Thursday, September 23rd 2021

EU Commission Pushing Forward with Unified Electronics Charger Standard and Unbundling of Chargers

What can only be called a long running drama, the EU has once again put its foot down when it comes to chargers for various consumer electronics devices, although it's mostly about smartphones and regular old mobile phones these days. The whole thing took off some time in 2009, although back then, it was a voluntary effort and according to today's press release by the EU Commission, we're down from 30 to three "competing" standards (micro USB, lightning and USB-C), but apparently that is still not good enough.

As such, the EU Commission has now decided that USB-C is the answer to their prayers and it'll now be an enforced standard for a wide range of devices if they're to be allowed to be sold in the EU. We doubt this will go down well with many device manufacturers, Apple being the obvious one here, even though the company has been slowly transitioning to USB-C on its tablets, none of its phones are using USB-C today. The following device categories are affected: smartphones, tablets, cameras, headphones, portable speakers and handheld video game consoles.

It's unclear as to why the device port has to be USB-C, although a move to USB-C cables for everything does make things simpler, but as long as the charger itself uses USB-C, it's hard to understand why the device end must use USB-C. There's nothing inherently wrong with USB-C, but the USB-C standard is a bit of a mess, even for charging and the EU Commission has a very "loose" proposal here where they're pushing for the USB Power Delivery standard to be the only charging standard allowed over USB-C.

Even USB PD isn't a uniform standard and there are at least four major revisions with multiple minor versions. If we assume the EU Commission goes for USB PD 3.1, then we're looking at a pretty future proof standard that can deliver up to 240 W at 48 V, but this would require different cables than what we're using today. However, if USB PD 3.0 is chosen, then anything that needs more than 100 W at 20 V isn't going to work. Admittedly no smartphone in the world is going to need to be charged at 240 W, but the issue with setting standards like this, is that they tend to filter down, or more likely filter out in this case, to other markets and devices, which means that setting the bar too low, isn't good.

It makes even more sense to go for the most advanced standard when the EU Commission also wants to unbundle the chargers, as it means that your USB PD charger can be used to power many other devices that might have different power requirements from your smartphone or tablet. This appears to be one of the goals here, judging by the amount of different devices the EU Commission already set its sight on, but they might even have limited themselves a bit here, since most laptops can and should be charged over USB-C as well. In fact, Apple is pretty much the pioneer here, which also makes their obsession with keeping the lightning connector on their phones a bit counterintuitive.

Where we're not following the EU Commission's logic is where they claim that as many as 38 percent of consumers are said to have experienced problems with their charges due to incompatibility problems. If anything this seems to suggest that most consumers haven't paid attention to what kind of device they own. On the other hand it also seems crazy that consumers in the EU have spent €2.4 billion per year on buying chargers for their electronics, since they apparently don't always come with chargers. Again, this suggests that consumers aren't paying attention to what they're buying and maybe clearer labelling would solve these problems.

Furthermore, the EU Commission claims that some 11,000 tonnes of e-waste is produced annually from chargers and power adapters that are being thrown away, since they're not compatible with newer devices. This problem could be solved to a degree by moving to USB-C, but as mentioned above, the USB PD standard has also evolved over time, so if you have a USB PD 1.0 charger, it might not be compatible with your new USB PD 3.0 device, as at some point the Voltages changed. One thing that is certain is that there's no such thing as future proof electronics, as it's impossible to predict future requirements, but as technology develops and improves, we sometimes move to entirely different standards that are vastly superior to what came before.

In as much as a common charging standard sounds great, we're not going to see universal chargers, regardless of what the EU Commission is hoping for. This comes down to one simple thing, cost. You can get a 30 W USB PD charger for as little as €10 (sticking with the EU here), which is going to be more than good enough for charging most of the devices in the EU Commission's list, but it's unlikely it'll be powerful enough to charge your laptop or even more demanding smartphones and tablets. A "cheap" 100 W USB PD charger on the other hand will set you back at least €40, although they can often charge multiple devices at once and wouldn't have a problem powering a laptop.

