I hope they ban the 90% of sold usb-c looking cables that aren’t actually usb-c compliant.
Someone needs to build a simple device you connect a cable to that stress tests it and shows a green or red light.
Someone needs to build a simple device you connect a cable to that stress tests it and shows a green or red light.
There is no EU law requiring any retailers to care, so far as I know, as long as the unsafe cables don’t have USB-IF logos printed on the connectors.
edit to clarify: ... because while Apple might still include a working cable, but if you grab one of the 10 cables out of your cable box, you don't know if it will actually work.
It would be funny if this ruling strengthened Apple’s position because no one knows which off-brand cable will destroy their device by not limiting current draw.
Without strong regulations on the usb cables themselves, it almost seems like putting the cart before the horse.
Cables aren't the ones limiting current draw, they're cables. And the millions upon millions of USB-C devices in the world right now have no such issues with USB-C charging so where are you pulling these silly ideas from?
You think the rockstar engineers of Apple aren't capable of designing a charging circuit with reliability of a 80$ Chinese manufactured Android phone?
Incorrect. All USB-PD cables, whether their connectors are USB-A, -B, and/or USB-C, are responsible for honestly declaring their charging power limit to the charger and to the device, and in the USB-PD specifications are specifically responsible for limiting current draw to the rated capacity of the cable. Per USB PD spec:
> Sources Shall detect the type of Attached cable and limit the Capabilities they offer based on the current carrying capability of the cable determined by the Cable capabilities determined using the Discover Identity Command (see Section 6.4.4.2) sent using SOP’ Communication (see Section 2.4) to the Cable Plug.
> The Cable VDO returned as part of the Discover Identity Command details the maximum current and voltage values that Shall be negotiated for a given cable as part of an Explicit Contract.
Cheap, lying, uncertified USB cables that declare their ability to support higher charging rates — for example, 100W which is 5A at 20V in USB — have been known to short out and destroy chargers and devices in the process of doing so.
This was discussed in a couple hundred comments across multiple posts when a Google engineer had to pressure Amazon through product reviews to enforce USB-IF certification on all USB-C cables several years ago:
>Cheap, lying, uncertified USB cables that declare their ability to support higher charging rates — for example, 100W which is 5A at 20V in USB — have been known to short out and destroy chargers and devices in the process of doing so.
Yes, HN loves to discuss and gripe about it over and over again (quoting the same kind of unconfirmed posts that are out of date by years)... it just fails to prove that this is still any kind of widespread issue worse than any other cable connector issue.
Compliant USB-PD devices honor those cable limits. Non-compliant devices do not, but ignoring them does not negate their definition as limits.
Apple only has one other USB-C <-> USB-C cable and that's the "Thunderbolt 3 Cable" which supports everything in USB 3.1 Gen 2
The 1m also supports 97W charging. I have the 2m (shipped with my MacBook Pro) and the 1m (shipped with my iPad Air) and I can confirm they charge my MacBook the same.
I can't believe people are celebrating the government getting involved with the design process of the only tech company that actually holds themselves to a standard on design. And by forcing them to use a port where the spec is such a mess.
I have dollar store Lightning cables that only have pins on one side and only charge and don't do data.
Also Lightning cables suck because you know that literally none of them can even do even 1080p video.
https://www.totalphase.com/products/advanced-cable-tester-v2...