IPOD Charger Warning!!!

[Monkeh]

, this one is quite interesting.
http://www.eetimes.com/design/power...y-charging--it-s-harder-than-it-looks[/QUOTE]

It's not a bad article. It doesn't mention the new USB Power Delivery specification though. That can deliver up to 100W over USB.

Which will require either huge cables, or an increase in voltage (beyond 12V, frankly).

One questions the point.

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

Yes, in practice (because of Underwriter Laboratories limitations) the VBUS supply will be limited to 20V and 5A. Cables will indeed be carefully designed.

For example, laptops will be able to charge through a USB port. External bus powered hard drives will be able to work within the spec, instead of the current situation where they break all the rules and then still often don't work.

 

[cajar]

This thread is like a daily mail article................ idiot buys cheap ipad charger rip offs from ebay..........and goes all indignant when the inevitable happens.

 

[Monkeh]

Yes, in practice (because of Underwriter Laboratories limitations) the VBUS supply will be limited to 20V and 5A. Cables will indeed be carefully designed.

For example, laptops will be able to charge through a USB port. External bus powered hard drives will be able to work within the spec, instead of the current situation where they break all the rules and then still often don't work.

Right, but.. PCs don't have a 20V supply, and laptops don't have USB device ports, only host. And this just adds more specialised cables to a bus designed to have one type of cable.

One day they'll realise that 'one connector to rule them all' is not useful.

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

Right, but.. PCs don't have a 20V supply, and laptops don't have USB device ports, only host. And this just adds more specialised cables to a bus designed to have one type of cable.

You would have to read to specification (packaged as part of both the USB2 and USB3 spec zips) to understand how this works. It is totally backward compatible with all legacy hosts and devices.

In the end the industry decides what is standard. But I have given up deciding that this is the last time I need to buy a new laptop/phone/whatever. It's not really up to us.

Happy Holiday!

 

[Monkeh]

Right, but.. PCs don't have a 20V supply, and laptops don't have USB device ports, only host. And this just adds more specialised cables to a bus designed to have one type of cable.

You would have to read to specification (packaged as part of both the USB2 and USB3 spec zips) to understand how this works. It is totally backward compatible with all legacy hosts and devices.

I'm aware of that, but it's still stupid. You need special cables just to use it, if you want to charge a laptop you need an A to A cable (which should never exist and will get used in the wrong way, it's bad enough we already have mini, micro, and several proprietary variations), and once more, PCs do not have a 20V rail (and it's a dumb voltage anyway, if we're going to go adding rails, we need 24V or 48V).

It's yet another standard for those who find it oh so much effort to plug in a mains power cable instead and go 'oh, why can't I just plug it into my PC? I just need this special £20 cable which can't be used for anything else..'

USB is a data bus. It should have nothing to do with providing power for large devices. It's designed for odds and ends, printers and mice, keyboards, that silly little webcam, not charging bloody laptops!

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

Well, like I say, you have to read the spec, which you obviously haven't. Not a criticism - it's a tough read the first few times.

No there is no 'A to A' cable, that would not be legal.

In the laptop charging case the connector is an A receptacle and the laptop would be a Provider/Consumer. The charger would be a Consumer
/Provider. If the laptop wanted to be charged it would negotiate a power role swap, and become a sink. This would take place invisibly to the consumer.

and once more, PCs do not have a 20V rail

This is not a PC voltage rail. It's an input to a switched mode power supply which can then provide whatever voltage it likes.

USB is a data bus. It should have nothing to do with providing power for large devices. It's designed for odds and ends, printers and mice, keyboards, that silly little webcam, not charging bloody laptops!

Well, USB is defined by its promoters, who now define it as being able to provide power in a more flexible way than before. They do this because that is what people have asked for.

I just need this special £20 cable which can't be used for anything else..'

The new cable is going to be standard, mass-produced, and backwards compatible.

Genuine criticism is always a good thing, but don't just make it up.

 

[Monkeh]

Well, like I say, you have to read the spec, which you obviously haven't. Not a criticism - it's a tough read the first few times.

