101–110 of 165 posts
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.
Generally when I use a SBC like a raspberry pi or esp 8266/32, I use an existing cell phone charger + whatever cable is nearest to where I'm sitting. I 100% expect the SBC to work with any combination of charger and cable. I have lots of existing cell phone charges and cables so unless I were purchasing this for someone else I don't think I would consider ordering the branded raspberry pi charger/cable. Compatibility…
But it still worked with just a sufficiently powerful PSU, while the Pi 4 requires something implementing the USB-C standard. Honestly, I'd prefer a round plug I could use with a 12V PSU.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This has always been a criticism of USB C and it proves true time and time again. USB-C tries to be too many things to too many people and ends up with a huge matrix of incompatibility as a result.
And the criticism is completely invalid here. The power spec is very clear and unambiguous, and there is only one way to get it right. It is not the fault of the spec when manufacturers cannot be bothered to produce a circuit that has already been designed for them in the spec itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This has always been a criticism of USB C and it proves true time and time again. USB-C tries to be too many things to too many people and ends up with a huge matrix of incompatibility as a result.
And the criticism is completely invalid here. The power spec is very clear and unambiguous, and there is only one way to get it right. It is not the fault of the spec when manufacturers cannot be bothered to produce a circuit that has already been designed for them in the spec itself.
If they'd instead specified that every detachable USB C cable must be 40 Gbps / 100 watt capable, and any lower-spec cable must be captive to the device (like mouse and keyboard cables are) then this problem wouldn't have happened.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This has always been a criticism of USB C and it proves true time and time again. USB-C tries to be too many things to too many people and ends up with a huge matrix of incompatibility as a result.
Which is the single reason why I hate USB-C, and I don't want USB-C to replace lightning. And yet people keep saying USB-C will get better, the controller will get better, the quality of USB-C cable will get better. And Time and Time again it has proved vendors only care about cost, not quality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And the criticism is completely invalid here. The power spec is very clear and unambiguous, and there is only one way to get it right. It is not the fault of the spec when manufacturers cannot be bothered to produce a circuit that has already been designed for them in the spec itself.
Blame for this problem is 80% on RPi, no doubt, but I'd say 20% of the problem is someone deciding to allow multiple cables, some with active components in them. If they'd instead specified that every detachable USB C cable must be 40 Gbps / 100 watt capable, and any lower-spec cable must be captive to the device (like mouse and keyboard cables are) then this problem wouldn't have happened.
If you are specifying that every cable is going to be $30 minimum, then your spec is dead from day 0. The USB-C committee has to balance a spec that will be used by a significant chunk of the planet, not all of whom can afford expensive cables.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This has always been a criticism of USB C and it proves true time and time again. USB-C tries to be too many things to too many people and ends up with a huge matrix of incompatibility as a result.
And the criticism is completely invalid here. The power spec is very clear and unambiguous, and there is only one way to get it right. It is not the fault of the spec when manufacturers cannot be bothered to produce a circuit that has already been designed for them in the spec itself.
Given this has happened time and time again, it seems like a process flaw more than a document flaw. Maybe well-meaning people just make mistakes. Or maybe people knowingly cut corners to save money (because saving on parts is a pressure that will never go away). Or something else.
So some sort of process fix seems to be needed, one that will (1) reward those who succeed and/or (2) punish those who try to get away with violating the spec and/or (3) create tools (like test equipment or certification services or processes) to make compliance easier to achieve for those who are trying to.
So, for example, could the Pi people have used some kind of device that would plug in and run through all the combinations? Or could there have been a canned list of test cases (representatives of different types of chargers, how they should behave) they should have run? Or could they have sent a prototype device off to USB Shouldn't Suck Labs to have them test it? Or email a schematic to them to have it reviewed by an engineer?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not the initial cable that's the problem, it's those that come after. My wife wanted a charger with a longer cable for her phone. We need it to be able to fast charge, which is called a variety of different names on both the phone and charger sides. Can I get the $10 charger, or do I need the $40 charger the size of the MBP charger? We ended up just biting the bullet and getting one of the more expensive, MBP-ch…
You needed a $5 AC power extension cord.