4 ms·

It's still not a great spec if it's so complex that you can screw it up. I understand the complexity for data, but for power I wish it was as simple as power &

It's still not a great spec if it's so complex that you can screw it up. I understand the complexity for data, but for power I wish it was as simple as power & ground wires and that's it. Compare that with USB-A where even cheap Chinese cables from the lowest bidder usually work (work well enough at least - you might get voltage drop but it will still charge if you leave it on long enough) because the spec is so simple that even the worst manufacturers manage to do a good enough job, and it's something you can trivially DIY if you need to. Now compare that with USB-C. So many moving parts that can go wrong and so much corners that can be cut by unscrupulous manufacturers. Not to mention that even the most expensive devices (Apple) don't give you any visibility on what type of cable/charger/etc you have even though that information is technically available to the device (that's how it negotiates power delivery) which is extremely confusing even to tech-savvy people.

bratbag 4y ago
Thats a very strange statement to make. Should complex things not have a spec?
- Nextgrid 4y ago
  My point is that I don't like USB-C because it tries to do everything and manufacturer must implement that "everything" properly which adds cost & frustration. Compare USB-C power delivery and the 12-pin cable & connector with USB-A's 4 pins and a resistor on the data lines to communicate allowed current draw, or even a barrel jack with the standard 19V ~3A PSU and no negotiation at all. Which one is the easiest to build (hint: one is easy enough to DIY) and which one is more reliable?
tmhrtly 4y ago
Power and ground wires alone don't cut it sadly when you're dealing with much higher wattages. There needs to be a level of negotiation between the host and the charger to decide on a specific power (current & voltage) that both can support. In USB-A this was accomplished through a hodge-podge of different resistances applied across data lines, not officially part of the standard but just done by manufacturers. USB-C is a huge improvement on this. I do agree however that the cable-labelling situation is awful. Maybe some kinda tier system could help. Every charger, cable and device could have a class. The charging rate is the lowest of the three. E.g. a "Class 5 cable will charge up to 200 watts and has a pink end". If you pair that with a Class 2 charger (say, 50 watts) and a class 3 laptop (100 watts) you'll be limited to charging your laptop at 50 watts.
- rbanffy 4y ago
  > I do agree however that the cable-labelling situation is awful. The new rules mention that and aim to fix it by demanding clear labels.
  - falcolas 4y ago
    I’d like to see where the labels are put. It’s not like there’s a lot of room on a cable for legible printing. And any kind of plastic flag wont last.
  - Aerroon 4y ago
    You mean the ones on the packaging?
ChuckNorris89 4y ago
>It's still not a great spec if it's so complex that you can screw it up. People and companies can screw thing up royally regardless of spec complexity when there's no review/oversight involved. That's not a valid argument. If you want to force and check adherence to a spec you need to involve certification authorities (TÜV, SGS, UL, etc.) but then widget prices would increase dramatically. Edit: to address the child comments below: who gets to be the judge of the complexity of the spec? If Nintendo fucked it up but some EE students can get it right through side projects on github, does that make the spec complex or does that make Nintendo incompetent (lacks a HW review/qualification process)? The spec could be as simple as "white wire goes to positive terminal, black wire goes to negative terminal" and there's still the chance of an implementation fuckup in the design pipeline, especially in large projects/companies with distributed siloed teams like Nintendo due to poor internal communication, if there is no proper internal review/qualification process in the design loop. Edit 2: I looked at the USB-C charging specs and they're easy enough to understand for any graduate EE and for any company who's had some basic experience with USB as a whole, let alone 100 year old multi-billion HW conglomerates like Nintendo. IMHO, Nintendo's USB-C charging fuckup is 100% on them. I wish people would stop needlessly defending them here. Edit 3: Also, what if Nintendo intentionally chose not to follow the spec in order to force the users to use and buy only original parts from them? Either way, incompetence or malice, you really can't blame the spec here.
- remus 4y ago
  I think it's a reasonable point. A more complex spec is going to be harder to implement correctly.
  - falcolas 4y ago
    And more expensive to boot.
- rhn_mk1 4y ago
  It is a valid argument because the more complicated the spec, the easier to mess up the implementation.
- 4y ago
kaba0 4y ago
Do you have any reason to believe that they "screwed up" due to a spec being complex, over much more likely explanations like.. they simply didn't want to follow the spec?
throw0101a 4y ago
> I understand the complexity for data, but for power I wish it was as simple as power & ground wires and that's it. The minimum requirements are that you have to support the USB 2.0 protocol: > While BC1.2 is still supported over USB Type-C because it depends on the USB2.0 lane, a significantly simplified and higher power current capability mechanism is also implemented. This simplified approach involves resistor pull-down/ pull-up relationships. These pull-down/pull-up resistors are connected to the CC wire and the upstream facing port (UFP) must monitor the voltage on the CC1 and CC2 pins in order to detect the current sourcing capability of the down- stream facing port (DFP) it is connected to. This is a substantial improvement over the complicated handshake mech- anisms involved with USB BC1.2. > The basic USB Type-C current capabilities are Default USB (500mA for USB2.0 and 900mA for USB3.0), 1.5A@5V, and 3A@5V. * https://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/appnotes/00001953a.pdf https://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/appnotes/00001953a.pd...
vilhelm_s 4y ago
USB-C is infamous for being complex like that, but I think the charging part is basically fine? People talk about the Nintendo Switch often, but I have never heard any _other_ example of something where the charging didn't work, so I think maybe it's a rare exception. (This is distinct from the "fast charging" mode(s?), which does seem to have compatibility problems. But in that case, the failure mode is that device charges slowly, which is probably not a big issue for the kind of small phones/gadgets that the EU regulation targets. The previous standard was micro-USB, which can't do fast-charging anyway.)
- oneoff786 4y ago
  I plugged my switch into my laptop and the switch started to charge my laptop. I thought it was funny.
interestica 4y ago
I wanted to get a trimmer with USB-C. Unfortunately, all that I found would not allow c-to-c charging. Only charging from A. The 'A' basically allows a 'hot wire' type charge to go through for power. C-only charging requires negotiation. There's no way to tell up front that the charging is limited like this and manufacturers don't want to highlight it.
- Nextgrid 4y ago
  You can build your own cable by buying a "USB-C trigger" (as they're called on eBay), it's a board with a USB-C port and a power delivery controller chip that's preconfigured for the specified voltage.
  - interestica 4y ago
    This is the information I needed. Thank you!

