3 ms·
This might be overly cynical (and I'm not going to address the utility of such a USB safety net), but I can see this being used as a way to only allow <insert y
by mttyng 8y ago
This might be overly cynical (and I'm not going to address the utility of such a USB safety net), but I can see this being used as a way to only allow <insert your multi-national tech corp. here>-approved chargers.
- andromeduck 8y agoI think it's to offset the price of manufacturing such that its no longer viable to skip on the electrical side of things due to the lower marginal costs and even if there is skimping, it would be easier for the host device to workaround it. The cynic in me thinks that having so many turing complete microcontrollers with not insignificant performance and storage is going to be the NSA and other spy agencies wet dream. You wouldn't plug a strange USB into your phone or computer but you'd probably plug a strange cable or charger around your office/house or off Amazon - and that's if you could even tell the difference at a glance.
- drbawb 8y agoI don't think that's overly cynical at all. Proprietary chargers has been the norm for years now. Many Dells and HP machines I have owned will accept power from 3rd party chargers, but refuse to charge the battery. Typically the workarounds are either patch it out of the firmware, or steal the authentication chip from a defunct 1st-party charger. Both workarounds are far from ideal. (The former means you can no longer take automated firmware updates, and the latter means modifying a power supply that runs off mains voltage.) What I'd like to see happen is that a consortium issues certificates that sign capabilities, rather than signing identities. Essentially the charger says "the UL/USB-IF/etc. has certified me up to 18W" as opposed to "Apple built me" which seems to be the logic the industry has been using prior to USB-C.