4 ms·

What percent of cables coming out of China, sold on Amazon or in convenience stores/gas stations, do you believe have been certified by USB-IF?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
falcolas 4y ago
3rd party misbehavior does not justify Apple misbehavior.
- comfypotato 4y ago
  It’s not misbehavior by Apple if it’s to protect against 3rd party misbehavior.
  - falcolas 4y ago
    So why aren't we yelling at Apple for not doing this now with their USB-C powered Macbook Pro's with their 100W+ chargers and cables? Or thunderbolt cables? If there's such a huge pool of potential trouble brewing with a 20W phone, why do they even allow such maleficent third party malfeasance? /s
    - arcticbull 4y ago
      They do, you can't charge a 16" M1 MacBook Pro at 140W without the MagSafe cable. The USB-C port is capped at 96W. And I believe to charge at 60W+ you need an e-marked cable. ... which is roughly what's being proposed here for iPhone. Since some Samsung devices charge at 45W and require 3A (hence e-marked) cables, one can infer Apple wants to do something similar for iPhone in the future.
      - error503 4y ago
        You don't need e-marking for 3A charging. A non e-marked cable can deliver up to 60W (3A@20V). It must route the CC pin to be able to negotiate a higher voltage (>15W 3A@5V), but this is (spec) required for all USB-C cables. Edit: I should add that it is possible for a fully complaint combination of devices to not charge at max(sink power, source power), because not all possible combinations of voltage and current may be supported. For example a 60W charger may support 20V@3A, but if the 60W sink only supports 12V charging, it needs 5A and this combination won't support 60W charging. In practice this should be rare though, it would be terrible product design.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        arcticbull 4y ago
        You're totally right, in part I confused >60W with >=60W, and as you rightly point out, non-marked cables should support 20V/3A. Re: your edit. There is this exact kind of profile incompatibility between the Leviton T5636 and the HomePod mini when two devices are plugged in. The outlet should support 30W for each receptacle, which is more than enough to provide the 18W/20W the HomePod mini requires. But for some PD profile incompatibility reason (9V/3A probably), it does not get enough power. And it is in fact terrible product design. Leviton is pointing the finger at Apple but in reality, who knows.
        error503 4y ago
        > Which source? The charger or the device? Because either could be at fault. IMO it's harder for the source to be flexible with voltage, and especially current limit, so I'd put somewhat more blame on the sink here for not being flexible enough. Generally a sink should expect to be plugged into an 'unknown' source, so should at least make an effort to support multiple voltages. Designing a multiport power source with a shared power limit is a bit of a tricky problem.
    - manuelabeledo 4y ago
      > Or thunderbolt cables? I can assure you that counterfeit Thunderbolt cables don't work at Thunderbolt speeds. Also, power delivery is defined by USB standards, not Thunderbolt.
      - yencabulator 4y ago
        Don't change the topic, you are talking about data speed when the thread is about power delivery. Here's grandparent's Apple apologism: > I'm going to contend this isn't so much subverting EU rules but rather trying to ensure that Apple won't get blamed when someone uses a cable that can't handle the power when plugged in given that there's not a good standard out there for this and no enforcement of the "ok, there's something - try this..." Two questions: 1. (Given Apple fanboy view of world, then) why can I charge an Apple laptop with a random USB-C cable? 2. Why would that logic not apply to iPhones too?
        manuelabeledo 4y ago
        Thunderbolt doesn't add power delivery, USB does. They are two different protocols, and you mentioned Thunderbolt. > (Given Apple fanboy view of world, then) why can I charge an Apple laptop with a random USB-C cable? Not that I appreciate the tone here, but yes, you could charge an Apple laptop with what you would call "random" USB-C cable, as long as it delivers the necessary wattage. That is not the issue at hand, though. > Why would that logic not apply to iPhones too? It could. But there are orders of magnitude more phones than laptops, and laptop users tend to use, well, their laptop chargers for the most part. Still, I have seen one or two laptop motherboards essentially melted, because they were overdrawing power. By the way, I never argued that Apple should create a new standard, or a new certification program. What I originally said was that I wish that Apple would prevent cables that are not PD compliant from working with their devices, because USB-IF sucks at enforcing this.
