Senators call for US to follow EU's lead in creating a national standard for phone chargers

tangoseal said:
Way to stifle innovation
Click to expand...

There is a reason why everyone but Apple already moved to USB-C - it's a great connector. There is still plenty of room for innovation within the context of USB-C. Just like USB-A went through many changes from USB 1.0 to USB 3.1 over the course of a quarter century, I expect the same to be true for USB-C. There have already been a lot of upgrades to USB-C, to the point where it's difficult to see it holding anything back for the next 10-15+ years.

While the total free-market approach works for some things, I think standards do serve an important purpose. Can you imagine the cluster-fuck that we would be living in if houses didn't have standardized power outlets? What if there was no RJ-45 Ethernet connector standard and you had to crimp on a different connector for each different device?

Innovation and compatibility are not mutually exclusive. Compatibility is a good thing.
 
Thunderdolt said:
No, that's not how it works at all.
Click to expand...
No chit, and that's why USB-C is the standard and not Apple's lightening connector. Unless it's an open and free standard then nobody will adopt it.
tangoseal said:
Way to stifle innovation

Yeahhhh!! Go Government!
Click to expand...
For the past 20 years the only real difference in charging wires for mobile devices is the shape of the connector. We've moved from USB 1.1, 2.0, and now 3.0+ but for the most part the connector doesn't change electrically. There's no innovation for connecting copper wires together. We could have went with the Nokia charger which only plugs one way since it's round and does the job of charging just fine. But we need to be able to transfer files and connect to our computers so USB-C it is. Government intervention is good in this case when it's pissing off a major corporation like Apple who continues to use their market power to annoy humanity. It's only bad when we vote for the wrong person and they hire Ajit Pai to essentially give corporations freedom to stifle innovation.

15144782241964.jpg
 
Last edited:
DukenukemX said:
No chit, and that's why USB-C is the stand and not Apple's lightening connector. Unless it's an open and free standard then nobody will adopt it.
Click to expand...

USB-C isn't free and it isn't open. You are required to follow the standard without making your own edits, and you're required to pay a royalty if you want to use the word "USB" on your product.

You know, there's a connector used by the majority of phones and tablets in North America which has the same requirements. It's called "Lightning."

DukenukemX said:
For the past 20 years the only reason difference in charging wires for mobile devices is the shape of the connector. We've moved from USB 1.1, 2.0, and now 3.0+ but for the most part the connector doesn't change electrically.
Click to expand...

UUuhhhhh.... what?

DukenukemX said:
There's no innovation for connecting copper wires together.
Click to expand...

Oh boy...
 
Thunderdolt said:
USB-C isn't free and it isn't open. You are required to follow the standard without making your own edits, and you're required to pay a royalty if you want to use the word "USB" on your product.

You know, there's a connector used by the majority of phones and tablets in North America which has the same requirements. It's called "Lightning."



UUuhhhhh.... what?



Oh boy...
Click to expand...
The electrical conductivity specifications changed a bit to enable 100-240 watts charging.
 
Thunderdolt said:
USB-C isn't free and it isn't open. You are required to follow the standard without making your own edits, and you're required to pay a royalty if you want to use the word "USB" on your product.

You know, there's a connector used by the majority of phones and tablets in North America which has the same requirements. It's called "Lightning."
Click to expand...
You're right, it isn't free. Unless you're a USB-IF member then it is free. If you're not a member then it's $3,500 for a two year term. I'm sure Apple would charge less.
UUuhhhhh.... what?
Click to expand...
If the other end of the wire looks like this then it's electrically the same. Apple's Lightening cable, USB-C, USB Mini, and etc are all USB wires. Specifically the Lightening cable didn't support USB3.0 until 2015, which means before that it was USB2.0.
00512-USB_Cable_A_to_B_-_6_Foot-02.jpg

Oh boy...
Click to expand...
USB3.0 was made in 2008 and since then we've had minor updates to it. USB is really old and we still use it because it works. Wire innovation is over. I'd be happy to find a device that uses USB3.0, let alone 3.1 and 3.2.
 
DukenukemX said:
If the other end of the wire looks like this then it's electrically the same. Apple's Lightening cable, USB-C, USB Mini, and etc are all USB wires. Specifically the Lightening cable didn't support USB3.0 until 2015, which means before that it was USB2.0.

[---SNIP---]

USB3.0 was made in 2008 and since then we've had minor updates to it. USB is really old and we still use it because it works. Wire innovation is over. I'd be happy to find a device that uses USB3.0, let alone 3.1 and 3.2.
Click to expand...

Just... no.

