Fast Chargers May Require USB-C Authentication to Work at Full Speed With 2018 iPhones

[iBluetooth]

This is fine with me...as long as Apple's existing USB-C chargers are already compliant. This will be extremely stupid if the 29w charger I have for fast charging my iPad won't work for fast charging on a new iPhone. It is already incredibly stupid how much I have to swap around cables between lighting/USB-C for my latest Apple hardware.

I can use the MacBook Pro USB-C charger to charge the iPhone very fast, so all work internally perfectly.
[doublepost=1532371196][/doublepost]

Ah, yes, security reasons. Specifically, the security of being able to charge $10 / piece for an encryption key.

There are many USB-C cables that were bought on Amazon and tested by a Google engineer. Half of the cables fried the computer!

 

[VictorTango777]

You've misunderstood what you read. Nothing about C-AUTH certification isolates, well, anything really. C-AUTH does prohibit the use of 3rd party chargers. It's designed to ensure all USB-C chargers -Apple and 3rd party - meet a standard. Chargers meeting that standard should be able to charge your devices. They don't have to be Apple brand.

So are we saying that it will be impossible for a manufacturer such as Apple to abuse the specification for their own gain?

According to the PDF document:
http://www.usb.org/developers/prese...B-C_Authentication_USB_PD_Firmware_Update.pdf

"What USB Type-C Authentication Specification does not do
• Define policy or criteria to accept/reject a product
• Policy defined by user and/or vendor
• Not intended to limit interoperability – just weed out “untrusted” devices"

So in spirit, it is "Not intended to limit interoperability". But does that mean it's impossible? For example, the second bullet says that the policy to accept/reject a product is "defined by user and/or vendor". Doesn't that leave the potential for abuse by manufacturers? I did not see anything in the document prohibiting attempts at vendor lock-in.

 

[69Mustang]

So are we saying that it will be impossible for a manufacturer such as Apple to abuse the specification for their own gain?

According to the PDF document:
http://www.usb.org/developers/prese...B-C_Authentication_USB_PD_Firmware_Update.pdf

"What USB Type-C Authentication Specification does not do
• Define policy or criteria to accept/reject a product
• Policy defined by user and/or vendor
• Not intended to limit interoperability – just weed out “untrusted” devices"

So in spirit, it is "Not intended to limit interoperability". But does that mean it's impossible? For example, the second bullet says that the policy to accept/reject a product is "defined by user and/or vendor". Doesn't that leave the potential for abuse by manufacturers?

Nothing in my quote implies an impossibility of anything. Nothing in the info you quoted implies an impossibility of anything. Impossibility is a construct devised by you. So sure, the potential is there. The question you have to ask is what would be the benefit? Nothing in Apple's history suggests they would abuse anything. All of their charging solutions have 3rd party alternatives. What would be the benefit of changing?

 

[connormw]

A very bad move by Apple if they take away the ability to fast charge with all my USB-c chargers. My iPad Pros and iPhone X have been charging well with all those chargers. They are not cheap (both in quality and price) chargers at all.

Same. I purchased an Anker PowerPort+ last year to use as a fast charger over USB-C for my iPhone X. The thing cost me $60, is widely reviewed to work excellently with the iPhone X (and iPhone 8), and has had zero issues.

I understand the risk of people using cheap chargers on their devices. However, I don't see why those of us who are already invested in the ecosystem with quality, alternative charges should now have to suffer. If this was a problem, Apple should have included the high-speed cables and chargers in the boxes to begin with. An iPhone X 256GB is $1200, yet they include the standard, slow-as-hell 5W charger. This is just another money-grab attempt, because, as usual, Apple will release the device with little to no third party support for the standard they want to use, even if its part of the USB-C spec. Just like USB-C on laptops, they'll be boxing people in to their ecosystem of chargers and adapters on release day until the spec is more widely implemented.

 

[Shanghaichica]

This is fine with me...as long as Apple's existing USB-C chargers are already compliant. This will be extremely stupid if the 29w charger I have for fast charging my iPad won't work for fast charging on a new iPhone. It is already incredibly stupid how much I have to swap around cables between lighting/USB-C for my latest Apple hardware.

I have the 61 W charger and currently use it to charge my iPad Pro and iPhone X. Like you I will be annoyed if it doesn’t work with the new iPhone X plus.

 

[Wackery]

Same. I purchased an Anker PowerPort+ last year to use as a fast charger over USB-C for my iPhone X. The thing cost me $60, is widely reviewed to work excellently with the iPhone X (and iPhone 8), and has had zero issues.

I understand the risk of people using cheap chargers on their devices. However, I don't see why those of us who are already invested in the ecosystem with quality, alternative charges should now have to suffer. If this was a problem, Apple should have included the high-speed cables and chargers in the boxes to begin with. An iPhone X 256GB is $1200, yet they include the standard, slow-as-hell 5W charger. This is just another money-grab attempt, because, as usual, Apple will release the device with little to no third party support for the standard they want to use, even if its part of the USB-C spec. Just like USB-C on laptops, they'll be boxing people in to their ecosystem of chargers and adapters on release day until the spec is more widely implemented.

i emailed anker and they said it is compliant for future iphones

 

[shpankey]

Hmm... I currently charge my iPhone X w/ a Google Pixel 18W charge adapter w/ a 3rd party USB-C to Lighting cable... works just fine. Also, see here...

https://www.macworld.com/article/3236904/ios/iphone-power-adapters.html

 

[Guy Clark]

I literally have the Anker charger in the photo. I've never received any sort of warning using it, and it charges fast.

