citpeks

About

Username
citpeks
Joined
Visits
334
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
1,007
Badges
1
Posts
271

Reactions

502Like17Dislike85Informative

  • iPhone will catch a sales block in EU countries if Apple limits USB-C

    citpekscitpeks
    mfryd said:
    While various companies extended the USB spec to allow fast charging, various third parties were able to build chargers and cables that were compatible with thee methods.

    The concern is that Apple will use various methods to ensure that third parties can't build compatible chargers/cables compatible with these extensions, unless they pay Apple a licensing fee.

    There is also a concern that Apple's phones will implement only parts of the USB-C spec, unless the cables/chargers are licensed from Apple.

    Modern technology allows Apple to impose all sorts of arbitrary restrictions and limitations.   Whether or not Apple would do such a thing is a separate question, as is whether or not such restrictions are reasonable.

    With Lightning, Apple had two vital advantages -- it had a connector nobody else could use without participating in the MFi program, and it had the right to control who its OEM suppliers could sell those connectors to.

    With Type-C, Apple will not have either of those powers.  Type-C connectors are readily available from whomever an accessory maker chooses, and will connect to any Apple Type-C device.  When connected, the device will use the Power Delivery protocol to negotiate the parameters of the connection, and if it chooses to utilize the Authentication standard, have the ability to enforce those parameters in accordance with the apparatus is is connected to.  All within the specs.

    Unless Apple comes forth with an implementation that has their devices outright reject non-MFi cables, or those that don't identity as such, the EU has no case.

    Objectively, charging at 20W with a standard, non-MFi cable would still conform to the requirements to adopt Type-C as the connector, and PD as the protocol.

    If, as rumored, Apple chooses to only allow its devices to charge at 27W with a cable that identifies as being from an MFi-licensed supplier, that does not preclude, nor invalidate the first scenario.

    Let's say a young Steve Jobs, instead of being a smelly hippy at Atari, did do a stint at IBM early in his career.

    IBM's office dress code dictated blue suit and tie.  Steve liked to come into the office in grey, and black suits, maybe even a fancy black tuxedo.

    His boss tells him to ditch those, and like the rules say, wear a blue suit like everyone else, to preserve office harmony, and present a consistent appearance to clients.

    So Steve comes into the office wearing a blue Brioni suit, made from 500-thread count fabric, which costs more than his colleagues can afford.  It's expensive for Steve, too, but he has a friendly relationship with the Brioni store that most shoppers don't.

    Would it be right for his boss to tell Steve, "no, you can do that, because it's a nicer suit that the rest of the guys can't afford, and could make them uncomfortable?"  You have to buy your suits from the Men's Wearhouse like the rest of the guys.

    He's wearing a blue suit, as dictated.  What rule is Steve violating?  Is there an unwritten rule for Steve alone, because he thumbed his nose at management for wearing grey and black in the past?  The rules only say a "blue suit," not a "Men's Wearhouse Blue Suit," nor "Blue suits that don't cost more than $400."  Just a blue suit, which Steve has complied with.  Does his boss have the power to compel Steve to wear a particular brand of blue suit?  Should he?

    The EU has the right to regulate its markets, as does IBM to set a dress code.

    On the face of it, the EU issued a directive to settle upon a single, interoperable USB charging standard to ensure broad compatibility, and reduce waste.  If it really wanted to prevent companies from exploiting opportunities within that market, it should have written that into the rules, and made it publicly clear.  And keep in mind that Qualcomm doesn't give QuickCharge away for free, even if its costs aren't as readily apparent to end consumers, or that Samsung's fastest charging only works with PPS-capable adapters, which are not required by spec, but something Samsung can conveniently and will happily sell you.

    Personally, I dislike the idea of MFi cables being granted special capability, but that genie escaped the bottle a long time ago, and not just with regard to mobile accessories.

    However, I also dislike the notion of governments going beyond ensuring conformity, to dictating specific performance, and/or specific implementations, more.  Often, such edicts are issued with little regard to how they affect the market, and in particular, consumers.  The state of California is infamous for governing in that fashion.
    Alex1N

  • iPhone will catch a sales block in EU countries if Apple limits USB-C

    citpekscitpeks
    mfryd said:
    The fear is that Apple will do something outside the USB-C standard.  Third party standard USB-C chargers/cables may not be allowed to charge as fast as Apple approved "Mi-Fi" cables.

    Yes, one must be careful in how the rules are worded in order to address this issue.  It is also unclear as to whether it is reasonable for Apple to require extra certification for higher power charging.  Can Apple use a charging scheme that is a superset of USB-C, yet still compatible with it?

