[HN Gopher] Apple rumored to subvert EU Rules by nerfing USB-C o...
___________________________________________________________________
Apple rumored to subvert EU Rules by nerfing USB-C on iPhone15
Author : exabrial
Score : 109 points
Date : 2023-03-01 17:20 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (appleinsider.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (appleinsider.com)
| ben7799 wrote:
| Gotta love apple fans of the type that would post on apple
| insider being all upset about possibly having to pay more for
| certified cables.
|
| I don't know, I've had a lot of trouble with USB-C cables
| already. Even devices that came with their own cable (some
| expensive) that turn out to be flaky cables. If you're spending
| the big bucks on Apple stuff why not get certified cables.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| I use regular old USB-C cables with all my Apple devices. Only
| my iPhone still uses Lightning. The notion that Apple is going
| to introduce a policy change at the last minute just for the
| iPhone is really weird.
| rnk wrote:
| I don't think that experience is universal. I bought lots of
| usbc cables from lots of different places and haven't had this
| issue. But I have bought cables certified for a certain amount
| of power etc. There is a huge danger in letting Apple get away
| with this ridiculous certified cable nonsense. It's just
| another money train for them. I hope the EU says it's a
| violation of their rules and that triggers them dropping this
| terrible idea.
| KerrAvon wrote:
| This is just a rumor. Apple doesn't do this for iPads. Why
| would they do it for iPhones?
| fckgw wrote:
| This particular Apple leaker does not have a great track record.
| They "leaked" a dual pill/hole camera design (and claimed to have
| actual photos) for the iPhone 14 that turned out not to be true.
|
| While I would say it's certainly possible it's not a guarantee.
| Apple doesn't have a MeFi program for their USB-C enabled iPads
| so enforcing one for the phones only doesn't really make sense.
| jshier wrote:
| I can't speak to the leaker, but the 14 Pro does have separate
| pill and hole for the sensor area, it's just unified by the
| dynamic island to appear as one hole.
| jaywalk wrote:
| The design they leaked was accurate. The appearance of a single
| cutout is created by software.
| fwlr wrote:
| It's actually a testament to the effectiveness of the dynamic
| island software. It's some real genius, the fact that it
| changes in size so intelligently gives me the psychological
| perception that it could change to no size at all and thus it
| really feels like it isn't there.
| pjmlp wrote:
| The difference being that those cables would still work with
| other non Apple devices, contrary to what happens with lighting.
| zamadatix wrote:
| Unless they too run an MFi equivalent.
| toast0 wrote:
| If Apple allows baseline charging (5V @ 500mA) with an unmarked
| cable, that's not the worst thing either. That'll get you at
| least most of the way charged overnight, which would be good
| enough for a significant portion of users.
| dogma1138 wrote:
| They aren't allowed to do it, their device has to be charged
| with any USB-C cable and charger at up-to 5V@3A.
|
| If they support fast charging at currents above 3A or at
| voltages above 5V they MUST adopt the USB-PD spec and then
| the device MUST support any USB-PD compatible charging
| solution to its design limit or 100W which ever is lower.
| silvestrov wrote:
| (if this is true) it is like Apple is dead-set on destroying all
| the goodwill Apple has in the EU.
|
| This is one area where EU is really serious about making strong
| law and judgements.
| Jemm wrote:
| Of course Apple is doing this. Horrible company that pretends to
| be consumer and environmentally friendly but really is just
| another money grubbing asshole of a company.
| tiffanyh wrote:
| Connector vs Data.
|
| Wasn't the intent of the EU ruling is to standardize on a common
| _Connector_.
|
| That same connector today already has like 10 different
| standards, just see below.
|
| How is what Apple is rumored to do any different?
|
| https://reviewed-com-res.cloudinary.com/image/fetch/s--XR4_e...
| [deleted]
| shagie wrote:
| > While this might appear to be a consumer-hostile move from
| Apple, there are reasons the company might want a certification
| process. Obviously, Apple stands to make some money from charging
| for the certified parts and technology, but consumers will also
| have more confidence in buying products they know are guaranteed
| to work seamlessly with the iPhone.
|
| > Despite all of the praise USB-C gets for its universal
| connector, there are a lot of problems with it too. It is nearly
| impossible to tell what capabilities a cable might have just by
| looking at it, which could potentially damage a product if
| connected in an unexpected way.
|
| ---
|
| https://www.zdnet.com/home-and-office/smart-office/using-the...
|
| > Some cables could carry 100W and handle 10Gbps, while others
| might be limited to 60W and 5Gbps or even 480Mbps.
|
| > The idea is to stop 100W of power from being pushed down a
| cable that can't handle it. This could, at worse, result in
| fires.
|
| > One problem with E-Mark is that it's not as widely supported as
| it should be. While a quality charger shouldn't try to push 60W
| or even 100W down an unsuitable cable, I've seen it happen.
|
| > And unless you're aware of it, you'd have no idea that it was
| unsafe.
|
| > Then there's the issue of cables that claim to have the E-Mark
| which do not have the E-Mark. Unless you have a tool that can
| read the E-Mark, you have to take the manufacturer's word for it.
|
| ---
|
| I'm going to contend this isn't so much subverting EU rules but
| rather trying to ensure that Apple won't get blamed when someone
| uses a cable that can't handle the power when plugged in given
| that there's not a good standard out there for this and no
| enforcement of the "ok, there's something - try this..."
| benj111 wrote:
| > Then there's the issue of cables that claim to have the
| E-Mark
|
| And cables could also claim apple certification.
|
| Fake certification isn't an argument for certification.
| fckgw wrote:
| Apple routinely enforces the MeFi program and if a company is
| faking it will get the listing removed from Amazon or
| elsewhere.
| benj111 wrote:
| From eBay? AliExpress? Your local shop? I assume apple just
| checks the brand rather than buy the hardware, so if it's
| the 'correct' brand it still won't get picked up.
|
| Plus how long before we get articles on here about how
| apple are taking down actual certified hardware?
