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

[tikker]

10 hours ago, HomicidalPingu said:

Your issue is you’re taking everything at face value and not asking where the flaws are. 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

This mandate is only relevant if your device can charge beyond 15W, 5V or 3A. Devices that only charge below that are thus irrelevant and unaffected for now. You can indeed make a compliant device that charges at 5 W. The point is that if you achieved charging at levels over 15 W by other means than USB PD, that you would not be complying with the EU directive telling you to follow USB PD for those levels of charging. If you implement 10W as 5V/2A over USB PD and then your own 60 W charging at 30V/2A, you haven't incorporated USB PD. Not because you didn't follow the USB PD spec, but because you didn't follow the mandate telling you to implement that 60 W the way USB PD describes (which in turn does mean you didn't follow the USB PD spec).

 

USB PD isn't inherently tied to a particular connector or USB protocol either. You can use the Type-C port without PD or a Type-A port with PD. That said, USB PD in its current form came out like a decade after USB 2.0, so if you can even still manufacture things following USB 2.0 (instead of following USB 3.2 and only implementing 2.0 functionality) I wouldn't be surprised if you'd just be shooting yourself in the foot and that it can't even be compliant with this mandate. That problem is easily solved / countered however: you don't use an outdated revision of the standard and simply build against USB 3.2, using only USB 2.0 functionality, just like you build new houses against the 2023 building code and not the 2003 one.

[HenrySalayne]

8 hours ago, tikker said:

USB PD isn't inherently tied to a particular connector or USB protocol either. You can use the Type-C port without PD or a Type-A port with PD. That said, USB PD in its current form came out like a decade after USB 2.0, so if you can even still manufacture things following USB 2.0 (instead of following USB 3.2 and only implementing 2.0 functionality) I wouldn't be surprised if you'd just be shooting yourself in the foot and that it can't even be compliant with this mandate. That problem is easily solved / countered however: you don't use an outdated revision of the standard and simply build against USB 3.2, using only USB 2.0 functionality, just like you build new houses against the 2023 building code and not the 2003 one.

USB PD on USB A was only possible with USB PD 1.0, which had basically no commercial adoption.

The important point is what the standard mandates right now: USB C (which can passively supply up to 15W via a pull-down resistor) and USB PD (with several profiles of which all profiles below the maximum profile need to be integrated (except 12V)).

Anything else is completely irrelevant.

[tikker]

24 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

USB PD on USB A was only possible with USB PD 1.0, which had basically no commercial adoption.

The important point is what the standard mandates right now: USB C (which can passively supply up to 15W via a pull-down resistor) and USB PD (with several profiles of which all profiles below the maximum profile need to be integrated (except 12V)).

Anything else is completely irrelevant.

Ah you're right. I thought they were still around, but I see now that the current 3.1 revision only mentions Type A and B support just to say it is now deprecated and last detailed/supported in the 2.0 revision. I was trying to go against the point that you could hide behind an outdated version of the protocol to pretend technical compliance. Luckily the EU directive mandates Type-C explicitely as well, so there wouldn't be any real wiggle room anyway no matter which ports other than Type-C would technically be supported (though those things may be related).

[HenrySalayne]

2 hours ago, HomicidalPingu said:

You’re not lawyering very well. You can 100% argue that a device does follow USB PD even if it is limited to x watts because it does follow the spec. The device still vantages and is fully functional even if a separate standard is used for a different method of charging.

No, you cannot.

USB C (without USB PD) supports up to 15W of charging. That's baked into the USB C spec. And if you go beyond the limits defined (15W, 3A or 5V), you have to make USB PD work. I don't know which magic trick you want to use to get more power into a device but to exceed these limits.

[tikker]

2 hours ago, HomicidalPingu said:

You’re not lawyering very well. You can 100% argue that a device does follow USB PD even if it is limited to x watts because it does follow the spec. The device still vantages and is fully functional even if a separate standard is used for a different method of charging.

