iPhone 15 USB-C Cables Without MFi Badge May Have Data Transfer and Charging Speed Limits

[mcled53]

Don't care. As long as it's USB C and I can charge my phone quickly I'm happy.

I don't transfer data between my phone over cable like some caveman. I upload to iCloud and if I need it on my PC i'll download it from iCloud.

I'm just tired of having to carry two different cables. A lightning for my iPhone and a USB-C for everything else. I know it's not a huge problem but it's annoying.

I agree. The bigest advantage was being able to use an Apple USB-C laptop charger on the phone.

 

[maxoakland]

First of all, what Apple will do is conjecture at this point. Secondly, the rules specifically allow what the rumor says Apple *may* or *may not* do. Nothing in the rules requires Apple or any manufacturer to limt the device to the minimum in the rules, or that every device they make adheres to the rule.

You are defending bad corporate citizenship and that’s not OK

 

[jlc1978]

So I guess Apple doesn't give a toss about the environment then because the waste created by this will be astronomical, this is extremely anti consumer as well and I hope governments come down hard on this crap. The point of USB C is it's compatible across all devices with NO restrictions.

Nothing in the spec requires "compatible across all devices with NO restrictions." The spec even specifically allows for custom implementations; it is not intended to define one universally compatible cable design. The spec defines a physical design and pinouts, manufacturers are free to use that as they see fit for their device.

Yea like some mentioned, it's just SB-C then.

Welcome to the world of standards.

You are defending bad corporate citizenship and that’s not OK

I am not defending anything, merely pointing out what is and isn't required by the new EU legislation.

I seem to have hit a sore spot with you that makes you make an ad hominem attack rather than responding to what I wrote.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Because the A17 essentially integrates the RAM as part of the SoC itself, the RAM will likely be quite fast. That's why going to Certified 20 Gbps connection speed may not be so far-fetched.

It's not for a lack of speed or viability.
It will be for a lack of willingness to accept the trade-offs in terms of power consumption and cost.

 

[SactoGuy18]

It's not for a lack of speed or viability.
It will be for a lack of willingness to accept the trade-offs in terms of power consumption and cost.

I'd almost agree, but since other chips on the iPhone 15 Pro system board is also now using less power, a Certified 20 Gbps connection isn't far-fetched.

 

[vladi]

Going with Power Delivery 3.0 is the EASY part. It's everything else about the type of connections that USB Type C supports that can be extremely confusing. Apple wants to clear up that confusion once and for all.

I think the certified Apple USB Type C cables for the iPhone 15 will support the Certified 20 Gbps standard maximum. Otherwise, Apple will limit it to Certified 5 Gbps standard.

Gotta disappoint you a bit. Current iPhone is still on USB 2.0
In order to reach the speed you mentioned they need to implement USB 3.2 Gen 2×2
I am willing to bet my whole Mac collection that is not happening

 

[_Spinn_]

This seems like a lawsuit waiting to happen.

I don’t see how Apple can justify doing this when their existing USB-C devices don’t do this.

 

[jlc1978]

This seems like a lawsuit waiting to happen.

On what grounds?

I don’t see how Apple can justify doing this when their existing USB-C devices don’t do this.

Nothing requires all USB-C devices do the same thing and only the same thing.

 

[seek3r]

On what grounds?

Nothing requires all USB-C devices do the same thing and only the same thing.

The EU isnt exactly known for being lenient on folks ignoring the intent of the law in following purely the letter in some form of malicious compliance. Regulators do have some latitude on this, more so than in many places including the US

That said, I'll say this again: for the same reason the poster you're replying to stated and others I doubt this rumor, at least with the amount of restrictions laid out here, it would mean that all current Apple first party USBC cables wouldnt work as expected, Apple doesnt usually break things quite that way.

 

[SactoGuy18]

Gotta disappoint you a bit. Current iPhone is still on USB 2.0
In order to reach the speed you mentioned they need to implement USB 3.2 Gen 2×2
I am willing to bet my whole Mac collection that is not happening

I do think USB 20 Gbps is likely possible with the iPhone 15 Pro/Pro Max models. Especially if Apple can use the latest Broadcom I/O chip. It will be interesting to see what Apple does with the "regular" iPhone 15, though.