| fckgw wrote:
| > Plus how long before we get articles on here about how
| apple are taking down actual certified hardware?
|
| The MFi program has been around for 18 years and it
| hasn't been an issue yet.
| _thisdot wrote:
| Won't Apple have already encountered this with their iPads and
| MacBooks? Shouldn't the fact that Apple already makes USB C
| accessories and devices make this much smoother?
| amluto wrote:
| I would imagine that a phone could also check for the E-Mark
| and limit charging power accordingly. (Presumably this is how
| USB-C already works, but maybe not. Certainly _something_ tells
| the power sink the current limit, but I can imagine that the
| source queries the cable, computes (potentially incorrectly)
| the limit, and tells the sink, which then blindly trusts it.
| JustSomeNobody wrote:
| > While a quality charger shouldn't try to push 60W or even
| 100W down an unsuitable cable, I've seen it happen.
|
| How is this even possible?
| LorenPechtel wrote:
| Cheap cables may not implement the detection properly. Device
| says I want 100W, charger says I can give 100W, dumb cable
| just sits there letting them talk and doesn't say no.
| moogly wrote:
| I call bullshit. How many Apple charger recalls have there been
| already? 5? More?
| ianburrell wrote:
| The "potentially damage a product if connected in an unexpected
| way" is wrong. It is impossible to damage device with in-spec
| cable and devices. Mismatched cable results in slower data or
| slower charging.
|
| Out-of-spec cables and chargers are definitely a problem but
| the solution is to not buy cheap junk. Specifying the
| capabilities won't help.
| dotancohen wrote:
| "Don't but cheap junk" might be a great corporate policy, but
| it is not a viable or realistic consumer strategy.
| qball wrote:
| >Out-of-spec cables and chargers are definitely a problem
|
| Then maybe they should bother including one (that they know
| is in-spec) in the box when you buy the phone.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| If only there were a standard that ensured it wasn't junk and
| apple was encouraging the use of that standard.
| ianburrell wrote:
| Apple should encourage the USB-IF certification. I would be
| fine if they advertised it as "Apple certified".
| Eisenstein wrote:
| How do you ensure a standard doesn't get bypassed by a bad
| actor? If it isn't working for USB-C why would it work for
| MFi? There are chips in USB-C cables that negotiate with
| the host; if they can fake those what stops them from
| faking MFi?
|
| The end result of this, is people buying more cables. USB-C
| was designed to mitigate the problem and now we have
| another standard using the same connector but requiring a
| different cable. It is just as bad as those devices which
| take USB-C but haven't updated the board to include sense
| resistors so they only charge with USB-A to C cables.
| shagie wrote:
| MFI (Made-For-iPhone) is trademarked by Apple and they
| will enforce that by having infringing products removed
| from various markets and retailers... though if you're
| buying from dodgy retailers you can get knock offs of
| nearly anything.
| Eisenstein wrote:
| Do you consider Amazon a dodgy retailer? If so, congrats
| but most people buy their stuff there. If not, I have
| some bad news about dodgy goods on Amazon...
| shagie wrote:
| Given the reviews and experiences from https://www.amazon
| .com/gp/profile/amzn1.account.AFLICGQRF6BR... -
| absolutely, they're a dodgy retailer (and resell dodgy
| items). I would suggest buying only appropriately branded
| cables (which incidentally includes Amazon Basics).
| Though personally, for any cable that matters, I've spent
| the premium and purchased it from Apple as I'm fairly
| certain I am getting exactly what I am getting.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| It would be pretty silly if my existing Apple cable that
| charges my Macbook at 61W isn't allowed to charge an iPhone
| much slower than that.
|
| One of Apple's alleged concerns with switching from Lightning
| to USB-C was the amount of waste it would generate with people
| needing to buy all new accessories.
|
| So their solution to that is ... wait 7 years after their
| laptops switched to USB-C to generate some extra Lightning
| trash, and then require me to buy extra USB-C cables even
| though I already have enough of them?
| rektide wrote:
| There just isn't any evidence whatsoever to support there's a
| real problem.
|
| Consumers buy millions upon millions of cables & chargers, a
| huge % off brand and uncertified, and the number that have had
| damage to their phone or created fires is sub-microscopic.
|
| > given that there's not a good standard out there for
|
| Oh please. Abusrd poppycock.
|
| The clutching of pearls for this topic is incredible. There's
| multiple checks and safeguards in the spec. These systems are
| just not as fragile as portrayed. If this were just a 48V DC
| connection, yeah, there'd be some risk, but this is a
| reasonably well defined, safe-guarded system already. And
| there's just so little evidence of problems, and such a huge
| huge install-base already. Is there anyone else on the planet
| with a fanbase exhibiting even half the Stockholm Syndrome of
| Apple?
| thehappypm wrote:
| "No steel cruise ship has ever sunk, why would this one?"
| rektide wrote:
| There's tiny tiny little problems if you really really
| really dig in - you can find issues - but using rank
| cowardice as a shitty excuse to avoid the obvious solution
| everyone else uses fine is just pathetic. And more so, it's
| not like Apple's cables never wear & get scary either.
|
| The magnitude of experience we have with cables versus
| cruise ships in 1912 is pretty different, don't you think?
| How many years had humanity been making rolled steel cruise
| ships before the Titanic? How many years have we been
| making cables? How many cruise ships do you think we'd
| made? How many cables do you think we've made? Your scare-
| quote just doesn't seem applicable.
|
| It's not even a bad analogy in some ways. Some cables
| probably do, like the Titanic, spend their time at sea with
| their coal bay accidentally on fire, do spend their time
| with some mild internal fault sapping some power. But wow
| it like just doesn't matter. I'm trying to think of
| something combustible at incredibly low temperatures that
| might compound this situation, to make a 130 degree cable a
| potential threat, to imagine a real case for this other-
| people's-cable-phobia. The risk is so mild. As soon as a
| there's a real fault, the system shuts down; phone and
| charger both have a role actively agreeing to keep the
| power flowing, both have fault detections. The Titanic
| lacked these plural safeguard, it's coal bay was on fire &
| they couldn't put it out, greatly heating the hull.
