USB-C on iPhone 15 might still require MFi certified cables

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 38
    tht said:
    You are not going to be able to pump a full 100W in to a phone, even with a full capable cable and charger.
    The impedance of the load (in this case the charging phone) determines the power draw. The source (charger) doesn’t pump more current/power into it (even if it has the capability) than the load’s impedance dictates at a given voltage level.
    There are already and will be phones that will draw 200 and even 300 W.

    As for this MFI USBC rumor, I was expecting it. It's just going to be a "superset" of the USBC standard, which is already hyper convoluted with its support of a gazillion different protocols. It will be Apple's way of guaranteeing a cable will work with iPhones. There will be USBC cables out there that won't be compatible. If the Pro models support Thunderbolt, which I'm expecting, that definitely means there will be USBC cables that won't support TB or other power profiles.
    Oh really? What phones can handle 200W or 300W? Name one please. What connections are they drawing power from? How are they dealing with all that heat?
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 22 of 38
    thttht Posts: 5,355member
    tht said:
    You are not going to be able to pump a full 100W in to a phone, even with a full capable cable and charger.
    The impedance of the load (in this case the charging phone) determines the power draw. The source (charger) doesn’t pump more current/power into it (even if it has the capability) than the load’s impedance dictates at a given voltage level.
    There are already and will be phones that will draw 200 and even 300 W.

    As for this MFI USBC rumor, I was expecting it. It's just going to be a "superset" of the USBC standard, which is already hyper convoluted with its support of a gazillion different protocols. It will be Apple's way of guaranteeing a cable will work with iPhones. There will be USBC cables out there that won't be compatible. If the Pro models support Thunderbolt, which I'm expecting, that definitely means there will be USBC cables that won't support TB or other power profiles.
    Oh really? What phones can handle 200W or 300W? Name one please. What connections are they drawing power from? How are they dealing with all that heat?
    https://www.theverge.com/2023/2/9/23592342/realme-gt-neo-5-price-release-date-specs-features-240w-fast-charging-china-launch

    No details on the volts and amps, but I imagine it isn't USB-PD. They are likely using a high voltage platform to keep the amps low, and therefore, they will be ok with typical USB cable gage wires.
  • Reply 23 of 38
    Sorry @tht beat me to it by 13 mins...


    edited February 2023
  • Reply 24 of 38
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,557member
    netrox said:
    wood1208 said:
    You don't want some cheap low quality USB-C cable/adapter burn iPhone and blame Apple.
     
    That's not the issue. The issue is the other side. Apple attempting to subvert the standards of USB-C can make them liable for any damages or violations. When a company sells a cable that is causing the fires or malfunction, the company is likely not following the specs set by USB-C. That is why all USB-C cables MUST follow the specs or they can be sued or shut down. 
      
    Apple's cables are cheap - they fray all the time. 



    Complete, unadulterated bullshit.
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 25 of 38
    dewmedewme Posts: 5,274member
    avon b7 said:
    The key issue is that it will meet USB-C certification standards and that is what counts.

    If Apple throws up warnings or limits performance in some way for non-licences items, then market forces will either lead to people accepting the situation or see them getting fed up with it.

    Personally, I would be surprised to see Apple go down that road if no other USB-C implementation on Apple devices suffers from the rumored 'requirements'. 
    I agree.

    Apple has to follow the USB-C cable and connector specification (https://www.usb.org/document-library/usb-type-cr-cable-and-connector-specification-release-22) and pass conformance testing to attain licensing. It's important to note that when you mention "performance" with respect to the USB-C cable and connector specification it really only covers things like electrical performance, environmentals, noise immunity, etc. 

    Functional performance, like support for charging-only, USB 2.0, USB 3.2, and USB 4.0 are effectively selectable by the vendor. Apple could put a fully compliant and licensed USB-C connector on the iPhone that only supports charging, like many products do including the Raspberry Pi 4. Or they could do like they did with then base model iPad, include support for charging plus USB 2.0. In other words, the presence of a USB-C receptacle on a new iPhone is not a guarantee that it will support USB-4, Thunderbolt, or anything of that sort. It does guarantee that it will support charging via USB-C cables certified for at least charging support.