The only thing that is certain is that consumers won't be getting that €5 or €10 the currently bundled charger is worth back from the device makers, since we've already seen some companies that have removed the charger from the box, but seemingly didn't lower the price of their devices with an equivalent amount. This doesn't even take into consideration the reduced weight and volume per unit, which would reduce shipping costs for the device manufacturer.

At the end of the day, this is a tricky subject and although the EU does have some very valid points, it would seem that simply requiring that all chargers use a USB-C port and adhere to the USB PD standard would've been enough, it looks like we're going to see a lot more devices use USB-C ports for charging. This isn't a bad thing as such, but it does feel a bit forced, even though there are some underlying reasons behind it. It's not a done deal yet and things may still change before it becomes a legal requirement.

Photo by By Ilya Plekhanov - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=46517325
Source: The EU Commission
Add your own comment

100 Comments on EU Commission Pushing Forward with Unified Electronics Charger Standard and Unbundling of Chargers

#51
laszlo
don't understand what is the problem; my phone has usb c charger with 5A output and the original cable is handling the power without issues
Posted on Reply
#52
Valantar
TheLostSwedeSadly it seems like a lot of people don't understand that the physical size of a charger correlates to how much power you can get out of it and this is why so many things come with anemic charger or power adapters, as people don't like seeing the big bulky ones, or maybe it is that they don't like tripping over them? GaN based technology is helping with that to some degree at least.
That's true, but ... no standard (or lack thereof) will ever change that. It's also something that even a day 1 employee at any store ought to be able to explain in a single sentence. "This one is nice and small, but a bit slow, while this bigger one has more oomph and charges faster - that's how it works." GaN does mess with that somewhat, but ... meh. Laptops have been charging through USB-C for years, and I still haven't heard of an epidemic of people trying to ditch their bundled charger for one of those tiny Anker 18W ones "because of convenience".
TheLostSwedeI don't think I said the PD 3.1 standard was a problem, my issue was that we're not sure which spec the EU will settle on and ideally it should be PD 3.1, rather than PD 3.0.
I didn't mean to imply that you did, but is there any meaningful change to the 3.1 standard that matters to non-3.1 devices? And, given that PD standards development seems to be focused on maintaining compatibility, is there any real hindrance or disincentive towards devices and chargers adopting later standard than 3.0?
TheLostSwedeThe fact that your chargers do that, doesn't mean all chargers do that, since some of the proprietary specs were never very widely adopted, mostly thinking MTK here with their charge pump.
That's true - but doesn't mandating PD as a standard make this more likely to happen, through disincentivizing proprietary power delivery modes? At the very least this does require PD 3.0v1.2 as a fall-back mode, after all, which is far better than current proprietary fast charging systems that often fall back to 5V1A or similar.
TheLostSwedeAlso, not all devices tell you that the charger is too anemic, yes it seems most laptops do that, but as I mentioned in a comment here, my phone still says it's charging when plugged in to a 5V/500mA USB port, except in reality, it's not. This is something the device makers need to improve upon, as it's one of those things that a lot of people aren't going to pay attention to.
That's true - this ought to be universal. But it's entirely unrelated to USB-C - the same would be true if the device was using micro-B, after all.
TheLostSwedeAdmittedly there shouldn't be any USB-C with that low power output, but 900mA is still within spec, even though it's not part of the USB PD spec. No need to go as extreme as laptops for this to be confusing for people.
Sure, but doesn't standardizing PD 3.0v1.2 effectively prohibit the sale of chargers delivering less than ... 1A? 1.5A? Something like that?
TheLostSwedeI really do hope things will get better, but considering how little the average consumer cares about the finer details of these tech "issues" is telling me that we're still going to have people complaining that their chargers don't work properly once USB-C has replaced all the other connectors.
Of course we will. But this is more likely to lead to fewer complaints rather than more. The main difference might be that there are fewer types of complaints - i.e. no more "I can't find a charger that fits my [thing]" or "this has the same plug but I tried it and now my [thing] doesn't work", with all complaints being concentrated into the category of "this charger/cable charges my [thing] slower than expected". This would be a major win IMO.
