EU Warns Apple About Limiting Speeds of Uncertified USB-C Cables for iPhones

[hishnash]

7 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

Why would you two think a company could overrule EU regulation by showing an example of a sub-standard product? That's not how the EU works, that's not how any of this works.

The argument is just laughable. Apple can certify as many cables as they wish. They can sell only certified cables in their online store if they wish. They are not allowed to lock down a device to only accept certified cables. We don't need an discussion about the imaginary "what if"s of alternative realities.

It's not that they would be overusing the EU. It is that they could claim to be following it since they could show that cables that self-report as valid are infact not valid. The law does not say apple must support fast charging on any cable that self reports as good enough the law says apple should support fast charging on all things the follow the spec. If apple can show in court that they cant trust the self reporting of cables as most (if not literally all) cables lie about this then they can get away with not using the self reporting.  

This is not about locking down the device, it is about the fact that the USB-C spec enforcement just does not exists, anyone can (and does) make cables and there is no certification process.  

[hishnash]

9 hours ago, darknessblade said:

If they are going that route, I do not think a test with 100 "cherrypicked" cables will be enough for the EU to allow apple to continue its MFI scam.

I expect they would get an underwent company to sample random cables from stores around the EU.. it is not about cherry picking. Unless you're paying $50+ for a 2m USB-C it is basic 100% not going to fully match every letter of the spec.  The USB-C spec is extremely strict making a cable that meets this spec for higher than 5W charging very expressive. (the cables apple currently provide with thier devices do not hit the spec infact no included cables of any product hit the spec).

In the end if the EU want to enforce a law saying you must support every cable that meets the spec then they either need to accept that HW vendors can and will not trust the self reporting of cables or they need to start enforcing the spec and prosecuting vendors and stores that sell miss-labeled products.  (they are not going to do this since no-one wants to pay $50+ for a cable).  The law looks great on paper but it fails in the real world for this reason.  

[SansVarnic]

Pettiness that does nothing but impact negatively on the consumer.

Remember folks this is Apple innovativeness. 

[HenrySalayne]

 

9 hours ago, HomicidalPingu said:

I said IF they are mandating protocols as well they should mandate TB3
 

For a start TB3 must be able to deliver 100W of power to a device. It is a required part of the spec. 

Why would it be stupid to mandate on a phone? It’s actually cheaper to implement TB3 than it is a USB version.

Ahh, yes...

Did you know that Thunderbolt 3 uses USB C connectors and USB PD for power delivery of up to 100 W? Probably not, because you didn't inform yourself. *cough*

9 hours ago, HomicidalPingu said:

You really should really make sure you’re informed before spouting that. 

 

And why would you want a high-power 40 GBit/s PCIe connection on all phones?

 

Just to summarize: EU mandating USB C and USB PD is stupid. They should mandate Thunderbolt 3 which uses USB C and USB PD.

 

BTW, Thunderbolt is an Intel brand and you want to write into EU regulation that every manufacturer has to use an Intel brand?

9 hours ago, HomicidalPingu said:

Because companies either have to change everything to make a singular device for the global market or make an inferior “EU” model because of the EUs failing attempt to become relevant in the consumer electronic space through shackling continues from the US and Asia. 

The much inferior EU model, with a standardised current gen charging port, a SIM tray and an open OS so you can install anything you wish. What a terrible world to live in...

 

But enough entertainment for a day...

[HenrySalayne]

8 hours ago, hishnash said:

It's not that they would be overusing the EU. It is that they could claim to be following it since they could show that cables that self-report as valid are infact not valid. The law does not say apple must support fast charging on any cable that self reports as good enough the law says apple should support fast charging on all things the follow the spec. If apple can show in court that they cant trust the self reporting of cables as most (if not literally all) cables lie about this then they can get away with not using the self reporting.  

This is not about locking down the device, it is about the fact that the USB-C spec enforcement just does not exists, anyone can (and does) make cables and there is no certification process.  

No, it doesn't work that way.