Cat 5e is good for 1gbit; Cat 6a, 10gbit. "But they look the same!" Wrong.
HDMI 1.2 & 2.1 the same? Very no.
Displayport 1.2 & 2.0 the same? More no.
USB 1.1 full speed cable between USB 2.0 high-speed devices? No bueno.
USB 2.0 and 3.0 don't even have the same number of conductors.
And USB-C and Lightning are wildly different from straight USB, with very different pinouts and capabilities.

Specifications and tolerances exist for a reason.
 
Last edited:
DukenukemX said:
You're right, it isn't free. Unless you're a USB-IF member then it is free. If you're not a member then it's $3,500 for a two year term. I'm sure Apple would charge less.
Click to expand...
It's free to join Apple's MFI program if you're already in the Developer Program.

DukenukemX said:
If the other end of the wire looks like this then it's electrically the same. Apple's Lightening cable, USB-C, USB Mini, and etc are all USB wires. Specifically the Lightening cable didn't support USB3.0 until 2015, which means before that it was USB2.0.

USB3.0 was made in 2008 and since then we've had minor updates to it. USB is really old and we still use it because it works. Wire innovation is over. I'd be happy to find a device that uses USB3.0, let alone 3.1 and 3.2.
Click to expand...

You're like a broken clock that's not even right twice each day.
 
XenIneX said:
Cat 5e is good for 1gbit; Cat 6a, 10gbit. "But they look the same!" Wrong.
Click to expand...
Electrically and physically the same, but the different is the shielding in the wire. The main difference in networking wire is how far you can run a wire before you lose signal. Cat 5e works for 10gbit but you can only run it for 45m/147ft where as Cat 6a can support 10gbit for a distance of 100m/328ft.
HDMI 1.2 & 2.1 the same? Very no.
Click to expand...
Linus actually tested this and the answer is yes, most of the time. Again, like Cat 6a the quality of the wire has changed to be able to carry a signal further as higher standard moves up.

Displayport 1.2 & 2.0 the same? More no.
Click to expand...
There is no Displayport 1.2 or 2.0 cables. They are certified because again the difference is how far you can use the cable with the new standard. Displayport 2.0 cables are HBR4 certified. The main thing here is how much shielding these wires have to protect the signal before it degrades. That and the quality of the wires themselves.
USB 1.1 full speed cable between USB 2.0 high-speed devices? No bueno.
USB 2.0 and 3.0 don't even have the same number of conductors.
And USB-C and Lightning are wildly different from straight USB, with very different pinouts and capabilities.
Click to expand...
Gonna lump this together. USB 1.1 and 2.0 cables are the same. USB 3.0 are not but still backwards compatible.
 
DukenukemX said:
Electrically and physically the same, but the different is the shielding in the wire.
Click to expand...
The shielding makes them electrically and physically different.

Other than the conductor type, conductor count, shielding, signaling, and the fact that there is a microprocessor embedded into every cable, USB-C is identical to IDE. You're really on to something here.

DukenukemX said:
You're like a Thunderdolt.... Actually that name kinda makes fun of yourself.
Click to expand...
Congratulations on explaining my own joke to me. You must be a hit at parties.
 
duronboy said:
So iPhones since 2015 are actually supporting USB 3.0 and GSMArena is wrong?!
Click to expand...
Reading the technical data on Lightning is pretty interesting. I just went ahead and did that because I honestly had gaps in knowledge about how it works.

But in short, lightning is a very fast serial bus that can do signal interpretation on the device end. It’s capable of being adapted to virtually anything and only requires software to do so. Which is why it can be adapted to SD cards, HDMI, USB, VGA, both analog and digital audio, etc. Its also technically able to adapt to any future interface that could exist by simply creating a dumb adapter and software programming. Which is how all those other cables work. There isn’t specific pin outs for any of them.

Data transfer wise it can do at least the same as USB-C 3.2. But Apple hasn’t released any official metrics. However like USB-C, that’s cable dependent. PD wise it’s still limited to 18W. But in theory that could get upped in future iphone/ipad models if Lightning is still around by then.
 
I am no fanboy of Apple, but the lightning connector was a step up from MicroUSB, but it is a step down from USB-C. USB-C should have been around a long time ago, I don't know why we needed fixed orientation connectors on USB for so long. Now lightning is the one behind, the exposed connectors get damaged. We replace those more often than we replace USB-C cables. But I replaced micro-USB charging ports way more often due to how fragile they were
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
Now lightning is the one behind, the exposed connectors get damaged. We replace those more often than we replace USB-C cables. But I replaced micro-USB charging ports way more often due to how fragile they were
Click to expand...
The mechanics of the Lightning connector make it more robust than USB-C. By making the cable fully male for both the housing and the contacts, the port ends up protected and the cable becomes the replaceable wear item. This mechanical arrangement also simplifies the mechanics of the detent.