TheLostSwedeMay we'll see these companies drop their proprietary charging standards in favour of PD, but it's unlikely, especially when we're now seeing phones that charge at 100W+ using crazy high Voltages but low current.
That would be fantastic, but as you say, it's unlikely. But at the very least, this now mandates that those proprietary chargers and devices also support PD 3.0. Which would be fantastic - I'm still pissed that my old Oneplus charger had this weird quasi-proprietary USB-A plug that meant only their cables worked, and only went above 1A with their phones. And I'm equally annoyed that my partner's Mate 10 Pro doesn't fast charge over anything other than Huawei's chargers. At least this means those situations will go away.
Posted on Reply
#53
TheLostSwede
ValantarThat's true, but ... no standard (or lack thereof) will ever change that. It's also something that even a day 1 employee at any store ought to be able to explain in a single sentence. "This one is nice and small, but a bit slow, while this bigger one has more oomph and charges faster - that's how it works." GaN does mess with that somewhat, but ... meh. Laptops have been charging through USB-C for years, and I still haven't heard of an epidemic of people trying to ditch their bundled charger for one of those tiny Anker 18W ones "because of convenience".
Maybe not 18W, but apparently a lot of Apple customers have had issues, since Apple offered a range of power adapters and people bought the smaller 60-65W ones, even though their high-end notebooks required a 96W one. People don't like lugging around big power adapters...
ValantarI didn't mean to imply that you did, but is there any meaningful change to the 3.1 standard that matters to non-3.1 devices? And, given that PD standards development seems to be focused on maintaining compatibility, is there any real hindrance or disincentive towards devices and chargers adopting later standard than 3.0?
The incentive would be that 3.1 would have a longer overall lifespan than 3.0, since we are what, 2-3 years away from this being a fixed requirement due to the two year grace period. So why start with an older standard when there's already an improved standard out there.
ValantarThat's true - but doesn't mandating PD as a standard make this more likely to happen, through disincentivizing proprietary power delivery modes? At the very least this does require PD 3.0v1.2 as a fall-back mode, after all, which is far better than current proprietary fast charging systems that often fall back to 5V1A or similar.
Mandating PD technically doesn't mean that companies can't continue making their own weird standards, as long as PD also works. But at least trickle charging might be going away, since no-one likes to plug in their phone to find that it only charged 3% and hour later.
ValantarThat's true - this ought to be universal. But it's entirely unrelated to USB-C - the same would be true if the device was using micro-B, after all.
It just tells us that a lot of companies are lazy when it comes to implementing sensible software features.
ValantarSure, but doesn't standardizing PD 3.0v1.2 effectively prohibit the sale of chargers delivering less than ... 1A? 1.5A? Something like that?
Apparently not, since some devices won't request more than 500mA, so that is still part of the spec, but oddly enough wasn't part of PD 1.0.
ValantarOf course we will. But this is more likely to lead to fewer complaints rather than more. The main difference might be that there are fewer types of complaints - i.e. no more "I can't find a charger that fits my [thing]" or "this has the same plug but I tried it and now my [thing] doesn't work", with all complaints being concentrated into the category of "this charger/cable charges my [thing] slower than expected". This would be a major win IMO.
Well, at least everyone in the office will have a cable that fits everyone else's device, which should be a huge bonus, rather than you being the only one that uses the plug that your device has...
ValantarThat would be fantastic, but as you say, it's unlikely. But at the very least, this now mandates that those proprietary chargers and devices also support PD 3.0. Which would be fantastic - I'm still pissed that my old Oneplus charger had this weird quasi-proprietary USB-A plug that meant only their cables worked, and only went above 1A with their phones. And I'm equally annoyed that my partner's Mate 10 Pro doesn't fast charge over anything other than Huawei's chargers. At least this means those situations will go away.
Yeah, as answered above. That's also insane and very annoying, as the only reason a manufacturer would do that, is to sell more accessories. Not exactly a new thing to do, but no less stupid.

