Live data from Hacker News

Google engineer finds USB Type-C cable that’s so bad it fried his Chromebook

arstechnica.co.uk

21–30 of 93 posts

Re: Google engineer finds USB Type-C cable that’s so bad it fried his Chromebook

#21

Does anyone else find it concerning that our new and best technology is so fragile that even the slightest fezz-up in what should be a passive signal-cable can cause our otherwise state of the art equipment to fry itself? Is reliability, durability and robustness nowhere to be found in any single spec for our new standards?

The issue isn't the standard, but that compliance is not regulated by the retailer, the wholesaler, the standards body or the government, which is why consumers are trying to effectively regulate it themselves.

Re: Google engineer finds USB Type-C cable that’s so bad it fried his Chromebook

#23
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

The provided link is to an HN discussion from yesterday of this same story (not the same article, but Benson Leung announcing the dangerous cable).

Oops. My bad.

Re: Google engineer finds USB Type-C cable that’s so bad it fried his Chromebook

#24

Does anyone else find it concerning that our new and best technology is so fragile that even the slightest fezz-up in what should be a passive signal-cable can cause our otherwise state of the art equipment to fry itself? Is reliability, durability and robustness nowhere to be found in any single spec for our new standards?

I would say that the Chromebook's USB ports are probably to blame as well. Shorting the +Vpp pin to GND should only result in sinking the maximum current but not in the port being damaged. Likewise, I'd expect the signal port to be protected against shorting it to GND or connecting it to a (moderately) high input voltage. The USB standard does probably not require these kind of protections, but they are nevertheless good, defensive design for any port that gets connected to a large number of unknown and potentially dangerous / badly designed devices.

Btw I already destroyed some parallel, serial and USB ports when connecting them to devices I built that malfunctioned or were ill designed (during prototyping), so as a measure of safety I now often use optocouplers to galvanically isolate my circuit from the port, which can help to prevent most kinds of damage.

Re: Google engineer finds USB Type-C cable that’s so bad it fried his Chromebook

#25

Does anyone else find it concerning that our new and best technology is so fragile that even the slightest fezz-up in what should be a passive signal-cable can cause our otherwise state of the art equipment to fry itself? Is reliability, durability and robustness nowhere to be found in any single spec for our new standards?

It was not a slight fezz-up. It was miswiring in a power cable. It's like electrician wiring the live pin into ground pin and then wondering why one gets electrocuted by so many devices. No specification can defend against a hostile, or sufficiently incompetent, implementer.

I have actually seen a wall plug with V- and GND mixed up. Luckily nobody was injured and nothing was set on fire, but we did wonder why touching the dishwasher gave us a noticeable shock until we figured out what was wrong.

Re: Google engineer finds USB Type-C cable that’s so bad it fried his Chromebook

#26

Does anyone else find it concerning that our new and best technology is so fragile that even the slightest fezz-up in what should be a passive signal-cable can cause our otherwise state of the art equipment to fry itself? Is reliability, durability and robustness nowhere to be found in any single spec for our new standards?

This isn't the first time stuff like this has happened. I had a Sansa Fuze MP3 player (from SanDisk) a while back. It used the exact same connector as the iPod. The only difference is two of the wires were swapped. One of them being PWR, so if you used an Apple cord, you would fry your player.

Re: Google engineer finds USB Type-C cable that’s so bad it fried his Chromebook

#27

I wonder if he will be able to recover any of his losses from this company? I know he is reviewing these cables, so hes taking a certain amount of risk, but imagine if someone bought this cable for their new device. I would be pretty pissed if I bought a new device and a new USB cord to charge it and poof out goes the magical smoke and my USB didn't work anymore.

He might have a case. It was sold as an USB cable but clearly it is not actually an USB cable. False advertisement if not anything else.

He may even have a case against Amazon directly, depending on the circumstances of listing.

Re: Google engineer finds USB Type-C cable that’s so bad it fried his Chromebook

#28

I wonder if he will be able to recover any of his losses from this company? I know he is reviewing these cables, so hes taking a certain amount of risk, but imagine if someone bought this cable for their new device. I would be pretty pissed if I bought a new device and a new USB cord to charge it and poof out goes the magical smoke and my USB didn't work anymore.

[deleted]

Re: Google engineer finds USB Type-C cable that’s so bad it fried his Chromebook

#29

I wonder if he will be able to recover any of his losses from this company? I know he is reviewing these cables, so hes taking a certain amount of risk, but imagine if someone bought this cable for their new device. I would be pretty pissed if I bought a new device and a new USB cord to charge it and poof out goes the magical smoke and my USB didn't work anymore.

He might have a case. It was sold as an USB cable but clearly it is not actually an USB cable. False advertisement if not anything else.

Establishing liability seems easy. Winning a judgment in small claims court ought to be straightforward. Actually collecting on that judgment could be a challenge depending on where the company is located and how they do business.

Re: Google engineer finds USB Type-C cable that’s so bad it fried his Chromebook

#30

Does anyone else find it concerning that our new and best technology is so fragile that even the slightest fezz-up in what should be a passive signal-cable can cause our otherwise state of the art equipment to fry itself? Is reliability, durability and robustness nowhere to be found in any single spec for our new standards?

I agree that these ports should be robust against abuse, but reversing polarity on a DC power cable is far from a "slight" screwup.
Post reply on HN