 

[ekowturks]

Sounds like Apple is throwing a fit over having to switch over to USB-C.

 

[jlc1978]

The EU isnt exactly known for being lenient on folks ignoring the intent of the law in following purely the letter in some form of malicious compliance. Regulators do have some latitude on this, more so than in many places including the US

People keep claiming that Apple including MiFi in cables would be some sort of finger to the EU or malicious compliance, etc.; when you read the directive it clearly allows such an action, as do the specs. The regulation defines a plug and power standards that must be meet, at a minimum.

Apple, or anyone else, could have a phone that is 100% compliant, use non-MiFi cables to charge, and use MiFi to add additional capabilities.

Look at Thunderbolt - it is backwards compatible, but a non-TB cable is not forward compaitable but will still work at its designed speed. A TB capable phone would not work with non-TB cables, but still be fully compliant with the letter and spirit of the regulation and USB spec.

That said, I'll say this again: for the same reason the poster you're replying to stated and others I doubt this rumor, at least with the amount of restrictions laid out here, it would mean that all current Apple first party USBC cables wouldnt work as expected, Apple doesnt usually break things quite that way.

As I have also said, I doubt Apple will do that with charging; i.e cripple the phone so only MiFi cables will work, for the reasons stated; but can see them deciding to add MiFi if they add some additional features, such as fast data transfers, to ensure those features work properly.

 

[AppliedMicro]

can see them deciding to add MiFi if they add some additional features, such as fast data transfers, to ensure those features work properly.

Wouldn’t really call it „ensuring“ proper function, especially with regard to data transfers. Fast USB or Thunderbolt transfers work well over bog-standard USB cables today and doesn’t require additional certification.

MFi certification for peripheral devices and driver support would make more sense - but that doesn’t require authentication in the phone or cables.

People keep claiming that Apple including MiFi in cables would be some sort of finger to the EU or malicious compliance, etc.; when you read the directive it clearly allows such an action, as do the specs

Agree. It’s a money-grab. And Apple has never needed external regulation to come up with such thing.

 

[Ta0jin]

Sounds like Apple is throwing a fit over having to switch over to USB-C.

It doesn’t sound like they’re throwing a fit it sounds like they are doing what any company does, get that shmoney. I’m surprised there are people that thought Apple wouldn’t do something like this. Apple can’t get that money from lightning they for sure gonna get that money from USB-C. It’s just Apples business practice. Does it suck? I guess, but it’s a common business practice for good ol Apple. 🤷‍♂️

 

[seek3r]

Look at Thunderbolt - it is backwards compatible, but a non-TB cable is not forward compaitable but will still work at its designed speed. A TB capable phone would not work with non-TB cables, but still be fully compliant with the letter and spirit of the regulation and USB spec.

Bad example, most thunderbolt 3 cables out there will work as thunderbolt 4 cables. The gotcha is longer active cables that wont pass DP and can have other signalling mismatches, but by far the bulk of TB3 cables out there are passive <3M cables that should work as TB4 just fine

 

[Spock1234]

Did you actually read the main article you're commenting in thread on? Here, let me help:

It's not just cables, and not just data transfer rates, I have other USBC accessories, like hubs. One advantage of moving to USBC would be to be able to use things like that without, say, the lightning camera adapter. I, and other folks, are going to expect that standard USBC accessories that already work on iPads and Macs should work too.

It involves charging speed, not just data. If a USBC cable can charge my 16" MBP at 120W or my iPad Air at 30W it should damn well be able to charge an iPhone at any speed the iPhone would support.

Some models will have faster than USB 2.0 speeds based on this rumor.

First, that's a lot of typing to not 'help' in any way.

Again, you will always be able to do what you are able to do today. USB-C accessories will work without the MiFi certification. If you connect your USB-C accessory to your iPhone now with a Lightning-to-USB cable, you will be able to use any USB-C to USB-C cable to accomplish the same task at the same rate in the future. That doesn't change. You may not get the enhanced speed that the MiFi cable allows, but you don't have that now. No loss.