I just want to point out that I'm not the only one with USB-C related issues, as the article below started in 2018 and three years later is still going strong, just with a different set of evolving issues. It also contains a graph that shows that not all devices will charge at the speed you'd expect, despite the charger being able to deliver enough power over USB PD. Sometimes an 18W charger can be a faster option than a 40W charger and sometimes the supplied 40W charger doesn't even deliver 25W, although this is for obvious reasons of how fast charging works, but I'm sure some consumers are going to be complaining about this too.

www.androidauthority.com/state-of-usb-c-870996/
Posted on Reply
#54
Valantar
TheLostSwedeMaybe not 18W, but apparently a lot of Apple customers have had issues, since Apple offered a range of power adapters and people bought the smaller 60-65W ones, even though their high-end notebooks required a 96W one. People don't like lugging around big power adapters...

The incentive would be that 3.1 would have a longer overall lifespan than 3.0, since we are what, 2-3 years away from this being a fixed requirement due to the two year grace period. So why start with an older standard when there's already an improved standard out there.

Mandating PD technically doesn't mean that companies can't continue making their own weird standards, as long as PD also works. But at least trickle charging might be going away, since no-one likes to plug in their phone to find that it only charged 3% and hour later.

It just tells us that a lot of companies are lazy when it comes to implementing sensible software features.

Apparently not, since some devices won't request more than 500mA, so that is still part of the spec, but oddly enough wasn't part of PD 1.0.

Well, at least everyone in the office will have a cable that fits everyone else's device, which should be a huge bonus, rather than you being the only one that uses the plug that your device has...

Yeah, as answered above. That's also insane and very annoying, as the only reason a manufacturer would do that, is to sell more accessories. Not exactly a new thing to do, but no less stupid.

I just want to point out that I'm not the only one with USB-C related issues, as the article below started in 2018 and three years later is still going strong, just with a different set of evolving issues. It also contains a graph that shows that not all devices will charge at the speed you'd expect, despite the charger being able to deliver enough power over USB PD. Sometimes an 18W charger can be a faster option than a 40W charger and sometimes the supplied 40W charger doesn't even deliver 25W, although this is for obvious reasons of how fast charging works, but I'm sure some consumers are going to be complaining about this too.

www.androidauthority.com/state-of-usb-c-870996/
You're not wrong overall, but IMO I think you're overstating the issues. That Android Authority article also conflates some entirely separate things (proprietary charging standards over USB-C are after all fundamentally unrelated to USB-C - you might as well blame roads for the existence of speeding), and overstates others. The need for active cabling and adapters is universal across ever faster interface standards (including HDMI and DP), and has nothing in particular to do with USB-C. The claim that "Even delivering power requires a complicated circuit with USB-C, in order to accommodate for the reversible connector type, the range of power options, and the choice between upward, downward, and bi-directional charging port and data options." is dramatically overstating how "complicated" these circuits they are.

That graph with the different fast charging modes is IMO quite misleading, as the framing of the article is "USB-C is confusing", while what it demonstrates is that "proprietary charging standards are confusing". The two are not identical in any way, and using one as proof of the other is logically problematic. Blame/responsibility needs to be directed where it belongs - and with proprietary USB-C extensions, that is firmly with the manufacturer, and neither the connector, its standard, nor the body responsible for that standard. And as you agreed, implementing PD support as a minimum ought to ensure that even proprietary chargers work at a decent rate for other devices. The PPS extension seems to throw a wrench in the works here, and hopefully (if it actually delivers tangible benefits) it gets adopted more broadly. But if not, that is still better than the alternative - 500mA or 1A charging. If your phone charges at 15W instead of 25W, that is a lot better than it charging at 5W or 10W. Is that perfect? Of course not. But it's still an improvement.

And sure, you can argue that adopting 3.0 as law when 3.1 is out is a bit late, but even with a grace period that's a pretty hard push for updating product lines for a bunch of manufacturers. Being too aggressive in this can potentially lead to more waste, as well as driving up prices (and potentially a misguided push for end users to buy new, 3.1-compliant chargers). And there's nothing holding OEMs or device makers back from implementing 3.1 or even newer standards when they arrive within this framework.

It's very surprising that a 500mA spec is still allowed though, as there's nothing stopping a charger from providing less power than its maximum output, so what some devices will request ought to be irrelevant, no? Mandating 1A or even 2A minimum outputs seems like a sensible solution to me. Sure, a good 500mA design will be more efficient when charging a 500mA max device, but at those amperages the loss will be negligible anyway. But it's imperative that PD-compatible devices are smart enough to let users know if they aren't receiving a sufficient charge - and IMO they ought to be able to do so even when connected to something utterly dumb like an in-car USB-A connector. At least phones and laptops could do this trivially - and anything else with a modicum of communication between the charge controller and the OS, really. I wouldn't expect your headphones to do so, but then I wouldn't expect them to charge that much slower either.