And you should look back to what Linus said about USB C cables, because your imagination is going wild.

[jagdtigger]

12 hours ago, HomicidalPingu said:

$99 a year for access to the MFi program unless it’s changed 

There is your issue, access doesnt mean they dont have to pay extra per cable for licensing, that 99$ is just the entry fee.

 

12 hours ago, HomicidalPingu said:

Unless the actual wire catches fire 

If the wire is so thin that it gets that hot it will act as a fuse and break the circuit before that happens (plus plastics nowadays made in a way that it wont continue to burn after the heat source is gone). But for that to happen the device"s charging circuit most be pretty f up to not detect the sizeable voltage drop.....

[porina]

Is USB-C perfect? No. Is USB-C good enough for mass deployment? Yes! A simple way of looking at is look at all the devices already using USB-C and variations. It has been tried and tested for many years. Pretty much all Android devices for several years, some laptops, and a whole lot more. We do not see mass reports of problems with houses burning down. 

 

I haven't looked at how MFI is currently implemented but in a previous job some products made could connect to various things over Bluetooth. To get MFI certification required paying apple for a chip to be added to every certified product sold, even when the user uses it with non-Apple devices. It is basically an Apple tax at that point that only adds limited value to Apple device users, and negative value to non-Apple users.

 

If Apple were to have MFI USB cables, just how would they tell such cables? Either they'd have to make something about it non-standard, or you add something that is standards compliant, such as the MFI chip acting as some kind of USB ID device.

[tikker]

14 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

It keeps customers locked into the ecosystem. Simple as that.

That's my view as well.

13 hours ago, HomicidalPingu said:

Because companies either have to change everything to make a singular device for the global market or make an inferior “EU” model because of the EUs failing attempt to become relevant in the consumer electronic space through shackling continues from the US and Asia. 

That change has already been made or is already on going at least for the port, for many parties though, as we can see by the amount of USB-C devices on the market. What makes it that inferior? The 100 W minimum for TB3 is not that superior in my opinion, as USB-PD supports that and phones currently don't really need a 100 W minimum so TB wouldn't make sense in that regard. The innovation that it supposedly stifles has been slow at best for many years, companies have had their time to come up with something better if they wanted to.

 

A significant portion of devices have already moved to USB-C, the remainder have shown to not care enough to make the move willingly. Back when basically every phone had its own charging port an agreement to move towards a common charging port was already signed by manufacturers, including Apple. It was not legally binding, however, so it was more on good faith:

Quote

European Commission Vice-President Antonio Tajani, Commissioner for Industry and Entrepreneurship, said: "I am very happy that the European Standardisation Bodies have met our request to develop within a short space of time the technical standards necessary for a common mobile phone charger based on the work done by industry. Now it is time for industry to show its commitment to sell mobile phones for the new charger. The common charger will make life easier for consumers, reduce waste and benefit businesses. It is a true win-win situation."

Apple's biggest commitment more often than not appears to be to get out of that commitment and stick with Lightning regardless.

 

 

12 hours ago, hishnash said:

This is not about locking down the device, it is about the fact that the USB-C spec enforcement just does not exists, anyone can (and does) make cables and there is no certification process.  

This I agree with. I hope USB-IF and/or the EU step up their game in enforcing the standard better. As you say that is lacking at the moment.

12 hours ago, hishnash said:

In the end if the EU want to enforce a law saying you must support every cable that meets the spec then they either need to accept that HW vendors can and will not trust the self reporting of cables or they need to start enforcing the spec and prosecuting vendors and stores that sell miss-labeled products.  (they are not going to do this since no-one wants to pay $50+ for a cable).  The law looks great on paper but it fails in the real world for this reason.  

I already pretty much do all my charging with a single cable now, so I wouldn't be bothered too much with paying $50 for a good cable. There are occasions where cables for both my phone and laptop would be nice, but practically my laptop charger has replaced all my other USB-C chargers now and is the only thing I carry to work, for example.

