Hacker News Reader

> limiting technical progress is not a good idea and we see that with the plethor of different power modes existing within USB-C.

Who is limiting technical progress? The laws don't state that only USB-C can ever be used; they state that chargers must all be compatible. Want to improve it? Contribute to USB, or come up with an entirely new standard that everyone can agree to.

> What if a company (Apple) comes up with a more efficient but also more elaborate way to quick charge their equipment?

Then they contribute to the next USB standardization, same as everyone else.

> How would you handle a situation where non-compliant chargers could even harm this equipment?

Same way it's currently done: Through consumer protection laws. USB standards are called standards for a reason.

> USB-C already is way too complex for the average Shenzen cookie cutter factory to implement it correctly.

And yet people are happily using USB-C to power all kinds of devices.

> How would you protect your customers from such a situation?

CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS

Enough with the FUD.

> Want to improve it? Contribute to USB, or come up with an entirely new standard that everyone can agree to.

They tried that with Lightning. Micro USB won because it was cheap. Apple are USB-C contributors.

> Enough with the FUD.

Indeed.

> They tried that with Lightning. Micro USB won because it was cheap.

Lightning was definitely not a new standard everyone can agree to. Apple was not letting anyone else make lightning ports.

> Apple are USB-C contributors.

What do I even say to this. The "contribute to USB" has an implied "and use the port you contributed to". Apple failed the second half of that.

That's what the USB org is doing, if manufacturers decide together they need an USB-D, that will become the new standard.

(9) in the EU directive: https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-10713-2022-...

> limiting technical progress is not a good idea

If Apple is limited by USB-C then why do all their other current devices - where the EU never forced anything - use primarily (sometimes exclusively) USB-C?

What technical progress.

Don't you think that 20V and 240W that are the maximum for Power Delivery are enough to fast charge a smartphone? Even laptops use it!

Of course! 640kB will be enough for everyone!

Do you realize your parallel doesn't apply here? We're speaking about an iPhone, not a fridge nor a car.

Power is not the only parameter…

Fine, just speak your mind.

But for charge speed, the only parameters really are voltage and maximum current. Both are plenty enough (for a smartphone battery) in the PD standard.

It’s not universal until we can power appliances, TVs, Microwaves, Fridges, Ovens, and EV Cars with it.

It's universal enough for all power consumption up to 240W, which includes what you need to charge a smartphone.

For huge appliances, you need a different connector, larger conductors in the cables, etc... it really will never scale the whole spectrum because of physics laws. Else, everything melts and burns.

Here, you dropped this:

/s

For which we have IEC connectors. 110/220v AC power connectors are not the problem.

It's not just a question of total power - smartphones have limited space and thermal budget for internal power conversion compared to laptops, which means that the fastest charging option often moves some of the work of converting to the correct voltage to the charger. (Also, I don't think 240W USB PD has really been adopted by anyone currently, and that's a spicy amount of current given the general quality of USB C cables.)

what advantage does the lightning cable afford? doesn't seem that Apple has really put their foot on innovation

Battery in the phone needs ~4.2V for charging. So you need conversion in the phone no matter what voltage you supply on the USB port.

It depends. USB-C supports PPS, which allows the charged device to request a specific voltage, so conversion is no longer needed.

The specification does mandate that the device must be able to fall back to a static voltage if the charger does not support PPS, though. But in practice a device could totally require PPS for fast charging, and only do trickle charging with a non-PPS charger.

> But in practice a device could totally require PPS for fast charging, and only do trickle charging with a non-PPS charger.

Not sure we have the same terms. Trickle charging is 0.02-0.05C charging to see if the charger can get the battery safely from being overdischarged to say 3V where it can start normal CC charging phase.

That would probably piss off a lot of users and the EU if not even normal charging was supported by a device connected to any USB charger, because that's back to requiring a specific charger for each device, where not even basic things that all users expect work anymore with all conforming chargers.

True, "trickle charge" is the wrong term. I guess it'd be better to call it "non-fast charge" or something.

Yes, which is why USB-C supports PPS.

When this all started, I had the same argument of hindering technical progress. But then I realised that all companies have to do is support usb c, it's fair game if they want to add another plug alongside it.

If apple want that new standard that's fine, but they shouldn't be allowed to use it as a USP -- everyone else should be able to implement it, with no licensing.

They can include that port near usbc port, or they can propose that port to be the new usb standard, but do you need more than 240W charging and 40gbps data transfer in a phone? Or to be more precise, how many phones are using full usbc capacity?