At this point though, competent implementations are more important than better standards, and this initiative does have the potential to lead towards this, even if imperfectly.
Posted on Reply
#55
awesomesauce
cant wait when people gonna plug something USB-C and it wont charge/work because of generation compatibility (already happening i think)
Posted on Reply
#56
chrcoluk
Android phones are moving already to USB type C anyway, so this will mostly impact apple.

Just took a quick glance at the AA article, yeah the different charging behaviours, fixing that might be a good thing.
Posted on Reply
#57
DeathtoGnomes
Valantaras there's nothing stopping a charger from providing less power than its maximum output,
All chargers, in whatever form, including car alternators and car battery chargers, are designed to deliver only whats needed by the item being charged. A 100 amp car battery charger doesnt always charge as 100 amps. Cars have their own regulator design and are rarely separate from todays alternators. Max Output is only reached if its actually needed. You can use a 5 amp charger on a dead car battery which might take a day, or two, or three, or you can use a higher amp charger to get there in a few hours.

I dont see why phone chargers would act any differently.
Posted on Reply
#58
TheLostSwede
chrcolukAndroid phones are moving already to USB type C anyway, so this will mostly impact apple.

Just took a quick glance at the AA article, yeah the different charging behaviours, fixing that might be a good thing.
It's not just about phones though, it's pretty much about pretty much all portable, battery powered electronics, with the exception of laptops.
DeathtoGnomesAll chargers, in whatever form, including car alternators and car battery chargers, are designed to deliver only whats needed by the item being charged. A 100 amp car battery charger doesnt always charge as 100 amps. Cars have their own regulator design and are rarely separate from todays alternators. Max Output is only reached if its actually needed. You can use a 5 amp charger on a dead car battery which might take a day, or two, or three, or you can use a higher amp charger to get there in a few hours.