    - onphonenow 4y ago
      Premium brands like apple and Samsung already do have various restrictions and limits if things haven’t been authenticated- cables, they’ve done warnings around batteries and likely to expand - made for iPhone has been around forever
  - widowlark 4y ago
    enjoy your user protection for 3x the cost
    - comfypotato 4y ago
      Yes: I can invest more in a device and get a better product, Apple or otherwise. 3x? Lol, get out of here with your bullshit.
    - joseftexas 4y ago
      Let them be. I have seen a grandpa sufferring for 10 years on iPhone (he bought new one every 2 years). He just upgraded to S23u and very happy with it. His wife still sticks to i13pm. Some just want burn thru their cash because they believe it is worth it. Some didn't know. We can only help the later group by informing. The former group won't bulge even if the realized it. It is human nature.
- bilbo0s 4y ago
  To be fair, it's not Apple misbehavior. It's essentially just Apple saying if you use a cable not OK'd by us, you're on your own. I don't think anyone expects people not to plug in non certified cables. It looks like it's just putting into writing a stance of, "Hey, if you fry your phone using junk cables, that's on you."
  - falcolas 4y ago
    > if you use a cable not OK'd by us, you're on your own That is misbehavior from Apple, because it adds a cost to the consumer. MiFi is absolutely not free. The consumer friendly option is allowing the use of a perfectly good USB-C cable (from J5 Create, for example) that doesn't have the MiFi tax without artificial restrictions.
    - bilbo0s 4y ago
      No one disallows using the J5 cable. That's the entire point. That's what makes all this fair. It's the consumer who chooses what products s/he will use. The only thing being codified here is that if you happen to use a janky cable Apple didn't certify, the results are on you. All that, to my mind, is totally reasonable. You can use a certified cable. You can use a non certified cable. The consumer is totally free to make any choice s/he chooses. They only warrant that if you use the certified cable, your phone won't blow up.
      - falcolas 4y ago
        Then we're reading this sentence from TFA quite differently: > Shrimp states that Apple will limit data and charging speed for cables connected to iPhone without the MFi certification. To me (and I'd wager it's the same for most folks), that's Apple implementing a technical block on the cables separate from their actual capabilities.
        bilbo0s 4y ago
        That's not for the cable, that's for the accessory connected to the cable. I thought we were talking about the cables here? With respect to the cables, that's part of the USB C spec. Not the spec to which you are referring. The whole point of the E Mark is to signal that it is safe to send otherwise dangerously high speeds and wattage down the cable. So they're just saying that they promise to follow the spec for cables they certify. Now the accessories, you're right, but I don't know the rules for accessories. I do know them for the cables.
justeleblanc 4y ago
If they can fake USB certification, why wouldn't they be able to fake apple certification?
- shagie 4y ago
  Because when they fake using the Apple trademark for Made-For-iPhone, Apple will get them removed from various market places, retailers, or possibly even stopped at customs when importing them. Apple has no such enforcement capabilities for USB as they don't have any rights to that trademark.
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    And we all know how well that works based on how few counterfeits there are on Amazon. /s
    - onphonenow 4y ago
      When Amazon wasn’t responsive enough they pulled their products and sued suppliers using fulfilled by amazon. USB-if by comparison does nothing and neither do govt agencies- apple is perhaps most active in its enforcement efforts

