I think the following can and will happened. In a decade, when USB 5 then USB 6 will arrive, with transfer speeds of 1Tbps and over, a new cable, but also a new port will be required because of different technology . How is that going to happen then if EU only allows old ports?
1) the law has provisions for moving to future connectors if or when they arrive
2) laws change all the time
3) innovation is not the same as adoption. If the existence of a standard stops you from making an improved one, that's not due to the law, that's due to self-imposed fatalism.
This whole argument is a logical fallacy, rooted in hopelessly naïve ideas of so-called liberal capitalism. There is no contradiction between restriction and innovation - the opposite is arguably true, as constraints foster creative problem solving. The absence of a commonly agreed upon or mandated standard is in no way whatsoever a guarantee that a better solution will arrive. Nor is there any contradiction whatsoever between an open and freely available standard being mandated by law and any work towards creating an improved standard in the future - standards are replaced constantly
. The literal job of most standards bodies is to maintain current standards and develop new ones
. At the same time. The argument that a mandated standard is somehow contrary to innovation is pure ideological BS, promoted by corporations so that they can come up with BS proprietary solutions to squeeze more money out of customers. Like, you know, Apple has a decades-long history of doing.
Also, your ideas of future connectivity show some ... well, shall we say utopian ideas of what is possible. We're already seeing a massive drop-off in the rate of increase in I/O speeds, and we've long since run into the point where more bandwidth = more money, as cables and transcievers become increasingly expensive as bandwidth increases. USB 2.0 (5m max cable length) was cheap and 40x faster than USB 1.1. USB 3.0 (3m max cable length) wasn't that expensive, and was 10x the speed of 2.0. USB 3.2 (3m max cable length) is rather expensive, and 2x-4x the speed of 3.0. USB 4 (0.8m max cable length) is very
expensive, and 2x faster than 3.2g2x2. The new USB 4 80Gbps is another 2x increase, and we're looking at TB3-like cabling and transciever costs, meaning ~1m max passive cable length sub-$100, ~2m max passive cable length no matter the cost (and those cables are overall very
rare), and stupidly expensive active cables for any reasonable length. And you're somehow imagining that in a decade we'll have found a way of transferring ~12x the data of yet-to-be-released 80G USB, 24x the speed of current TB3/USB4, and that this will somehow be at a cost that is feasible for regular people? Yeah, sorry, that isn't happening. Not to forget, of course, that nobody actually needs those USB speeds. Even USB 3.2 is seeing limited adoption, let alone 3.2g2x2 or TB3. The higher you go in bandwidth, the fewer applications can actually make use of that bandwidth in a meaningful way.
Even if USB 5 comes with better power delivery, your legacy USB-PD would still be able to deliver at least 100W. I think a lot of devices will continue to be fine with that.
If anything, we need to move towards lowering power draws, not increasing them. I see no reason why increasing output power above 240W should be a goal of any future device charging standard. At that point you're looking at specialized equipment anyhow.