|
| Apple's defense is an entire religion around Fear
| Uncertainty & Doubt. It's the least brave, least exciting
| Think Different view of the world that I can imagine. I
| appreciate & get the value that Apple people say, that they
| like having well-defined paths & not having to think about
| things, but it seems always applied with zeal, even in
| cases like this, where opening up is obviously fine &
| better for everyone.
| bell-cot wrote:
| Trivia-buff comeback: SS Norge (
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Norge ), sunk 22 June 1904
| after running aground on rocks in foggy weather in the
| North Atlantic. More than 630 lives lost.
| manuelabeledo wrote:
| > There just isn't any evidence whatsoever to support there's
| a real problem.
|
| There are hundreds of product recalls every year, involving
| phones and accessories, because of electrical shock risks
| and/or fire hazards [0]. Also, there is little to no
| enforcement of PD standards, so you could be using an USB-C
| shaped cable, connected to a perfectly looking USB-C power
| adapter, and the manufacturer could claim it to deliver 2V
| and 7.5A, to make 15W.
|
| You may not have any issues with that, because you know that
| does not look right. The vast majority of people wouldn't
| think twice to buy it if it were cheap enough.
|
| [0] https://www.cpsc.gov/search?search_api_fulltext=usb&f%5B0
| %5D...
| giancarlostoro wrote:
| > > Despite all of the praise USB-C gets for its universal
| connector, there are a lot of problems with it too. It is
| nearly impossible to tell what capabilities a cable might have
| just by looking at it, which could potentially damage a product
| if connected in an unexpected way.
|
| I wish USB C was forced to be color coded like USB 3 typically
| is. Some visual indicator that the drive you're using might be
| compatible, it might also not work as expected because the
| colors don't match.
| ianburrell wrote:
| Coloring the specification would be nice. Have it either in a
| band or on connector. There is already blue color for USB3.
| Would need color for the USB-PD extra power and for
| USB4/Thunderbolt. Most cables are USB2 and don't need color.
| Night_Thastus wrote:
| Color isn't sufficient, IMO. There's way too many possible
| combinations of speed and power. It's not nearly as simple
| as USB 3.0.
|
| They should just force every connector and cable to have a
| label on it that says the speed and power. Then, you'll
| always know for sure.
| ianburrell wrote:
| There aren't that many combinations. For speed, there is
| standard USB2, USB3, USB4/Thunderbolt. For USB3 speeds,
| using the existing logos would work. For power, there is
| standard 3A, and 5A.
|
| Each of those except the default would have a color. Most
| cables wouldn't have any color, most of rest would have
| one color, and at most two colors. Many of the
| combinations aren't used, like 5A is almost always used
| with USB2 charging cable.
| LorenPechtel wrote:
| I was going to object to this but then I see you actually
| got it right but just unclear. Do it with stripes--one
| for speed, one for power.
| Night_Thastus wrote:
| For speeds, you are correct, there aren't too many:
|
| USB 3 speeds: 5, 10, 20 Gb/s
|
| USB 4 speeds: 40, 80 Gb/s
|
| But for power, it's all over the place. Every single
| cable and connector seems to have its own idea of what
| they want to do.
|
| It could be anywhere from:
|
| * 5V@100mA=0.5W (low power, with no power delivery
| standard)
|
| * 48V@5A=240W
|
| With a good dozen options in-between those two.
|
| The only unambiguous way is to just label them. One for
| speed in Gb/s, one for power in watts. Easy.
| ianburrell wrote:
| The power level is negotiated by the devices with Power
| Delivery. The cables only support 3A or 5A. The 3A cables
| can go up to 60W. The 5A cables are emarked so devices
| can recognize them and go to 100W. I hadn't realized
| there are new EPR cables that go up to 240W, I guess that
| is third kind.
| shagie wrote:
| > The only unambiguous way is to just label them. One for
| speed in Gb/s, one for power in watts. Easy.
|
| They're trying - https://www.kensington.com/news/docking-
| connectivity-blog/us... and https://mms.businesswire.com/
| media/20210930005098/en/911442/....
|
| It's nice that there are so many standards to chose from
| though. https://xkcd.com/927/
| btown wrote:
| Don't tell the electrical engineers; this is the pathway to
| color-code diagrams some may deem unnatural...
|
| https://eepower.com/resistor-guide/resistor-standards-and-
| co...
| nomercy400 wrote:
| I haven't touched resistors in years, but from what I can
| remember, it's just a rainbow, with darkred(=brown) and
| black before, and grey/white after. And gold/silver are
| modifiers.
| [deleted]
| kelnos wrote:
| > _I 'm going to contend this isn't so much subverting EU rules
| but rather trying to ensure that Apple won't get blamed when
| someone uses a cable that can't handle the power when plugged
| in given that there's not a good standard out there for this
| and no enforcement of the "ok, there's something - try this..."
| _
|
| That's just not true. The USB-IF won't certify a cable unless
| it can do 20V @ 3A, which is around 2x the voltage at 3A that
| the iPhone would even try to do.
|
| If true, this is just money-grab and spiteful behavior out of
| Apple, nothing more.
| Analemma_ wrote:
| Spoken like someone who has never bought USB-C cables on
| Amazon. Outside major brands, the majority are junk that act
| wildly out of spec. The USB-IF doesn't care.
| shagie wrote:
| From several years ago...
|
| A Google engineer sacrificed his Chromebook Pixel to test
| USB-C cables -
| https://www.theverge.com/2016/2/3/10905432/usb-c-cable-
| fries...
|
| > Google engineer Benson Leung has been on a mission to
| prove that all USB-C cables are not created equal, and that
| mission appears to have ended -- or at least climaxed --
| with one cable totally frying his computer. Leung has been
| testing USB-C cables and posting reviews of them on Amazon
| for a few months now, and the most recent cable he tested,
| made by SurjTech, turned out to be "completely miswired" --
| something he didn't realize until after it "managed to
| destroy my test equipment," he says, including a Chromebook
| Pixel.