USB-C is a big step backward in this regard because the female socket has a male center section. This center section makes cleaning the socket much more difficult, makes the socket more fragile, and also makes it more difficult to have a robust and reliable detent (remember how Samsung's early USB-C phones had their sockets wear out in as few as 100 cycles?). As a result, USB-C makes both the cable and the socket into wear items. If the choice were mine, I would much rather replace a $5 cable than a $1000 phone.

The failure in Lightning systems is almost always that the plating on the cable's pin comes off. This is due to Apple's poor plating quality. It's a bad implementation of a good design. It does, however, further illustrate how Lightning is built around the idea of the expensive equipment with the socket being permanent and the inexpensive cable having a defined service life.

All of this begins with a fundamental difference in ethos: Apple designed Lightning around being a defining feature of a product. For the Consortium, USB remains little more than a necessary evil not worthy of meaningful development and always in the crosshairs of opportunistic cost reduction.
 
Thunderdolt said:
The mechanics of the Lightning connector make it more robust than USB-C. By making the cable fully male for both the housing and the contacts, the port ends up protected and the cable becomes the replaceable wear item. This mechanical arrangement also simplifies the mechanics of the detent.

USB-C is a big step backward in this regard because the female socket has a male center section. This center section makes cleaning the socket much more difficult, makes the socket more fragile, and also makes it more difficult to have a robust and reliable detent (remember how Samsung's early USB-C phones had their sockets wear out in as few as 100 cycles?). As a result, USB-C makes both the cable and the socket into wear items. If the choice were mine, I would much rather replace a $5 cable than a $1000 phone.

The failure in Lightning systems is almost always that the plating on the cable's pin comes off. This is due to Apple's poor plating quality. It's a bad implementation of a good design. It does, however, further illustrate how Lightning is built around the idea of the expensive equipment with the socket being permanent and the inexpensive cable having a defined service life.

All of this begins with a fundamental difference in ethos: Apple designed Lightning around being a defining feature of a product. For the Consortium, USB remains little more than a necessary evil not worthy of meaningful development and always in the crosshairs of opportunistic cost reduction.
Click to expand...
I haven't had to replace a single USB-C charging port on my devices. Like I had to with micro-usb. We will see what the future holds :)
 
Thunderdolt said:
The shielding makes them electrically and physically different.
Click to expand...
Shielding a wire is just a method of being able to carry a signal further. This can be done by twisting the wire some more and by making the wire thicker, and of course adding better shielding and insulation to the wire. For all intents and purposes it's electrically and physically the same wire and connector. It's all about certification and what the wire should be able to handle.
Other than the conductor type, conductor count, shielding, signaling, and the fact that there is a microprocessor embedded into every cable, USB-C is identical to IDE. You're really on to something here.

Congratulations on explaining my own joke to me. You must be a hit at parties.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that I wasn't trying to attack your character until you started to do it to me. You still are with your... clever statements. The fact is you're upset and can't provide anything other than ad hominem comments that do nothing. It's always the Apple fans who get upset when facts are presented. The fact is most wires are able to be used in both old and new stardards, and this includes old and new wires with some exceptions. The difference is the range the wire can carry the new standard. Also only Fully featured USB-C connectors have a microprocessor. The E-Marker chip is what enables USB 3.2 Gen2 features such as devices that pull more than 3A of power. It's a protection mechanism to ensure you don't pull more power than the wire is not certified to do.
 
JFC just stop posting about this shit already. No one is winning this argument in either poster's eyes.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
Data transfer wise it can do at least the same as USB-C 3.2. But Apple hasn’t released any official metrics. However like USB-C, that’s cable dependent. PD wise it’s still limited to 18W. But in theory that could get upped in future iphone/ipad models if Lightning is still around by then.
Click to expand...
Every new iPhone comes out and I continue to see it only supporting USB 2.0 speeds and I just keep looking away. That it's not even a hardware limitation pisses me off even more. They just limit the speed because reasons.


sfsuphysics said:
JFC just stop posting about this shit already. No one is winning this argument in either poster's eyes.
Click to expand...
Welcome to the internet. You are wrong. :)
 
It’d be nice to not have to have usb-c, and lightning cable in the car just to charge everything. Jus having usb-c would be huge.
 
mustang_steve said:
It’d be nice to not have to have usb-c, and lightning cable in the car just to charge everything. Jus having usb-c would be huge.
Click to expand...
You can do that if pick your mates well and have an iron fist in regards to children's tech. I don't have a single lightning charger in any of my cars, they're all c and one microb per car for charging kindles.
 
madpistol said:
Better be careful. Next thing you know, Congress is going to pass a law outlawing the 6+2 PCI-e power connector on your GPU and requiring USB-C instead.
Click to expand...
Can USB-C even carry enough current for a graphics card? Also, not the same thing. If I really wanted to, I can just solder some wires and be done with it. It's not like a phone where I unplug it and plug it back in at least once a day. You set it and forget it.
 
