12 ms·

The explanation of “This is to protect batteries from sub par quality chargers” is not particularly convincing to me. As a user, wouldn’t that be my call? Sho

The explanation of “This is to protect batteries from sub par quality chargers” is not particularly convincing to me. As a user, wouldn’t that be my call? Shouldn’t providing a safe charging be a charger manufacturer’s responsibility? Why is Pixel deciding to not accept charging at 10w from ‘unknown’ charging device? At best I can see the argument for not supporting charging from insecurely designed charger on the account of warranty, but even then I think it should be consumers call as to what device they are using to charge their phones and phone should at most warn me about unsafe chargers, rather than outright refusing to charge at full potential speed.

JustSomeNobody 8y ago
I agree. I find it a bit disturbing that people are sort of quick to defend this. I don't see this as being any different, other than scale, from what John Deere is doing.
ryanianian 8y ago
> I think it should be consumers call as to what device they are using If the sketchy charger bricks the phone but the customer is dishonest about using the sketchy charger at time of RMA, do you expect Google to engage in he-said-phone-said arguments with customers? "Ah but your big-brother device says it was plugged into a toaster oven last week."
- vidarh 8y ago
  If a sketchy charger can brick the phone, I'd consider the phone broken by design.
  - ryanianian 8y ago
    So did Google? Not trying to be trite here, but that's essentially exactly the point. They didn't want to let a sketchy charger brick the phone, so they disallowed sketchy chargers. You could say that the phone should try to accept any charge and never break, but that's a nontrivial amount of electrical-engineering and expense involved in accepting basically any wattage/voltage that a sketchy charger may produce.
  - StavrosK 8y ago
    Not to mention that the sketchy charger can brick the phone now. The phone can just regulate its own power supply and charge however it likes, all the charger does is supply current to the coil.
- jjeaff 8y ago
  Not to mention the potential liability if a crappy charger overcharges the battery and causes a fire in someone's pocket.
  - abfan1127 8y ago
    all of the battery charging control is in the battery, not the charger. The charger just generates the EM field (in this case) or a supply on traditional cables.
    - sly010 8y ago
      In a traditional wired charger, the transformer coils are in the charger. In case of wireless charging, one half of the coil is inside your phone. I am not an electrical engineer, but whatever current is induced there, you have to put it somewhere. So the argument makes some sense. Still not a nice move.
      - mark-haus 8y ago
        A transformer is a two part system of two inductive coils. If you open the circuit on one end, the closed end won’t be able to induce a current into the second coil. It’s as simple as a single MOSFET controlled by some power management IC that measures current to prevent this from happening. It’s easier to prevent damage from wireless charging than it is from a physical connection.
      - kwhitefoot 8y ago
        > whatever current is induced there, you have to put it somewhere. No you don't. What is induced is an electromotive force, e.m.f., that is voltage. If the coil is open circuit then no current will flow. It's slightly more complicated than that because wireless charging uses tuned circuits not simple iron cored transformer but the general principal is the same and the control circuit in the phone can simply disconnect the coil completely in order to not accept any power.
reaperducer 8y ago
Shouldn’t providing a safe charging be a charger manufacturer’s responsibility? Have you seen the manufacturing quality of some of the chargers out there? I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't an effort by Google to prevent a long series of "Google phones explode into flames!" clickbait headlines when ultra-cheap knock-off charging pads start showing up at flea markets.
- bayindirh 8y ago
  Even old Nokia phones were able to test the maximum current drawable from the charger connected to their charging port, and adjust charging current accordingly. A cutting edge smartphone which cannot manage its battery charging process sounds a bit strange. AFAIK Qi is a standard which can communicate too, so things look stranger... For the uninitiated, Nokia phones had a feature called net-monitor which acted as a global debug console and had 60-something pages. One of these pages were battery and charging status and data.
- C4stor 8y ago
  What makes you think Google chargers are any better ? I would be surprised if there wasn't a single factory providing the same chargers with different stickers for at least a dozen of brands, including Google.
  - microtherion 8y ago