As for charging, the Lightning-USB-C cable allows fast charging now. Tomorrow you would charge at the same fast rate using a simple USB-C cable. Don't know why you were expecting anything else.

 

[Spock1234]

Bad example, most thunderbolt 3 cables out there will work as thunderbolt 4 cables. The gotcha is longer active cables that wont pass DP and can have other signalling mismatches, but by far the bulk of TB3 cables out there are passive <3M cables that should work as TB4 just fine

What nonsense! Thunderbolt 3 cables will NOT support Thunderbolt 4 speeds, no matter what the length. It has nothing to do with 'active' cables. Where the hell do you get your info?!

 

[Spock1234]

It literally works right now, you just need the camera adapter. The expectation isnt that something that doesnt work now works later, it’s that something that works now but needs an intermediate adapter will work without one when there’s no need to change the port via one

Btw I know for a fact, having used both, that two of your “wouldn't expect to be supported in the future” devices, keyboards and external monitors are 100% supported on iPhones right now (so are most standard usb accessories, like network adapters, or external drives for storage and transfer, both of which and more I’ve also used), I believe mice are too (going to try that later now, I’m curious, never tried, but given cursor support is decent and external mice are fine with iPads I’m fairly confident it will work, though I suspect it will need an accessibility setting turned on)

You are just talking in circles. So, these accessories work now, and will work in the future. What are you whining about then? Added to ignore. Good riddance.

 

[Spock1234]

That’s absolutely unacceptable. Hopefully Apple will be given extremely high fines by the EU for violating the spirit of the law

You poor, naive child! That's not how the world works. All you can do is follow the letter of the law.

 

[jlc1978]

What nonsense! Thunderbolt 3 cables will NOT support Thunderbolt 4 speeds, no matter what the length. It has nothing to do with 'active' cables. Where the hell do you get your info?!

The only thing i can think is the poster meant TB4 will fall back to TB3 with a TB3 cable.

 

[seek3r]

What nonsense! Thunderbolt 3 cables will NOT support Thunderbolt 4 speeds, no matter what the length. It has nothing to do with 'active' cables. Where the hell do you get your info?!

The actual specs, but for easy language OWC has a nice writeup on most of this. The tldr is that passive short TB3 cables that support 40Gbps and displayport are basically the same as TB4 cables and will work at full speed. I can also confirm that it works because I use that combo on my desk right now. I did have a typo in my og post though, I meant 1m/3ft, not 3m.

For ex:

“

1. There are different Thunderbolt 3 cable types – 20Gbps, 40Gbps, Active, Passive, 60W, 100W
   • Less than 1 meter: Passive, 40Gb TB3, USB 10Gb, DisplayPort, works with USB-C display directly
   • 1 meter and greater:
     • Passive: 20Gbps TB3, USB 10Gb, DisplayPort, works with USB-C display directly
     • Active: 40Gbps TB3, USB 480Mb, DisplayPort, DOES NOT work with USB-C display directly

DisplayPort differences

1. https://eshop.macsales.com/blog/72169-everything-about-thunderbolt-4-cables/
   • Thunderbolt 4 – DisplayPort 1.4 (HBR3) supported up to 2 meters with passive cables
   • Thunderbolt 3 – DisplayPort supported with passive cables (less than 1 meter) but active cables (1 meter or greater) do not carry DisplayPort signal and won’t work to drive a USB-C display

 

[seek3r]

The only thing i can think is the poster meant TB4 will fall back to TB3 with a TB3 cable.

Nope, see my post above

 

[jlc1978]

Nope, see my post above

Fair enough; which gets back to my original post that says the EU rule will not result in one universal cable that works with everything. All it means is compatibility with one minimal standard, even then some cables may not work at all or require special hardware to work.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

That’s absolutely unacceptable. Hopefully Apple will be given extremely high fines by the EU for violating the spirit of the law

Lol, EU don’t care about the spirit of the law. We are a union of 27 member states. Spirit of the law isn’t a thing. The letter of the law is all that matters, everything else is conjecture.

All laws have a legal text describing them to minimize room for interpretation.