 

 

43 minutes ago, HomicidalPingu said:

You know USB connectors and USB protocols are not the same thing? PD also only covers power delivery not data/other functionality and is very loose as to what cables can actually carry. 

They’re not mandating USBC and USB PD. USB PD isn’t an ironclad spec

They are mandating USB-C and USB-PD. That is the entire point of the directive. Thunderbolt can be carried over USB-C. Manufacturers are free to implement that if they want to.

 

43 minutes ago, HomicidalPingu said:

TB3 is royalty free, USB is not. You’re happy with the EU regulating they use a paid standard rather than a free one? Actually the USB program is very similar to the MFi program just with significantly less QA. 

That royalty-free aspect currently just gets replaced by membership and royalties to e.g. MFi. USB's royalty fees are waived for members, which many if not all of the big corporations like Apple are. Granted they pay a yearly membership fee in return, so it is still paid, but in context of this topic that's just either Apple paying USB-IF (or whoever gets it) or manufacturers paying Apple. Of course they prefer the latter. I see that as reason to instead ditch MFi and its equivalents and put that effort into improving USB QA in general such that those individual programs don't have to exist.

43 minutes ago, HomicidalPingu said:

USBC is a poor port for a phone and break device side rather than cable side.

Talking about QA... The amount by which Lightning cables seem to break / have broken is ridiculous.  That's no longer "break cable side instead of device side", that is just bad quality strain relief with form over function. Physically the lightning port may be better, but that's about the only thing it still has going for it to me and doesn't mean USB-C is garbage in comparison.

[HenrySalayne]

49 minutes ago, HomicidalPingu said:

You’re happy with the EU regulating they use a paid standard rather than a free one? Actually the USB program is very similar to the MFi program just with significantly less QA. 

Little do you know. I already posted a screenshot proving you wrong.

1 hour ago, HomicidalPingu said:

TB3 is royalty free, USB is not.

No, it's not.

52 minutes ago, HomicidalPingu said:

You know USB connectors and USB protocols are not the same thing?

I clearly don't know that. That's why I already, on several occasions, referred to them individually...

55 minutes ago, HomicidalPingu said:

PD also only covers power delivery not data/other functionality

Exactly! It took you long enough to notice that the EU did nothing else but mandate power delivery...

And you come around the corner with Thunderbolt...

1 hour ago, HomicidalPingu said:

They’re not mandating USBC and USB PD. USB PD isn’t an ironclad spec

What do you mean "ironclad"? It's a standard.

1 hour ago, HomicidalPingu said:

Why wouldn’t you? It’s free so why not. It also offers more functionality like alt modes for DP etc.

That's a very good question. Maybe you should put on your thinking cap and think very hard about it. Which Intel controller would you use in your phone? JHL8340? JHL8440? JHL8540?

1 hour ago, HomicidalPingu said:

USBC is a poor port for a phone and break device side rather than cable side.

[schtormm]

1 hour ago, HomicidalPingu said:

 

Why wouldn’t you? It’s free so why not. It also offers more functionality like alt modes for DP etc.

 

 

 

USBC is a poor port for a phone and break device side rather than cable side.

First, you know DP-alt-mode is also a thing on "inferior" normal USB-C right?

Second, Lightning can also break device side, I've had it happen on my iPhone 7

[Kisai]

7 hours ago, HomicidalPingu said:

 

USBC is a poor port for a phone and break device side rather than cable side.

No, there isn't a single cable that is good for a phone, but we need to have one or we will be forced to use WiFi or Bluetooth, and wireless charging which are substantially worse solutions, not only from wasting energy to wasting the available spectrum for incredibly stupid things that there are better technologies for.

 

What I want is to be able to plug the iphone, ipad, laptop, or any other device like a Nintendo Switch or some non-PC device into the same docking station or charging cables without having to have one for every stupid brand. If your Lenovo laptop doesn't deal with with a Dell charger, that's a problem that both Dell and Lenovo need to rectify ASAP. Same with iphones and android phones. If I plug either of those into a Dell USB dock, at the very minimum there should be PD, Network, and "usb attached mouse, and keyboard". If the device actually can drive a computer screen, then I want to see a native resolution computer screen, not "vertical aspect ratio window boxed to the monitor's native size"  That usually results in 75% of the resolution being lost, even though I can clearly rotate the damn monitor and have the same aspect ratio.