I am not saying you wouldn't comply if you had a limited wattage. It is the EU mandate does not allow that different method of charging to be the sole method of offering that charging mode. It doesn't say "implement some aspect from USB PD", it says "if you can charge >15 W, you shall do so according to USB PD". If a device charges <15 W then this is irrelevant. As @HenrySalayne says those wattages can be covered by USB-C itself (which is mandatory as well by the directive directly and indirectly since USB PD now only specifices that connector). If a device only charges at up to 20 W, that's completely fine as long as it does so through USB PD. If it can also charge at 60 W, then that 60 W mode must at least be offered through USB PD irrespecitve of what other methods you provide.

 

2 hours ago, HomicidalPingu said:

Issue is USBs specs constantly change and they don’t really care about the past. USB 2 has been revised for USB PD and most cables sold to charge phones are actually USB2 cables including those in box for phones. 

They've retained backwards compatability for decades. It's messy, but I disagree that they don't care. Lots of specs constantly change, otherwise we would never get anywhere. Computer ports, building codes, car safety standards etc. all continuously change. That doesn't mean that you can pretend to comply by using a deprecated version of a spec. USB PD is now at revision 3.1. That is the document you should follow when you implement it, not an outdated version of it. USB 2 has nothing to do with it. USB are at USB 3.2 (ignoring USB4 as that is a bit of a different beast). As far as I know it works the same and you can't really build a "USB 2.0 device" anymore. You'll just use USB 3.2 and implement only the USB 2 speeds and what not. They are pretty independent from USB PD.

[HenrySalayne]

19 minutes ago, HomicidalPingu said:

USBC isn’t a protocol it’s a connector. It doesn’t support any wattage without a protocol.You can have USBC that’s data only if you want. 

Yes, it does and no, you can't. You come around the corner with completely imaginary BS every single post. It's really annoying.

Is it actually too much to ask that you read the EU regulation? It clearly states that the USB C port is for charging. And yet you claim that you can have USB C ports that are data only?!? NO!

 

 

[Sauron]

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

since a cable is a cable.

That's not quite true, however USB-C is a standard and therefore you can make assumptions on cables satisfying its prescriptions. That's what a standard is for after all.

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

People should be criticising this but aren’t because it’s apple. The EU is now mandating manufacturers use a specific port for devices and dictating what protocols they’re allowed to use.

Wouldn't have happened if Apple didn't insist on being the only manufacturer to stick to a proprietary standard. As usual letting companies regulate themselves didn't work and regulating bodies had to step in.

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

They’re also using USB which is the flakiest standard on earth

citation needed... it's not like lightning wasn't based on USB anyway

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

MFi came about was because USB doesn’t have any form of QA.

Apple can have some sort of quality guarantee program without blocking functionality on cables that don't adhere to that program. If it's for consumer protection you only need the sticker on the box; but of course that's not why they do it, they do it to maintain control over third party accessories that would compete with their own grotesquely overpriced ones.

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

This is also purely to hamper companies from outside the EU so those in the EU can maybe catch up. 

Lmao, catch up to what? Lightning used USB 2.0 for data. It was worse than USB-C in every aspect that matters to a consumer. The cables themselves were notoriously fragile and unreliable. Even if that weren't the case, most companies adopt commonly used standards to allow for interoperability so the customer doesn't have to buy all their accessories again when changing their device, as it used to be 15 years ago which everyone hated. Only Apple has stuck to the objectively worse way of doing it and they're finally being forced to join us in 2023.

[Sauron]

54 minutes ago, HomicidalPingu said:

Why do they need to step in at all? What’s wrong with lighting? 

It's proprietary and nobody else uses it, meaning if any of your accessories use it and you decide you don't want an iphone anymore you have to buy them again. You also can't borrow chargers from people who have a different brand's phone. It's just a pain in everyone's ass for absolutely no benefit.

