I think everyone will deal with that in their own way. Me, I don’t have a cable that will charge at less than 60W so all of them are good (especially due to how efficient MBP’s are nowadays), others will use tape or plastic snaps to visually tell one cable from another. By next year, I’d guess it’d be barely an inconvenience.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Selling New 60W and 240W USB-C Woven Charge Cables
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I meant GM. Like, they can support a VERY simple charging profile and still say they’re USB-C compliant. GM may even think what Anker is trying to pull is “invalid” and just stops.
Does your unit have a screen that shows the charging metrics? You could at least tell at what level it’s resetting.
Thank you for the reply!
But since newer Apple devices will include the 60W braided cable... using it with a MacBook Pro and charger won't damage anything, right? The chip in the cable communicates the slower charge...
I don't usually mix and match cables and I know which cable belongs to what... but I already know my girlfriend will just use whatever is close to charge her MacBook Pro 😅
The irony on their page… “Enjoy fast charging and fast data transmission.”Most USB-C PD charging cables, not just from Apple, are speced for USB 2.0 and nothing more. There is a different pin-out and different number of copper wires needed for higher data transfer standards which adds on cost, thickness and complexity.
The USB-C charging cables for iPads and Macs are also USB 2.0.
Samsung's awesome USB-C cable is also 2.0
Buy Black Samsung Cable 5A USB C to USB C | Samsung UK
Enjoy fast charging and fast data transmission — at the same time. With up to 100W power delivery (20V/5A), up to 45W Super Fast Charging and USB 2.0 data transfer speeds up to 480 Mb/s, you don†t have to switch cables for optimized performance.www.samsung.com
I’m actually saving the link for when people go “But Apple…”
Well, that egg is no The EU’s face…they probably don’t realize there are multiple protocols under USB C.
If you're talking about Apple devices, then yeah, you're probably right
Don't get me wrong, I love Apple Macs, and you'd have to pry by current 2021 16" M1 Pro MBP from my cold dead hands.
But it is a love hate relationship. Constant frustration at the deliberate hamstringing of perfection in the name of profits.
When it comes to the MBP, there's no way I'm ditching macOS anytime soon. iOS however. It's so unbelievably locked down and restricted that I have been sitting on the fence about ditching iPhones for a while now. Regardless, I had actually decided that I was going to buy a new iPhone 15 Pro when they came out. But the final tipping point was the lack of USB-C data speeds. Put it this way, last year's Goole Pixel 7 has faster USB-C speeds than the iPhone 15 Pro, and is half the price.
Sure, there are some things the iPhone does better, but there are just as many, if not more that the Pixel does better.
I'm now waiting to see how the new Google Pixel 8 will look when it comes out in the next couple of weeks or so.
It would be a no brainer except that I really love and care about how damn beautiful Apple products are compared with almost anything else.
I also care about phone size. The standard iPhone 6.1" is taller than I'd want, but bearable. The pixel 7 is 6.3", and the Pro only comes as 6.7", which is infuriating. The 8 is rumoured to be reduced to 6.17" which is nicer for me. Although the Pro still stays Max size only.
I wish they made phones wider, I don't understand the 20:9 standard phone ratio, it's weird. Apparently it's because web sites display better that way, but I'm not buying that, it doesn't add up unless you've got a million rows of intrusive menu bars. I'd love a 6.7" if the extra size came in width rather than height. The fold phones are all too bulky and heavy, even if the folded width and height are nice and pocketable.
So it has taken quite a lot of tipping points to push me over the edge. But it looks like the iPhone 15 has finally infuriated me enough to make me jump.
Anyway, I'll wait and see how the Pixel 8 looks, I may end up eating my words.
The 15 Pro and Pixel Pro have the same data transfer speeds, not sure how you're saying the Pixel is faster. In fact there's various feeds in forums with users complaining about transfer speeds being hamstrung on the Pixel.If you're talking about Apple devices, then yeah, you're probably right
Don't get me wrong, I love Apple Macs, and you'd have to pry by current 2021 16" M1 Pro MBP from my cold dead hands.
But it is a love hate relationship. Constant frustration at the deliberate hamstringing of perfection in the name of profits.