    Ken Shirriff's charger teardowns show that there can be vast differences in quality and safety between different brands: http://www.righto.com/2012/10/a-dozen-usb-chargers-in-lab-apple-is.html http://www.righto.com/2012/10/a-dozen-usb-chargers-in-lab-ap...
    - henriklied 8y ago
      Also check out Lygte Info[1], the site of a Dane who checks chargers and batteries usually bought from the Chinese sites like Banggood and AliExpress. Spoiler: Not all of them are bad. [1] https://lygte-info.dk/info/indexUSB%20UK.html https://lygte-info.dk/info/indexUSB%20UK.html
jvagner 8y ago
Not that I entirely find it convincing, but a reasonable counter-argument is the Samsung-airplane fire situation. If a model/brand becomes known for catching on fire, that entire model/brand can be easily restricted from things like planes. So bad chargers and replacement batteries are a potential threat to the reputation of a brand... that said, the problem with Samsung batteries catching on fire was all Samsung's fault.
- kop316 8y ago
  The Samsung Airplane Fire was most certainly not related to a charger, that was due to the faulty battery. The Note 7 deserved that reputation. A more reason comparison would be the Nintendo Switch and 3rd party docks. It turns out the Nintendo Switch does not implement USB-PD to spec, and a 3rd party dock fried the IC for the USB charger, bricking the device.
  - gargravarr 8y ago
    From what I've been told on here, Nintendo did implement USB-PD correctly, and correctly identified itself as a low-current device, but third-party devices ignore that and attempt to draw full amperage from the charger, which causes it to shut off. Source: https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/845368239622307840 https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/845368239622307840
    - tofof 8y ago
      Nintendo most assuredly did not implement USB-PD correctly. At a minimum, the Switch 1) enters the proprietary AltMode before even querying the attached charger/dock to see if it supports it 2) tries DR_SWAP even after the dock says that it doesn't have dual role capability 3) always requests 0.5A before requesting full amperage, causing problems with to-spec SRC_CAP readvertisements 4) does not properly use the CAP_MISMATCH flag required by the USB-PD spec, 5) the dock violates Power Rules compliance by not passing through the entire USB-PD advertisements from the attached charger, 6) the switch and dock both leave excess capacitance on Vbus, but the switch is a dual role power device, causing problems with safe and compliant hardware that correctly checks for 0V before swapping power, 7) far from being oversupplied by poor chargers, the switch hogs the entire 3.0A from the adapter when its maximum draw should be 2.6A 8) as noted in your twitter link, the switch PSU and dock hard-crash and require a power cycle to start working again, whereas correct, compliant behavior would be to negotiate a 5V/0.1A error signal, etc etc etc. Source: https://plus.google.com/102612254593917101378/posts/2CUPZ5yVTRT https://plus.google.com/102612254593917101378/posts/2CUPZ5yV...
winningcontinue 8y ago
Should be your call but laws open them up to liability so they don't allow you to just use anything you want. When something goes wrong, it'd be the phone that explodes and the HTC/Google part of the two companies has deeper pockets.
macspoofing 8y ago
>As a user, wouldn’t that be my call? Sure. But it's the manufacturer's prerogative to build a device they want to build. Also this design decision is not to enforce copyright protection or is based on some other anti-consumer design, but rather is done for quality reasons - and that's a fair choice for them to make. >Shouldn’t providing a safe charging be a charger manufacturer’s responsibility? 'safe' is ambiguous in this context. The charger may be 'safe' in that it won't catch fire and kill anybody, but may still prematurely cut your batteries life.
bonestamp2 8y ago
> As a user, wouldn’t that be my call? Maybe they're trying to keep their warranty repair costs in check. Maybe they would have allow it after your warranty expires and you're on the hook for the new battery instead of them.
criddell 8y ago
Maybe a reasonable workaround would be for Google to do the same thing Apple does for some of their products and sell licenses to third party manufacturers of repute.
VikingCoder 8y ago
If your phone is under warranty, you'd potentially also need to opt in to the phone tracking how often you've used an unsafe charger. And for how long. And it would, reasonably, void the warranty. A valid response is for consumers to say they don't want warranties any more. But if you do want a warranty, you need to use your device with approved devices...
kazinator 8y ago
> Shouldn’t providing a safe charging be a charger manufacturer’s responsibility? There is no such responsibility if they are overseas and shipping directly to the consumer. > it should be consumers call You should run that line of reasoning by your local fire marshal, and then also your insurance agent.

