Hacker News Reader

Comment by cameronh90 | Hacker News Reader

I charge my Switch with various USB PD chargers (mostly Anker but also Apple, Google and others) and haven't had a problem so far.

I was trying to find some information about what would cause PD-compliant chargers to fry the Switch. It appears that while the switch is PD-compliant itself, they used a slightly non-standard connector that reduces tolerances and could, in some situations (most likely worn cables) cause some pins to electrically bridge and fry the port.

To be honest, this doesn't seem like an issue with USB C, just Nintendo intentionally implementing it wrong. They should have either used a proprietary port for the docking mechanism rather than modifying USB C in an unsafe way then saying only to use their proprietary charger.

View on HN

I don't actually own a Switch, but my partner and I both charge our laptops (mine a Dell XPS, hers a MacBook) from the same after-market USB-C charging bricks. I don't love that it's like this, but basically the product page just lists every known-to-work device, including Nintendo Switch:

https://www.amazon.ca/Charger-Adapter-Replacement-Thinkpad-M...

Now, I'm a cheapskate, so most of my electronics are older devices, and as a consequence we still also have various other cables kicking around— Lightning for both our iPhones and wireless earbuds, Micro USB for Kindle and PS4 controllers, even Mini USB for a few random devices.

But as far as USB-C, I would attribute the current mess to growing pains. For a few more years, charger pages will explicit list the products they work with, and eventually it will settle down to a list of must-work-with products for all chargers, and any new products with be tested to ensure that they work in the same ways as one or more of the items on that list of known-working products. Didn't HDMI have pretty much this exact issue with EDID and other chaos, until everyone basically agreed that whatever Sony was doing was the right thing and they'd copy them?

The main losers here are people trying to do new ground-up implementations, since they can't just work from the standard; they also need expensive consultants to tell them the precise subset of the standard is the actual part they can depend on. But for end users, the trend is toward an overall state of reasonable compatibility, with non-working devices quickly acquiring a reputation as such and being shunned out of the marketplace.

Word of warning, for those reading this far:

The Switch and Switch Dock are not USB-C devices. That you’re able to plug in a USB-C charger or USB-C device and see it supposedly work just means that you haven’t yet encountered the scenario(s) that can electronically damage the Switch. Nintendo’s warranty does not cover this damage when it occurs, requiring a full-cost repair or replacement as you connected unlicensed and unauthorized hardware to it.

I wish there were legal protections around this. Using a standard plug means it should accept the standard for that plug.

It depends, though. In all likelihood it would end up thrown back on the consumer— "Did you use a licensed/approved/certified charger? Sounds like you need to take this up with whoever made the charger that fried our product."

It might help resolve certain really common cases like compatibility between the chargers and devices of the mainstream entities. I guess I'd argue that that should be happening on its own, but Nintendo definitely dropped the ball with releasing a USB-C product in 2017 that was interoperable with Apple and other name-brand chargers which had been in existence for two years previously at that point.

The chargers that use standard plugs should also be made to support the standard or they should be held legally responsible.

In this particular case I think even well-known name brand chargers which follow standards (Apple, Anker) are breaking the Nintendo, and that's unacceptable.

Nintendo’s Switch plug happens to physically and electrically seem to accept USB-C charger connectors, but it’s not a USB-C plug, and the Switch should not be considered compatible just because it uses a similar plug.

Nintendo should have taken more steps with their charger to restrict the Switch to authorized chargers only, rather than permitting unsupported chargers (such as standard USB-C ones) from being able to power it. Or even just outright used a proprietary connector!

None of this is any fault of the chargers. They’re the ones adhering to the standards correctly. The Switch is at fault.

All (or most) of the reports of switches being bricked stem for 3rd party docks, where the dock is at fault and using 9v for signal pins, see https://hackaday.com/2019/08/04/the-not-quite-usb-c-of-ninte...

Whether or not this is the case, Nintendo makes it very clear in their warranty that using an unauthorized charger is not covered. They definitely did not intend for it to be a universal port.