When it comes to the MBP, there's no way I'm ditching macOS anytime soon. iOS however. It's so unbelievably locked down and restricted that I have been sitting on the fence about ditching iPhones for a while now. Regardless, I had actually decided that I was going to buy a new iPhone 15 Pro when they came out. But the final tipping point was the lack of USB-C data speeds. Put it this way, last year's Goole Pixel 7 has faster USB-C speeds than the iPhone 15 Pro, and is half the price.
Sure, there are some things the iPhone does better, but there are just as many, if not more that the Pixel does better.
I'm now waiting to see how the new Google Pixel 8 will look when it comes out in the next couple of weeks or so.
It would be a no brainer except that I really love and care about how damn beautiful Apple products are compared with almost anything else.
I also care about phone size. The standard iPhone 6.1" is taller than I'd want, but bearable. The pixel 7 is 6.3", and the Pro only comes as 6.7", which is infuriating. The 8 is rumoured to be reduced to 6.17" which is nicer for me. Although the Pro still stays Max size only.
I wish they made phones wider, I don't understand the 20:9 standard phone ratio, it's weird. Apparently it's because web sites display better that way, but I'm not buying that, it doesn't add up unless you've got a million rows of intrusive menu bars. I'd love a 6.7" if the extra size came in width rather than height. The fold phones are all too bulky and heavy, even if the folded width and height are nice and pocketable.
So it has taken quite a lot of tipping points to push me over the edge. But it looks like the iPhone 15 has finally infuriated me enough to make me jump.
Anyway, I'll wait and see how the Pixel 8 looks, I may end up eating my words.
Also I've owned several iterations of Pixel phones (I have a 7 Pro now) and they are utterly garbage devices. Hardware issues, software that's not optimized, etc. The issues have been so bad that prominent YouTubers in the past have just stopped using the Pixel phones.
Also you don't have to wait, they've already released the images of the new Pixel devices.
Personally after having 3 Pixel phones (2, 5, 7) I will never buy another one. The user experience is just garbage, and my current Pixel 7 Pro had to be replaced twice due to substandard hardware.
It was all about universal charging plug, not one cable to rule them all.
In most cases you can grab any cable and phone will start charging… but there are cases when cable is garbage.
It was also about 1 charging cable, otherwise usb-c to lighting would have been allowed.
Agreed, if the EU really cared about protecting and helping consumers (while despite the back and forth on the iPhone going USB-C) the regulation would have also targets mandatory labeling on cables both with charge and data speeds. The current USB-C line up across the board for all products/manufacturers is ridiculous and USB-C has both been amazing and a curse.
Or the cable has USB-C connectors but is not designed to charge your phone; rather it is for some proprietary solution or data only.
No, the reg says nothing about cable requirements; it's up to cable manufacturers to make cables that work or do not work with the defined spec. A cable with USB-C on both ends but that does not charge a phone is not prohibited by the EU reg.
Actually it is, I live in the EU and work in the tech space, the law is literally about providing a seamless, 1 connector for all small electronics charging solutions. By 2026 all laptops 100 watts and under also have to have USB C charging.
The numbers on a bullet list are what matters for Android devices. Even if the Pixel isn’t capable of USB-3 transfers, as long as it’s recognized by testers as USB-3, then it doesn’t look bad against all other Android phones
Yes, there is a requirement for 1 common connector and support for standard USB-C charging modes; it also allows for proprietary implementations alongside the standard. Apple could continue to include MagSafe along with USB-C and be fully compliant; or include charging capabilities not covered by the spec and be complaint as long as the include those in the spec that are applicable. But the law only applies to the device, not the cable. Nothing in the spec requires a cable to support any charging mode.
If you have the right cable and charger, devices in the EU will be able to use that interchangeably at some charging speed. For most people, a cheap cable will meet all their charging needs. Others may need to buy an expensive one to be able to charge all their devices with 1 cable due differences in charging requirements; especially if manufacturers stop shipping cables with devices.
Data, of course, is a whole other issue, separate from charging. As I pointed out, a data only cable would be perfectly legal to sell and not charge devices at all.
The notion that now you'll be bale to buy a cable and it will simply work and provide all the features the phone supports is a pipe dream.