 

People who jumped on the "lightning's better" bandwagon, have clearly never used an iphone accessory. They all universally suck. Headphones do that thing where you can only hear out of one ear, far more often than with the 3.5mm jack. I'm willing to lose the 3.5mm jack if I can charge and listen to my phone, but in Apple's poor judgement here, they want people to listen to disposable wireless earbuds with their disposable completely sealed portless and buttonless phone. It's a very, very stupid goal to have. Wireless earbuds should never have been a thing.

 

 

[Thaldor]

For those who say "bad cables burn down":

 

How many charging cables have actually caught on fire? While you are looking into that, also exclude anything with fire starting close to the ends where the probability of user caused damage is close to 90%. As in how many REAL cases of burned phone charging cables you can find? Not just some company, mostly Apple, claiming "poor quality cables will burn down", not already damaged cables causing fires, not the charger or the phone causing the fire, not even the connector melting, but the actual cable getting too hot, melting the insulation and catching fire.

 

For ease of finding when the charging current (amperage) has been too much for the cable, the whole cable would be blistering and melting, especially in case of Apple cables since they still sue that biodegrable/just garbage hardening plastic. If the voltage would be too much we might see single spot starting fire but then we are no more in the USB PD voltages, not even close.

 

Spoiler

Short (or long) science with Thaldor:

"Current tells how badly you burn, voltage tells how far away it will burn you", as in 1,000,000A with 1V will be 1,000,000W and be dangerous but it can hardly even move through conduits, 1A with 1,000,000V is also 1,000,000W but it will get you through a meter of sheer air with a beautiful and deadly lightning bolt.
Every material has breakdown voltage, as in the electric voltage needed to make that material conductive. Breakdown voltage is mainly bound to insulators because for "some magical reason" it's good to know how much voltage can be applied before the insulator isn't an insulator anymore. Plastics generally have tens of kilovolts breakdown voltage, meaning you will need tens of thousands of volts to get through mere millimeter of them, as in you can insulate yourself from up to 10,000V with a sheet of everyday PVC with thickness of 1mm. Silicone which is mostly used as insulator for flexible wires has breakdown voltages around 40kV/mm in room temperature, if we roughly estimate that USB cable has 0.1mm of insulation for each wire, it would require around 4kV to spark between wires, or -2kV and +2kV between two wires as in 4kV voltage difference.

 

4kV is.... let me check... about 200 times what USB-PD can deliver, so if your USB cable has spontaneous short within and it hasn't been damaged or anything, you have bigger problems than a lightning within your USB cable because something would be terribly wrong with your charger that it could even deliver 4,000V.

So, it's going to be the over current that will kill your USB cable and that will be applied through the whole cable turning the whole cable as a heating element, it won't be 1-2cm of melted and burned cable, it will be the whole length of it.

 

[HenrySalayne]

7 hours ago, Thaldor said:

For those who say "bad cables burn down":

 

How many charging cables have actually caught on fire?

Not to mention that a breaking cable has a reduction in conductor cross-section and it is susceptable to short circuits. That's a way higher fire hazard than an inadequate cross-section to begin with...

But when Apple is involved, all logic it thrown out of the window.

 

If Apple's stock cables would carry dangerous voltages, they would have already be sued into oblivion with the garbage they bundle with their devices.

[sodapone]

Y'all are putting too much logic into this. It would make Apple more money to force iPhone users to buy MFi-certified USB-C cables that would then give Apple more money from licensing and royalty fees. That's why they wanna do it. That's the only real reason why they wanna do it.

 

Thank god the EU is nipping this in the bud before Apple was able to drag this flying circus they've put iPhone users through for the last decade into the standard that everyone else uses. And I say this as a recently-inducted Apple user, 'cause I just want to have one cable that works for my iPhone, iPad, and MacBook.