I dont see why phone chargers would act any differently.
The only difference is that phone chargers have "fallback" settings for old/dumb devices or for when they can't negotiate the correct current. These fallback settings are 5V/500mA and/or 900mA or 1A, still at 5V. As I pointed out elsewhere here, 500mA is not enough for many modern devices to charge from, as even in standby mode, a phone will only gain single digits of battery life per hour at best.
ValantarYou're not wrong overall, but IMO I think you're overstating the issues. That Android Authority article also conflates some entirely separate things (proprietary charging standards over USB-C are after all fundamentally unrelated to USB-C - you might as well blame roads for the existence of speeding), and overstates others. The need for active cabling and adapters is universal across ever faster interface standards (including HDMI and DP), and has nothing in particular to do with USB-C. The claim that "Even delivering power requires a complicated circuit with USB-C, in order to accommodate for the reversible connector type, the range of power options, and the choice between upward, downward, and bi-directional charging port and data options." is dramatically overstating how "complicated" these circuits they are.'
Yes, sure, some of the points I made I honestly don't care too much about, it's just that it's possible to appease the likes of Apple, even though it might not make any real sense.
The article was more to show that I'm not the only one that has reacted on how complex USB-C is and that there are too many conflict points where even techy people like us are sometimes going to scratch our heads and wonder why it doesn't work.
ValantarThat graph with the different fast charging modes is IMO quite misleading, as the framing of the article is "USB-C is confusing", while what it demonstrates is that "proprietary charging standards are confusing". The two are not identical in any way, and using one as proof of the other is logically problematic. Blame/responsibility needs to be directed where it belongs - and with proprietary USB-C extensions, that is firmly with the manufacturer, and neither the connector, its standard, nor the body responsible for that standard. And as you agreed, implementing PD support as a minimum ought to ensure that even proprietary chargers work at a decent rate for other devices. The PPS extension seems to throw a wrench in the works here, and hopefully (if it actually delivers tangible benefits) it gets adopted more broadly. But if not, that is still better than the alternative - 500mA or 1A charging. If your phone charges at 15W instead of 25W, that is a lot better than it charging at 5W or 10W. Is that perfect? Of course not. But it's still an improvement.
Same as above, if you haven't read up on things, you might make flawed assumptions and that's going to cause frustration. But yes, the blame lies with the device makers, as they're trying to be ahead of the curve and try to produce solutions to problems most people don't have. I don't think I ever blamed the USB-IF for this mess, but they really need to improve their naming schemes, as they suck.
ValantarAnd sure, you can argue that adopting 3.0 as law when 3.1 is out is a bit late, but even with a grace period that's a pretty hard push for updating product lines for a bunch of manufacturers. Being too aggressive in this can potentially lead to more waste, as well as driving up prices (and potentially a misguided push for end users to buy new, 3.1-compliant chargers). And there's nothing holding OEMs or device makers back from implementing 3.1 or even newer standards when they arrive within this framework.
3.1 would simply mean that we have a standard with longer future proofing, in as much as that is possible. It's more of an extension of 3.0 than anything else and you obviously don't have to support the entire Voltage range, just like you don't have to do that with any of the previous version.
ValantarIt's very surprising that a 500mA spec is still allowed though, as there's nothing stopping a charger from providing less power than its maximum output, so what some devices will request ought to be irrelevant, no? Mandating 1A or even 2A minimum outputs seems like a sensible solution to me. Sure, a good 500mA design will be more efficient when charging a 500mA max device, but at those amperages the loss will be negligible anyway. But it's imperative that PD-compatible devices are smart enough to let users know if they aren't receiving a sufficient charge - and IMO they ought to be able to do so even when connected to something utterly dumb like an in-car USB-A connector. At least phones and laptops could do this trivially - and anything else with a modicum of communication between the charge controller and the OS, really. I wouldn't expect your headphones to do so, but then I wouldn't expect them to charge that much slower either.
Well, as above, it's a fallback for "dumb" and old devices, but it's not suitable for any modern device.
ValantarAt this point though, competent implementations are more important than better standards, and this initiative does have the potential to lead towards this, even if imperfectly.
Hehe, yeah, some of that involves costs as well and you know as well as I do, that if you can save a penny, someone will do it...
Sometimes that penny means that the device or cable is no longer following the spec, something I'm sure many of us have experienced at times.
awesomesaucecant wait when people gonna plug something USB-C and it wont charge/work because of generation compatibility (already happening i think)
It shouldn't really happen, as the base set of Voltages was already decided upon for USB PD before USB-C existed, which is a good thing.
However, since USB is quite a flexible interface, I'm sure we'll see someone plugging in something odd that doesn't follow those specs and it won't charge.
Posted on Reply
#59
Ferrum Master
Sh*** this is on par of our robot zombie posting manners xD
Posted on Reply
#60
DeathtoGnomes
TheLostSwedeThe only difference is that phone chargers have "fallback" settings for old/dumb devices or for when they can't negotiate the correct current. These fallback settings are 5V/500mA and/or 900mA or 1A, still at 5V. As I pointed out elsewhere here, 500mA is not enough for many modern devices to charge from, as even in standby mode, a phone will only gain single digits of battery life per hour at best.
No idea what you mean by fallback exactly, but no, a charger will only supply what is needed, if max output is needed, thats what it gets, if it doesnt need max output, it will reduce output accordingly ( negotiated output, if you feel the need to call it that ). IDC what technology you use, all charger work with the same principle, unless its be design to give max output regardless of the state of the battery/power storage device.

You are correct about phone gaining single digits of life, thats always gonna happen if the charger has a low rating/max output, a 5 amp charger cannot charge/give more than 5 amps, but it will still work and thats the point everyone is making, aint it?
Posted on Reply
#61
TheLostSwede
DeathtoGnomesNo idea what you mean by fallback exactly, but no, a charger will only supply what is needed, if max output is needed, thats what it gets, if it doesnt need max output, it will reduce output accordingly ( negotiated output, if you feel the need to call it that ). IDC what technology you use, all charger work with the same principle, unless its be design to give max output regardless of the state of the battery/power storage device.