|
| And the older article A Google engineer is testing USB
| Type-C cables so you don't have to -
| https://www.theverge.com/2015/11/5/9674462/usb-type-c-
| google...
|
| His reviews: https://www.amazon.com/gp/profile/amzn1.accoun
| t.AFLICGQRF6BR...
| Eric_WVGG wrote:
| And how does the USB-IF prevent an iPhone from getting fried
| by non-USB-IF certified cables?
|
| If they had some method of doing that, would the expense of
| operating it be a "money-grab"?
| shaunsingh0207 wrote:
| Isn't that just USB-PD and QC3? Which apple uses on their
| desktop products
| makeitdouble wrote:
| Isn't it the same issue right now when you're using a
| random USB charger and a third party lightning cable, which
| is probably the case for the vast majority of people ?
| rhaway84773 wrote:
| Does Apple restrict lightning cables the same way?
|
| Also, what about all the iPads and MacBooks that have been
| using USB-C for years? Does Apple not care about those
| products' users? If it was concerned about the impact of
| uncertified USB-C cables, why doesn't it already do these
| things on existing USB-C products it sells?
| Eric_WVGG wrote:
| 1. yes, they do
|
| 2. They definitely should. I've had plenty of experiences
| in the past seven years where cords kinda-sorta-not-
| always worked. If I plugged a shitty cord that didn't
| work into any device I own, I'd like it to respond "nah
| dude"
| droopyEyelids wrote:
| What percent of cables coming out of China, sold on Amazon or
| in convenience stores/gas stations, do you believe have been
| certified by USB-IF?
| justeleblanc wrote:
| If they can fake USB certification, why wouldn't they be
| able to fake apple certification?
| shagie wrote:
| Because when they fake using the Apple trademark for
| Made-For-iPhone, Apple will get them removed from various
| market places, retailers, or possibly even stopped at
| customs when importing them.
|
| Apple has no such enforcement capabilities for USB as
| they don't have any rights to that trademark.
| [deleted]
| falcolas wrote:
| 3rd party misbehavior does not justify Apple misbehavior.
| comfypotato wrote:
| It's not misbehavior by Apple if it's to protect against
| 3rd party misbehavior.
| falcolas wrote:
| So why aren't we yelling at Apple for not doing this now
| with their USB-C powered Macbook Pro's with their 100W+
| chargers and cables? Or thunderbolt cables?
|
| If there's such a huge pool of potential trouble brewing
| with a 20W phone, why do they even allow such maleficent
| third party malfeasance?
|
| /s
| arcticbull wrote:
| They do, you can't charge a 16" M1 MacBook Pro at 140W
| without the MagSafe cable. The USB-C port is capped at
| 96W. And I believe to charge at 60W+ you need an e-marked
| cable.
|
| ... which is roughly what's being proposed here for
| iPhone. Since some Samsung devices charge at 45W and
| require 3A (hence e-marked) cables, one can infer Apple
| wants to do something similar for iPhone in the future.
| manuelabeledo wrote:
| > Or thunderbolt cables?
|
| I can assure you that counterfeit Thunderbolt cables
| don't work at Thunderbolt speeds.
|
| Also, power delivery is defined by USB standards, not
| Thunderbolt.
| bilbo0s wrote:
| To be fair, it's not Apple misbehavior. It's essentially
| just Apple saying if you use a cable not OK'd by us,
| you're on your own. I don't think anyone expects people
| not to plug in non certified cables. It looks like it's
| just putting into writing a stance of, "Hey, if you fry
| your phone using junk cables, that's on you."
| falcolas wrote:
| > if you use a cable not OK'd by us, you're on your own
|
| That is misbehavior from Apple, because it adds a cost to
| the consumer. MiFi is absolutely not free.
|
| The consumer friendly option is allowing the use of a
| perfectly good USB-C cable (from J5 Create, for example)
| that doesn't have the MiFi tax without artificial
| restrictions.
| bilbo0s wrote:
| No one disallows using the J5 cable. That's the entire
| point. That's what makes all this fair. It's the
| _consumer_ who chooses what products s /he will use.
|
| The only thing being codified here is that if you happen
| to use a janky cable Apple didn't certify, the results
| are on you.
|
| All that, to my mind, is totally reasonable. You can use
| a certified cable. You can use a non certified cable. The
| consumer is totally free to make any choice s/he chooses.
| They only warrant that if you use the certified cable,
| your phone won't blow up.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| > The only thing being codified here is that if you
| happen to use a janky cable Apple didn't certify, the
| results are on you.
|
| "Janky" is inserted by you. I can use high quality cables
| that aren't certified and perfectly capable of handling
| power, and such. With this comes the implication that any
| manufacturer who is not willing to give Apple a cut of
| their cable sales is something inferior and subpar.
|
| > They only warrant that if you use the certified cable,
| your phone won't blow up.
|
| I guarantee you that they warrant no such thing. And that
| they'll point you at the cable manufacturer if something
| damages your phone.
| falcolas wrote:
| Then we're reading this sentence from TFA quite
| differently:
|
| > Shrimp states that Apple will limit data and charging
| speed for cables connected to iPhone without the MFi
| certification.
|
| To me (and I'd wager it's the same for most folks),
| that's Apple implementing a technical block on the cables
| separate from their actual capabilities.
| bilbo0s wrote:
| That's not for the cable, that's for the accessory
| connected to the cable. I thought we were talking about
| the cables here?
|
| With respect to the cables, that's part of the USB C
| spec. Not the spec to which you are referring.
|
| The whole point of the E Mark is to signal that it is
| safe to send otherwise dangerously high speeds and
| wattage down the cable. So they're just saying that they
| promise to follow the spec for cables they certify.
|
| Now the accessories, you're right, but I don't know the
| rules for accessories. I do know them for the cables.
| falcolas wrote:
| There is nothing in this article which suggests this
| (that it applies only to the accessories) is the case.