    The USB-C spec does contain some verbiage that Apple could use to put somewhat of a limit on the USB-C cables that are compatible with Apple devices. They could require cables that support higher power requirements, like they do with Thunderbolt and power delivery support. I don't see how doing so would help Apple because they'd still have to support charging using standard cables.

    I'm going to take the glass half full position here. Rather than speculating that Apple engages in any form of vindictiveness, spite, or check-the-box and do the absolute minimum to meet the EU mandate, I think they will try to differentiate from their competitors by taking full advantage of everything the USB standard makes available to them. This will come at the functional level, regardless of USB-C charging, and will bring new capabilities to the iPhone (Pro-only?) that have never been seen on an Apple smartphone before. I don't know what it may be, but perhaps some sort of OS upscaling when the iPhone is plugged into a Studio Display or one of the new Apple displays that are currently in the development pipeline.

    Apple, especially under Tim Cook, always puts business before emotions. They are not going to disappoint their customers just to make a point or play petty chump-change level games like mucking up the USB-C transition. 
    FileMakerFeller
  • Reply 26 of 38
    Ok, there is high wattage phones for charging. What is the battery life going to be? Ok so I can see some reasons to use it, airports and commuter stations. Most of the time you don’t need it. You end up with a laptop charger so you can charge your phone in less than ten minutes. Then that extra wattage is not being used. The phone cpu and gpu is going to use that much wattage even during high usage. We finally found a phone chip that beats Apple, though we recommend heat resistant gloves. I’m still using my 5W charger at night. That same 5W charger still fully charged my phone, even when I’m playing Minecraft. I’m not changing my phone to have such high charging power.  
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 27 of 38
    There is precedence.  Apple will do it the same way as they have implemented in the iPad
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 28 of 38
    Just remove the port entirely i say. Wireless all the way.
    ionicle
  • Reply 29 of 38
    dewme said:
    avon b7 said:
    The key issue is that it will meet USB-C certification standards and that is what counts.

    If Apple throws up warnings or limits performance in some way for non-licences items, then market forces will either lead to people accepting the situation or see them getting fed up with it.

    Personally, I would be surprised to see Apple go down that road if no other USB-C implementation on Apple devices suffers from the rumored 'requirements'. 
    I agree.

    Apple has to follow the USB-C cable and connector specification (https://www.usb.org/document-library/usb-type-cr-cable-and-connector-specification-release-22) and pass conformance testing to attain licensing. It's important to note that when you mention "performance" with respect to the USB-C cable and connector specification it really only covers things like electrical performance, environmentals, noise immunity, etc. 

    Functional performance, like support for charging-only, USB 2.0, USB 3.2, and USB 4.0 are effectively selectable by the vendor. Apple could put a fully compliant and licensed USB-C connector on the iPhone that only supports charging, like many products do including the Raspberry Pi 4. Or they could do like they did with then base model iPad, include support for charging plus USB 2.0. In other words, the presence of a USB-C receptacle on a new iPhone is not a guarantee that it will support USB-4, Thunderbolt, or anything of that sort. It does guarantee that it will support charging via USB-C cables certified for at least charging support.

    The USB-C spec does contain some verbiage that Apple could use to put somewhat of a limit on the USB-C cables that are compatible with Apple devices. They could require cables that support higher power requirements, like they do with Thunderbolt and power delivery support. I don't see how doing so would help Apple because they'd still have to support charging using standard cables.

    I'm going to take the glass half full position here. Rather than speculating that Apple engages in any form of vindictiveness, spite, or check-the-box and do the absolute minimum to meet the EU mandate, I think they will try to differentiate from their competitors by taking full advantage of everything the USB standard makes available to them. This will come at the functional level, regardless of USB-C charging, and will bring new capabilities to the iPhone (Pro-only?) that have never been seen on an Apple smartphone before. I don't know what it may be, but perhaps some sort of OS upscaling when the iPhone is plugged into a Studio Display or one of the new Apple displays that are currently in the development pipeline.

    Apple, especially under Tim Cook, always puts business before emotions. They are not going to disappoint their customers just to make a point or play petty chump-change level games like mucking up the USB-C transition. 

    This is a classic example of a questionable rumor, combined with public ignorance, leading to many clicks and faux outrage.

    Adding supersets to adopted standards is a common practice, and it doesn't necessarily mean such products don't conform to, or disqualify them from working the established standards.