    The Type-C Authentication standard, which allows both source and sink devices to do as much, or as little is they see fit with what they connect to, will probably provide the technical foundation for Apple to verify connections and decide how to proceed.  It is part of the USB spec, so Apple doesn't need to create anything special to have that capability.

    It's funny that the EU is 1) reading tech rumor sites, and 2) crafting official responses based on such rumors.

    What's even funnier is that the EU itself doesn't seem to recognize the history of USB charging, or what is happening right now under their noses, with MagSafe.

    From the beginning, no device would have any sort of capability to "fast charge" if proprietary extensions to the USB specs were not implemented.

    Apple 10W, and then 12W were not part of the USB spec.  Nor was Samsung's Fast Charge, the Chinese phone brands' methods of fast charging, nor QuickCharge.

    They were created to fill a need to enable higher charging rates, but none of them prevented devices from charging at the standard, albeit snail slow rates USB specs provided for.

    On the wireless induction charging side, MagSafe conforms to the Qi standard, and Apple devices will function perfectly fine with chargers that conform, but an Apple-certified wireless charger is needed to "fast" charge at the highest rates.  Same principle at work.

    Most are not picking up on the concept of a superset, instead focusing on a restricted subset, assuming that's how Apple will approach it.  But MagSafe, and history says otherwise.

    Technically, gas stations cannot break out credit card merchant fees into separate component charges, or they will be in violation of their merchant agreements with the card associations.  How do they get around this?  By offering "cash discounts" and a lower price that does not contain those merchant fees.

    It is entirely possible to adhere to the letter, if not the spirit of the law, and you're right, nuance will play a big role.

    tht said:
    It doesn’t sound tenable, other than a minimum req’t. 

    Are they going to say that a device must support 3rd party cables at its maximum charge rate? How would they determine who is at fault? It could be the cable, the power adaptor, or the device. 

    Are they going to mandate that every USBC cable must support 10W, 30W, or 100W? There will be cable who will only support 10W. How would a consumer know what power a cable supports?

    They really don’t know how it is going to work. It’s taking more than a year for them to come up with a “clarification” of what they mean. Just seems like a shitshow. Like with MFi, they would have to come up with a certification standard for the whole chain for it not to be a shitshow, and that’s already XKCD territory already. 
    The only kind of "minimum" that exists is that spec-compliant Type-C cables must be capable of carrying 60W (more than enough for most devices), and USB 2 data.  The older spec provided for higher capacity 100W cables, and currently 240W cables, which must be e-marked.  Those specs pertain strictly to cables, not sources, nor sinks.

    There is no minimum standard, or expectation for any device except for what that device chooses, or is designed to accept, and every one is different.

    As noted above, history, and practice has not prevented supersets, nor do those supersets preclude compatibility with strictly spec-compliant devices.

    If the EU is going to try to overreach, and not merely mandate compliance, but single out Apple for not complying "enough," then it should be prepared to apply that standard to everyone, not just Apple, and prepare for some pushback.

    The EU's stated objective was to have Apple standardize on Type-C, for compatibility.  Apple can do that by switching to Type-C ports.

    But what it appears to want now, in response to a rumor, is to also regulate performance.
    tmayroundaboutnowfreeassociate2Alex1N

  • How Apple's worst value in a product will be a bestseller in 2023

    citpekscitpeks
    kmarei said:
    Doesn't this mfi for usb-c charger violate the open source nature of usb-c standard ?
    it's a standard, and as long as you abide by the standard, everything should work fine
    doesnt matter if it's a laptop, tablet, or phone
    without having to pay money to apple, usb-c is NOT an apple creation

    if iPhones only work with an mfi cable, that by definition means they are inferior
    because other phones work just fine with any usb-c charger 
     I've used an HP usb-c charger to charge an iPad Pro, Microsoft phone, Microsoft surface laptop, and portable car tire inflator just fine
    no errors or issues or anything 
    No, it doesn't the spec.  Type-C Authentication was being mooted as far back as 2016, and the first version of the spec was published in 2019.

    Section 2.2 of the spec cites as an example just what is being rumored:

    "USB Authentication allows a USB Host or PD Product to authenticate an attached Product and, by Policy, choose how to interact with that Product. For example, a PD Sink may choose not to use the full advertised capabilities of an unauthenticated PD Source. Authentication can be initiated by either a PD Sink, PD Source, or USB Host."

    If Apple chooses to prevent their devices from drawing full power from an unauthenticated source, that does not break any rule.