It may be a feature to be built in to iOS 12.

 

[macduke]

I'm glad that I've resisted the urge to buy one of these.

 

[AppleHaterLover]

I find this to be extremely funny.

The best-kept secret in the history of the iPhone is that you can use the $19 12W iPad charger and it will charge it more than twice as fast - no need for USB-C, fancy cables, nothing. This is almost as fast as the fast charging or whatever apple introduced in 2017 is called.

Why the hell we now need to buy new chargers, cables and even new PHONES (since the 12W charger is compatible with all iPhones since the dawn of time, fast charging is not) to accomplish exactly the same thing is beyond me.

 

[konqerror]

Why the hell we now need to buy new chargers, cables and even new PHONES (since the 12W charger is compatible with all iPhones since the dawn of time, fast charging is not) to accomplish exactly the same thing is beyond me.

To unify charging between phones, tablets, and laptops (as well as electronics like Wifi APs, conference phones, etc). Also in the same effort is to unify the ports between charging, USB, video, and Thunderbolt/proprietary docking.

A related reason is that USB's 5 V was originally meant to power nothing more than keyboards and mice, so the high current draw required for charging is energy inefficient in itself and for the supply, and difficult to design around. Everything else that uses a wall-wart is usually 12 V.

 

[VictorTango777]

To unify charging between phones, tablets, and laptops (as well as electronics like Wifi APs, conference phones, etc). Also in the same effort is to unify the ports between charging, USB, video, and Thunderbolt/proprietary docking.

A related reason is that USB's 5 V was originally meant to power nothing more than keyboards and mice, so the high current draw required for charging is energy inefficient in itself and for the supply, and difficult to design around. Everything else that uses a wall-wart is usually 12 V.

But what about the people who think Apple should keep using Lightning ports on iDevices instead of moving to USB-C?

 

[JDHiro]

I picked up one of the USB-C PD batteries from Anker which I carry around to provide extra juice to my iPhone and my MacBook Pro. I really hope it continues to work - especially since it charges my MacBook with no problem.

 

[groovyd]

Really hoping the fast charger from Anker I just bought works with it and it isn't something they need the charger to shake hands with to enable... guessing it doesn't whitelist these trusted manufacturers though and nothing that doesn't already have their approved auth scheme will work.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0721DV7YX/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1

 

[konqerror]

But what about the people who think Apple should keep using Lightning ports on iDevices instead of moving to USB-C?

What's your point? Are you trolling?

There are definite reasons to keep Lightning on the phone. USB-C has compromises in doing everything, it is fragile, relatively big and expensive because of the large number of pins and need for high bandwidth. This also requires cables to be thick and expensive.

Retention seems to be an issue, cables seem to pull out too easily or too hard. It's bigger than Lightning and not waterproof by default. Way too many configuration options with USB 2.0, 3.0, PD and Gen2. And poor quality control from dangerous aftermarket cables, which causes people to go rabid, as you see here, when USB-IF tries to fix.

An advance on the desktop/fixed side doesn't mean an advance on the phone side.

It makes sense to use USB-C for the desk side and electrical while the pocket side is something more purpose-designed and durable. It doesn't matter anyway since you end up having different cables anyway.

 

[TaviDuprix]

You guys are way behind the curve. I hook my iPhone up to a Tesla Supercharger and it goes from 0 - 100% in like 5 seconds.

 

[Brandhouse]

I'd never use a charger that isn't Apple. I wouldn't trust a third party device, not to blow up, fry my phone or do something else.

 

[PickUrPoison]

But what about the people who think Apple should keep using Lightning ports on iDevices instead of moving to USB-C?

I suppose those people are happy that Apple will continue to use Lightning ports on iPhones and iPads, and won’t be moving to USB-C ports.

There seem to be very people who want USB-C on the device side, and when you ask them why they want Apple to dump Lightning, they never have a logical answer.

 

[Marekul]

Be nice, 99% of the time they'd be correct! Just... not this one specific time.

never mind yeah as long as third party is compatible this is actually a good thing

 

[JRobinsonJr]

Are you confusing C-AUTH with MFi? One has nothing to do with the other.


Closed how? Plenty of companies offer accessories that meet C-AUTH specifications. That has nothing to do with Apple.
[doublepost=1532354111][/doublepost]
This doesn't lock out 3rd party chargers. This isn't MFi. It's C-AUTH.

True, but if the charger does not support C-AUTH... according to the article it will be cobbled to 2.5w of power, effectively eliminating the core benefit of USB-C. I can (and do) understand the need to protect against rogue devices trying to push/pull data - for example, USB chargers in an airport or other public space - but surely there is an intelligent solution available that does not rely on locking out chargers. Yes?