bratbag 4y ago

Thats a very strange statement to make. Should complex things not have a spec?

Nextgrid 4y ago
My point is that I don't like USB-C because it tries to do everything and manufacturer must implement that "everything" properly which adds cost & frustration. Compare USB-C power delivery and the 12-pin cable & connector with USB-A's 4 pins and a resistor on the data lines to communicate allowed current draw, or even a barrel jack with the standard 19V ~3A PSU and no negotiation at all. Which one is the easiest to build (hint: one is easy enough to DIY) and which one is more reliable?

tmhrtly 4y ago

Power and ground wires alone don't cut it sadly when you're dealing with much higher wattages. There needs to be a level of negotiation between the host and the charger to decide on a specific power (current & voltage) that both can support. In USB-A this was accomplished through a hodge-podge of different resistances applied across data lines, not officially part of the standard but just done by manufacturers. USB-C is a huge improvement on this. I do agree however that the cable-labelling situation is awful. Maybe some kinda tier system could help. Every charger, cable and device could have a class. The charging rate is the lowest of the three. E.g. a "Class 5 cable will charge up to 200 watts and has a pink end". If you pair that with a Class 2 charger (say, 50 watts) and a class 3 laptop (100 watts) you'll be limited to charging your laptop at 50 watts.

rbanffy 4y ago
> I do agree however that the cable-labelling situation is awful. The new rules mention that and aim to fix it by demanding clear labels.
- falcolas 4y ago
  I’d like to see where the labels are put. It’s not like there’s a lot of room on a cable for legible printing. And any kind of plastic flag wont last.
- Aerroon 4y ago
  You mean the ones on the packaging?