The problem is that most consumers don’t read those warnings. And the “reasonable person” would assume that any USB-C cable would work if the USB-C-like receptacle mates with their USB-C cable.

Nintendo say that for all their devices, even the ones that use Nintendo-specific connectors.

Why would nintendo warranty try to cover scenarios entirely out of their hands? Just because the other guy claims they've produced a usb-c charger doesnt mean they actually did it correctly (which is apparently the case with these docks)

If you shove 9V into a 5V device, bad things will happen, regardless of Nintendo is anti-standard or not

And in a year or two I expect that clause will be found to be unreasonable by the ACCC (Australian consumer protection body) and Nintendo will end up getting fined for it.

Their website says that it uses USB-C for charging and the charging port accepts stock USB-C cables, it's not even remotely reasonable to bury within the warranty a statement which says "oh, by the way the device cannot accept USB-C cables -- if you use a made-to-spec cable that fits in the port, no warranty for you!".

I bricked a switch using my macbook charger. It's poor design in the switch to accept a USB cable that can potentially zap the device.

You should look for a lawyer who would take it on contingency and sue. Sounds like a great class action. You often get more money as a class representative rather than just a class member.

They put USB-C on the box. They screwed up the design. They should be forced to have a recall, or extend the warranty.

> the Switch should not be considered compatible just because it uses a similar plug

Imagine you go to a hotel and see an USB A port on the wall and you try to charge your phone, then your phone starts to smoke or simply ignites. You find later that port was not a standard USB A port, but a 220 volt plug for something custom. Should the hotel be responsible for that? I think it should. If it looks like a duck ...

I would rather like it if USB standards had better names and a definition of a "safety score" then device manufacturers have to advertise a minimum supported score (for devices) and a minimum guaranteed score (for chargers).

All of this just underscores what a terrible standard USB-C is. You have no idea what's what anymore by looking at it. Everything seems to fit together, but if you do it, you damage your devices.

It would have been better if they'd launched another dozen different plug standards. In situations when there's only one thing you should be connecting to your device, that's the way to go. Universal sockets only make sense if they're actually universal.

All of this just underscores what a terrible standard USB-C is.

Nothing above seems related to the standard. At the end of the day, its still comes down to the manufacturers to follow the standard in order for everything to to work. But the standard itself can't stop any particular manufacturer from making a non-compliant product.

There are trademarks on the USB logos, so the USB consortium not enforcing their trademark on standards violators (using their logo) is something they could do, but don’t.

It's a bad standard if shorting adjacent pins fries equipment. That the people created a standard like that means they aren't competent to create these sort of standards.

That is not the case. The current reports, as far as I've seen, have all (or at least mostly) been from 3rd party docks where pins on the dock side were bridged and shorted the charger, frying the Switch's port.

Edit: A poster below this question said they fried their Switch by using their Macbook charger so I may have been naively optimistic in my original statement.

I wish the same about people who sell adapters for plugging 15A electrical devices into 25A electrical outlets.

Sadly, the legal burden is placed exclusively on the buyer (via electrical code).

I don't see how such a product would be useful for anyone. At least in USA, anywhere a 25A circuit is available, a 15A circuit is also available. The converse (using a 25A device on a 15A circuit) would be useful, but also wouldn't be dangerous in any way.

Looking at us (NEMA) plugs, there's plugs for 15A, 20A, 30A, and 50A. I'm going to assume everyone means 30A instead of 25A.

Generally, where there's a 30A circuit, a 15A circuit is also available, but there are exceptions. You may have wired a RV hookup with only a 30A receptacle, but you want to run some lights, or tools or ? with a 15A plug from that on a temporary basis. The circuit is (presumably) good for 30A, so adapting to a lower amp receptacle is reasonable --- it won't hurt anything to draw fewer amps through the circuit.