You are 100% incorrect, again I live in the EU, and work in tech, for a company that has to comply with the law. You are just making things up. We have to provide the cable and provide clear information on charging speeds to the end consumer. We can't just put a cable in the packaging that is data only.
No of course it won't. USB-C is "intelligent", the cable negotiates what it can handle. It's not under specing basic electrical cable in your home. You can plug a 15w cable into a 100w charger and it'll just charge at 15w (or less) and ditto the other way around.
No, you either do not, or do not want to, understand what I am saying.
Reread the law and the USB-C spec. The only thing that is assured is that devices have a USB-C compatible plug if they used wired charging and comply with some minimum charging capability. Nothing in there ensures any cable will work with any device, so the whole 1 cable to rule all is not assured.
I don't recall the law requiring a cable in the box, just requiring USB-C compliance, I could be wrong and it does. There may be local or other laws that do, I recall France requiring chargers when other countries did not. I suspect, given the goal of reducing waste, leaving out cables is next.
Actually, if you went to wireless charging only you could have a separate proprietary data cable and connector since the spec only applies if you have wired charging. Reading the law, a company could even have a second, proprietary data plug as long as they have a USB-C charging capability if they have wired charging.
The USB-C spec and law both allow proprietary implementations alongside those in the spec; so as long as a company complies with the spec they are free to add proprietary protocols. Wireless is specifically excluded, so there is not even a requirement to include USB-C charging.
Like I said, nothing in the law ensures universal cable compatibility beyond the plug.
My point, which you ignore, is that nothing in the spec ensures any cable will provide full capabilities, or even work, with any device; all it ensures if the device uses wired charging it will have a USB-C plug.
Isn't the negotiation between the sink and source? That would leave the cable out of the picture with the assumption the user has used a properly spec'd cable; or do all greater than 5W cables negotiate current delivery capabilities? If the cable does not have a chip does the device fall back to 5Ws?
The cables are intelligent. They have emarker chips which communicate to the devices the speed of the data connection and the wattage of the power connection. Once that’s communicated, THEN the devices at either end communicate what they need from each other.
If a 100W charger is connected to a 140W laptop via a 30W/USB2 speed cable, once the connection is completed, the emarker will let both know “I do 30W and USB2 speeds”. They’ll both disregard the data speed (as this charger doesn’t send data) and negotiate how much of the 30W to provide. Which, in this case, is all of it.
So if a cable doesn't have an eMarker chip it the devices default to 3A max?
Yes, which, I just double checked myself, is up to 60W and USB2 speeds.
So in the example above, change 30W to 60W.
Thanks. It will be interesting to see what happens in the cable world, especially the cheap ones.
Correct - all cables tell the charger what they can do it and if it's passive it'll just pass the lowest (and it'd go against spec anyway)
a 20w cable in a 100w charger will negotiate 20w, a 100w cable in a 20w charger will negotiate 20w.
I’m amazed this thread had so much discussion over what was very properly described as “trivial noise” a page or two ago in the thread. The complaints are definitely not very understanding of the capabilities of cables at hand. It’s quite simple really: Apple gives you a charging cable in the box, whether you buy a non-Pro or Pro iPhone 15 model. They do this because charging cables are flexible and they are adequate for 99.999% of the population buying phones (including people who buy Pro phones, who are NOT Pro users (transferring videos/photos or other substantial data).
Charging cables come in 2 lengths from Apple, 1m and 2m. A few years ago, they sold the normal looking rubbery nylon (or whatever it is) cable that was USB-C to USB-C and 1m, and it was tested somewhere around 100W. Fine. They also sold a 2m cable that performed around the same specs (possibly more for maintaining the MBP 140W), but was twice as long. Also fine. 2-3 years ago, Apple updated the 1m to be braided, and folks tested that one to be capable of around 60W. I am not 100% sure when but I believe they did this when they started shipping laptops with MagSafe again, as they then maintained the higher wattage ratings via MagSafe and lowered the wattage rating the 1m USB-C charge cables were capable of by keeping them thin, but now a nice braided/woven design. So braided 1m = ~60W. The 2m continued to be the rubbery nylon cable that everybody knew and hated, and it still maintained the 100ish watt rating. Probably higher for the 140W Macs, I don’t know the specifics of that cable.
