4 ms·
That's really good news. 140W charging on the 16" had me worried that Apple was using a proprietary/non-conforming extension to USB-C, just like Nintendo did f
by mortenjorck 5y ago
That's really good news.
140W charging on the 16" had me worried that Apple was using a proprietary/non-conforming extension to USB-C, just like Nintendo did for the Switch. The reports of bricked Switches from standard USB-C chargers was an unfortunate demonstration of why this is a bad idea, and why it's important that Apple is using a standard (even if it's very new) method of increasing power delivery.
- Hamuko 5y agoI really doubt that Apple would have gone out of their way to invent their own power profiles for the 16-inch MacBook Pro if one didn't already exist. The 16-inch MacBook Pro certainly doesn't need 140 W to run. The Intel i9 MacBook Pro comes with a "measly" 96 W charger and it tops up just fine. The 140 W is there for fast charging and if they had to stick to 100 W, they could've made a professional machine just fine. It's not like the most common complaint about the MacBooks between 2016 and 2021 was "it charges up too slow".
- anamexis 5y agoWell, Apple did go out of their way to invent the new power profiles - they just did it via the USB-IF.
- trevyn 5y agoFWIW, Apple pretty much writes the USB-C standard.