You are correct about phone gaining single digits of life, thats always gonna happen if the charger has a low rating/max output, a 5 amp charger cannot charge/give more than 5 amps, but it will still work and thats the point everyone is making, aint it?
USB charging is "negotiated" i.e. the device sends a request for a certain Voltage and current to the charger, the charger then responds if it can deliver said Voltage and current. If the device is unable to negotiate this with the charger, then it falls back to 5V 500mA or 900mA/1A. Most USB chargers have a fair amount of "smarts" in them these days, but even that isn't always good enough.
So yes, you're correct that a higher current can't be provided, a lower current can and this is the problem with USB in certain situations.

But it's not really working in all instances, that's the issue here as I explained. I have a 5V/500mA USB port in the car and it doesn't provide enough power to charge my phone.
I actually got rid of a bunch of old chargers a little while ago, since they don't charge anything we have any more and they were all old USB phone chargers.
Posted on Reply
#62
DeathtoGnomes
TheLostSwedehave a 5V/500mA USB port in the car and it doesn't provide enough power to charge my phone.
That is by design for all cars, I had that information on that at one time, so lets call anti-smoke-n-fire mode. :D
Posted on Reply
#63
Valantar
DeathtoGnomesAll chargers, in whatever form, including car alternators and car battery chargers, are designed to deliver only whats needed by the item being charged. A 100 amp car battery charger doesnt always charge as 100 amps. Cars have their own regulator design and are rarely separate from todays alternators. Max Output is only reached if its actually needed. You can use a 5 amp charger on a dead car battery which might take a day, or two, or three, or you can use a higher amp charger to get there in a few hours.

I dont see why phone chargers would act any differently.
Yeah, exactly my point. Mandating a 500mA fallback mode can be done almost whatever the rated output of the charger. On the other hand, there is zero reason to allow chargers that can only deliver currents that obsolete to still be marked/marketed as PD-compliant. IMO, mandating a minimum rating of something like 5V2A (or even 3A) for PD compliance would be a very sensible thing.
TheLostSwede3.1 would simply mean that we have a standard with longer future proofing, in as much as that is possible. It's more of an extension of 3.0 than anything else and you obviously don't have to support the entire Voltage range, just like you don't have to do that with any of the previous version.
That's true - but then it's not hard to imagine them moving to 3.1 a few years down the line. I doubt this standard is meant to last forever, and it'll be easy enough to get approval for an update to the standard once it's implemented.
TheLostSwedeHehe, yeah, some of that involves costs as well and you know as well as I do, that if you can save a penny, someone will do it...
Sometimes that penny means that the device or cable is no longer following the spec, something I'm sure many of us have experienced at times.
Yeah, penny-pinching does tend to undermine standards, and really runs the risk of eroding end-user trust as well. Hopefully this standardization will go some way towards fixing that - though no doubt you'll have plenty of non-compliant products with faked certificates (or just markings) or just things being smuggled in to mess with everything. Where there's money to be made, someone is bound to try to screw everyone else over.
Posted on Reply
#64
TheLostSwede
DeathtoGnomesThat is by design for all cars, I had that information on that at one time, so lets call anti-smoke-n-fire mode. :D
Fair enough, I have to admit that I don't know too much about car electronics and electricals.
ValantarThat's true - but then it's not hard to imagine them moving to 3.1 a few years down the line. I doubt this standard is meant to last forever, and it'll be easy enough to get approval for an update to the standard once it's implemented.
Fingers crossed the EU is that adaptable. Some large corporate dinosaurs are not and I'm wondering if large bureaucracies are any better...
ValantarYeah, penny-pinching does tend to undermine standards, and really runs the risk of eroding end-user trust as well. Hopefully this standardization will go some way towards fixing that - though no doubt you'll have plenty of non-compliant products with faked certificates (or just markings) or just things being smuggled in to mess with everything. Where there's money to be made, someone is bound to try to screw everyone else over.
The UL certification in the US is a lot stricter than the CE certification in Europe for power devices, as CE is self certification and the sell/brand/manufacturer is responsible if anything goes wrong. That has been an issue for a lot of electrical products, as sometimes the "source" of the product can't be located any more and the insurance companies refuse to pay up, since you used a non certified product, most likely without knowing it. This is actually something I'd like to see the EU improve upon and provide searchable certification databases like UL and the FCC does in the US. Obviously you can still slip through the system if you pay a dodgy third party testing lab, especially in the PRC, but then why even bother?
There's really no need to smuggle thing, as in reality, very few shipments of electronics and electrical goods have the certification paperwork thoroughly checked at the time of importation. It tends to be stricter for things with radio transmitters, but technically, at least to the US, you just need to have an FCC ID that correlates to your company name and you're good to go. The more you know...
Posted on Reply
#65
apoklyps3
If anything they should force the Phone makers use USB 3.1 at least, not USB 2.0 on a type-C port.
Posted on Reply
#66
TheLostSwede
apoklyps3If anything they should force the Phone makers use USB 3.1 at least, not USB 2.0 on a type-C port.
Sadly the data bit has nothing to do with USB PD :(
Posted on Reply
#68
apoklyps3
TheLostSwedeSadly the data bit has nothing to do with USB PD :(
I'm more interested in the connectivity. Being able to to output lagless video via hdmi/display port , having RJ45 Gigabibit, card readers etc etc
Posted on Reply
#69
TheLostSwede
apoklyps3I'm more interested in the connectivity. Being able to to output lagless video via hdmi/display port , having RJ45 Gigabibit, card readers etc etc
Well, still not related to USB PD.
And this is why USB-C is a mess...
Even for something like video output, there are a few different ways it can be done.
The one missing in the link is DisplayLink, but it requires a driver to be installed, which the options in the link shouldn't.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB-C#Alternate_Mode_partner_specifications
Posted on Reply
#70
Ferrum Master
apoklyps3If anything they should force the Phone makers use USB 3.1 at least, not USB 2.0 on a type-C port.
All flagship devices I service utilize USB3 lines for years. If you pickup a mainstream or budget device, what else you expect? They are cheaper for a reason.