    Apple has already done it with MagSafe, where the 15W profile is specific to MFi-approved wireless chargers.  Where was the outrage over that?  It doesn't mean iPhones aren't compliant with the Qi standard, nor make them not functional with non-MFi chargers.  Nobody has been forced to buy the higher priced MagSafe licensed chargers from Belkin and the like, and it's safe to say most don't, and stick with any number of $15 Qi chargers from Amazon.

    Samsung has gone beyond the standard BPP and EPP Qi profiles, and created their own proprietary PPDE for their wireless charging implementation, and they'll work with standard wireless chargers as well.

    On the wired side, Apple can create another new, specific PDO for charging iPhones, just like it already did with the 20W PDO, which third-party manufacturers have adopted, and is readily available.  Samsung has its own specific AFC fast charging implementation over PD, as do other phone manufacturers.  Again, it's no different than than the days when Apple 2.4, QuickCharge, FastCharge, and other Type-A based proprietary fast charge standards were common, except that was driven mostly by the inadequacies of the USB power delivery specs at the time.

    Not saying that proprietary standards, or the license fees they bring (including Qualcomm's for QC), are necessarily welcome things, but at least PD provides a much stronger foundation, good performance baseline, and basic compatibility.

    Finally, USB spec already includes provisions for authentication, and rejection of unauthorized components, so the implication that Apple would have to create another non-conforming standard to enable it to implement some sort of hardware DRM is false.  Where are the Macs and iPads that work only with MFi-certified Type-C cables?

    And where is the proof that Apple, a USB-IF board member, and early Type-C adopter, is going to undermine its standing, and own work, by creating its "own Type-C" as the rumor puts it, especially in a way that will open a Pandora's box?  Until that happens, it's just a BS rumor, feeding a bunch of hot air.
    watto_cobraFileMakerFeller
  • Reply 30 of 38
    genovelle said:
    Even on iPhone now. There is nothing forcing the use but encouraging it
    I mean, there is. Ask anyone who's bought cheap, non-MFi Lightning cables or accessories. At some point they get borked by an update, which is why you should still buy MFi Lightning cables. I've encountered quite a few of these people that were tricked into buying cables they thought would work without issue.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 31 of 38
    longfang said:
    Just remove the port entirely i say. Wireless all the way.
    While that may suit you, it’s going to be a nuisance for millions of new portless iPhone customers.
    You open your new portless iPhone box you get a magsafe charging cable. So far so good.
    Well now you need an extra cable for the kitchen. Yep used to cost $19 now that price went up to $39.
    How about the car? There’s another $39.
    Oh one more thing. Let’s stop calling Qi chargers with magnets wireless. It’s “inductive charging”.
    WiFi is wireless. LTE is wireless. MagSafe/Qi chargers are not.
    muthuk_vanalingamwilliamlondonwatto_cobraFileMakerFeller
  • Reply 32 of 38
    charlesn said:
    If Apple continues its policy--as I expect it will--of keeping older iPhone models in the lineup to sell at reduced prices, then the switch to USB-C has to happen with the iPhone 15. (Keep in mind that Apple STILL sells new iPhone 12s on its website.) If Apple waits until 2024 to switch to USB-C on the iPhone 16, then it would not have any previous models that it could continue to sell in the EU. 
    I mean they would just only sell the 15/15 Pro in the EU. Unless adding a Lightning to USB-C adapter to older ones would satisfy the EU overlords (like it did before with the micro-USB adapter), Apple likely wouldn't care much about having older models over there anyway.
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 33 of 38
    The USB-C ports will likely be limited to USB 2 just like the Lightning to USB-A adapters have been (even though they supported USB 3 on the iPads with the same adapter).
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 34 of 38
    The catch will be the CPU in the iPhone. The lower two 2023 models use last years chips as of this model year (2023). So in theory, next year's lower tier priced models will have this year's TOP cpu. That could mean the port may have the USB-C shape but be limited to lightning speeds. The top price tier models new CPU could have the necessary support for the speeds of USB-C 4.

    I am not sure if the details of the speeds of transfer are in the new rule, just the physical shape of the connector. I am not sure if this year's top CPU would be USB-C 4 compatible.

