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

[VictorTango777]

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.

Seems to me that Apple fans don't like USB-C. Is that because it wasn't created by Apple? Oh, wait:

Actually, if history is any indicator, Apple kinda does get to choose the port used by Thunderbolt. Thunderbolt and Thunderbolt 2 both used the Mini DisplayPort connector which Apple developed and then turned over to VESA, despite Intel's plans to use an optical extension to the USB Type-A connector.

Then Apple sent a whole bunch of engineers to the USB-IF working groups to help develop the Type-C connector. It was compact and reversible like their proprietary Lightning connector, but was also designed from the outset to support Thunderbolt and DisplayPort via alternate modes. Low and behold, Thunderbolt 3 uses the USB Type-C connector.

If USB-C has so many problems, was Apple responsible in any way? If USB-C has so many problems, why would Mac users even want it on their Macs? And don't say Thunderbolt 3. By your own words, USB-C is so compromised in every way. And since Thunderbolt 3 uses the USB-C connector, that means Thunderbolt 3 is also compromised.

 

[Michael Goff]

Can't blame then, they have become very adapt to milking people for years now. Just look at all those dongles.

I wasn't aware that Apple alone invented USB C and they were the only ones selling dongles. Dude,the money they make from dongles is a rounding error.

 

[bennyf]

The article may require a re-read. It's pretty clear C-AUTH certification comes from the USB-IF.


The charger doesn't have to be genuine Apple. It has to be C-AUTH certified. Two different things.


Apple is part of the USB-IF. In fact, they are on the Board of Directors. Apple's chargers are already C-AUTH certified.

You're right, I'm just confused I guess because it sounds like a USB-C to lightning setup that currently gets fast charging may or may not work in the future once the certification check goes into effect.

But re-reading I now have now idea if my setup is even affected (other posts here seem to indicate that it may drop to 2.5W, but that's surely crazy talk).

Best bet as with most Apple rumors is to chill until released, so that's what I'll do.

 

[lederermc]

Why can't you just decide to tell the phone to charge unless you want to tether? Unlock to set. Surely in that situation the USB port is safe? My Android phone does that. Am I missing something?

You can. No, Yes.

 

[a.gomez]

LOL!, the Sky is falling so give us money. Seeing how fast charging has been around for ages now. Tons of people have extra "safe" chargers.

Another classic "for your security" money grab.

 

[dwaite]

Why is the fallback speed 2.5W? Shouldn't it be at least 5W, which is the power that 99% of chargers support?

Without a power delivery spec or a guarantee it is USB 3.x, the best a USB spec allows for is 5V@500mA.
[doublepost=1532407580][/doublepost]

The correct answer is actually 5 V @ 100 mA (0.5 W).

So it’s not really for safety. 2.5W is Apple choosing the lowest power option that will still charge and power the iPhone yet punish the consumer for their choice.

2.5W is the highest level standardized by USB-IF (sans power delivery/USB 3.x)

 

[john123]

No, how many times do you hear of a dodgy charger or something else from a third party killing something?

Exceedingly rarely. You’re falling victim to what’s known in logic as the base rate fallacy. Freak things happen (again usually with knockoff items rather than solid third party chargers that comply with various electrical certifications and specs). But the number of products sold is in the billions. When you do the math, you’re in far far far far greater danger getting in your car and driving to work than you ever were using a third party charger.

 

[dwaite]

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.

USB-C is actually closer to the 30 pin connector than the lightning connector - tons of adapters with alt modes that only work with some devices (anyone remember the tables of which video adapters work with which ipods/iphones/ipads?). With lightning, they wound up just having two modes - USB compatibility mode and fast serial mode.

Apple also has historically butted heads with the USB-IF, for instance the original power delivery spec is incompatible with Apple's (faster) USB-A charging which uses resistance sensing.

Compared to several HDMI and DisplayPort alt modes in USB-C, the video adapters in the lightning case are just receiving a H.264 stream from the device to translate and put out over HDMI/whatever. Way simpler to implement in a constrained package.

The iPad may eventually go to USB-C (and TB3) or whatever the current equivalents are at the time, but I would be surprised if Apple's roadmap isn't to eliminate wired charging and data in the iPhone somewhere in the next 5 years.

 

[pipis2010]

Yeah... but there is an easy way to fix that WITHOUT locking out 3rd party chargers: require specific user authentication to enable DATA in addition to CHARGE.

Thus:

(1) Plug into any charger and get power
(2) IF you also want to transfer data, unlock the phone and choose "OK" to enable data transfer
(3) Optionally enable THIS DEVICE to always permit data

Problem solved... without vendor lock.

I can understand the whole security issue, but all of a sudden it feels that each year things become more and more complicated instead of simple... and we are talking about the simplest tast - CHARGING , for crying out loud!!!!!

 

[The Game 161]

Never use 3rd party ones anyway.

 

[antonis]

If the third party companies have to pay in order to get in apple's list, then it's all about apple greed and money grabbing and there's nothing else to it.

