Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nintendo Switch 2 Dock USB-C Compatibility

lttlabs.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 197 posts

Re: Nintendo Switch 2 Dock USB-C Compatibility

#121

Post by mmis1000 »

szatkus wrote: post #115
yuiegi wrote: post #33

Back in COVID times, when I had all the time in the world, my Switch got bricked after I charged it using my laptop charger. Nintendo refused to honor its warranty, citing some mumbo jumbo about proprietary USB-C hardware. Fortunately, we have pretty good consumer protection laws here in Australia By the end of an entire two month saga, they sent me a brand new Switch. I always did think it was odd that a USB-C cable…

Switch 2 seems to be more up to standard. I was able to charge it with a normal phone charger and also the Switch 2 charger seems to work with everything else unlike the one for Switch 1. Fortunately I never bricked anything with that, but it just never worked with anything other than the console.

Switch 1 require the charger to support pd2 12v to charge at all. Some changer may decide to skip that voltage, and support only 9v and 15v. So Switch is not happy about it.

Every device in my room except for switch supports more than one voltage config. Wondering why on the earth switch decided to handle voltage setting like this.

Usually, pd charger will label their supported voltage config. And you can read that label to find out whether a charger will work with switch or not.

Source: I do use my phone charger to charge switch during traveling

Re: Nintendo Switch 2 Dock USB-C Compatibility

#122

Post by dev_l1x_be »

ChrisGreenHeur wrote: post #91
whatevaa wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They had to tip toe around this to avoid lawsuits. In practice, they made it quite clear they think this is on purpose.

I'm not so sure nintendo would sue someone over wrong details on specifics of usb-c implementations.

Are you familiar that half the memes about Nintendo about suing people over ridicolous violations of their IP?

Re: Nintendo Switch 2 Dock USB-C Compatibility

#123

Post by stephen_g »

cesarb wrote: post #97
stephen_g wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Usually a competently designed USB-C input should have over-voltage protection and short-to-VBUS protection for over 20V (25-28V). Putting out any voltage before detecting a sink is breaking the standard, but a charger putting out over 20V without any PD negotiation would be absurdly wrong and dangerous... So there are non-compliant plugs, but if your device breaks just because it sees a regular PD VBUS voltage (5-20…

> Putting out any voltage before detecting a sink is breaking the standard To be pedantic, I believe that only applies to USB-C sockets; AFAIK, a USB-C plug (like on a USB-A to USB-C cable) can in some cases put out 5V (but only 5V) before detecting a sink. > but if your device breaks just because it sees a regular PD VBUS voltage (5-20V) then it means that it was designed badly The standard was designed so that devi…

A USB-A device obviously wouldn’t have been designed for anything more than 5V. But anything with a USB-C socket is living in a world where a faulty source could accidentally give it a higher voltage. At that point it’s just about your tolerance for risk - maybe for something worth $100 or less and not supporting PD you can skip out and if there’s a faulty charger that blows it up then whatever, but for something selling for a few hundred dollars (like the Switch, or phones, etc.) it’s worth the 50c in BOM cost for the extra protection…

Re: Nintendo Switch 2 Dock USB-C Compatibility

#124

Post by rcxdude »

Foorack wrote: post #47
ffsm8 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, his point was that the lab isn't necessary for the content ltt is producing, so he expected them to stop the lab project to keep the profits higher

Linus is no longer CEO but he and Ivonne still own 100% of shares. They seem to have enough money, so can burn on projects they feel passionate about like Badminton Center or LTTLabs.

This, Linus has stated he doesn't expect either to be particularly good business decisions, though they will hopefully sustain themselves, and it seems to mostly be because it's something he wants to exist.

Re: Nintendo Switch 2 Dock USB-C Compatibility

#125

Post by reactordev »

Podrod wrote: post #69
reactordev wrote: post #35

They did this to micro sd cards on the first switch. Looks like they found another way. Nintendo isn’t customer friendly. Gone are the days of the N64 and gone are the days of Nintendo pushing the boundaries of fun and entertainment. Now, they make underpowered handhelds for kids with proprietary dongles like Apple in hopes of trapping their customers to their platform. No thanks.

Nintendo have always been a company making toys for kids. Kid toys that are also fun for adults but still primarily for kids. It's the same company as when you were a kid playing N64 or SNES or NES or whatever, just now you're older and jaded.

Nope, the old guard has passed away. It’s not the same.

