Back in May, we posted an article suggesting that your next iPhone might have a USB-C port.

Well, it turns out we were right.

Company executives at Apple have confirmed that future iPhone models will indeed have a USB-C charging port as opposed to a lightning port.

This is primarily due to pressure from EU regulators, who have submitted a mandate which states that all smartphones sold in the European Union from 2024 must be equipped with a USB-C port. This obligation will extend to laptops from 2026.

A universal charging solution is more practical for consumers, will reduce unnecessary costs, and electronic waste, which is harmful to the environment.

Estimates suggest that this law will cut electronic waste by 11,000 tons annually and save consumers £217 million a year. 

Side Note: We almost certainly take for granted all the ways in which the EU enforces regulations to the benefit of the consumer.

In their statement, Apple executives expressed their reluctance to comply with the law, suggesting that the EU has forced their hand at the expense of their customers and the environment.

Clearly, being "forced to switch" by a "prescriptive government" is an attempt by Apple to deflect blame onto the EU, using them as a scapegoat to quell dismayed iPhone users.

Apple have resisted this transition for some time - the European Commission have been asking manufacturers for voluntary compliance since 2009!  Nevertheless, the lightning port first appeared in the iPhone 5 in 2012 - 10 years ago. Other smartphone manufacturers have been using USB-C since 2015, with it becoming commonplace by 2017.

Apple have been gradually advancing their product range in this direction, with most MacBooks and iPads now supporting USB-C. It seems like it was a matter of time before the iPhone followed suit.

The lightning cable is a propriety product which is part of a branded ecosystem. In other words, it is a patented, trademarked product which can only be used for a specific application - you need to buy our cable (for £19) in order to charge our phone. By trapping people in their ecosystem, Apple generate extra profits.

To give credit where it's due, when Apple transitioned from the 30-pin connector to the lightning connector, people were outraged because they were forced to switch, despite the fact that lightning was far superior to its predecessor; but also to Micro-USB; which was universal in Android phones at the time. Following on from this indignation, Apple vowed to keep lightning for at least 10 years, to which they have kept their word.   

This law is exclusive to the European Union. Other markets, including the UK and the US, have not imposed the regulation. Apple could choose to integrate a USB-C port into their European spec iPhones, and retain the lightning port in iPhones sold in other markets. This does seem unlikely though, as it would result in significantly greater design and manufacturing costs.

How will this shift benefit you?

> USB-C charging allows for higher current and higher voltages, which means faster charging. Some new phones with USB-C can charge at 100W; fully charging the battery in less than 30 minutes!

> Faster data transmission - transfer photos, videos and files between device 10x faster with USB 3.0, as opposed to USB 2.0 (Lightning).

> Wider compatibility. Imagine having one cable to connect Android phones & tablets, Windows PCs, monitors, speakers, game consoles, MacBooks, iPads, and now; iPhones.

> More manufacturers = more options and better quality at lower prices.

When will it come?

The law won't be imposed until 2024, so we think that it's unlikely that the iPhone 15 will have a USB-C port. If anything, it might be reserved for the iPhone 15 Pro & Pro Max, before becoming universally adopted in the iPhone 16 series.

"There are no solutions, only trade-offs" - Thomas Sowell, economist

"Once I fix this issue or solve this problem or purchase this product, my life will be sorted" - Everyone else

We humans are remarkably susceptible to the concept of a magical remedy which will free us of all suffering and discomfort. There's always the lingering promise of a panacea which, when obtained, will enable us to finally live our lives to our full potential. 

Buddhists have long recognised this notion as a fallacy. They know that the inherent "unsatisfactoriness" of existence is revealed in the impermanence, pain, and perpetual incompleteness that is baked in to life.

There will never be a moment in your life when you've got it all right: When all of your problems have been solved, and you are free to bask in a state of bliss and tranquillity.

We are all susceptible to this idea: utopia is a destination, and I can get there. This notion continuously proves itself to be a waste of time and energy, which can only leave us feeling disenchanted. Alas, the pursuit is fruitless yet addictive.

One limiting factor on our ability to obtain everything that we want is "opportunity cost".

Whether addressing a problem, or making an important life decision, to vote for one thing is to forego another - if you gain something from a solution, you will miss out on something else.

What solutions do we come to with respect to our smartphones, and what do we trade-off?

To purchase a brand new, top-end smartphone such as an iPhone 14 Pro or Samsung Galaxy S22 will grant access to the highest quality display and camera on the market, with a more extensive list of features than any of its preceding models. A premium phone is a status symbol - an indicator of social and economic status to be admired and honored by peers and strangers alike, who may hold you in higher regard than if you were still wearing last years model. But enjoying this luxury comes at a price. A high-end device will set you back between £800 and £1600.  You could have used that money to buy a mountain bike, refurbish the kitchen, pay off some student debt, invest in stocks, or donate to charity. That money could have been utilized a million different ways; and we seldom know in the moment which of them will serve us best in the long run.

