> Power-only cables really are not a thing for USB-C. You need at least the configuration channel in order to negotiate charging voltage and maximum current.
Ouch. USB-C is even more fucked up than I thought… How does that even works with USB wall chargers?
> Nor have I seen a public USB-C outlet, for that matter
There are plenty of USB-A outlet everywhere (airport, trains, hotels, etc.), and most recent Android phones have only an USB-C port…
> I do not want all my USB-C cables to be able to handle 90W. That would make them very thick and expensive.
The difference between the minimum and 100W is that the cables need to support 5 amps instead of 3. That's not much difference at all considering there are data wires too.
Supporting 240W requires a couple tiny components in the plug. That's also barely anything.
> USB-C is not much different than lightning for charging / connecting a phone...
As far as I understand, there are no Lightning cables that support anything over 18W. Data transfer tops at 480Mbps, or roughly USB 2.0 speeds.
These are specs many other companies have surpassed several years ago.
> ... so the blowback from consumers will be huge when all their accessories are no longer compatible with the next phone.
Apple is the same company that went through 4 different charging connectors for their MacBook line, in about 15 years: MagSafe, MagSafe 2, USB-C, and now MagSafe 3. Their iPad line is 12 years old and has gone through 3 different connectors: 30-pin, Lightning, and USB-C.
> And now you have USB-C-Apple to keep you guessing.
Pick a random USB C cable today.
Now tell me:
- what speed data does it support?
- how much power can it delivery?
- can it do video over USB C?
Now pick a random USB C powered device like sone Sony headphones or low end devices that come with a USB A to USB C cord. You try to charge it with a USB C to USB C cable and find it doesn’t work because the device doesn’t actual support USB C power delivery
And with a phone having USB-C I can just use the same to power my phone when I want. Or power my phone from a powerbank without another cable specially made for this brand of phone.
> Hopefully you don't have micro-USB chargers, but USB chargers and micro-usb cables.
Yes, I should have clarified that. I don't have any USB-C cables either, for that matter. My chargers only put out 18 W at the most, so things like PD (Power Delivery) wouldn't work anyway.
>So still when the Android user with the cheap power only USB C cord moves over to the hypothetical iPhone 15 with USB C, they will still have to throw away their USB C cable that potentially doesn’t support high speed data or video over USB C.
Except that it's still a perfectly fine cable for charging, which is what most people do with their cables?
> So how well are the USB C cables going to work that follow the minimum “mandate” that doesn’t require cables to support data at all?
Citation needed? I think those are below the minimum.
> How well are they going to work when people pick up a “USB C” cable and wonder why they aren’t seeing video when they connect their phone to their TV?
They probably feel similar to people with lightning cables.
> If I had a USB port, and a cable that fit, it would charge my phone effectively. Somewhere in the transition to USB-C ,we lost that.
Nonsense. Your phone is not trying to pull 50W, any correctly implemented type C cable will do.
The complexity of Type C is for things you were not able to do at all: high-power applications (>40W) and / or high data rates over a single cable.
I've a single cable which charges my laptops, connects all the devices plugged into the display, and carries video to two different displays.
That does require a cable with somewhat high specs, and it's unfortunate that labelling isn't the clearest and unsuitable cables are difficult to diagnose, but before this was only an option via bespoke proprietary docks. Now it's just a standard cable.
>if I show you a photo of two USB chargers, can you tell me which one will provide 5w to my phone and which will provide 15w
Why? Did you also care about that with micro-B on Android? Or when using different wattage lightning chargers from Apple?
It's up to you to read the wattage on them an decide which one you want to use. Mobile tech has gotten more powerful and so have the chargers.
It's your responsibility to keep track of the chargers in your household, but the great part is, even if you don't and mix them up, they'll both charge your phone either way, just ar different speeds, and most likely any other low power type-C gadget in your household like your earbuds. You can't expect us to go back to having different plugs for different wattages just because you can't keep track of the different chargers you own. Devices and chargers are smart and they'll negociate the quickest and safest charging wattage regardless.
Since you're being obviously obtuse just to be snarky, I'll stop answering your questions as i think i provided enough arguments so far.
Is it? I guess it's nice that I can charge my phone with my laptop charger, but it has the same issue as usb-c data where everything physically fits but are incompatible. eg. having to worry about whether a aftermarket charger provides enough voltage/current to charge your laptop.
> That complicates everything. Is this a USB-C cable that can support PD 3.1? Who knows! Because, not all USB-C cables NEED to support PD 3.1, some of them just need to transmit data at USB 2.0 speeds. Those can be made super cheap.
Assuming you just mean the higher power levels, I'd say that's one of the most minimal issues. Every cable supports at least 60 watts, and you rarely need to consider it.
> I can’t for the life of me figure out why the people who make displays with built in power supplies for USB-C charging didn’t just default it on the 100W maximum that the spec allows
I asked myself the same question, and I guess it is either one of the following:
a) 65W is what the reasonably priced chipsets available on the market support, and it would take a lot of costly auxiliary parts to support 100W
>> Isn’t USB-C at high power kind of expensive per watt?
I don't think it's too expensive if you consider the environment impact not to mention the bad user experience caused by multiple chargers. I also believe at certain point the economies of scale should make it less expensive.
> What’s the model? I’ll be calling the EU so they force all the manufacturers to support the qi charging standard that is actually useful.
You know that USB-C isn't just charging, but also data transfer, right? I'd be up for this if wireless charging also supported USB-C speed data transfer. Since it doesn't I'm not interested.
> Oh and of course lightning cable is the spawn of evil and glorious USB-C can do no wrong and any concrete criticism is hand waved away. Really shows you know what you’re talking about.
I dislike non-standards, and I like standards. Why are you trying to paint my criticisms as so incredibly emotionally laden, when they are simply based on technical disadvantages? Is it so hard for you to accept that, for most people, this is a very good step?
Maybe or maybe not. There are plenty of really low watt capable USB C cords that come with headphones for instance.
> What speed, don't really care but it's at least the same as Lightning
That’s not true either. There are plenty of “power only” USB C cables.
reply