Adapting from a 15A socket to a 30A socket can be dangerous; the 15A or 20A[1] breaker or fuse on the circuit won't immediately open with a 30A draw, and the wiring will heat up during the time it takes for the circuit protection to open; possibly long enough to cause a fire. Of course, just because a load has a 30A plug doesn't mean it draws 30A all the time, there are conditions where using such an adapter is safe, but it requires knowledge of the load.

[1] US NEC code allows for a 20A breaker on circuits served by 15A receptacle, as long as there is more than one receptacle

If the 15A device fails short, it's going to get a much bigger load between failure and the breaker tripping on a 30A breaker than a 15A one.

Why does it matter if you plug 15amp device into a 25amp oulet? Surely It will only use 15amps unless it short circuits?

It matters if it short circuits, yes. (Electricians, I hope I got this right enough to convey the 'why'; I know it won't be perfect.)

The outlet plugs specify the circuit breaker limit. Most consumer electronics in the US use a 15amp plug, which can be plugged into a 15amp outlet or a 20amp outlet — but no higher, due to physical incompatibilities in the outlet design.

The electronics that use the 15amp or 20amp plugs are therefore built not only to draw no more than the amps rated by their plugs, but also to self-destruct relatively safely if they draw the maximum amps available from the circuit breaker backing that plug.

So if a cheap device correctly assumes as part of its "don't explode" protections that it will never receive more than 20amps due to using a 15-or-20 amp plug, and then it short circuits while plugged into a 25 amp circuit using an adapter, it could very well explode, because the basic guarantees of electrical safety were violated. The plug used guaranteed it would never receive more than 20amp, and now it's receiving 25!

This is especially relevant when you're considering how to make use of an idle 30A dryer outlet in a garage. If you just plug an adapter into it, and your device short circuits, it will explode even more violently. Risk of harm increases with outlet power.

There exist fancy "breaker box" adapters that have a 30A plug on one side, a fuse box with a 15A or 20A fuse in the middle, and a 15A outlet on the other side for you to use. It's not really an adapter at that point, but the presence of that 15A/20A fuse provides the missing piece of protection for your 15A/20A device that a plain adapter wouldn't have.

So in summary, the only way to safely use a 15amp device on an outlet that delivers power higher than 15-20A is to somehow inline a 15-20A breaker between the device and the outlet (or, to rewire the outlet and its power feed to 15-20A).

TL;DR: Hire a licensed electrician to tell you what your options are and decide how much you care to spend and whether you want to make permanent modifications to get the job done.

Any device that becomes significantly more dangerous when the breaker trips at 25 instead of 20 amps is relying on way too thin of a safety margin and I would consider it a lurking hazard on any circuit.

That is not how safety margins work. Safety margins are meant to give a buffer for unforeseen circumstances, they are not a ticket to just cheat. With this logic... why stop at a 25A breaker (30 in the US)? Why not just plug a 20A device into a 100A breaker, or no breaker at all?

No safety margin can account for purposeful circumvention, which is what connecting a 15/20A outlet to a 30A circuit is.

You see no difference between 20 vs. 25 amps and 20 vs. 100?

I didn't say any difference was unacceptable, but a significant difference for 20/25 should not be accepted.

If the danger gets gradually worse for every 5 amps on the fuse, that's fine. Then the excess danger at 25 or 30 amps is only a tiny fraction of the excess danger at 100 amps. Good work.

If the danger has a sudden sharp increase at a certain amperage, then that amperage threshold needs to be further away than a mere 20/25 difference. Or even 20/30.

This isn't really correct though and gives a false sense of security. The house breakers are sized for the wires in the wall, not the device plugged in. Those should have their own internal fuses to protect themselves.

Most lamp cords are only sized 100ish Watts or ~ 1A with the bulb being the only fuse. If these somehow pulled 15A for any amount of time the wire would quickly get smoking hot but you still plug them into a 15A plug.

Devices are supposed to protect themselves. Most 15A devices will cause fires if they actually pull 15A for any amount of time. If you try to use a a small extension cord on your space heater, you will soon be smelling burnt plastic while never getting over 15A draw. That is part of why these are such a fire hazard.