|
| Remember, a USB-C cable not just a bunch of wires hooking
| two connectors together. It's two SOCs which negotiate
| the cable's capabilities with the devices on either end
| before allowing the flow of power or data across the
| cable itself. In fact, there is no spec on what the cable
| itself consists of - it could be a fiber optic cable for
| all the USB-C spec cares.
|
| It's why you can use an expensive DP USB-C cable and not
| get thunderbolt support - because the chipsets in the
| cable itself have to support the thunderbolt spec.
|
| It's why it's entirely plausible that Apple can specify
| that you can only use MiFi compatible cables if you want
| full charging or data transfer capabilities.
| i386 wrote:
| > MiFi is absolutely not free.
|
| Paying for MFI might be a problem for your local Brooklyn
| usb-c cable artisan but not for your high volume low
| margin Asian cable manufacturer.
| Eisenstein wrote:
| I have plenty of good USB-C cables I spent a bunch of
| money on. Why should I have to buy more just for Apple?
| The whole point of USB-C was to not have to do that
| anymore.
| falcolas wrote:
| As of 2018, it's an extra $4 _per connector_ (that means
| cable with two connectors is $8) plus a flat $99 yearly
| fee.
|
| It was $10 (or 10% of the cost) prior to that.
| rkangel wrote:
| Which would be fine, if the USB-IF did any enforcement at
| all. "Reputable" retailers like Amazon should not be able to
| get away with selling unlicenced gear (in much the same way
| as they shouldn't be allowed to get away with selling
| counterfeit).
| pedrocr wrote:
| Are no brand lightning cables not a thing too?
| mbreese wrote:
| Given that we have people who test various USB-C cables with
| devices (sometimes destructively)[1], this makes complete
| sense.
|
| The USB-C cable/charger landscape is crazy and there are a
| lot of dodgy devices out there. The conservative approach is
| to only allow the minimum allowed power with unknown
| cables/chargers.
|
| The EU mandate is to avoid having extraneous chargers that
| can't be used with multiple devices. I don't think there is a
| mandate for specific rates of charging.
|
| [1] https://www.engadget.com/2016-02-03-benson-leung-
| chromebook-...?
| goosedragons wrote:
| Then why didn't Apple limit MacBook charging to only Apple
| verified cables and chargers back in 2015? Arguably the USB
| C ecosystem was far more sketch then now and all their
| laptops draw far more wattage than an iPhone. Or why didn't
| they do it when the iPad Pro moved to USB C?
|
| Doing it on iPhone just seems like an abuse of their
| oversized power in the smartphone industry.
| mbreese wrote:
| When running low on battery, people are far more likely
| to charge their phones with any random cable that's
| available. Bars, coffee shops, Ubers, airports, etc...
| frequently have random cables available for charging. Not
| all of these cables are all that high of quality or USB-
| IF certified.
|
| If you're running low on power for your laptop, you
| probably have your own charger available to you. It
| either came with the computer, or you likely bought it to
| use with the computer. Regardless, your charging
| mechanism here is probably more trusted.
|
| Honestly, _if_ Apple comes out with iPhones with USB-C
| ports (like we all expect), _some_ charge from a random
| cable is better than risky levels of high-power charging.
| This would be a pragmatic choice.
|
| If you want to blame anyone in this, blame USB-IF. They
| are the reason we have this mess to begin with.
|
| Apple is stuck here. You're right that they are an
| oversized power in the phone industry. They are going to
| get sued either way. You'll either have phones that get
| bricked because of a low quality cable/charger _or_
| people will be mad that their current charger won 't work
| at 20A. Either way, they will get sued over something. At
| least this way, if they eventually have to relent to
| allow, they'll have cover for if/when phones get bricked
| from cheap cables/chargers.
|
| To me, this would make more sense from a defensive
| liability point of view as opposed to an effort to still
| extract money with the MFi program.
| [deleted]
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| > The idea is to stop 100W of power from being pushed down a
| cable
|
| You don't push Watts. The load controls what it consumes. So
| long as the voltage is within the device limits it can control
| the current draw from its end of the cable. If a supply won't
| fulfill the requested current, the device makes do with less or
| disables functionality without damaging itself. This is how
| _all_ USB devices are required to operate.
| arcticbull wrote:
| The is an incomplete assessment because the cable itself
| plays an active role here via USB-IF required electronic
| marker. [1]
|
| Not all cables have suitable internal wiring or receptacles
| capable of handling either higher voltage or amperage
| required. The ability to transmit 60W or 100W was a much
| later addition to the specification. In fact USB-C PD 3.1 /
| EPR supports 240W (48V at 5A) as of recently.
|
| This is why the in-cable e-marker was added to the
| specification: so the cable could indicate whether it was
| designed to handle higher voltages and currents without
| catching fire.
|
| In modern USB-C power delivery, it is the source, the sink
| _and_ the cable that determine how much power is supplied.
|
| [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20170816061107/http://www.usb
| .or... (p. 42)
| rkangel wrote:
| You're roughly right about the two ends, but what about the
| middle? It is _absolutely_ possible for a high power supply
| to be connected to a high power sink (like an iPhone) via a
| non-compliant cable. A high current value is negotiated, the
| iPhone starts drawing that much current and then the cable
| gets hot and in the extreme case - starts a fire.
| JustSomeNobody wrote:
| But it is extremely unlikely that Apple will enable 100W
| charging on iPhone. They'll probably stick with 20ishW
| so...
| lozenge wrote:
| Shall we start having Apple certified power sockets now in
| case a dangerous socket misbehaves and fries your
| electronics?