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

falcolas 4y ago

3rd party misbehavior does not justify Apple misbehavior.

comfypotato 4y ago
It’s not misbehavior by Apple if it’s to protect against 3rd party misbehavior.
- falcolas 4y ago
  So why aren't we yelling at Apple for not doing this now with their USB-C powered Macbook Pro's with their 100W+ chargers and cables? Or thunderbolt cables? If there's such a huge pool of potential trouble brewing with a 20W phone, why do they even allow such maleficent third party malfeasance? /s
  - arcticbull 4y ago
    They do, you can't charge a 16" M1 MacBook Pro at 140W without the MagSafe cable. The USB-C port is capped at 96W. And I believe to charge at 60W+ you need an e-marked cable. ... which is roughly what's being proposed here for iPhone. Since some Samsung devices charge at 45W and require 3A (hence e-marked) cables, one can infer Apple wants to do something similar for iPhone in the future.
    - error503 4y ago
      You don't need e-marking for 3A charging. A non e-marked cable can deliver up to 60W (3A@20V). It must route the CC pin to be able to negotiate a higher voltage (>15W 3A@5V), but this is (spec) required for all USB-C cables. Edit: I should add that it is possible for a fully complaint combination of devices to not charge at max(sink power, source power), because not all possible combinations of voltage and current may be supported. For example a 60W charger may support 20V@3A, but if the 60W sink only supports 12V charging, it needs 5A and this combination won't support 60W charging. In practice this should be rare though, it would be terrible product design.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - arcticbull 4y ago
        You're totally right, in part I confused >60W with >=60W, and as you rightly point out, non-marked cables should support 20V/3A. Re: your edit. There is this exact kind of profile incompatibility between the Leviton T5636 and the HomePod mini when two devices are plugged in. The outlet should support 30W for each receptacle, which is more than enough to provide the 18W/20W the HomePod mini requires. But for some PD profile incompatibility reason (9V/3A probably), it does not get enough power. And it is in fact terrible product design. Leviton is pointing the finger at Apple but in reality, who knows.
        error503 4y ago
        > Which source? The charger or the device? Because either could be at fault. IMO it's harder for the source to be flexible with voltage, and especially current limit, so I'd put somewhat more blame on the sink here for not being flexible enough. Generally a sink should expect to be plugged into an 'unknown' source, so should at least make an effort to support multiple voltages. Designing a multiport power source with a shared power limit is a bit of a tricky problem.
  - manuelabeledo 4y ago
    > Or thunderbolt cables? I can assure you that counterfeit Thunderbolt cables don't work at Thunderbolt speeds. Also, power delivery is defined by USB standards, not Thunderbolt.
    - yencabulator 4y ago
      Don't change the topic, you are talking about data speed when the thread is about power delivery. Here's grandparent's Apple apologism: > I'm going to contend this isn't so much subverting EU rules but rather trying to ensure that Apple won't get blamed when someone uses a cable that can't handle the power when plugged in given that there's not a good standard out there for this and no enforcement of the "ok, there's something - try this..." Two questions: 1. (Given Apple fanboy view of world, then) why can I charge an Apple laptop with a random USB-C cable? 2. Why would that logic not apply to iPhones too?
      - manuelabeledo 4y ago
        Thunderbolt doesn't add power delivery, USB does. They are two different protocols, and you mentioned Thunderbolt. > (Given Apple fanboy view of world, then) why can I charge an Apple laptop with a random USB-C cable? Not that I appreciate the tone here, but yes, you could charge an Apple laptop with what you would call "random" USB-C cable, as long as it delivers the necessary wattage. That is not the issue at hand, though. > Why would that logic not apply to iPhones too? It could. But there are orders of magnitude more phones than laptops, and laptop users tend to use, well, their laptop chargers for the most part. Still, I have seen one or two laptop motherboards essentially melted, because they were overdrawing power. By the way, I never argued that Apple should create a new standard, or a new certification program. What I originally said was that I wish that Apple would prevent cables that are not PD compliant from working with their devices, because USB-IF sucks at enforcing this.
  - onphonenow 4y ago
    Premium brands like apple and Samsung already do have various restrictions and limits if things haven’t been authenticated- cables, they’ve done warnings around batteries and likely to expand - made for iPhone has been around forever
- widowlark 4y ago
  enjoy your user protection for 3x the cost
  - comfypotato 4y ago
    Yes: I can invest more in a device and get a better product, Apple or otherwise. 3x? Lol, get out of here with your bullshit.
  - joseftexas 4y ago
    Let them be. I have seen a grandpa sufferring for 10 years on iPhone (he bought new one every 2 years). He just upgraded to S23u and very happy with it. His wife still sticks to i13pm. Some just want burn thru their cash because they believe it is worth it. Some didn't know. We can only help the later group by informing. The former group won't bulge even if the realized it. It is human nature.
bilbo0s 4y ago
To be fair, it's not Apple misbehavior. It's essentially just Apple saying if you use a cable not OK'd by us, you're on your own. I don't think anyone expects people not to plug in non certified cables. It looks like it's just putting into writing a stance of, "Hey, if you fry your phone using junk cables, that's on you."
- falcolas 4y ago
  > if you use a cable not OK'd by us, you're on your own That is misbehavior from Apple, because it adds a cost to the consumer. MiFi is absolutely not free. The consumer friendly option is allowing the use of a perfectly good USB-C cable (from J5 Create, for example) that doesn't have the MiFi tax without artificial restrictions.
  - bilbo0s 4y ago
    No one disallows using the J5 cable. That's the entire point. That's what makes all this fair. It's the consumer who chooses what products s/he will use. The only thing being codified here is that if you happen to use a janky cable Apple didn't certify, the results are on you. All that, to my mind, is totally reasonable. You can use a certified cable. You can use a non certified cable. The consumer is totally free to make any choice s/he chooses. They only warrant that if you use the certified cable, your phone won't blow up.
    - falcolas 4y ago
      Then we're reading this sentence from TFA quite differently: > Shrimp states that Apple will limit data and charging speed for cables connected to iPhone without the MFi certification. To me (and I'd wager it's the same for most folks), that's Apple implementing a technical block on the cables separate from their actual capabilities.
      - bilbo0s 4y ago
        That's not for the cable, that's for the accessory connected to the cable. I thought we were talking about the cables here? With respect to the cables, that's part of the USB C spec. Not the spec to which you are referring. The whole point of the E Mark is to signal that it is safe to send otherwise dangerously high speeds and wattage down the cable. So they're just saying that they promise to follow the spec for cables they certify. Now the accessories, you're right, but I don't know the rules for accessories. I do know them for the cables.

justeleblanc 4y ago

If they can fake USB certification, why wouldn't they be able to fake apple certification?

shagie 4y ago
Because when they fake using the Apple trademark for Made-For-iPhone, Apple will get them removed from various market places, retailers, or possibly even stopped at customs when importing them. Apple has no such enforcement capabilities for USB as they don't have any rights to that trademark.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  And we all know how well that works based on how few counterfeits there are on Amazon. /s
  - onphonenow 4y ago
    When Amazon wasn’t responsive enough they pulled their products and sued suppliers using fulfilled by amazon. USB-if by comparison does nothing and neither do govt agencies- apple is perhaps most active in its enforcement efforts