41–50 of 165 posts
How hard is it to to copy a [expletive] schematic? Edit: I'm serious. What convinced them to implement a design different from the example in the spec that simply does not work (hello, testing?)?
The USB-C spec is 300 pages with multiple errata and revisions. It's not just one schematic.
While this isn't great, as a consumer I don't really see too big of a problem. If I get a raspberry pi to use for home automation or as a media center, do I really need it to work with every USB-C cable? I'd think I'd just find one that works and let that be the dedicated raspberry 4 cable. If you're building a product based on Raspberry Pi that you're selling to others, then sure I could understand the outrage.
From a Pi consumer perspective, this is not that big of a deal. However, it damages the purpose (in name) of USB C. Isn't C supposed to be the 'all purpose' spec? If we have popular manufacturers failing to follow the spec, we end up with cables marked as 'compatible with Raspberry Pi' or 'compatible with Nintendo Switch'. To the average consumer (and even most techies), USB C was supposed to be the 'one size fits al…
USB C has confused me for the same reason. I read often about how there is no expectation that two USB-C cables/ports will work together. Why design them to fit together if they won't always work right?
I too don’t understand dynamic typing. ;)
From a Pi consumer perspective, this is not that big of a deal. However, it damages the purpose (in name) of USB C. Isn't C supposed to be the 'all purpose' spec? If we have popular manufacturers failing to follow the spec, we end up with cables marked as 'compatible with Raspberry Pi' or 'compatible with Nintendo Switch'. To the average consumer (and even most techies), USB C was supposed to be the 'one size fits al…
USB Type-C is an example of the second-system effect: http://catb.org/jargon/html/S/second-system-effect.html
From a Pi consumer perspective, this is not that big of a deal. However, it damages the purpose (in name) of USB C. Isn't C supposed to be the 'all purpose' spec? If we have popular manufacturers failing to follow the spec, we end up with cables marked as 'compatible with Raspberry Pi' or 'compatible with Nintendo Switch'. To the average consumer (and even most techies), USB C was supposed to be the 'one size fits al…
While this isn't great, as a consumer I don't really see too big of a problem. If I get a raspberry pi to use for home automation or as a media center, do I really need it to work with every USB-C cable? I'd think I'd just find one that works and let that be the dedicated raspberry 4 cable. If you're building a product based on Raspberry Pi that you're selling to others, then sure I could understand the outrage.
I'd be pretty damn annoyed if I went to set up my new media center and discovered that I was gonna need to go out, buy a selection of different cables, and figure out which one works.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but it's an extra expense. If you've got spare USB-C chargers you could use, it's tempting to wait.
Their USB charger costs 7€. From my experience: Just buy their charger and you'll have no problem. I've seen so many attempts at powering the Pi with alternative sources that suck and cause problems. 7€ is worth avoiding that.
Mine, that can charge my gpd pocket can barely power my pi4.
I still see the yellow lightening bolt which indicates a "poor" power supply - which is just plain lying.
From a Pi consumer perspective, this is not that big of a deal. However, it damages the purpose (in name) of USB C. Isn't C supposed to be the 'all purpose' spec? If we have popular manufacturers failing to follow the spec, we end up with cables marked as 'compatible with Raspberry Pi' or 'compatible with Nintendo Switch'. To the average consumer (and even most techies), USB C was supposed to be the 'one size fits al…