JustSomeNobody 8y ago

I agree. I find it a bit disturbing that people are sort of quick to defend this. I don't see this as being any different, other than scale, from what John Deere is doing.

ryanianian 8y ago

> I think it should be consumers call as to what device they are using If the sketchy charger bricks the phone but the customer is dishonest about using the sketchy charger at time of RMA, do you expect Google to engage in he-said-phone-said arguments with customers? "Ah but your big-brother device says it was plugged into a toaster oven last week."

vidarh 8y ago
If a sketchy charger can brick the phone, I'd consider the phone broken by design.
- ryanianian 8y ago
  So did Google? Not trying to be trite here, but that's essentially exactly the point. They didn't want to let a sketchy charger brick the phone, so they disallowed sketchy chargers. You could say that the phone should try to accept any charge and never break, but that's a nontrivial amount of electrical-engineering and expense involved in accepting basically any wattage/voltage that a sketchy charger may produce.
- StavrosK 8y ago
  Not to mention that the sketchy charger can brick the phone now. The phone can just regulate its own power supply and charge however it likes, all the charger does is supply current to the coil.
jjeaff 8y ago
Not to mention the potential liability if a crappy charger overcharges the battery and causes a fire in someone's pocket.
- abfan1127 8y ago
  all of the battery charging control is in the battery, not the charger. The charger just generates the EM field (in this case) or a supply on traditional cables.
  - sly010 8y ago
    In a traditional wired charger, the transformer coils are in the charger. In case of wireless charging, one half of the coil is inside your phone. I am not an electrical engineer, but whatever current is induced there, you have to put it somewhere. So the argument makes some sense. Still not a nice move.
    - mark-haus 8y ago
      A transformer is a two part system of two inductive coils. If you open the circuit on one end, the closed end won’t be able to induce a current into the second coil. It’s as simple as a single MOSFET controlled by some power management IC that measures current to prevent this from happening. It’s easier to prevent damage from wireless charging than it is from a physical connection.
    - kwhitefoot 8y ago
      > whatever current is induced there, you have to put it somewhere. No you don't. What is induced is an electromotive force, e.m.f., that is voltage. If the coil is open circuit then no current will flow. It's slightly more complicated than that because wireless charging uses tuned circuits not simple iron cored transformer but the general principal is the same and the control circuit in the phone can simply disconnect the coil completely in order to not accept any power.

reaperducer 8y ago

Shouldn’t providing a safe charging be a charger manufacturer’s responsibility? Have you seen the manufacturing quality of some of the chargers out there? I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't an effort by Google to prevent a long series of "Google phones explode into flames!" clickbait headlines when ultra-cheap knock-off charging pads start showing up at flea markets.

bayindirh 8y ago
Even old Nokia phones were able to test the maximum current drawable from the charger connected to their charging port, and adjust charging current accordingly. A cutting edge smartphone which cannot manage its battery charging process sounds a bit strange. AFAIK Qi is a standard which can communicate too, so things look stranger... For the uninitiated, Nokia phones had a feature called net-monitor which acted as a global debug console and had 60-something pages. One of these pages were battery and charging status and data.
C4stor 8y ago
What makes you think Google chargers are any better ? I would be surprised if there wasn't a single factory providing the same chargers with different stickers for at least a dozen of brands, including Google.
- microtherion 8y ago
  Ken Shirriff's charger teardowns show that there can be vast differences in quality and safety between different brands: http://www.righto.com/2012/10/a-dozen-usb-chargers-in-lab-apple-is.html http://www.righto.com/2012/10/a-dozen-usb-chargers-in-lab-ap...
  - henriklied 8y ago
    Also check out Lygte Info[1], the site of a Dane who checks chargers and batteries usually bought from the Chinese sites like Banggood and AliExpress. Spoiler: Not all of them are bad. [1] https://lygte-info.dk/info/indexUSB%20UK.html https://lygte-info.dk/info/indexUSB%20UK.html

jvagner 8y ago

Not that I entirely find it convincing, but a reasonable counter-argument is the Samsung-airplane fire situation. If a model/brand becomes known for catching on fire, that entire model/brand can be easily restricted from things like planes. So bad chargers and replacement batteries are a potential threat to the reputation of a brand... that said, the problem with Samsung batteries catching on fire was all Samsung's fault.