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| > This is how all USB devices are required to operate.
|
| Are all USB devices available to consumers on Amazon
| compliant, and thus safe to plug into a USB-C phone?
| klodolph wrote:
| That worked when the limit was 500 mA.
| ProAm wrote:
| What are your thought on data transfer speed? Why USB 2.0
| speeds unless you pay for the more expensive phone and
| certified cable?
| kitsunesoba wrote:
| I agree. One might ask why they haven't done the same for iPads
| and MacBooks, and I think the answer there is the sheer
| difference in volume -- Apple sells many, many more iPhones
| than they do iPads or MacBooks, and so the number of users that
| are likely to fall victim to shoddy cables is much higher,
| especially considering the increased percentage of less-tech-
| savvy buying phones compared to laptops or tablets. A lot of
| smartphone users see no issue with buying the cheapest "WEGLOB"
| branded cable on Amazon because as far as they're concerned,
| there's no difference between that and a cable from a more
| reputable manufacturer.
| manuelabeledo wrote:
| I would also think that the tolerances between phones and
| laptops are vastly different. For instance, I have seen one
| or two phone batteries violently catching fire, but laptop
| batteries tend to swell slowly over time before failing.
| kitsunesoba wrote:
| Phones and the cables used to charge them are also
| typically subject to far greater and more frequent abuse
| than laptops and their cables. Some people go through even
| quality charger cables like candy.
| ericmay wrote:
| I'd _also_ add that I bet for at least Apple and probably
| other manufacturers when you buy a new laptop charger you
| probably buy it from the manufacturer. I know at least I
| wouldn 't think twice about buying a new charger from
| Apple.
| kitsunesoba wrote:
| I certainly wouldn't chance a $1.5k+ MacBook on a bargain
| basement USB-C cable.
| manuelabeledo wrote:
| You may be part of a minority, sadly.
|
| Most people I know are of the idea that if it fits, it
| works.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| On one hand iPhone now cost as much or more than iPad Pros
| and low end macbooks and is sure the core of their business.
|
| On the other hand, assuming that Apple would let their
| computers go down in flames because it's less volume than the
| iPhone seems short sighted. The reputational damage would be
| unprecedented in Apple history.
| rhaway84773 wrote:
| Despite the fact that there isn't any evidence of any of the
| companies who are already using USB-C being blamed by the EU
| for anything.
| JohnFen wrote:
| The cable situation is awful, and is largely what's keeping me
| resisting USB-C. The thing that made me love USB was that it
| eliminated a whole ton of error and guesswork that plagued the
| serial tech it replaced. USB-C brings a lot of that back, which
| drastically reduces the usefulness of it to me.
|
| I know that eventually I'll have no choice but to go all USB-C,
| but for now, I can keep delaying that. By the time I do adopt
| it, perhaps they'll have figured out how to fix this issue and
| I'll be happy.
| falcolas wrote:
| > which could potentially damage a product if connected in an
| unexpected way
|
| Only if the cable is bad.
|
| All capabilities are negotiated between the chips in the cable
| and the USB-C chipset in the device.
|
| Assuming all cables are automatically bad is an anti-consumer
| move.
| dotancohen wrote:
| > Assuming all cables are automatically bad is an anti-
| consumer move.
|
| As a consumer, I would prefer that my phone take this
| defensive position rather than assuming all cables are bad
| and potentially burning down the house where my children
| sleep.
| JustSomeNobody wrote:
| Oh COME ON!
|
| How many USB-C cables do you currently own?
| shagie wrote:
| I count four at this desk, two in the living room, one in
| the kitchen, two in the bedroom and another many at my
| other desk.
| falcolas wrote:
| Do you require the same for your consoles, controller
| cables, the cables that power your computer, etc?
|
| Because those are potentially just as big of fire hazards.
|
| Just kidding - the worst fire hazards are non-grounded
| extension cables you find in homes everywhere. USB-C PD
| with its 100W doesn't even begin compare to those 1.8kW (or
| higher) disasters.
| xlii wrote:
| USB-C is a dumpster fire.
|
| I tried 10 different cables to try to hook up Stream Deck to MBP.
| None of it worked. Beside TB3 one they're unhelpfully unmarked.
|
| The only one that worked was 5m Meta one but I don't want to have
| a cable coil on my desk.
|
| I ordered another one - supposedly awesome and conformant for
| 25$. Nothing.
|
| So another one is en route to me. I gave up already though. It's
| shameful that Elgato don't provide neither precise information
| about requirement nor ensured compatible accessory.
|
| And supposedly enforcing USB-C was supposed to limit number of
| cables and waste...
| ianburrell wrote:
| Is the problem the cables or the devices? USB-C is well
| specified and any non-junk cables should work as well. Some
| searching shows lots of Stream Deck owners having problems so
| the problem may be with the device.
|
| What kind of USB-C cables were you using? USB2, which is most
| charging cables, probably won't work. You likely need USB3
| ones. I guess hard to tell just looking at random one but USB3
| cables are shorter, thicker, and more expensive. You will
| probably have to buy one, I have a couple of USB3 cables and
| many charging ones.
|
| Where does the Stream Deck get its power? The Macbook Pro does
| provide power on USB-C ports but only some ports may provide
| full power. I think on newer ones all the ports do. The other
| potential problem is the power direction. Stream Deck has a
| battery and it is possible that Stream Deck is charging the
| MBP. I don't think it is possible to reverse direction in MBP;
| it really should be popup and app to do that. That is may by
| why USB-A adapters work.
| nemothekid wrote:
| > _USB-C is well specified and any non-junk cables should
| work as well._
|
| There is a Google engineer, Benson Leung, who's claim to fame
| is just _reviewing cables_. USB-C may be well specified, but
| it 's up in the air if any cable you buy on amazon is
| actually up to spec.
| ianburrell wrote:
| I think things have gotten better since he was testing.
| Manufacturers have gotten more experienced. There are more
| cables with USB-IF certification.
|
| Certificaton must be expensive since only some Anker cables
| are certified but they say all of them would pass. I guess
| I don't care about random Amazon cables since I buy brands
| I trust.
| xlii wrote:
| I'd love to answer this, but due to lack of marking I can
| only say "different". Multiple Apple cables, that's for sure,
| different variety too (as Apple has those thicker fast-charge
| cables). So as for "thicker", that's probably 3/4 of cables I
| have.