I would accent. That USB-C ain't such a mess as many say.

Don't bring the optional lines and display here... it is OPTIONAL and utilized as manufacturer pleases. Some do Display, some use them as analog headphone output so pick you poison, it is optional.
Posted on Reply
#72
TheLostSwede
Ferrum MasterAll flagship devices I service utilize USB3 lines for years. If you pickup a mainstream or budget device, what else you expect? They are cheaper for a reason.

I would accent. That USB-C ain't such a mess as many say.

Don't bring the optional lines and display here... it is OPTIONAL and utilized as manufacturer pleases. Some do Display, some use them as analog headphone output so pick you poison, it is optional.
Except Asus :shadedshu:

And yet there are so many articles like this one, which is also seemingly not helping.
www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/how-does-fast-charging-work/
Posted on Reply
#73
Ferrum Master
TheLostSwedeExcept Asus :shadedshu:

And yet there are so many articles like this one, which is also seemingly not helping.
www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/how-does-fast-charging-work/
Asus phones are a joke. We serviced them, after loads of RMA, spare parts coming like 2-3months and defective. You cannot even imagine how immature they are design wise (hint - super glue is an official spare part).

Basically while flashing phones speed hovers around 50-80MB/s via USB3, that's the average mobile NAND write speed.

So... it ain't that bad, if you stick to normal and mature phone manufacturers. If you cheap out you get what you have paid for, as usual so no surprises here.
Posted on Reply
#74
TheLostSwede
Ferrum MasterAsus phones are a joke. We serviced them, after loads of RMA, spare parts coming like 2-3months and defective. You cannot even imagine how immature they are design wise (hint - super glue is an official spare part).

Basically while flashing phones speed hovers around 50-80MB/s via USB3, that's the average mobile NAND write speed.

So... it ain't that bad, if you stick to normal and mature phone manufacturers. If you cheap out you get what you have paid for, as usual so no surprises here.
My Zenfone 6 has exceeded my expectations, but the USB-C port is truly the weak link.
Posted on Reply
#75
Ferrum Master
TheLostSwedeMy Zenfone 6 has exceeded my expectations, but the USB-C port is truly the weak link.
Are you trying to hit on girls with that flippy flippy ding dong camera?
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment