I agree that this is a legitimate nuisance, but do not feel that this is the correct way to address it. Mounting them in parallel might not be a very good option from an economic or engineering perspective for a new device. I am very far from a libertarian. I believe there is both good and necessary regulation, and that civil society depends upon it and can be improved by it. However, I also believe that regulation comes with a cost, often unknowable at the time of implementation, and that the nuisance just does not make the cost worth it.
And I think that a concern based on a second-order 'maybe' is perhaps a touch too little of a cost when considering ease of use, universality, and safety benefits. Agree to disagree? And why couldn't that new tech be, dunno, 2mm bigger? We had a thread recently about "build time-cost-capability -- pick two" and this seems exactly that: sacrifice something to showcase new solution. Do that whole early adopter thing. USB too needed a while to lift off. I'm from 98, born to tech-savvy parents, and I still remember using those PS2 mice with a rubber ball inside up into high school, christ. It takes time for a design to be built, tested, distributed, adopted etc. Knowing specs in advance is a plus, IMO. Bit tongue-in-cheek, though I'm sure it's a possibility knowing lawyers I know: someone is probably already thinking of going around the issue by making up some reason why the product isn't actually a smartphone, thus not being required to have USB-C.Mounting them in parallel might not be a very good option from an economic or engineering perspective for a new device.