Re: Nintendo Switch 2 Dock USB-C Compatibility

#126

Post by avianlyric »

alpaca128 wrote: post #110
viraptor wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now they have automated benchmarks across more test configs. This is something almost no reviewers have available. That's partially from labs investment. They also have destructive benchmarks like they did with the power supplies - again almost nobody does those in public.

That's true and I agree this is valuable for the audience, but still it is not necessary. Most successful tech reviewers put out good content without these resources.

I would assume LTT does this to build and retain a clear competitive advantage over their competitors in the same space.

I don’t think LTT goal is just be another commodity YouTube review site whose entire appeal is dependent on a single personality. That not really a scalable or long term sustainable approach.

Large journalist organisations of any kind aren’t built by aiming to be mediocre.

Re: Nintendo Switch 2 Dock USB-C Compatibility

#127

Post by rcxdude »

alex_f_k wrote: post #18

From lttlabs: > The inability for most docks to support the Switch 2 may not be malicious from Nintendo. It might just be a poor or lazy implementation of the USB-C specification From the verge [0], 2 months ago: > When I analyze the conversation between the Nintendo Switch 2 and its dock, I can see the two devices begin speaking in Nintendo’s own flavor of “vendor defined” language early in the conversation, before…

Given the Verge seems to have mixed info from their sources and LTT is pulling their punches, it seems like it is at the very least not obvious that this is what they're doing. And at least one third-party seems to work with it, so it's plausible that it is not a cryptographically enforced incompatibility.

Re: Nintendo Switch 2 Dock USB-C Compatibility

#128

Post by iamtedd »

alpaca128 wrote: post #110
viraptor wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now they have automated benchmarks across more test configs. This is something almost no reviewers have available. That's partially from labs investment. They also have destructive benchmarks like they did with the power supplies - again almost nobody does those in public.

That's true and I agree this is valuable for the audience, but still it is not necessary. Most successful tech reviewers put out good content without these resources.

"Good" content without data is unsubstantiated content.

Data to provide evidence of performance objectively evaluates products, benefiting everyone. For example, show me who has been verifying the quality and performance claims of computer power supplies without equipment such as LTT labs.

If you want to be reductive about it - technology and their gadgets are valuable for the audience, but not strictly necessary.

Re: Nintendo Switch 2 Dock USB-C Compatibility

#129

Post by avianlyric »

ThatPlayer wrote: post #44
Gigachad wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Displayport would have been fairly useless. I've never once seen a TV with Displayport inputs. They really should have had 9v PD working but at least 5v worked.

While technically true, there's no devices that do HDMI protocol over USB-C. Most USB-C adapters to HDMI have a built-in DP > HDMI converter. There was a standard for HDMI over USB, but no devices used it and it died: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/01/hdmi-to-usb-c-spec-a... Pretty sure the Switch (1) Dock used a similar HDMI adapter. Even the PS4 had a DP > HDMI adapter internally for some reason.

DP has a HDMI compatibility mode that allows a DP output to output a HDMI signal, but at the wrong voltage. The external adapters are just level shifters to bring the signal voltages into compliance with HDMI, but their entirety passive devices.

> Even the PS4 had a DP > HDMI adapter internally for some reason.

DP is far more than just an external display protocol. Its biggest use case is internal display signals, so it’s used to power pretty much every laptop screen.

As a result standard PC hardware (which is what the PS4 is) has defacto support for DP, because is the standard display transport between embedded video components. As a result it’s a lot easier and cheaper to build a device that outputs DP, and then slap a HDMI converter on it, than it is to build a device that uses HDMI natively.

Re: Nintendo Switch 2 Dock USB-C Compatibility

#130

Post by avianlyric »

snailmailman wrote: post #11
hsbauauvhabzb wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ltt video didn’t suggest it was intentional, it was careful not to. But Nintendo were certainly aware of it before release.

It was certainly heavily implied to be intentional. With the title referencing "Nintendo’s greed"[0] and in the first minute they call it “locking down a product, not for a good reason, but just because [nintendo] can, or […] because you” It’s not until much further in the video that they backtrack a bit and call it “tactical laziness” by Nintendo. Honestly, I did not get that far on my first watch. [0] YouTube now c…

The early comments are all clearly qualified as their opinions, rather than factual statements. The final conclusions are factual statements, with conclusions that avoid at cost saying anything could be considered libel.
Post reply on HN