Alos in the US a 20A socket is designed to allow a 15A plug to work in it, But not the opposite way as that would cause issues in the wall.

Right, it's even more complicated. Such breakers also don't trigger at specified current exactly. They have two breakers inside of them, one for overload protection triggering once it heats up, could be an hour for 2x current if starts cold, and one for short circuit protection triggering in less than a second, but on 3x+, 5x+ currents, etc. So a 15A breaker, a 15A outlet and a cable for 15A all could easily see 30A of current for some periods of time and heat up.

I actually used to calibrate and QC high end breakers for a well know company who's name is a letter and a shape. To pass QC the breakers would need to heat trip when run at 135% Amps between roughly 20-45 minutes. Both too fast and too slow were a failure.

The actual range was a bit different by Ampage which I never quite understood.

You can’t “oversupply” electrical current(Amps), only voltages(Volts). Current is drawn and determined by Ohm’s law.

It matters in the case of a malfunctioning device, as others have pointed out. If you're going to have an adapter than a allows a 15A device (which would normally only need to fail safely in the presence of 15A, or perhaps a very brief lighting surge) into a plug that can supply 25 or 30A, the adapter should almost certainly contain its own 15A fuse.

The reverse of this is plugging big loads like power tools or vacuum cleaners into extension cords intended for use with desk lamps, but I think most people understand that that's a bad idea.

Yes.

USB-PD is in a twilight zone where it can deliver enough power to cause safety risks but, due to its low voltage, is not subject to the level of regulatory scrutiny that other electrical products receive.

To date, the USB-IF's approach to safety and interoperability does not adequately protect consumers. USB-PD devices should not be incompatible to the point of damage but USB-IF has been unable to ensure this by keeping non-compliant products off the market.

USB-PD needs to be pulled under the IEC, NRTL (US) and CE (EU) regulatory systems and compliance overseen by entities with the legal authority to deter legitimate manufacturers/importers from selling non-compliant products.

"You can plug it in, but it might catch fire" just isn't good enough for a power delivery system that can provide 100W.

Yeah anything that can drop 100W into a device absolutely needs to be under regulatory compliance.

100W really isn’t that much power comparatively speaking to things that are currently regulated. The issue is the specific circumstances (tiny copper traces feeding into SMT components), not the fact that it’s 100W of power alone.

Nintendo is following the protocol. They’re using an officially supported alternate mode.

what about the switch pro controller? I'll sometimes charge it on whatever usb-c cable is nearby when I'm gaming and the controller starts to die. Is that OK?

The pro controller doesn't use PD, so there's very little risk to destroy anything with a somewhat compliant charger. (There are some out there that repurpose normal USB-A for higher voltages, but they're very rare)

The Brick-Gate issue, where many switches where bricked, was not an issue with generic chargers, but specifically 3rd party docks. And, as it turns out, the issue in that case wasn't on the switch side, but the manufacturers of the 3rd party docks, that used 9v on a normal signal pin (cc) [very much not spec compliant], which destroyed the pd chip inside the switch: https://hackaday.com/2019/08/04/the-not-quite-usb-c-of-ninte.... There have been few -if any- reports of switches being destroyed otherwise.

That is excellent news!

This is really good to hear. I hadn't heard this follow up and besides joysticks (going back to the n64 era) Nintendo's traditionally had an insanely good hardware QA so I was surprised to hear about the issues initially.

How are there multiple people here in the thread that say that the port on the Switch is not a USB-C port, when it says so in the official specs _right on their website_? https://www.nintendo.com/switch/tech-specs

I think I'm wrong, honestly, given the two replies to my two comments on the matter. It's too late to edit them but I am upvoting those replies anyways!

I do think there's still the matter of "Not all USB-PD adapters provide the specific electrical demands of a Switch or Switch Dock" to contend with — and that does tie back to the original article's point about USB-C being kind of a nightmare.