Not the latest one with this mad power supply spec, no, I have lots of other stuff to read. I've read their little briefs which show such clever things as A to A cables.

No there is no 'A to A' cable, that would not be legal.

In the laptop charging case the connector is an A receptacle and the laptop would be a Provider/Consumer. The charger would be a Consumer
/Provider. If the laptop wanted to be charged it would negotiate a power role swap, and become a sink. This would take place invisibly to the consumer.

So.. how are you connecting the A receptacle on the laptop to the A receptacle on the PC?

and once more, PCs do not have a 20V rail

This is not a PC voltage rail. It's an input to a switched mode power supply which can then provide whatever voltage it likes.

Great, let's add a big SMPS module on the motherboard, loads of room!

The new cable is going to be standard, mass-produced, and backwards compatible.

Unfortunately, all my existing USB cables are not forward compatible, and this just leaves even more room for cheap chinese cables which don't work properly.

They do this because that is what people have asked for.

They do this because they've discovered a way to make more money.

USB 3 already covered the only important item: Making portable (2.5" or smaller) HDDs run off one cable.

Genuine criticism is always a good thing, but don't just make it up.

I'm not making anything up, I'm calling it as I see it.

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

Well, like I say, you have to read the spec, which you obviously haven't.

... no... [but] ...I'm not making anything up...

whatever. Happy new year.

 

[Monkeh]

Well, like I say, you have to read the spec, which you obviously haven't.

... no... [but] ...I'm not making anything up...

whatever. Happy new year.

You don't quite grasp the difference between 'not reading a massive document' and 'making things up', I see.

If you don't want to discuss it, that's fine, but don't be an ass.

Meanwhile, I'll add the latest standards to my never ending list of technical documents to read. I haven't read up on USB since 2.0 came out.

 

[SimonH2]

This thread is like a daily mail article................ idiot buys cheap ipad charger rip offs from ebay..........and goes all indignant when the inevitable happens.

Or put another way, buy something described as doing <a specific task>, get indignant when it fails in a very dangerous manner (risk of electric shock, risk of house burning down).

I'm with whoever said forget going back to the vendor, report it to Trading Standards. It matters not a bit whether the vendor is just an intermediary - the seller is responsible for the safety of items he sells, not the importer* (if different), not the manufacturer.
Of course, the seller may not be technically competent to do his own analysis, and his defence (to criminal charges I believe) would be to show that he'd taken due diligence in verifying the manufacturer's claims of conformance when purchasing and importing these items. If he's just taken the (Chinese ?) suppliers word for it, then that's not due diligence given the reputation of some such suppliers.

It may be hard on the seller, who may well be a single trader trying to make a few quid to keep a roof over his head, but that's the way it needs to be. The alternative is we forget about any consumer protection laws and make the buyer responsible for working out if anything they buy is safe.

EDIT:
* Actually, the importer is responsible for ensuring compliance with EU standards, ie that responsibility falls on whoever first imports them into the EU and places them on the market. But that in no way absolves the retail seller of his obligations - and he'd need to be able to show he'd done due diligence in checking that the importer has done the same.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

And IM firmly held O, which becomes firmer every time an incident like this occurs, the same responsibilities should be extended to whoever provides the facilities used by the sellers, eBay, Amazon et al.

 

[SimonH2]

OK, I can see why people might have that opinion, but now write some words to put it into practice ? How are you going to phrase it ?

Some scenarios to think about ...

You own a property, and rent it to a shopkeeper. Shopkeeper sells faulty iPod charger - should the owner of the property be liable ?
Ditto the market organiser (often the local council) if a market stall trader sells said dodgy iPod charger.

We're chatting in a pub, and someone is moaning about the cost of an iPod charger from Apple, and the 'standard' USB power supplies cause the iPod to take forever to charge.
You casually mention that a mate of yours happens to have some, so someone goes off to your mate and buys one. Are you liable (you facilitated the sale by putting buyer and seller in contact) ?
Is the pub landlord liable, his pub was used to facilitate buyer and seller getting in contact. How does that change if the seller happens to be there in the group, and has one with him - so it's now sold in the bar at the pub ?