|
| I have Thunderbolt 3 cable (verified), but it didn't work as
| well. I also checked multiple USB-C ports on MBP because I
| suspected it might be the problem of providing port. Not sure
| if Stream Deck has battery, as it can be used only through
| wired connection and it doesn't have any memoized features,
| yet I think you might be right with your guess. I found
| somewhere that I need USB 3.1 gen 2 cable, and that's what I
| ordered, but based on Amazon description I don't really trust
| it's going to work.
|
| The whole issue is something that IMO should be dealt with by
| manufacturer. For ordinary customer this is a problem with a
| landfill solution.
| pseudosavant wrote:
| So long as I can finally settle on just USB-C for charging around
| the house I don't care. iPhones and the kids' old school iPads
| are the last non-USB-C device I have.
| mikestew wrote:
| Lucky you, with only two cables to keep around. Because of our
| Beats Studio headphones (created after Apple bought Beats, for
| the record), I get to tote around a micro USB cable in addition
| to Lightning and USB-C.
| lovehashbrowns wrote:
| I have lots on USB-C, including Sony's WH-1000XM4 headphones,
| which I would recommend for staying on USB-C. :p
|
| My micro USB devices are camera battery chargers and my Shure
| MV7.
|
| And iPhone whatever the heck for Lightning, ugh.
|
| So close to all USB-C! If I'm traveling with my camera it can
| be at least 3 separate cables still.
| [deleted]
| reiichiroh wrote:
| You can't do any worse than the USB standards body
| bombcar wrote:
| Bluetooth says hi.
| davidhyde wrote:
| I recon that Apple is doing this to mitigate the risk that cables
| that actually do work within spec would muddy the waters with
| cables that don't. As mentioned elsewhere in the comments, usb-c
| and usb3 in general is a bit of a tyre fire and mostly just a
| race to the bottom. You can find tech out there that actually
| works but these products are outliers. The usb3 brand is garbage.
| Apple probably doesn't want their user base to even have the
| opportunity to gamble on a cable that may work within spec so
| they cripple all non-approved cables. This obviously sucks for
| consumers, especially tech savvy ones, but I can see why Apple
| may want to take this approach.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Honestly? Good.
|
| There's a whole thing about how crappy some manufacturing is on
| USB-C cables and peripherals. If Apple wants to put hurdles up to
| making a device work with their hardware, it'll require OEMs to
| actually test on Apple hardware instead of dumping crap on the
| market that doesn't work, and that's a win for Apple users.
|
| Worst-case scenario, Apple harms its own ecosystem by limiting
| hardware options and confusing users about why two physically-
| compatible products can't talk to each other. Best-case scenario,
| Apple gets to dodge some of the problems as USB-C marches boldly
| towards becoming the next Bluetooth.
| iLoveOncall wrote:
| Yeah it's good if it's a warning, not otherwise.
| rgbrenner wrote:
| Good. Assuming they want to create a portless iPhone soon (which
| I think they should), nerfing usbc is a good move. Full usbc
| charges and transfers data faster than wireless... so if they
| allow that, portless is going to be a huge downgrade. Nerfing it
| at least keeps their options open.
| manuelabeledo wrote:
| Unpopular opinion here, but I wish Apple would enforce the use of
| USB-C power delivery, so either a cable works within the
| negotiated parameters, or it doesn't.
|
| It is a bit of a mess, but it is currently the best we have.
|
| Frankly, the fact that USB-IF almost released charging standards
| as an afterthought, was a huge mistake. Now we have extremely
| popular stuff (Raspberry Pi, Nintendo Switch) running on 20W or
| 40W chargers, which are non compliant.
| bombcar wrote:
| I agree, I'd rather have the cables NOT WORK AT ALL (or popup
| some horrible error message first) rather than charge at some
| abysmally slow rate.
| Turing_Machine wrote:
| > ather than charge at some abysmally slow rate
|
| Or (much) worse, catch fire.
| bombcar wrote:
| I mean at least when it catches fire I know something's
| wrong ...
| rnk wrote:
| That feels like a theoretical problem that very rarely
| occurs in practice. I have had many USBC devices
| including Apple Max but many other Macs that take USBC at
| higher than 15 watts and I've never had a problem.
| There's just no reason for this apple attempt to stick on
| the wasted money train.
| Turing_Machine wrote:
| I've definitely had off-brand charging cables get hot
| before.
| ianburrell wrote:
| What do you mean enforce use of power delivery? I think it is
| better to charge with what is available. They should show the
| wattage or power in the battery indicator popup. Then people
| can find better charger.
|
| What I hate are devices that refuse to charge on low power. I
| have Surface Go that only charges on PD not 3A. Before I
| figured this out, I would leave on standard charger and wonder
| why took forever to charge.
| manuelabeledo wrote:
| The alternative is to mess devices up.
|
| The issue with USB-C is that the port fits everywhere, but
| wattages may be wildly different.
|
| I have an early Nintendo Switch, which I rather not play and
| charge at the same time except with an official Nintendo
| adapter, because it overdraws power while running games such
| as Breath of the Wild.
|
| I also have a travel router with a 20W power adapter, at 5V
| and 4A. Not too big of an issue at lower loads, but it will
| crash if I plug a hard drive in its USB port.
|
| And what's the point of standards if they are not enforced,
| anyway?
| nikau wrote:
| Meanwhile my six year old galaxy s8 presents a full desktop
| environment when a usbc hub is attached
| [deleted]
| MarkusWandel wrote:
| As long as they let the phone charge with the same USB-C chargers
| as used for other gadgets. I have one older Apple product (a
| child's toy at this point) which simply says "Unsupported
| accessory" or such and refuses to charge through a particular
| generic Lightning cable (which another Apple gadget charges
| through just fine).
| rootusrootus wrote:
| If the cables I use for all of our iPads don't work with the
| new iPhone, I will be extremely surprised.
| gumby wrote:
| While I think this is perfectly possible, it's just as likely --
| perhaps more so -- that this is a misunderstanding about charging
| and USB C emarkers in cables.
| diebeforei485 wrote:
| I wholeheartedly agree with this move.
| [deleted]
| nottorp wrote:
| Aren't the EU rules about just charging? Whatever they do about
| the data part is their problem and doesn't contradict any rules.