 

And hey, if you prefer Lightning, that's fine; I get it--it's not a particularly bad connector for the purpose it's designed for, and if you're used to it, you might not understand the appeal of USB-C. Just stop trying to act like it's capable of things that it really isn't.

[darknessblade]

4 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

Not to mention that a breaking cable has a reduction in conductor cross-section and it is susceptable to short circuits. That's a way higher fire hazard than an inadequate cross-section to begin with...

But when Apple is involved, all logic it thrown out of the window.

 

If Apple's stock cables would carry dangerous voltages, they would have already be sued into oblivion with the garbage they bundle with their devices.

Not forgetting the fact, that apple cables are more prone to breaking, as their designers did not like the "stress relief" section that is common on nearly all non-apple cables. making it a solid piece of plastic.

 

[kumicota]

On 5/6/2023 at 5:01 PM, HomicidalPingu said:

Unless the actual wire catches fire 

This is almost impossible on new fast charging standards. Not only the charger but the phone talks between one and the other, which is why you can't use fast charging with a USB Condon.

 

If the charger and phone sees that the energy being send is way more than the one being received, it knows that the cable is heating up and they lower the charging speeds.

 

Cable nowadays is not the problem, you have to have a combination of a bad charger, who would report things wrong, a bad cable and a bad phone, who would measure the data wrong and near the charger value.

[HenrySalayne]

48 minutes ago, HomicidalPingu said:

You can design your own TB3 controller if you want to, you don’t have to use Intels and haven’t since 2017. 

No, you can't. You don't seem to understand that Thunderbolt is an Intel trademark. Apple is the only exception that doesn't need to use Intel Thunderbolt controllers (and they still used Intel ICs for Thunderbolt on M1, I don't know about M2).

Quote

Thunderbolt™

Whenever the Thunderbolt™ brand appears, the following footnote must also appear: “Thunderbolt is a trademark of Intel Corporation or its subsidiaries.”

 

48 minutes ago, HomicidalPingu said:

You haven’t. 

Ok, so you don't know what a standard is...

I can't help you with that.

48 minutes ago, HomicidalPingu said:

Which means sweet FA because USB PD doesn’t really mean anything. 

USB PD is just power “up to 100W”. It could be 1W it could be 100W, that’s the spec. To meet that spec apple can say the phone can charge over USBPD at 5W because that meets the spec for USB2 then charges at say 25W through an MFi charger. 

My god, go read the EU regulation and stop wasting everybody's time. Your argument just shows blatant ignorance.

[Thaldor]

1 hour ago, HomicidalPingu said:

Intel released the spec to TB3, not Thunderbolt in general just TB3, in 2017 as a royalty free standard. Apple also didn’t have Intel TB controllers on M1 they moved to an apple designed one for AS. Full fat USB4 is also TB3. This is why I have specifically said TB3 not Thunderbolt. 

You are apparently the one who doesn’t know what a standard is. USB PD isn’t worth anything as a standard you might as well just stat that the cable must be able to carry power 

 

A lot of your issues seem to be a lack of understanding of USB and it’s many failings in laying down a coherent spec. Even USB4 which Intel GAVE them the spec for they ruined by making half the features optional meaning USB4 means basically nothing. 

 Except the whole TB3 mess has one critical flaw why it cannot be forced by law.

 

Intel retains complete control over certification of every TB3 and USB4 device.

 

Wanna know why we didn't have any AMD based products with TB3 before 2020 even when the TB3 was "royalty free and usable by everyone"?

Because Intel REFUSED to certify anything else than Intel based systems. Even now you pay hefty extra for TB3 ports on AMD MB's because do you think Intel would certify competitors products for free? Of course not and that service apparently isn't even still open for just anyone since there's only Asus and ex-Asus-ASrock with TB3/USB4 ports on their MB's and they are using Intel's chips, so basicly no one has managed to sell non-Intel TB3/USB4 controllers. The best everyone else can get is "USB3.2 Gen 2 Type-C with DisplayPort and Power Delivery" which basicly is USB4 and so TB3 but cannot be shortened like that because "fuck you" ~Intel.

