I bought a £16 smartwatch just because it used USB-C
1–10 of 248 posts
Re: I bought a £16 smartwatch just because it used USB-C
#2cool cool cool....
Re: I bought a £16 smartwatch just because it used USB-C
#3"Should I buy one? That's up to you, champ. I'm not your real dad" cool cool cool....
Re: I bought a £16 smartwatch just because it used USB-C
#4Re: I bought a £16 smartwatch just because it used USB-C
#5This is so annoying. Back when USB-C was less prevalent, I bought a pair of wireless earbuds over another for the same reason as the title - because it used USB-C. But then I cannot charge it with my macbook, unless I add a USB-C to USB-A adapter.
Re: I bought a £16 smartwatch just because it used USB-C
#6Re: I bought a £16 smartwatch just because it used USB-C
#7Re: I bought a £16 smartwatch just because it used USB-C
#8> The watch is simply missing the two 5.1k resistors connecting the CC1 and CC2 pins of the USB-C connector to ground that are required to indicate to whatever is plugged in that it wants 5v power. This is so annoying. Back when USB-C was less prevalent, I bought a pair of wireless earbuds over another for the same reason as the title - because it used USB-C. But then I cannot charge it with my macbook, unless I add…
Like the post mentions, I think this happens because the devices are missing two resistors that are needed to indicate, when connected via a USB-C to USB-C cable to a charging brick, that the device wants 5V power. Resistors are cheap and I think the only reason they get dropped is carelessness.
The whole point of USB-C is that you can charge any device with any power supply.
Re: I bought a £16 smartwatch just because it used USB-C
#9It's always good to remember that battery life in sports watches (aren't they smart?) can last a whole week, and some models even have complementary solar charging.