|
| As for charging, the USB consortium messed that stuff up so much
| that I'll just buy Apple cables for anything I want to fast
| charge, thank you.
| indymike wrote:
| Ok, so I've had devices with USB-C connectors for five years
| including phones, tablets and laptops. I've only once had a
| problem with cables for charging and data connection even using
| the cheapest cable possible that I literally purchased at the
| Dollar Tree.
|
| Where I have had problems is USB-C -> HDMI adapters as there are
| multiple standards for both ends of the cable that may not work
| together. It makes getting the right device for the screen hard
| to do.
|
| Oh, and incidentally, cheap, unlicensed lightning cables are just
| as much of a thing as cheap unlicensed USB-C cables.
| suetoniusp91 wrote:
| Same. Only used usb-c on every device for 4+ years never had a
| single issue other then slow charging. They are losing their
| cable money and running PR for problem that does not exist. The
| amount of apple butt sniffing on every Apple post here is
| insane.
| the_gipsy wrote:
| And it's not like HDMI is an issue with a phone.
| indymike wrote:
| Well... for higher-end Android phones and tablets you can
| actually plug them into HDMI and use them like a desktop.
| nfriedly wrote:
| It's not even limited to high-end devices these days. The
| moto g100 launched at $400 (I got mine for $270), and it
| supports "Ready For", which is Motorola's version of
| Samsung Dex.
|
| Plug it into any standard USB-C hub, connect it to a
| screen, keyboard, and mouse, and you basically have a
| lightweight desktop PC.
|
| Connect a controller and it's a game console.
| warp wrote:
| Apple MFi certified lightning to HDMI adapters exist, so I
| can definitely see USB-C to HDMI be an issue on phones for
| those that need it.
| LeanderK wrote:
| What I don't get, maybe someone can explain, is why the USB-C
| hardware status is not communicated more. As I understood it, the
| phone should have all the information it needs to communicate to
| the user why the iPhone is not charging as fast as it should. I
| don't get why the user must trouble-shoot, can't the phone
| explain everything to him? E.g. you need a better cable or you
| need a better charger, including infos about where the bottleneck
| is and how fast it's currently being charged.
| jaywalk wrote:
| I'd hope that Apple's existing USB-C stuff will work properly.
| I've only been buying Apple's USB-C chargers with USB-C to
| Lightning cables in anticipation of this move.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| That's what makes me think the rumor is bullshit. If we want to
| know how USB-C will work on the iPhone, we need not look any
| farther than how it works on iPads today.
| dogma1138 wrote:
| They can potentially do it for data and certain accessories such
| as various addons and audio devices however not for charging.
|
| The EU regulation requires that any device capable of charging
| above 15W to also provide support for USB-PD.
|
| The TLDR is that between 0-15W any USB-C cable and charger should
| be able to charge @5V up to 3A as per the base USB-C spec.
|
| For charging above 15W or above 5V any USB-PD certified cable and
| charger should be able to be used up-to the maximum allowed
| charging for that device or up-to 100W.
|
| This has also impacted a lot of other handset manufacturers with
| proprietary fast charging solutions such as Samsung and Huawei.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| I'm skeptical of this rumor. Apple has supported USB-C on
| MacBooks and iPads for years, the iPhone is almost the last major
| Apple device to get converted to USB-C. AirPods are still
| Lightning, but they're not computing devices to begin with.
|
| My expectation is USB-C on the iPhone will work _exactly_ the
| same as it does with the rest of their devices today.
| wilg wrote:
| Not only that, Apple shipped the first ever laptop with USB-C.
| JustSomeNobody wrote:
| _I_ think Apple seeds these rumors to get a feel for how the
| market will handle it as well as set expectations. By the time
| an iPhone will be released with a gimped USB-C port, people
| will be bored with arguing over it and have reached acceptance.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Are there examples of them doing this in the past? What would
| be the upside for them to do it now? How do they achieve
| 'acceptance' when users would notice the difference in
| charging speed every time they plugged in their phone and
| iPad?
| PedroBatista wrote:
| Apple really can't be told to do something against their will. It
| always has to have "the last word" and this behavior isn't new,
| the Korean Appstore debacle is just an example.
|
| Of course there are "reasons", but let's be honest if Apple
| really wanted to comply and move on to better things this whole
| problem wouldn't even exist because Apple would have fixed it.
| itg wrote:
| I'm pretty sure EU can have the "last word" here by blocking
| sales of iPhone in the EU. Apple has become an expert lately at
| malicious compliance.
| sschueller wrote:
| Yup,
|
| Apple is probably the biggest global vendor in Switzerland that
| refuses to accept Swiss payment methods like Twint[1] or the
| now defunct PostFinance card[2]. It's such an Issue that every
| time you do anything in the Apple store they constantly tell
| you, we don't accept ..., make sure your have another payment
| method when you pickup your device.
|
| BTW, they still charge a ~10% premium in Switzerland compared
| to the rest of Europe, just because.
|
| [1] https://www.twint.ch/en/
|
| [2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postfinance_Card
| anotherboffin wrote:
| > BTW, they still charge a ~10% premium in Switzerland
| compared to the rest of Europe, just because.
|
| What's your source? I just checked for an iPhone 14 Pro (base
| spec) CH: 1179.- FR: 1329 EUR DE: 1299 EUR
| InCityDreams wrote:
| How much did yours cost?
| swamp40 wrote:
| Even if Apple requires MFi certification on their USB C cables,
| China will just crack the cryptography and clone them.
|
| They cracked the Lightning chip in like a week.
|
| Then they will share the private key amongst all Chinese cable
| companies.
|
| It's hard to keep a private key safe inside a small chip when
| there are billions of dollars in cable sales on the line.
| Kirby64 wrote:
| Depending on how the security is implemented, it can be done
| robustly enough that 'China' will not be able to subvert it.
| There is no need for some sort of 'master' private key that
| would allow re-sharing and duplication like you state.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-03-01 23:01 UTC)