 

As in there is only one company in the world which can use Thunderbolt ports without it becoming huge problem, and that is Intel. If EU was to enforce everyoen to use Thunderbolt, there wouldn't be anyone selling anything anymore because Intel would demand astronomical sums to certify anything that isn't using controller made by Intel (as they are already doing, except they aren't certifying anything not made by them).

 

So, the only option is to just enforce the use of USB-C port and leave the connection type standard wider so companies can use USB3-ports and maybe if Intel is tickled right at some point within these 5 years USB4-ports. While USB-IF takes the royalties and so is as a port more expensive than TB3/USB4, at least that is only question about money (not even a question of money either, the USB vendor ID costs $5,000 per year and using USB logo costs $3,500 for 2-year license, so it's pretty much in the ballpark of being free) and not about a greedy company blatantly REFUSING to certify anything that might compete with them.

 

Also if this is so big problem, where are the burning cables? Even the cases where USB cables have been warm to touch are rare and all I have remember to hear have been "warm to touch" so quite many degrees away from burning. That Apple says it's possible is only fearmongering because "someone took their lollipop away".

 

Edit: Actually found one but can you count how many things there is wrong? Like Micro-USB and fast charging are just the tip of the iceberg.

[HenrySalayne]

7 hours ago, HomicidalPingu said:

This is why I have specifically said TB3 not Thunderbolt. 

Sure.

On 5/6/2023 at 5:55 PM, HomicidalPingu said:

hey should make it so every device has to use Thunderbolt 3 as the standard

 

7 hours ago, HomicidalPingu said:

You are apparently the one who doesn’t know what a standard is. USB PD isn’t worth anything as a standard you might as well just stat that the cable must be able to carry power 

 

A lot of your issues seem to be a lack of understanding of USB and it’s many failings in laying down a coherent spec. Even USB4 which Intel GAVE them the spec for they ruined by making half the features optional meaning USB4 means basically nothing. 

You still haven't read the EU regulation...

Or you didn't understand it, but then ASK!

You are still wasting everybody's time.

[HenrySalayne]

6 hours ago, Thaldor said:

While USB-IF takes the royalties and so is as a port more expensive than TB3/USB4, at least that is only question about money (not even a question of money either, the USB vendor ID costs $5,000 per year and using USB logo costs $3,500 for 2-year license, so it's pretty much in the ballpark of being free) and not about a greedy company blatantly REFUSING to certify anything that might compete with them.

You don't need to do that. You only have to follow the EN IEC standards to built a compliant device. That's the bare minimum and it's basically free.

[Dracarris]

On 5/5/2023 at 9:35 AM, darknessblade said:

Apple may be planning to limit charging speeds

On 5/5/2023 at 9:35 AM, darknessblade said:

Why would Apple even think its OK to limit data speeds

Even for you that's some super sloppy and poorly written "News" post. If I had a nickel for every typo you made in this short post..

[tikker]

10 hours ago, HomicidalPingu said:

USB PD is just power “up to 100W”. It could be 1W it could be 100W, that’s the spec. To meet that spec apple can say the phone can charge over USBPD at 5W because that meets the spec for USB2 then charges at say 25W through an MFi charger. 

I don't get why you are bringing USB 2 in the game. If you want to make a device following USB 2 then sure, that document describes how to do it, but 1) it has long been superseded by USB 3 and USB4 and 2) USB PD has its own specification that can be referenced independently. 100 W is the limit for the standard range (with marked 5A cables). Its extended modes go up to 240 W now.  The spec lays out how you should implement it. and explicitely defines charging voltages and currents to adhere to as you can see in the specification: https://www.usb.org/document-library/usb-power-delivery

 

For example:

Note the wording "Shall support". If you do not adhere to the spec, you are not implementing USB PD, but your own interpretation of if. There objectively is a definition of what USB PD entails.