    Tune in late fall 2023 for the real answers to these and other questions. :)
    edited February 2023 watto_cobra
  • Reply 35 of 38
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,516member
    pmb01 said:
    charlesn said:
    If Apple continues its policy--as I expect it will--of keeping older iPhone models in the lineup to sell at reduced prices, then the switch to USB-C has to happen with the iPhone 15. (Keep in mind that Apple STILL sells new iPhone 12s on its website.) If Apple waits until 2024 to switch to USB-C on the iPhone 16, then it would not have any previous models that it could continue to sell in the EU. 
    I mean they would just only sell the 15/15 Pro in the EU. Unless adding a Lightning to USB-C adapter to older ones would satisfy the EU overlords (like it did before with the micro-USB adapter), Apple likely wouldn't care much about having older models over there anyway.
    The EU tried very hard to avoid legislation. 

    MicroUSB was never mandated by legislation. There was a MoU to centre on MicroUSB which garnered some success but there were some companies that still went their own way (Apple was one of them). 

    That's why, this time around, the EU has decided to take a much firmer stance. 
    FileMakerFeller
  • Reply 36 of 38
    For those poo-poo’ing the rumor or especially slamming AppleInsider for publishing an article on it, where is your imagination? 

    It’s conceivable Apple could still allow generic USB-C cables to work, but also provide a cable that could work both as a conventional USB-C cable ( in both cases compliant in both letter and spirit), AND also provide an embedded chip that provides an additional convenience to Apple device users.  

    Perhaps it could monitor uptake by the device, recognize the input current throughput as well as the particular Apple device and battery along with data on specific battery and provide information regarding effect of fast charging or in the future a third tier of still faster charging.  This information could be used on device to provide the user the cumulative hours of fast and faster charging and the estimated decrease in battery life. The device could provide temperature history of heat emitted and imposed on the battery in the calculations. 

    This would give the user information on not overusing the convenience of the faster charging modes. 
    Sometimes faster charging is a necessity as in only a certain available window of time to charge before being away from a charging opportunity.  Sometimes it is just convenient and a choice. It’s better to be an informed choice.

    Re faster charging, I had experienced the difference of 7 watt vs 20 watt charging speed.  I’d thought impedance limited anything faster than 20 watts. I only had my MacBook Pro 16” 100 watt charger available along with a USB-C to Lightning cable available in several instances of needing to charge my iPhone. I was surprised at how fast my phone charged up to 50% and beyond.  And it really got warm. After 3 episodes, I’d swear it was significantly faster than my 20 or 30 watt chargers. But I didn’t measure, so it’s anecdotal. 

    Yes, this capability may be possible with firmware and software now or in the future within the device and not the cable.  But perhaps older devices would benefit.  Or a with a future 3-tier or more speed of charging.  
    It would be an e-waste reduction if the user had feedback to only use when they decide it’s useful given the feedback of the cumulative history and predictive estimates of using a certain tier of speed vs the need to “get out the door” and independent of a charging source. 

    While future devices could incorporate all this and perhaps current devices via firmware, maybe an iPhone 10 or 11 might not work well with a firmware update for this level of monitoring and the cable as an option would be a convenience.  

    If I’m off base on my imagination here, I still think slamming AppleInsider is not necessary. It’s food for thought if you just realize we don’t know what’s in development in battery technology and user feedback interface plans. 
    watto_cobrabala1234
  • Reply 37 of 38
    lkrupp said:
    Once again we are treated to an ‘unverifiable rumor” and we’re off to the races. Tech blogs are ablaze with hate, indignation, recrimination, factual errors, and misinformation. Another day in the la-la land of make-believe and the continuous mantra drum beat of the Evil Apple Empire.
    The point is not to besmirch your favorite magical and amazing company whom you love with all your heart, it's to get people like you with hair triggers all upset and angry so you post your boilerplate old-man-yelling-at-clouds grievance, which generates "yeah, you said it!" mob mentality likes, thus generating numerous page views. 

    If you don't like the rumors, keep your mouth shut. But you can't, and you won't. We all play our part in a vast game of data bought and sold, manipulated into offering commentary that is predictable and fallow: Go Apple! Boo Not-Apple! Good dog. 
    mr. hM68000williamlondonbala1234elijahg
Sign In or Register to comment.