If any third-party manufacturer can be apple certified for free as long as they comply with the rules, then it is definitely a move to the right direction and kudos to apple.

 

[SoulCloud]

Apple don’t lose either way. If their system can recognise incompatible chargers and cables, showing user a dialogue box telling that the equipment they’re about to use is not approved by Apple and can possibly damage the device, continuing will be at user’s own risk, and the device will record such data for warranty purposes would be the most appropriate path to take. Once a gentleman said “Ask ‘em!” Remember Apple? Listen to him because he made his company stand out the crowd.

 

[H3LL5P4WN]

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

...I'm using iOS 12.

That reminds me, I need to plug my iPad Pro in. That runs iOS 12. To my Anker USB-PD charger. With an Apple USB-C-Lightning Cable. Thanks.

 

[JRobinsonJr]

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?


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.


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.

Sounds like an interesting discussion!

Focusing on your 2nd and 3rd set of comments, it seems I wasn't clear. When I indicated that "I" should own security, it was from perspective rather than literal ownership. Mean... THE DEVICE IN MY HAND should OWN security rather than relying on someone else. And yes... it's something worth being concerned about. When the device in my hand takes point on security, it has the potential ability to apply controls to every connection. When it relies on another device, and assumes that device has not been compromised, it's open to security failure.

In summary, I've read the C-AUTH specs and think it's a great idea. What's a BAD idea is relying on it for data protection level security. Just because a device support C-AUTH doesn't mean **ANYTHING** about the data. All it means is that the device meets a minimum (albeit reasonable) set of specifications.

Example 1: If the device in my hand owns security, and has the ability to validate every connection, then for every connection it should ask a set of questions (perhaps something like this).

1. Is this Data, Power or Both?
2. If Power,

a. What are the source capabilities? <-- NOTE: Here's a great use for C-AUTH!
b. What is the maximum rate in common with my device?
c. Can we connect at that rate?
d. What is the fall-back path for handling issues?​

3. If Data

a. What type of device is this?
b. Is it a device I've connected to previously?
c. If not, what is the data type?
d. What is the local policy about connecting to this type of device?
e. Can the user override that policy?
f. If yes, ask permissions... if no, then block access.​

 

[the johnmc]

But everyone here knows that won't happen. Apple makes too much money off of creating the need for proprietary cables/chargers that they can charge a premium for. That's a core pillar of their business model since ... forever in tech years.

Except that this is the complete opposite of that. C-AUTH, which is what the articles is about, isn't proprietary. USB-C isn't proprietary. Thunderbolt isn't proprietary. People whine and moan whenever a port gets changed to an open standard and still whine and moan when it doesn't.

 

[konqerror]

Seems to me that Apple fans don't like USB-C. Is that because it wasn't created by Apple? Oh, wait:

Are you saying Intel/USB-IF has never sucked at connectors? How many times do you have to try to plug in a USB-A connector to get it to fit? How come we have USB-B, mini-B and micro-B? And you've never heard of people damaging mini-B and micro-B connectors on phones?

Do you even own a USB-C product? Have you tried to buy a USB-C cable or USB-PD device? Do you realize that even Apple's chargers don't even comply with USB-PD?

 

[the johnmc]

I wasn't aware that Apple alone invented USB C and they were the only ones selling dongles. Dude,the money they make from dongles is a rounding error.

Rabble: MagSafe is proprietary. Give us an open standard. USB-C does power. Use that.
Apple: OK, the new MacBooks use USB-C.
Rabble: Why did you change the ports?

 

[JRobinsonJr]

I can understand the whole security issue, but all of a sudden it feels that each year things become more and more complicated instead of simple... and we are talking about the simplest tast - CHARGING , for crying out loud!!!!!

Agreed

Except that this is the complete opposite of that. C-AUTH, which is what the articles is about, isn't proprietary. USB-C isn't proprietary. Thunderbolt isn't proprietary. People whine and moan whenever a port gets changed to an open standard and still whine and moan when it doesn't.

You are correct. USB-C (and C-AUTH) *are* open standards that should help interoperability... and that's a very good thing. Looking to the future I would like to have all my devices share a common port for power. We've had a sea of power plugs for far too long.

Where I'm less certain is in the details. Sure, C-AUTH is an open standard, but it is possible for any implementation - whether by Apple or anyone else - to inject additional capabilities that would hinder openness? I suspect that won't happen... but it could. I hope not, but it's possible. Apple has an historical precedent for overpromising, underdelivering... resulting in just that.

 

[Fatboy71]

Glad I went down the official route when getting my fast charger and cable earlier this year.

 

[Eorlas]

Apple loses either way: if they do this, people will complain that Apple is being closed as usual.

If they don’t and iPhones start exploading because of possible uncertified shady chargers, then Apple gets the heat as well.

The exploding or damaged phone concern is a big deal, and I can't count on four hands how many associates I've known that have bought those gas station or convenience store chargers that lack a lot of the internals normal to an official or licensed, quality, 3rd party charging accessory. Or how many people have let their cables fray nearly beyond recognition, and still keep using them.