55 minutes ago, HomicidalPingu said:

Have you not read the USB standards? Just read the standard for 4 vs TB3 which and you’ll realise why. The spec was literally handed to them on a silver platter and they still managed to balls it up. Better yet read the naming scheme for USB

Who cares about the names... and thunderbolt isn't a cable or connector standard. USB-C cables can also carry thunderbolt, by the way - Apple is free to implement and use it. It has no bearing on the charging functionality, which is what the EU is regulating.

55 minutes ago, HomicidalPingu said:

You’re about 10 years out of date. The cables broke when lightning came out because of the material and lack of relief on the cables

Which goes to show Apple's QA is not magically better than anyone else's.

1 hour ago, HomicidalPingu said:

Companies moved to Micro USB because it was cheaper than moved to USBC because micro was shit. 

I'll still take micro usb over everyone making their own stupid proprietary connector that only works on their phone.

[tikker]

3 hours ago, HomicidalPingu said:

USBC isn’t a protocol it’s a connector. It doesn’t support any wattage without a protocol. You can have USBC that’s data only if you want. 

But you can't have a data-only port under the EU mandate if you don't also already have a Type-C charging port. There's really not that much to this. It's about charging, not whatevery else gets pushed through a port.

2 hours ago, HomicidalPingu said:

Mate USBC is just a physical connector and a pin out. You don’t have to use all of the pins. Most protocols don’t have it populated some only need a few of the pins.

 

You're not reading. I’m saying that the USBC spec is just a physical connector and you can have whatever pins you want coming out if it, be that just data, just power or a combo of both. The USB spec is such a mass you can have about 3 different specs for one cable. For example USB 2 requires 2.5W, USB PD is “up to 100W” and then you can have your USB 2 low and high powered device 

USB 2.0 may describe power delivery over USB, but it is a spec independent from USB Power Delivery (note capitalisation). The mandate demands you implement the latter. USB 2.0 has nothing to do with it. Yes USB 2.0 was/is limited to 2.5 W, but you invalidate your own argument/trick with that because this mandate is for devices that charge at more than 15 W.

1 hour ago, HomicidalPingu said:

Why do they need to step in at all? What’s wrong with lighting? 

It's not about Lightning specifically. It's about not using a common standard. Apple signed an agreement to move towards a common charger back in 2009 already:

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_09_1049

Quote

Incompatibility of chargers for mobile phones is a major inconvenience for users and also leads to unnecessary waste. Therefore, the Commission has requested industry to come forward with a voluntary commitment to solve this problem so as to avoid legislation. As a result major producers of mobile phones have agreed to harmonise chargers in the EU.
<snip>
The following companies have signed the MoU: Apple, LG, Motorola, NEC, Nokia, Qualcomm, Research in Motion (RIM), Samsung, Sony Ericsson, Texas Instruments.

Since then they have shown little if any intention of honouring it by sticking to Lightning. They had this coming if you asked me.

 

I agree with @Sauron: They were given the opportunity to regulate themselves towards a communal (consumer) benefit and they failed to do it, so now someone has to step in.

1 hour ago, HomicidalPingu said:

You’re about 10 years out of date. The cables broke when lightning came out because of the material and lack of relief on the cables. Lightning can also be at least USB3 as there have been implements of it with USB3. There’s not really any point of it being more than 2 it just increases costs and most charging cables sold with android phones or through third party vendors are also USB2. USBC is also a poorer cable for repeated insertions vs lightning due to where it fails and how likely it is to fail. 

How much beyond "can be" is it? Genuine question, as what I can gather from a quick Wikipedia read is that a camera adapter for the iPad Pro is the only accesory and device that have USB 3 controllers. They could have easily opened Lightning up and pushed for it to become the standard, but they didn't. Apple sat stagnant on their proprietary stuff while USB-C continued to grow, get implemented and get field tested and now they're paying for it with Lightning being inferior in many if not all practical ways in terms of functionality except maybe the physical connector.

[Thaldor]

15 minutes ago, HomicidalPingu said:

My point was if the EU is mandating protocols they should mandate Thunderbolt as it’s a more complete spec with more features and is better regulated than anything from USB. It’s also free which USB isn’t.

