91–100 of 197 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At least on the video they made it quite clear that they assumed thant Nintendo did it on purpose, but they did not have enough proof to actually say it. So instead they sad "Nintendo stopped early with developing compatibility"
They had to tip toe around this to avoid lawsuits. In practice, they made it quite clear they think this is on purpose.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
?? It's USB-C, "all" would be the answer. Unless I'm misinterpreting your hopes.
It's USB-C, "you'll never know" is the answer, often it's "kinda working, but extra slow". I consider having a cheap USB power meter a necessity at this point.
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…
Vendor Defined Messages have is part of any normal PD exchange, as they're simply anything that isn't defined by the PD spec itself. You'll see VDMs when connecting any device supporting more than just dumb charging, as it's used for all sorts of things like DisplayPort, Thunderbolt, eMarker identification, etc. - stuff we'd expect ehre.
The quote from Antak refers to just a single, possibly/likely proprietary, message. This could be to ID the dock on the basis of e.g. rejecting the switch 1 dock should one cram it in, or to reject switch 1 dongles. Maybe it's Nintendo speak for "dock capabilities: cooling", with the switch having no mode for docked gaming with reduced performance without cooling.
Intentional incompatibility, yes, but it's 1 message of an unknown type within bog standard USB-PD, not a "vendor defined lanugage" or "over 30 proprietary messages".
Just one more reason not to buy a Switch 2. Seriously, Nintendo has become worse than Apple when it comes to treating their customers. I own hundreds of Nintendo games and every console they ever made, sometimes in multiples. But when I saw of all the shit they were trying to pull with the Switch 2 I decided I was done with that company for good.
Nintendo was and is primarily a toy company. The deal is if you buy their stuff you get entertainment. You're pretending it's a general purpose computer to make a point about interoperability, but it's neither. What kind of 'shit' do they pull with Switch 2 they already didn't with Switch 1? Both are expensive DRM locked game devices, Switch 2 is just a bit faster.
The shit that the linked article is about, for one.
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…
And here we are again.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not that strange. USB-C is a plug, not everyone who implements the plug also implements it correctly. Some chargers with a USB-C Plug might just send a fixed voltage over the cable, rather then implementing the protocols. I'm not saying that's the case for you, but USB-C is a minefield and I've seen some weird things happen with USB-C plugs.
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…
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 devices never see anything over 5V unless they ask for it, so why should a non-PD device (for instance, a mouse) care about it? In some cases (like a USB-A mouse plugged into a USB-A to USB-C adapter), the device might even have been designed and built when USB was 5V only.
I feel (or rather hope) we'll see more than that at some point. Being able to replace device-specific wall adapters would be a huge win. This has largely already happened for everything that needs 10 watts or less, but between that and things that actually need a lot of power (i.e. kilowatts, not watts) and/or benefit from AC (mostly motors), there's still an annoying valley of power bricks.
I especially hate the type that's hard-wired to the power plug that blocks 1-2 other outlets due to its bulk and inevitably gets lost during a move or trip to storage and back.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that their behavior is user-hostile, but doing it their way gets rid of all of the ambiguity involved with USB C. I kind of understand why they would rather break their USBC support intentionally and make it very clear that video out is only happening with their dock. Especially considering their audiences.
> make it very clear that video out is only happening with their dock What about it is "very clear"? It worked on the Switch 1, it's expected to work as it's USB, there is no error message, it just will appear that maybe the USB dongle or HDMI cable or whatever is defective.