    That said, the authentication capability was included by the USB IF as a security measure, to mitigate the risk of plugging your phone into a random port, such as a quick charge at the airport, resulting in some sort of malware, or other unintended consequences, given that Type-C has become a catchall in terms of connectivity.

    I doubt the intent was to have it used as part of a business strategy, or part of a marketing ploy to encourage users to buy "approved" or name-branded cables, or whatever.

    That would seem to violate the spirit, if not the letter of the law, and open up a can of worms that might encourage others to adopt similar tactics, though to be fair, that kind of thing is nothing new in the USB charging game, even before Type-C, though not to the extent that could develop, since earlier standards lacked any type of authentication or DRM-like schemes.

    But it is important to point out that this is all speculation for now, and until we see what Apple actually does, it's just a theoretical debate, and good only for some clicks.

    The MFi program was originally conceived for the iPod in 2005, so it's not like Apple users have be unaware, or have chosen to shy away in droves because the company has chosen to have licensed accessories, and make it a revenue stream.  IIRC, iOS 7 in 2014 was the first to throw up active complaints about non-certified cables.  If there is more of the same, people will just carry on, as they've been doing, even if they're moaning in forums like this, but still buying Apple products.
    Fidonet127twokatmewAlex1Nwatto_cobra

  • iPhone 15 certified cable requirement expected to create high USB-C charger demand

    citpekscitpeks
    payeco said:
    If they were going to have some even quicker charging speed why would they have held it back for USB-C? Lightning can handle way more than even the 27w the 14 Pro Max peaks at. I think Apple is done innovating with cables. Once the switch to USB-C is completely we’ll get iterative charging speed increases every few years and that’ll be it for improvements with cords from Apple’s side. MagSafe and wireless are clearly where Apple sees the future and where we should expect to see all future improvements. 

    Apple is, and has been very conservative with regard to charging power levels, so any "fast" charge above and beyond won't necessarily be a large leap or promoted as a big selling point.

    Just a little "bonus" for those who need/want it and are willing to pay for an MFi-certified, and/or the fastest solution.  Those who aren't concerned with the details, and buy based on brand/reputation will enjoy the benefits, but in an indirect way.  Most users don't know or care who Georg Ohm was, or about what his Law describes.

    Again, MagSafe provides the template as to how I think they'll approach it, and only those who dig into the support documents will discover the nuances.  Apple's marketing sells solutions, not big figures.  "80% in 15 minutes," not "200W SuperHyperFantastic Charge by WidgetCo" kind of thing.  That's also why Apple devices have never had the largest cells, nor do they publish those figures.  Their emphasis is on how long it will last playing music, video, or whatever, not on how many Wh the cell has.

    We'll see in about six months.


    StrangeDayswatto_cobra

  • iPhone 15 certified cable requirement expected to create high USB-C charger demand

    citpekscitpeks
    payeco said:
    So people actually think all these Anker, Belkin, Aukey, etc. USB-C chargers that people have and have been using to charge their iPhones at 18+ watts with USB-C to Lightning cables will suddenly become nerfed and charge at just 5w and/or 12w for the new phones? I’ve never heard such a ridiculous claim. This is not going to happen. I’d be willing to bet $10k the MFi restrictions everyone has their panties in a bunch over will turn out to be limited to accessories like adapter dongles and docks, etc, just like they are today. Apple may go the super shitty route and require MFi USB-C cables, but they’re not going to needlessly nerf millions of existing USB-C chargers. 

    What I can see happening is an MFi "fast" charging tier above standard PD profiles.  Like how Samsung does with its Fast Charging profile, and any number of other companies do with their high power super fast schemes, particularly the Chinese OEMs.

    It's something Apple already does with MagSafe, whereby the standard Qi profiles work with no issue, but for the speedier option, you need an MFi-certified wireless source.

    Nothing is being gimped, or made non-functional with the generic spec-compliant third-party power sources, but for the special, fastest rates, it needs to be a blessed product.

    A lot of people who read tech blogs and fall for clickbait stories will get their panties in a bunch, but it's really nothing new, or a practice confined to Apple.

    For most users, it's not something they'll notice, or only discover by reading an Apple Support document, like this one for MagSafe, which subtly points out that Apple's chargers provide extra benefits.

    Simply put, if the new iPhones detect an MFi-blessed e-marked cable, it will ask for 25W.  If it doesn't, it will only ask for 20W, or some scenario like that.

    And a long way from something like HP bricking printers when third-party consumables are installed, via their firmware updates.

    But for now, it's all guesswork anyway.
    muthuk_vanalingamrmusikantowcommand_fwatto_cobra