Which I pointed out is pure bullshit. USB4 is pretty much TB3 handed down by Intel with their bullshit requirement of them (or their associated company) doing the certification for a product to use "USB4.0" or "TB3" in their marketing. To get past this "USB3.2 Gen.2 with [DisplayPort/Power Delivery/whatever features]" was born which is pretty much just USB4 but not certified by Intel.

The reason why EU cannot mandate anyone to use USB4 or TB3 is that Intel is piece of shit company when it comes to certifying anything. As in, TB3 has been "open" standard for "anyone" to "use" since 2007 and just last year only ASUS and AsRock managed to get few AMD based MB's through Intel's certification. This pretyt much points into Intel just refusing to certify anything that may compete with them, unless some magical reasons probably including money.

 

And even with third party controllers, if you were to print on the box "Thunderbolt" or "USB4 with Thunderbolt support", Intel would eat you alive if you don't have their certification for your product to use their registered trademark.

 

Also how is this anyway even important since Thundedbolt uses USB-PD as their power standard? As in if you charge with Thunderbolt port, you are already using USB-PD standard for charging.

What Apple seems to be doing is to slap their own certification bullshit on top of even Thunderbolt and make their own charging standard that would only apply for Apple devices. Probable reason sarcastically isn't that Apple chargers start to be extremely overpriced compared to other USB-PD chargers that can do the same and are even from reputable companies. Like imagine someone paying $40 for Macbook Air charger when "Superior Apple quality" would pay $80 and start self-destructing in 2 years (as every more used genuine Apple cable seems to do).

 

Also still, where are the burning USB-cables that haven't burned because earlier damage or mishandling (mostly bended too much)?

They can get warm but that is still far away from burning.

[Sauron]

1 hour ago, HomicidalPingu said:

And if that was a big deal and people actually cared about it no one would buy iPhones would they? 

People choose a phone based on dozens of factors and clearly for the ones who buy iphones the lightning port wasn't bad enough to be a deal breaker; that doesn't mean that it's a good thing.

1 hour ago, HomicidalPingu said:

It’s a pain for everyone with an iPhone to swap out everything for a different connector. How many billions of tons of ewaste is that going to create?

Fewer going forward. And it's not like Apple has shied away from changing the connector in the past, but I didn't hear a peep from people like you back then...

1 hour ago, HomicidalPingu said:

Thunderbolt is a protocol and standard that’s fairly airtight in spec, unlike anything from USB. 

Thunderbolt. Is. Not. A. Connector. How hard is it to grasp this simple concept? The EU is trying to standardize charging ports, they don't enforce or care about a data standard with this law. If Apple wants to use the type C connector and run thunderbolt through it they're welcome to - but they have been using USB as the data standard for lightning so I doubt they will. You're complaining about something Apple already used.

1 hour ago, HomicidalPingu said:

Wasn’t a QA issue it was Ive? I believe wanting a specific design and they changed it when it was proven to be fragile in situations after the roll out. 

That's... worse.

1 hour ago, HomicidalPingu said:

Just bring a cable with you, not hard. 

Just use type c, not hard.

[Sauron]

3 minutes ago, HomicidalPingu said:

So people don’t give a shit. Let a product thrive or die on its own premise. 

That's not what I said, it's not true and this premise doesn't work. People buy what they need and choose the option they dislike the least. It obviously doesn't mean the product is perfect.

5 minutes ago, HomicidalPingu said:

There was massive uproar when they changed the 30 pin connector wtf are you on? Same with MagSafe on the macs 

you just argued people would simply not buy the product if they didn't like the charging connector, so which is it? were people mad that they changed from the 30 pin, meaning that according to your logic they should just never have bought another iphone, or did they just like the new one better? Or, instead, could it be that they just took the loss because they liked other things in the iphone?

9 minutes ago, HomicidalPingu said:

I didn’t say it was a connector? Are you reading anything? Reread it and then come back. 

then what ARE you saying? we're exclusively talking about charging connectors, if you want to rant about data buses that are irrelevant to this discussion go somewhere else.