Switching to iOS introduces you to the Apple ecosystem - a place where all of your devices function in harmony. Your calls, messages and photos sync across your iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch and MacBook. iMessage and Facetime work seamlessly with all of your friends and family whom have also be indoctrinated into the Apple ecosystem. But to be tied into such a system can leave you feeling trapped, unable to try an alternative product, which you may in fact be better suited to.

Android is an open-source platform. It offers more freedom and customisation options than iOS, which is a closed software system. This allows users to enjoy a wider variety of apps and third-party programs such as ad blockers, TV remotes, call recorders, live wallpapers, and multi-task windows. However, the presence of more third-party apps comes with increased security risk. Apple closely guard the iOS source code, and tightly regulate the App Store, meaning that developers must meet certain requirements in order to have their apps approved. By placing restrictions on third-party access and customisability, iOS remains the most secure mobile platform.

Technology has given us many powerful tools, which we can leverage to build our communities and networks with markedly greater efficiency than ever before. But as we discovered in a previous post, when we substitute physical relationships and interactions for digital ones, we start to run into problems. Studies have proven that the presence of a smartphone during conversation makes us less empathetic. One study on young adults aged 19–32 found that people with higher social media use were more than three times as likely to feel socially isolated than those who did not use social media as often.

We have unfiltered, round-the-clock access to information - which is great! We can respond to client emails, or grind on some spreadsheets at 4AM from a cafe in Bali. The internet (TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, Spotify etc.) provides an unending source of entertainment. Nevertheless, if you're paying attention to your phone, you're not paying attention to something else, and who knows what you could be missing. It's nice being able to zone the world out in a busy public space - but at what cost? An interaction with a friendly stranger could provide some wisdom, create a new friendship, or simply brighten your day. We can get more work done, but being unable to switch off from work could leave one feeling stressed and consequently less productive in the long run. Perhaps constant stimulation isn't a good thing: If we don't spend any time daydreaming, alone with our thoughts, absent of external input, we might stifle our creative thinking; coming up with less of our own ideas. It's easy to procrastinate on something important, or to avoid confronting our emotions when we have a phone in our hand. When was the last time you just sat and really took in your surroundings?

As we always seem to conclude, technology can and should make your life better, if used mindfully and appropriately.

Remember this: every decision you make and every action that you take is at the expense of something or someone else. We have tens of thousands of thoughts every day. Of those, we make more than 100 conscious and informed decisions, which we can never go back and change. To prioritise something is, by definition, to deprioritise other things, even though we might also want those things, which is why we will never have everything that we want, and why we will never feel completely "sorted" or satisfied. It's an unavoidable fact of life: there are no solutions, only trade-offs.

New inventions suck. The only people that use them are geeks, enthusiasts, and rich people, willing to spend insane amounts of money on frankly terrible products that are difficult to use and which no one else has - think early computers and video games.

Innovation is when an invention “catches on" - when it becomes practical, affordable, reliable, and ubiquitous. Innovation hoists an invention by its ugly, dysfunctional, pubescent head, and moulds it into a beautiful, strong, mature product.

All the goods we enjoy today are a result of decades of innovation. Imagine what life would be like if we'd called it a day after inventing the first light bulb (1800), motor car (1886), airplane (1903), washing machine (1934), or mobile phone (1973).

There's no such thing as an instant hit.

Even the internet, which saw a boom in the 1990s followed by the dot-com bust in 2000. It took decades for the internet to flower into a mature set of ideas and applications.

We see initial excitement, followed by a downturn.

The question is what comes next...

Extinction or flourishing?

In your opinion, how do the long-term prospects look for the following technologies?

We've selected these particular technologies because they already exist in some capacity, but much more innovation is required. The "Next Big Thing" has probably been around for over a decade. They are all things that we expect to see flourish within our lifetime - to become commonplace. It's just a matter of time and innovation.

These inventions are probably older than you think:

Sometimes we underestimate the amount of time it will take for innovations to prevail. If asked in 2016, most people would have thought that we'd be in driverless cars by 2022 - though they're coming to the UK in 2025, apparently.

We put this down to five reasons:

What about innovation in mobile phones? Unfortunately, we don't have any special insider knowledge. But we have some thoughts on innovations that could come in the next 10 years:

“You can’t solve a problem on the same level that it was created. You have to rise above it to the next level.” - Albert Einstein

"Innovation is the ability to see change as an opportunity - not a threat." - Steve Jobs

"If I had asked the people what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse." - Henry Ford

In a 2021 survey, 80% of people reported feeling that their memories were worse than before the pandemic.

If our memories are degrading, then it could be down to a combination of factors. Ageing, stress, anxiety, isolation, inadequate sleep and poor nutrition are increasingly prevalent issues, and are all associated with deficient memory.