My underlying issue with this is the fundamental question of who 'owns' security for a device. If it's my device, I want the answer to be ME. Thus, assuming an "iPhone Y", I want the phone to be fully aware of and vet every single connection and connection type. If it's purely a power connection, then let the on-phone power control processor handle it. I shouldn't have to know or care what chip-set is pushing that power. If it's data, though, I care a lot more. But still... the phone should be responsible for vetting the remote device, validating if it is authorized, letting me decide whether or not to connect, etc.

Relying on C-AUTH for this capability is, in my opinion, backwards. Plus, what happens with C-AUTH is compromised? It *will* happen....
[doublepost=1532393497][/doublepost]

I'd never use a charger that isn't Apple. I wouldn't trust a third party device, not to blow up, fry my phone or do something else.

In general, I'm with you. But... you *never* use a portable charger? how about a USB outlet on a long international flight? What about on a road trip? "NEVER" is a strong term that is rarely true.

 

[scrapesleon]

Nope I’m using wireless charging now time for Apple to get rid of the charging port

 

[john123]

I'd never use a charger that isn't Apple. I wouldn't trust a third party device, not to blow up, fry my phone or do something else.

Doesn't that seem a bit silly when you say it back to yourself?

The human race has decades and decades of experience with charging portable electronics now. You don't see a news story very often about things blowing up and devices frying.

Electricity just ain't that complicated, and with the right safety specs in place, anyone can do it.

 

[oldhifi]

Oh boy another cable to buy..

 

[Brandhouse]

Doesn't that seem a bit silly when you say it back to yourself?

The human race has decades and decades of experience with charging portable electronics now. You don't see a news story very often about things blowing up and devices frying.

Electricity just ain't that complicated, and with the right safety specs in place, anyone can do it.

No, how many times do you hear of a dodgy charger or something else from a third party killing something?
[doublepost=1532394692][/doublepost]

True, but if the charger does not support C-AUTH... according to the article it will be cobbled to 2.5w of power, effectively eliminating the core benefit of USB-C. I can (and do) understand the need to protect against rogue devices trying to push/pull data - for example, USB chargers in an airport or other public space - but surely there is an intelligent solution available that does not rely on locking out chargers. Yes?

My underlying issue with this is the fundamental question of who 'owns' security for a device. If it's my device, I want the answer to be ME. Thus, assuming an "iPhone Y", I want the phone to be fully aware of and vet every single connection and connection type. If it's purely a power connection, then let the on-phone power control processor handle it. I shouldn't have to know or care what chip-set is pushing that power. If it's data, though, I care a lot more. But still... the phone should be responsible for vetting the remote device, validating if it is authorized, letting me decide whether or not to connect, etc.

Relying on C-AUTH for this capability is, in my opinion, backwards. Plus, what happens with C-AUTH is compromised? It *will* happen....
[doublepost=1532393497][/doublepost]

In general, I'm with you. But... you *never* use a portable charger? how about a USB outlet on a long international flight? What about on a road trip? "NEVER" is a strong term that is rarely true.

Fair call I do use two portable chargers, as a trusted Apple third party device e.g. Belkin. But if it's cheap and Chinese I steer clear of it.

 

[69Mustang]

True, but if the charger does not support C-AUTH... according to the article it will be cobbled to 2.5w of power, effectively eliminating the core benefit of USB-C. I can (and do) understand the need to protect against rogue devices trying to push/pull data - for example, USB chargers in an airport or other public space - but surely there is an intelligent solution available that does not rely on locking out chargers. Yes?

You seem to be in "I'm just asking questions" mode without any direction. Instead of worrying about chargers that don't conform to the spec, wouldn't it be a better use of time to find out which 3rd party manufacturers do conform? Specifically starting with the 3rd party vendors that you use, or think you may use in the future. I'd be willing to bet your 3rd party vendor of choice is a member of USB-IF. It's pretty easy to find out. The link to members is at the end of the article. As to a better solution... I haven't heard of one. I haven't even heard one being developed. So that hypothetical seems to be a dead end don't you think?

My underlying issue with this is the fundamental question of who 'owns' security for a device. If it's my device, I want the answer to be ME. Thus, assuming an "iPhone Y", I want the phone to be fully aware of and vet every single connection and connection type. If it's purely a power connection, then let the on-phone power control processor handle it. I shouldn't have to know or care what chip-set is pushing that power. If it's data, though, I care a lot more. But still... the phone should be responsible for vetting the remote device, validating if it is authorized, letting me decide whether or not to connect, etc.

You may want the answer to be you, but it isn't. It never has been. It probably never will be. The OEM controls the security. In the case of your iPhone, Apple controls the security. They also control the implementation of C-AUTH on the iPhone.

Relying on C-AUTH for this capability is, in my opinion, backwards. Plus, what happens with C-AUTH is compromised? It *will* happen...

Backwards how? Are you sure you understand what the certification actually is? Everything is going to compromised eventually. Is it really something to worry about? I mean browser sandboxing is compromised every year like clockwork at Pwn2Own. Yet we somehow manage to go on living. The molehill is still a molehill.