 

 Then there is the EU, who clearly states that you'll have to adhere to it in the relevant categories, which I guess is worth citing again: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32022L2380#d1e34-40-1

Quote

In so far as they are capable of being recharged by means of wired charging, the categories or classes of radio equipment referred to in point 1 of this Part shall: 2.1. be equipped with the USB Type-C receptacle, as described in the standard EN IEC 62680-1-3:2021 “Universal serial bus interfaces for data and power – Part 1-3: Common components – USB Type-C® Cable and Connector Specification”, and that receptacle shall remain accessible and operational at all times; 2.2. be capable of being charged with cables which comply with the standard EN IEC 62680-1-3:2021 “Universal serial bus interfaces for data and power – Part 1-3: Common components – USB Type-C® Cable and Connector Specification”.

3.

In so far as they are capable of being recharged by means of wired charging at voltages higher than 5 Volts, currents higher than 3 Amperes or powers higher than 15 Watts, the categories or classes of radio equipment referred to in point 1 of this Part shall: 3.1. incorporate the USB Power Delivery, as described in the standard EN IEC 62680-1-2:2021 “Universal serial bus interfaces for data and power – Part 1-2: Common components – USB Power Delivery specification”;   3.2. ensure that any additional charging protocol allows for the full functionality of the USB Power Delivery referred to in point 3.1, irrespective of the charging device used.

 

 

9 hours ago, HomicidalPingu said:

You are apparently the one who doesn’t know what a standard is. USB PD isn’t worth anything as a standard you might as well just stat that the cable must be able to carry power 

 

A lot of your issues seem to be a lack of understanding of USB and it’s many failings in laying down a coherent spec. Even USB4 which Intel GAVE them the spec for they ruined by making half the features optional meaning USB4 means basically nothing. 

Yet Thunderbolt 3 for which 100 W minimum was one of your first points uses that "not worth anything" USB PD for its power delivery and acknowledges USB-C's potential:

https://www.thunderbolttechnology.net/blog/thunderbolt-3-usb-c-does-it-all

Quote

Then recently the USB group introduced the USB-C connector, which is small, reversible, fast, supplies power, and allows other I/O in addition to USB to run on it, maximizing its potential. So in the biggest advancement since its inception, Thunderbolt 3 brings Thunderbolt to USB-C at 40Gbps, fulfilling its promise, creating one compact port that does it all.

<snip>

Power (based on USB power delivery)

• Up to 100W system charging
• 15W to bus-powered devices

https://www.thunderbolttechnology.net/sites/default/files/Thunderbolt3_TechBrief_FINAL.pdf

Quote

In each of the modes listed above, the Thunderbolt 3 system
(if designed to support this by the system manufacturer) can also
request to charge over the connector from a device or adapter
designed for delivering power to the system, up to 100 W, via
the USB-PD specification

 

I'm not denying USB can be confusing and is a bit of a mess, but I challenge anyone to have a go at maintaining a 25 year old standard with such an amount of backwards compatibility and say it's easy to do better, or easy in general.

[HenrySalayne]

1 hour ago, HomicidalPingu said:

Or I have read it and you’re just not understanding that because of the the way that literally every USB spec is written that there are ample opportunities to abide by it and also get around it. 

You haven't read it. It's not a USB spec, it's an EN standard.

 

Just read tikker's post, he took the time to explain your misconception in detail...

 

[tikker]

1 hour ago, HomicidalPingu said:

The post that I read and didn’t reply to as they don’t understand the issues. USB PD has a set range of voltages and currents but not all variations are required to be available in every device. You can have a device that uses USB PD and only charges at 5W.  For example I can plug a Thunderbolt 3 cable, which is rated for 100W by the spec and can be used with USB PD into say a Pixel 7. Is we were to believe tikker then the pixel 7 should now charge at 100W because it is a USB PD compatible device and according to them that variation of 100W MUST be supported to meet the PD spec. It obviously doesn’t. 