Recently (as of the announcement of the iPhone 15 lineup), they added a 2m braided USB-C to USB-C charge cable and discontinued the old rubber/nylon one. They branded it as 240W. No devices support that, but that’s what they’re calling it. It’s thick, probably to support that high wattage. No devices support that charge capacity, but that doesn’t mean something won’t in the future. Anyways, that’s what they did.
Thunderbolt cables (or any USB 3 cable really) are needed in order to support faster data transfer. This is something that really only a true Pro user (someone doing video transfers or similar) needs. Your average joe iPhone 15 pro user will never need one of these cables. As stated by others, they are considerably thicker (due to needing more wires internally for the USB 3 requirements), less flexible, cost more money to make, and just generally would be a headache to use day-in and day-out for the vast majority of users. The cost of the phone would be higher to reflect the inclusion of one of those cables as well. It just plain wouldn’t make sense.
The best way to go about all of this is that unless you truly need to be transferring videos to a computer or external storage, just use the cable that came with the phone. If you need more length, buy the 2m 240W chunky boy they just released, or buy something aftermarket. If you need more data transfer speed, then you are a Pro user and you need to pony up the big bucks for the heckin’ chonker of a TB4 cable that Apple sells for $69 @ 1m.
TL;DR - if you aren’t moving a ton of data to a computer or storage, your supplied cable is perfectly adequate unless you need more length. You still have the option to buy whatever you want but it is suggested that you learn the capabilities of what you want to buy before doing so, otherwise you might just buy yourself another USB 2 cable, as most charging cables are USB 2. Apple’s cables are not really overpriced.
Charging cables come in 2 lengths from Apple, 1m and 2m. A few years ago, they sold the normal looking rubbery nylon (or whatever it is) cable that was USB-C to USB-C and 1m, and it was tested somewhere around 100W. Fine. They also sold a 2m cable that performed around the same specs (possibly more for maintaining the MBP 140W), but was twice as long. Also fine. 2-3 years ago, Apple updated the 1m to be braided, and folks tested that one to be capable of around 60W. I am not 100% sure when but I believe they did this when they started shipping laptops with MagSafe again, as they then maintained the higher wattage ratings via MagSafe and lowered the wattage rating the 1m USB-C charge cables were capable of by keeping them thin, but now a nice braided/woven design. So braided 1m = ~60W. The 2m continued to be the rubbery nylon cable that everybody knew and hated, and it still maintained the 100ish watt rating. Probably higher for the 140W Macs, I don’t know the specifics of that cable.
Recently (as of the announcement of the iPhone 15 lineup), they added a 2m braided USB-C to USB-C charge cable and discontinued the old rubber/nylon one. They branded it as 240W. No devices support that, but that’s what they’re calling it. It’s thick, probably to support that high wattage. No devices support that charge capacity, but that doesn’t mean something won’t in the future. Anyways, that’s what they did.
Thunderbolt cables (or any USB 3 cable really) are needed in order to support faster data transfer. This is something that really only a true Pro user (someone doing video transfers or similar) needs. Your average joe iPhone 15 pro user will never need one of these cables. As stated by others, they are considerably thicker (due to needing more wires internally for the USB 3 requirements), less flexible, cost more money to make, and just generally would be a headache to use day-in and day-out for the vast majority of users. The cost of the phone would be higher to reflect the inclusion of one of those cables as well. It just plain wouldn’t make sense.
The best way to go about all of this is that unless you truly need to be transferring videos to a computer or external storage, just use the cable that came with the phone. If you need more length, buy the 2m 240W chunky boy they just released, or buy something aftermarket. If you need more data transfer speed, then you are a Pro user and you need to pony up the big bucks for the heckin’ chonker of a TB4 cable that Apple sells for $69 @ 1m.
TL;DR - if you aren’t moving a ton of data to a computer or storage, your supplied cable is perfectly adequate unless you need more length. You still have the option to buy whatever you want but it is suggested that you learn the capabilities of what you want to buy before doing so, otherwise you might just buy yourself another USB 2 cable, as most charging cables are USB 2. Apple’s cables are not really overpriced.