kop316 8y ago
The Samsung Airplane Fire was most certainly not related to a charger, that was due to the faulty battery. The Note 7 deserved that reputation. A more reason comparison would be the Nintendo Switch and 3rd party docks. It turns out the Nintendo Switch does not implement USB-PD to spec, and a 3rd party dock fried the IC for the USB charger, bricking the device.
- gargravarr 8y ago
  From what I've been told on here, Nintendo did implement USB-PD correctly, and correctly identified itself as a low-current device, but third-party devices ignore that and attempt to draw full amperage from the charger, which causes it to shut off. Source: https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/845368239622307840 https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/845368239622307840
  - tofof 8y ago
    Nintendo most assuredly did not implement USB-PD correctly. At a minimum, the Switch 1) enters the proprietary AltMode before even querying the attached charger/dock to see if it supports it 2) tries DR_SWAP even after the dock says that it doesn't have dual role capability 3) always requests 0.5A before requesting full amperage, causing problems with to-spec SRC_CAP readvertisements 4) does not properly use the CAP_MISMATCH flag required by the USB-PD spec, 5) the dock violates Power Rules compliance by not passing through the entire USB-PD advertisements from the attached charger, 6) the switch and dock both leave excess capacitance on Vbus, but the switch is a dual role power device, causing problems with safe and compliant hardware that correctly checks for 0V before swapping power, 7) far from being oversupplied by poor chargers, the switch hogs the entire 3.0A from the adapter when its maximum draw should be 2.6A 8) as noted in your twitter link, the switch PSU and dock hard-crash and require a power cycle to start working again, whereas correct, compliant behavior would be to negotiate a 5V/0.1A error signal, etc etc etc. Source: https://plus.google.com/102612254593917101378/posts/2CUPZ5yVTRT https://plus.google.com/102612254593917101378/posts/2CUPZ5yV...

winningcontinue 8y ago

Should be your call but laws open them up to liability so they don't allow you to just use anything you want. When something goes wrong, it'd be the phone that explodes and the HTC/Google part of the two companies has deeper pockets.

macspoofing 8y ago

>As a user, wouldn’t that be my call? Sure. But it's the manufacturer's prerogative to build a device they want to build. Also this design decision is not to enforce copyright protection or is based on some other anti-consumer design, but rather is done for quality reasons - and that's a fair choice for them to make. >Shouldn’t providing a safe charging be a charger manufacturer’s responsibility? 'safe' is ambiguous in this context. The charger may be 'safe' in that it won't catch fire and kill anybody, but may still prematurely cut your batteries life.

bonestamp2 8y ago

> As a user, wouldn’t that be my call? Maybe they're trying to keep their warranty repair costs in check. Maybe they would have allow it after your warranty expires and you're on the hook for the new battery instead of them.

criddell 8y ago

Maybe a reasonable workaround would be for Google to do the same thing Apple does for some of their products and sell licenses to third party manufacturers of repute.

VikingCoder 8y ago

If your phone is under warranty, you'd potentially also need to opt in to the phone tracking how often you've used an unsafe charger. And for how long. And it would, reasonably, void the warranty. A valid response is for consumers to say they don't want warranties any more. But if you do want a warranty, you need to use your device with approved devices...

kazinator 8y ago

> Shouldn’t providing a safe charging be a charger manufacturer’s responsibility? There is no such responsibility if they are overseas and shipping directly to the consumer. > it should be consumers call You should run that line of reasoning by your local fire marshal, and then also your insurance agent.