For now, let's investigate technology and its impact on our ability to store and recall information.

We outsource our memory to our devices. We don't need to expend mental resources on memorising something arbitrary like a phone number or what zone we parked our car in if we can store it and extract it from our devices at any time in thorough and precise detail. This ability allows us to be more productive and efficient, no doubt.

However, we still need to be able to store and recall information from our own memory. Digital storage is (currently) limited to audio and visual information - just 2 of the 5 senses with which we interpret the world. Emotional and visceral information associated with our memories cannot be transferred to an external device. Also, Strapping your phone to your forehead and recording everything isn't very practical.

There is evidence to suggest that a lack of brain activity causes atrophy in grey matter, i.e., we get worse when we don't practice. This might make us more reliant on our devices, which perpetuates the problem. Most of us have experienced a decline in the ability to perform mental arrhythmic as a result of using a calculator. Could it be the same for memory?

We suspect that habitual technology use could affect specific aspects of memory.

Have you noticed that older people are generally better at geography, navigation and remembering addresses? One study has shown that habitual use of GPS negatively impacts spatial memory during self-guided navigation. We don't need to engage our hippocampus when we're following simple instructions, so its capacity decreases. By making things easier, we might use our brains less - something which is strongly correlated with dementia. Perhaps it's this, on a very small, specific scale.  

Before smartphones, we've always written things down - which actually, has been proven to increase recall. Typing should do the same. However, writing does outperform typing in studies, perhaps because the physical action of writing increases our ability to process information.

In the UK, people spend an average 2 hours on social media, and 3-4 hours watching TV per day - often simultaneously. Throw in music, podcasts, newspapers, email, and constant notifications, and you have a huge, unprecedented amount of input. Some of this input might be important, useful, productive or entertaining. A lot of it isn't.

Spending a lot of time on consuming meaningless information displaces time that we would otherwise spend reflecting and consolidating important information. The signal gets lost in the noise. Don't you think that we'd be more likely to recall an interesting article that we'd read if we didn't skim over 300 headlines and Instagram stories immediately after?

This is a relatively new thing. Apps are competing for our attention, and our brains aren't adapted to handle fast, infinite scrolling - think TikTok videos and Instagram reels. Our brain has to flush out the excess rubbish, and so it might flush some important or valuable information away with it.  

It's well documented that humans cannot efficiently multitask, unless the two tasks occupy different parts of the brain, or if one or both of the tasks is not cognitively demanding. If you're paying attention to your phone, you're not paying attention to something else, and so you will not create a solid, reliable memory in the first place.

Think you can multitask? Read a book whilst watching a film. See if you remember anything a week later.

Another facet of distraction is context switching. This is when you jump from task to task, instead of dedicating your full attention to one task for a given period. Getting into deep work or a flow state is hard - it takes 20 minutes to get re-focused on a task after distraction. This causes a 20% - 80% reduction in workplace productivity. Logically, there is no way that you will remember as much if you constantly shift your focus. This has become a huge issue in our digital world, where people are constantly pulled into email exchanges, Slack updates, and impromptu Zoom meetings; not to mention the need to check Facebook every 5 minutes. When you get back to work, you've forgotten where you were. The magical insight that was on the tip of your tongue - gone.

Sleep plays a critical role in memory in two ways:

Technology interferes with our natural biorhythms in several ways. Screens emit blue light, which causes a decrease in melatonin production - the sleepy hormone. Online content is often stimulating, and sometimes anxiety-provoking, which promotes wakefulness. Responding to emails at 11PM and 5PM isn't good either. All of these things have been proven to reduce the quality and quantity of sleep.

Our previous posts provides several tips on how to optimise your sleep, including why you shouldn't snooze your alarm.

People spend a lot of time on social media, which has displaced in-person interaction. One study on young adults aged 19–32 found that people with higher social media use were more than three times as likely to feel socially isolated than those who did not use social media as often.



Studies have demonstrated a clear link between social isolation and increased memory decline. Therefore, if endless timelines, reels and messages are pulling you away from in-person interaction, it might have an adverse effect on your memory.  

Conclusion & Recommendations

It's clear that technology has introduced a ton of benefits and costs to us individually and as a society. Our memory is a very complex system, which neuroscientists are still learning about. The effects of technology on our brains are not fully understood, and much more research is required.

We don't think that tech has directly made our memories worse, but the indirect effects have probably had a negative impact - reducing our attention span, distracting us, overloading the brain and decreasing sleep quality.

Here's 6 simple heuristics which can potentially negate the negative effects of technology on your memory:

As always with tech - it's how you use it that matters.

Compared to computers, humans are frankly terrible at storing specific, one-off pieces of data. Outsourcing this task frees up the brain for deep introspection and creative problem solving, which is arguably a better use of our cognitive systems (including memory) than trying to memorise a textbook.  

Albert Einstein said it a tad more succinctly than us - "Never memorize something that you can look up."