ChuckNorris89 4y ago

>It's still not a great spec if it's so complex that you can screw it up. People and companies can screw thing up royally regardless of spec complexity when there's no review/oversight involved. That's not a valid argument. If you want to force and check adherence to a spec you need to involve certification authorities (TÜV, SGS, UL, etc.) but then widget prices would increase dramatically. Edit: to address the child comments below: who gets to be the judge of the complexity of the spec? If Nintendo fucked it up but some EE students can get it right through side projects on github, does that make the spec complex or does that make Nintendo incompetent (lacks a HW review/qualification process)? The spec could be as simple as "white wire goes to positive terminal, black wire goes to negative terminal" and there's still the chance of an implementation fuckup in the design pipeline, especially in large projects/companies with distributed siloed teams like Nintendo due to poor internal communication, if there is no proper internal review/qualification process in the design loop. Edit 2: I looked at the USB-C charging specs and they're easy enough to understand for any graduate EE and for any company who's had some basic experience with USB as a whole, let alone 100 year old multi-billion HW conglomerates like Nintendo. IMHO, Nintendo's USB-C charging fuckup is 100% on them. I wish people would stop needlessly defending them here. Edit 3: Also, what if Nintendo intentionally chose not to follow the spec in order to force the users to use and buy only original parts from them? Either way, incompetence or malice, you really can't blame the spec here.

remus 4y ago
I think it's a reasonable point. A more complex spec is going to be harder to implement correctly.
- falcolas 4y ago
  And more expensive to boot.
rhn_mk1 4y ago
It is a valid argument because the more complicated the spec, the easier to mess up the implementation.
4y ago

kaba0 4y ago

Do you have any reason to believe that they "screwed up" due to a spec being complex, over much more likely explanations like.. they simply didn't want to follow the spec?

throw0101a 4y ago

> I understand the complexity for data, but for power I wish it was as simple as power & ground wires and that's it. The minimum requirements are that you have to support the USB 2.0 protocol: > While BC1.2 is still supported over USB Type-C because it depends on the USB2.0 lane, a significantly simplified and higher power current capability mechanism is also implemented. This simplified approach involves resistor pull-down/ pull-up relationships. These pull-down/pull-up resistors are connected to the CC wire and the upstream facing port (UFP) must monitor the voltage on the CC1 and CC2 pins in order to detect the current sourcing capability of the down- stream facing port (DFP) it is connected to. This is a substantial improvement over the complicated handshake mech- anisms involved with USB BC1.2. > The basic USB Type-C current capabilities are Default USB (500mA for USB2.0 and 900mA for USB3.0), 1.5A@5V, and 3A@5V. * https://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/appnotes/00001953a.pdf https://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/appnotes/00001953a.pd...

vilhelm_s 4y ago

USB-C is infamous for being complex like that, but I think the charging part is basically fine? People talk about the Nintendo Switch often, but I have never heard any _other_ example of something where the charging didn't work, so I think maybe it's a rare exception. (This is distinct from the "fast charging" mode(s?), which does seem to have compatibility problems. But in that case, the failure mode is that device charges slowly, which is probably not a big issue for the kind of small phones/gadgets that the EU regulation targets. The previous standard was micro-USB, which can't do fast-charging anyway.)

oneoff786 4y ago
I plugged my switch into my laptop and the switch started to charge my laptop. I thought it was funny.

interestica 4y ago

I wanted to get a trimmer with USB-C. Unfortunately, all that I found would not allow c-to-c charging. Only charging from A. The 'A' basically allows a 'hot wire' type charge to go through for power. C-only charging requires negotiation. There's no way to tell up front that the charging is limited like this and manufacturers don't want to highlight it.

Nextgrid 4y ago
You can build your own cable by buying a "USB-C trigger" (as they're called on eBay), it's a board with a USB-C port and a power delivery controller chip that's preconfigured for the specified voltage.
- interestica 4y ago
  This is the information I needed. Thank you!