EDIT: There are still reports of someone frying a Switch with an Apple USB-C power adapter (which is USB-C compliant), no dock or anything involved. Whatever else does or doesn't work, Nintendo won't cover damage under warranty if you used a third-party charger.

Probably a corruption of the fact that the protocol to get HDMI out of the Switch is a proprietary alt-mode, which is why standard docks and USB-C to HDMI adapters don't work. But USB-PD chargers are very much intended to work.

The docks that do work generally reversed-engineered the proprietary protocol, and some have damaged Switches because they got details wrong.

The protocol to get video-out isn’t proprietary, just rare —they’re using Mobility DisplayPort from the Switch, and converting DP to HDMI in the dock.

Of course, had they used the native HDMI side-channel (which I’m not sure had been finalized at the time), they would have been able to skip this step.

The port is USB-C but the power and data follow a custom protocol.

I would assume that you are not allowed to call it USB-C if you don't pass the USB compliance process, which I would hope ensures that the protocol is implemented according to standard.

They're not but the tech specs have the words USB-C right there. https://www.nintendo.com/switch/tech-specs/

It is very annoying.

I have been using Switch in both docked and handheld mode with my Thinkpad charger without any issues. Maybe I am the lucky one.

> The Switch and Switch Dock are not USB-C devices.

Why? Why was it so hard for them to implement USB-C the proper way? Why were they allowed (and why did they want) to use patented USB-C plugs if they didn't want to actually implement USB-C? The only explanation I can come up with is they intended to earn money from repairing.

Simpler than that - they don't want others to produce Switch-compliant accessories which compete with their own.

Why use a standard connector then? Why not use a proprietary one? The USB-C connector itself is far from perfect and I can see no reason to use it if actual compatibility is not what you seek.

Because with a standard connector they could use existing cheap suppliers for that part? And apparently one that was too cheap to properly implement the standard.

Why choose the USB-C connector standard then? There are many alternatives which can be cheaper, better and less confusing this way.

I thought it wasn't USB compliant, based on this google plus post[1] and hacker news discussion [2]

If it is true that third party charging devices is fine, then that is great news.

[1] https://plus.google.com/102612254593917101378/posts/2CUPZ5yV...

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16706803

Archive link because Google Plus is dead: http://web.archive.org/web/20180330003039/https://plus.googl...

I am also a cheapskate but afraid of using noname power supplies and have been very happy with the HP charger that works on all my devices including a Macbook: https://www.amazon.ca/HP-3PN48UT-USB-C-Slim-Elitebook/dp/B07... It even includes a handy USB-A port for non-USB-C cables.

I found that Switch cannot use Apple's charger with the dock. It literally complains about the cable being wrong.

The dock is a special case and requires some specific voltage/amperage support. But the switch itself abides by EU regulations.

65W Apple charger.... My Lenovo 65W USB-C charger had no issues at all.

A USB-C PD brink specifies which voltage and amp combos it supports charging, and the one that the dock & switch ask for as their 'optimal' power profiles most apple USB-C bricks do not deliver, despite having the wattage capability for them.

The Switch dock requires the 15V PD profile, which the (old) 61W adapter from 2016 did not support, but the newer 61W adapter from 2018 does.

Yeah, there's always a "special case" with USB-C, isn't there.

Which of Apple’s chargers? Each of them has different power capabilities.

There's this third party portable dock that can help

https://www.genkithings.com/products/covert-dock

That's a slightly different problem. Charging the device vs the dock working. I almost never used the dock, but I charge my device all the time with other USB-C cables.

The Switch is absolutely not PD compliant.

https://web.archive.org/web/20190301015818/https://plus.goog...

> It appears that while the switch is PD-compliant itself, they used a slightly non-standard connector that reduces tolerances and could, in some situations (most likely worn cables) cause some pins to electrically bridge and fry the port.

I'm pretty sure that's the dock that has a slightly nonstandard plug, not the switch itself.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com