Now, lets assume you can come up with some words to make eBay, Amazon, etc liable. How will that work in practice ? All that will happen is that they will make it a condition of using their facilities that what you are selling is lawful etc - oh hang on a minute, they already have such clauses. So the seller already has to agree to Ts&Cs stating that what he's selling is legal - what else can eBay, Amazon etc do ? You can't expect them to inspect/test goods, so really all that can happen is the seller gets thrown off for breaching Ts&Cs - something which I think would happen here if the seller was found guilty of selling dangerous items.


So in short, nice idea - won't happen for several practical reasons.

 

[Steve]

So I have quite a few of those little USB wallwarts knocking about, and quite a few different devices that need charging. Are the wallwarts produced to any kind of standard output? Or are they all actually designed for their respective products? As far as I can tell they are all 5v, but many are ambiguous as to the power they can output.

As a consumer with little technical knowledge of the USB standard, I can see the benefits of USB charging cables, so long as a standard is maintained, so all devices are compatible. Though I did recently get a navman sat nav, which has a micro USB connector, but its cable just has a car charger fixed onto the end! I'm going to write to them to enquire why this is. A car USB charger would be better, and supply a micro-usb cable to connect the two.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

You own a property, and rent it to a shopkeeper. Shopkeeper sells faulty iPod charger - should the owner of the property be liable ?

No.

But that is not the same as you renting it to someone who YOU KNOW is selling imported electrical items, and who YOU KNOW has rented it from you FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE of selling imported electrical items which YOU KNOW may not comply with the legal standards.

Ditto the market organiser (often the local council) if a market stall trader sells said dodgy iPod charger.

Yes - but that's why they have trading standards people.

We're chatting in a pub, and someone is moaning about the cost of an iPod charger from Apple, and the 'standard' USB power supplies cause the iPod to take forever to charge.
You casually mention that a mate of yours happens to have some, so someone goes off to your mate and buys one. Are you liable (you facilitated the sale by putting buyer and seller in contact) ?

No, but that is not the same as you RUNNING A BUSINESS where you make your money by providing a formal trading platform for other businesses to transact through, and where YOU KNOW FULL WELL WHAT THEY ARE SELLING BECAUSE YOU TAKE A PERCENTAGE OF IT

I'm not going to respond to any more of your pathetic examples. Can you really cannot see the substantive difference between them and the likes of eBay and Amazon, or are you just pretending to be stupid?

Now, lets assume you can come up with some words to make eBay, Amazon, etc liable. How will that work in practice ? All that will happen is that they will make it a condition of using their facilities that what you are selling is lawful etc - oh hang on a minute, they already have such clauses. So the seller already has to agree to Ts&Cs stating that what he's selling is legal - what else can eBay, Amazon etc do ?

They can do their job properly.

If you went into John Lewis, or Currys, or Tesco, or any other retailer of any product or type of product you care to think of you would not expect them to have simply taken the word of some completely anonymous supplier that the goods they were selling you were OK.

I know that the transaction is not between the purchaser and eBay, or Amazon, but, tough **** on them if they cannot police their business customers properly, as far as I am concerned they should be held fully responsible.

You can't expect them to inspect/test goods

Maybe not inspect and test everything, but certainly inspect and test random samples. They are running huge and professional businesses by providing web sales facilities to other businesses, and I absolutely can call for them to carry out the same level of diligence which Sainsbury would do if some random meat factory offered to supply them with sausages.

They must do it properly, and they must be held just as accountable for what they allow to be sold as if they had sold it themselves.

And if they whine that they cannot possibly do that then the conclusion and resolution are crystal clear - they are not competent to be offering the services they do and they must not be allowed to continue.

So in short, nice idea - won't happen for several practical reasons.

I'm sure it won't, but that does not change the fact that it is an outrage that they are allowed to continue trading because they have Ts'n'Cs which "forbid" these sellers from doing what they do.

Over and over and over again we see that those Ts'n'Cs are utterly useless - serial failures like this would not be tolerated in the physical world and they should not be tolerated in the online one.