This reads like a 10th graders report, just repeating arguments found on the internet.
The criticism of forcing apple to abandon a superior connector for phones to standardize charger cords, while every other building you go into in Europe has a different outlet that is incompatible with the charger you want to plug in is perfectly reasonable. The idea that there is some great benefit to making sure there is only one connector on the so cheap they are basically disposable cords is fundamentally stupid. The fact that the EU regulators can arbitrarily go after companies is a real problem.
Yes, europlug works everywhere in mainland EU (Not in Ireland and Cyprus) and indeed in most of the world, which is fine for class 2 devices that the majority of kit you typically move around is.
Malta uses type G plugs also. If you're reasonably familiar with electricity, you can use a europlug with a type G socket even without an adapter. (unless you count a pin/screwdriver to bypass the child gates) In fact, I have both an adapted schuko plug and an unadapted europlug wall wart under my desk right now. I should really get an adapter for the latter one though, so it can be individually fused and make better contact.
Personally I wouldn't be happy with a high current europlug in a type-g socket, and given that type-g electrical installations assume a fused plug it's probably not a great idea. If you had a fault you could be drawing 25A up a 3A cable without tripping a breaker.
I pretty much only do it with low-power wallwarts, and only on extension cables (fused to 13A or less) since it's easier to bypass gates on those than a wall socket. My main concern is reduced contact area from putting a circular peg in a rectangular hole. Still, I should get and use an adapter since they're cheap even if standard compliance is a bit random.
At this point I'm suspecting "because libertardian mad libs."
Personally I'm looking forwards to my iPhone using friends no longer being second class citizens when it comes to borrowing a charger, but opinions will naturally vary.
In the original article it references internal market and labor unions a dozen times or more. I would say you should read it, but it is not worth your time.
This is an explanation of the EU's point of view and motivations and how you can use understanding that to predict their actions.
Calling those actions 'fundamentally stupid' will not, in fact, change reality, and thinking such an opinion has any relevance to doing business in the real world is precisely the class of mistake the author's trying to point out.
The article does not just explain the reality of doing business. I doubt you actually read it. There is an entire paragraph defending the connector situation and justifying inaction on the incompatibility of outlets. Its not saying “this is the reality, do better at accepting it”, it is making policy justification arguments. It is perfectly valid to point out that those arguments are stupid.
I could use your weird, strained logic to just say that you can’t convince me, so you are wrong to try and your attempts to convince me won’t change the reality and therefore you are wrong to discuss anything I do or say critically. That is what you are doing on behalf of EU regulators.
It's explaining the motivation behind the policy choices.
You don't have to agree with the motivation or the choices for this to be helpful.
Being able to better predict both implementation of current policies and what policy choices are likely to be made going forwards is useful and the author's description of the world view driving them seems to me to be accurate.
> I doubt you actually read it.
Saying this in a conversation about denying parts of reality you don't like verges on performance art.
> you can’t convince me
Evidently, but hopefully other readers will still derive value from what I've written here.
You are the one who is not really understanding here. The article again and again wonders why Americans are so aggressively resistant to the EU policies, instead of just trying to optimize within them. This is just a cultural difference and you aren't going to talk Americans out of having an American culture. Once, a long time ago, when I was in Sweden a friend of a friend said that "The government told us we shouldn't have cars so I sold my car" and I laughed very hard, then realized none of the Swedish people were laughing. From an American point of view, saying that could only have been a dry irony, and could never have been meant as a serious statement by anyone, even the people who would most support not owning a car. That level of trust in government is wildly unamerican and could never be expressed in that way by anyone and understood to be a serious statement by other americans. Even a Canadian wouldn't be able to say something like "I did this because the government advised us to do it" without then giving a culturally valid reason and not be considered very odd. In fact, this under states this cultural difference, if I said to basically any American "the government said to do X, so I'm not going to do it" they would immediately recognize and more or less agree with the general sentiment, even if they thought there were other, actually valid reasons to still do X.
I think the behavior of Americans confuses you because you have grown up in a European monoculture (yes you have seen lots of different costumes and heard lots of languages, but western europe is largely all the same in this respect) and lack perspective on actual differences in how different cultures around the world relate to authority.
The criticism of forcing apple to abandon a superior connector for phones to standardize charger cords, while every other building you go into in Europe has a different outlet that is incompatible with the charger you want to plug in is perfectly reasonable. The idea that there is some great benefit to making sure there is only one connector on the so cheap they are basically disposable cords is fundamentally stupid. The fact that the EU regulators can arbitrarily go after companies is a real problem.