That is not what I am saying. I said:

12 hours ago, tikker said:

If you do not adhere to the spec, you are not implementing USB PD, but your own interpretation of if.

Nowhere did I say that USB PD forces you to implement every single mode it describes on your device, because neither USB PD nor the EU mandate do so to my knowledge, as you state. The EU mandate states that if your device is capable of charging at more than 15 W, 5V or 3 A that you shall use USB PD to do so. USB PD has 5 V, 9 V, 15 V and 20 V options.  If your device is capable of charging at 100 W, your option is then 20V/5A per the above Figure 10-1 or something else from the EPR power range. If you charge at that 100 W through some other combination of voltage and current you are not following the USB PD spec. Thunderbolt 3 uses USB PD, so it would be fine in that regard.

 

I read back my replies, and I think I know what may have caused this misunderstanding. Regarding your comment

On 5/6/2023 at 11:21 PM, HomicidalPingu said:

For a start TB3 must be able to deliver 100W of power to a device. It is a required part of the spec. 

I replied

On 5/7/2023 at 12:25 PM, tikker said:

The 100 W minimum for TB3 is not that superior in my opinion, as USB-PD supports that and phones currently don't really need a 100 W minimum so TB wouldn't make sense in that regard.

This was not to imply that phones would have to also support charging at 100 W, but just that enforcing chargers to be 100 W (in my opinion) does not make much sense since phones, a, if not the, major target of this directive, do not charge at that wattage. For laptops it could make sense, but other downsides to Thunderbolt have been brought up by others. It still wouldn't need Thunderbolt and the EU can just mandate 100 W minimum. I actually like that one of my Dell chargers does all the combinations up to 60 W, but I don't think that 60 or 100 W needs to be a minimum for phone chargers as Thunderbolt 3 would make it. My other Dell laptop charger is an example of something non-compliant as far as I know, because it does 20V/6.25A. A current that is not in the SPR or EPR ranges.

 

Similarly with your other example of

On 5/8/2023 at 11:11 PM, HomicidalPingu said:

USB PD is just power “up to 100W”. It could be 1W it could be 100W, that’s the spec. To meet that spec apple can say the phone can charge over USBPD at 5W because that meets the spec for USB2 then charges at say 25W through an MFi charger. 

it doesn't really matter whether that 25 W is achieved through 5V/5A, 9V/2.2A, 15V/1.3A or 20V/1.25A, but it can't use non USB-PD means to achieve that 25 W. I've stated my thoughts why I think MFi chargers interfere with this in an earlier reply. Having only MFi cables charge up tot he full wattage implies that fully compliant, but not MFi, cables won't work which is against the goal of the EU's directive. I think that would violate the "shall incorporate USB PD" aspect, not necessarily in terms of not adhering to the USB PD specification, but in terms of not allowing perfectly compliant chargers to work as intended, which would go against the harmonisation goal of the directive.

 

You say there are issues, and I'm sure there are or can be, but it would be of great help if you could then spell them out such that we can actually discuss them, instead of only saying that we don't understand the standard, the issues or how one would get around the rules. Even if we indeed don't (always possible), we'd never know unless you tell us explicitely.

[HenrySalayne]

7 hours ago, HomicidalPingu said:

The EN standard of for the port type not the protocol.

There are several standards mentioned...

Read the regulation.

 

4 hours ago, HomicidalPingu said:

If you for example use a USB2 protocol by the spec of that port you can only charge at 5W with USB PD. You can then build your own protocol ontop of that but because of the USB spec you’re using you can only use USB PD up to 5W, even with USB 3.0 that’s only 7.5W. This would be fully compliant with USB PD.

Now you are just confusing anything with everything. USB PD is an extension of the basic power delivery requirements. It has nothing to do with the USB data protocol version. You can have a USB C port just for charging without any data transfer capabilities. And only for exceeding thresholds defined in the regulation you need USB PD.

It's really not that hard. We are talking about sink requirements, not source requirements.