How many “obsolete” adapters have you thrown out since 2013?

> The same could be said about virtually anything. E.g. "*We're going to mandate a specific
type of cathode ray tube television which should be good enough™ for anybody.

Which happened in NTSC, PAL, and SECAM standards. And it's because of that we didn't have manufacturers working
with individual broadcasters producing proprietary transmissions, like they were before the FCC stepped in.

And let me tell you, standards are good. I have to deal with like six, seven, eight different kinds of arbitrary
standards with varying levels of strictness. It's a mess compared to what they have in the EU. EBU R103 is so simple,
and every piece of gear I've got has a button for it. Compliance is a cakewalk for EBU R103 compared to compliance here
in the US.

user:4
> What could possible go wrong with centrally mandated technology?

The technology itself is not mandated by EU. It's decided by the industry together.
EU just presses that the industry togehter agrees on a standard. EU is not saying what
the standard should be. The industry is free to develop new technology and adopt it, but
they have to do it together, not everyone developing competing standards.
This saves consumers and the environment from format wars like Betamax vs. VHS or BluRay vs. HDDVD,
as the industry is together deveveloping the technology.
And thus, your analogy to regulation of CRT televisions does not apply, as EU isn't mandating certain technology.
And in addition, chargers by nature are different from televisions. Chargers are appliances that connect other
devices to the electric grid. The function of televisions isn't like that. A better analogy would be that every
television comes with an own extension cable so that you can plug them to the wall, and every TV manufacturer
has a different format so you cannot re-use the cable for a television by another manufacturer. Or that instead
of computers and monitors having this common power cord[http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/923/923,1102519656,4/stock-photo-computer-power-cord-56697.jpg]  , every manufacturer would use their own.

user5:
We already have this in the EU, Switzerland are just joining that ruling.
The type of charger isn't defined by the EU, just that they are common.
All the manufactures with the exception of Apple regularly meet and can decided
what format they want to use and from what date; so far it's been micro USB but
this is changing to USB-C in the near future. They then inform the EU and everything is good.
Apple get round this by claiming the iPhone isn't actually a phone but even that is wearing
thin and they've been told that they need to meet the EU standard in 2017. No-one is sure if
this means they'll drop the current Apple connector, include an adaptor free of charge with
all iPhone sales or do nothing and take a chance that the EU won't prevent them selling / using
the 2017 iPhone model in Europe.

user6:
When it comes to EU regulations, the standard is decided by the industry itself, not by EU officials,
so the EU regulations give the industry the room to develop better technology, but presses that the industry
must share the standard. That's an impetus for the industry to develop better charging technology together
instead of everyone developing competing standards.
This saves consumers and the environment from format wars like Betamax vs. VHS or BluRay vs. HDDVD, as the
industry is together deveveloping the technology.

link1:
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-09-301_en.htm

user7:
This standard was first proposed back when every phone make and model had their own unique charging cable,
similar to how laptops are today.
the reason all other manufacturers than Apple all have Micro USB is because of legislation like this.
EU legislation from 2009 and Chinese legislation from around the same time. We would have 4-5 different
charger connectors if these legislations had not been in place.