Because unified phone chargers is more important than tackling recession, hyper inflation, fuel prices, and the coming total food collapse.

Yeah baby! Bring those USB C charger standards, I'll be able to charge my phones with one cable while starving to death with no food or fuel or job!
 
DukenukemX said:
Can USB-C even carry enough current for a graphics card? Also, not the same thing. If I really wanted to, I can just solder some wires and be done with it. It's not like a phone where I unplug it and plug it back in at least once a day. You set it and forget it.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure madpistol didn't intend for that comment to be taken seriously, but the answer is yes, USB-C cables can carry 240W. That's enough for most graphics cards; for higher power ones, just use two or three in parallel.
 
DukenukemX said:
Can USB-C even carry enough current for a graphics card?
Click to expand...
With 48v you can get 240 watts, which is enough for a lot of cards, but not the latest. Not sure what the maximum wattage is available at 12v, but it's probably not even enough for a low-end card.
 
Mr Evil said:
...for higher power ones, just use two or three in parallel.
Click to expand...
I wonder if the VRMs would need to be larger to bring down 48v to a volt rather than the 12v they're getting, now? Would this harm efficiency? I suspect it would, but I don't really know for sure.
 
duronboy said:
I wonder if the VRMs would need to be larger to bring down 48v to a volt rather than the 12v they're getting, now? Would this harm efficiency? I suspect it would, but I don't really know for sure.
Click to expand...
A bigger voltage difference means lower efficiency, yes. This would be offset by lower losses in the cables though.
 
But the PSU now has to have a 48v rail, so more guts for that. Or an external module that boosts 12v to 48v. Or if we don't boost, 12v 5a is the limit, you would need like 8 USB Cs for a 3090 ti. And *with AMD's pridiction that 700w GPUs will be coming, you would still need 3 or 4 240w cables.
 
Last edited:
Oh good, the long term, unreliable usb c standard is going to be entirely forced upon us, happy days are here again. /s
 
tangoseal said:
Because unified phone chargers is more important than tackling recession, hyper inflation, fuel prices, and the coming total food collapse.

Yeah baby! Bring those USB C charger standards, I'll be able to charge my phones with one cable while starving to death with no food or fuel or job!
Click to expand...
You will eat your bugs and you will like it, peasant! :)
 
GoldenTiger said:
You will eat your bugs and you will like it, peasant! :)
Click to expand...
Obviously if we stabilize the phone charger industry, then the economy is soon to follow.

Just add a 50% tax to each phone charger cable sold, and the US economy will have its debt paid off in 2 years tops.
 
DukenukemX said:
You're right, it isn't free. Unless you're a USB-IF member then it is free. If you're not a member then it's $3,500 for a two year term. I'm sure Apple would charge less.

If the other end of the wire looks like this then it's electrically the same. Apple's Lightening cable, USB-C, USB Mini, and etc are all USB wires. Specifically the Lightening cable didn't support USB3.0 until 2015, which means before that it was USB2.0.
View attachment 486291

USB3.0 was made in 2008 and since then we've had minor updates to it. USB is really old and we still use it because it works. Wire innovation is over. I'd be happy to find a device that uses USB3.0, let alone 3.1 and 3.2.
Click to expand...
I get your point. But to be fair, 'full' USB-C support requires the USB-C connector on both ends. That is for things like laptops or tablets that charge thru the USB-C port, 120W to 240W I believe. The USB-A to USB-C cables I believe that spec maxes out at 60W.
For cell phones, 60W is plenty for fast charging.

But the other posters' points that "electrically" they are different is correct, as there have likely been at least some improvements in the bandwidth of the cable, but most certainly there is higher current capability in USB-C to USB-C compared to older USB-A to anything, or in older chargers for oold cell phones that had barrel plugs.
So yeah its different. But, it's also plenty of power and should remain sufficient for a long time. Small personal computing devices (phones or tablet phones) do not require a lot of power. So over time this standard should be fine for a decade or 2. Laptops with 3080's in them have external power bricks, not likely able to use this tech in any event. But the law to my knowledge is only affecting charging specs on cell phones, not huge gaming laptops. So nothing to worry about there.
 
duronboy said:
But the PSU now has to have a 48v rail, so more guts for that. Or an external module that boosts 12v to 48v. Or if we don't boost, 12v 5a is the limit, you would need like 8 USB Cs for a 3090 ti. And *with AMD's pridiction that 700w GPUs will be coming, you would still need 3 or 4 240w cables.
Click to expand...

You don't run your computers on telco -48V DC? Just go right from the pdu to the video card! (over usb-c, sure)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top