10 minutes ago, HomicidalPingu said:

I have and it’s not a good connector for a phone. It’s designed to break the device before the cable 

I would LOVE for you to substantiate that with any type of source because it sounds like you made it up. I've seen quite a few broken cables, I've never seen a phone with the charging port itself being broken. Apple doesn't seem to believe this is true either, otherwise they wouldn't have made multiple laptops with usb C as their only form of I/O.

[HenrySalayne]

11 hours ago, HomicidalPingu said:

Mate USBC is just a physical connector and a pin out. You don’t have to use all of the pins. Most protocols don’t have it populated some only need a few of the pins.

 

You're not reading. I’m saying that the USBC spec is just a physical connector and you can have whatever pins you want coming out if it, be that just data, just power or a combo of both. The USB spec is such a mass you can have about 3 different specs for one cable. For example USB 2 requires 2.5W, USB PD is “up to 100W” and then you can have your USB 2 low and high powered device 

Read it!

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.

 

10 hours ago, HomicidalPingu said:

Why do they need to step in at all?

Where do you live?

[tikker]

18 hours ago, HomicidalPingu said:

I have a random USBC cable how much power does it carry? 

60 W for standard power range cables or 240 W for extended power range cables once the mandate and new certification get going:

 

https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/2021-09/USB-IF_Cable Power Rating USB4 Logo Announcement_FINAL.pdf

Quote

USB-IF establishes new Certified USB Type-C® Cable Logos to display cable power capabilities in watts, clearly indicating support for 60W or 240W as defined by the USB Power Delivery 3.1 Specification.

 

USB Type-C 2.2:

Quote

3.1.1 Compliant Connectors
The USB Type-C specification defines the following standard connectors:
• USB Full-Featured Type-C receptacle
• USB 2.0 Type-C receptacle
• USB Full-Featured Type-C plug
• USB 2.0 Type-C plug
• USB Type-C Power-Only plug

3.1.2 Compliant Cable Assemblies
Table 3-1 summarizes the USB Type-C standard cable assemblies along with the primary differentiating characteristics. All USB Full-Featured Type-C cables shall support simultaneous, independent signal transmission on both USB 3.2 and USB4™ (TX and RX pairs) data buses. For USB Power Delivery, each cable assembly is identified as being either only usable for Standard Power Range (SPR) operation or usable for both SPR and Extended Power Range (EPR) operation. Existing SPR 5 A cables are being deprecated and replaced by EPR cables. All cables that are either full-featured and/or are rated at more than 3 A current are Electronically Marked Cables.

 

  

21 hours ago, HomicidalPingu said:

It’s a pain for everyone with an iPhone to swap out everything for a different connector. How many billions of tons of ewaste is that going to create?

It's also a pain to never be able to borrow or lend chargers or accessories because your device is pretty much the only one that hasn't made the switch yet. Yes you will have a bunch of waste now when people upgrade to their next device that will now have USB-C, but that is a compromise that has been accepted. The opposite perspective is that Apple users are currently completely locked in, not even capable of doing something as simple as charging their phone without a proprietary connector.

 

21 hours ago, HomicidalPingu said:

Thunderbolt is a protocol and standard that’s fairly airtight in spec, unlike anything from USB. 

It requires a lot of additional fluff that is complete overkill for a charging interface. Look at their diagram:

Full 40 Gbps throughput, at least PCIe 16 Gbps, USB 10 Gbps, networking and at least one 4K display are among the minimum requirements. That doesn't make sense for a common charging protocol in my opinion. Then you might say "ah but that says PC requirements, not <other device> requirements', but that then means you will have to start splitting up the Thunderbolt spec in different requirements for PC devices and say "power only" devices (maybe that is already the case), which is pointless as well, since Thunderbolt already uses USB PD and thus that would only mean a higher minimum wattage on an otherwise suitable existing spec.