Apple must provide a USB C port that complies with Standard EN IEC 62680-1-3:2021 at all times.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

The USB-C spec allows for many configurations, while incompatible, meet the spec.



Apple can have a custom cable and be fully compliant with the spec and law. Just becasue you may not like what tehy do makes it unethical.

The only requirement is they must follow and meet Standard EN IEC 62680-1-3:2021.

If their cable and/or port isn’t certified according the USB-IF consortium the. It’s breaking EU law.

Exactly. People thought the EU legislation would me one cable to rule them all and will find out that is not the case.

Well the EU legislation cares about a common charging port not data. It will be as universal as USB-IF designs the standard, unless EU say all USB cables must support PD 100w by default.

An that respect, the text requires that radio equipment listed in Annex Ia capable of being recharged by means of wired charging at powers higher than 15 Watts shall:

1. incorporate the USB Power Delivery, as described in the standard EN IEC 62680-1-2:2021 “Universal serial bus interfaces for data and power – Part 1-2: Common components – USB Power Delivery specification”; and
2. ensure that any additional charging protocol allows for the full functionality of the USB Power Delivery referred to in point 3.1, irrespective of the charging device used.

In brief, it means that, up to 15W, at least one of the power supply options available for USB-C receptacle shall be supported by the radio equipment. The standard EN IEC 62680-1-3:2021 specifically lists these options which include: USB 2.0, USB 3.2, USB 4, USB BC 1.2, USB Type-C Current (1.5A and 3.0A), and USB PD.
And it means that, above 15W, at least USB PD power supply shall be supported by the radio equipment.”

2.2. be capable of being charged with cables which comply with the standard EN IEC 62680-1-3:2021 “Universal serial bus interfaces for data and power – Part 1-3: Common components – USB Type-C® Cable and Connector Specification”.

3.

In so far as they are capable of being recharged by means of wired charging at voltages higher than 5 Volts, currents higher than 3 Amperes or powers higher than 15 Watts, the categories or classes of radio equipment referred to in point 1 of this Part shall: 3.1. incorporate the USB Power Delivery, as described in the standard EN IEC 62680-1-2:2021 “Universal serial bus interfaces for data and power – Part 1-2: Common components – USB Power Delivery specification”; 3.2. ensure that any additional charging protocol allows for the full functionality of the USB Power Delivery referred to in point 3.1, irrespective of the charging device used.

So it’s quite detailed in what they can or can’t do.

The idea that the spirit of the law is grounds for judicial action is problematic, because then regulations, rather than providing (usually) clear guidance on what must be done become whatever someone thinks they should be. It's up to the legislature to make clear rules, otherwise chaos ensues.

Absolutely the spirit of the law is completely irrelevant when the letter of the law dictates what’s to be done. That’s why any law have documentation explaining said law and how it should be interpreted with examples etc.

For example, the spirit seems to be to reduce ewaste. Providing a charging cable goes against that so should manufacturers not provide one and assume users will already have one they can use? If they include one, should they "be given extremely high fines by the EU for violating the spirit of the law"?

And the law actually states that unbundling of cables will be looked at in 2026. Currently you must include a charging cable by law making it a non issue.

10)

in Article 47, the following paragraph is added: ‘3. By 28 December 2026, the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and the Council a report on the impact of the possibility to acquire radio equipment without any charging device and without cables, particularly with regard to consumer convenience, the reduction of environmental waste, behavioural changes and the development of market practices. That report shall be accompanied, if appropriate, by a legislative proposal to amend this Directive to introduce mandatory unbundling of the sale of charging devices and cables from the sale of radio equipment.’

They also have included text for improvements as it always points to the latest IEC standard.

USB specifications are the subject of continuous development. In that regard, the USB Implementers Forum developed an updated version of the USB Power Delivery specification, which enables powers of up to 240 Watts to be supported. Adaptations have also been made to the USB Type-C specification, which will extend the requirements for connectors and cables to accommodate powers of up to 240 Watts. This will allow radio equipment requiring such levels of power to be considered for potential inclusion in the list of radio equipment covered by this Directive.