Slashdot Mirror


Some Reversible USB-C Cables/Adapters Could Cause Irreversible Damage

TheRealHocusLocus writes: Three Decembers ago I lauded the impending death of the trapezoid. Celebration of the rectangle might be premature however, because in the rush-to-market an appalling number of chargers, cables and legacy adapters have been discovered to be non-compliant. There have been performance issues with bad USB implementation all along, but now — with improved conductors USB-C offers to negotiate up to 3A in addition the 900ma base, so use of a non-compliant adapter may result in damage. Google engineer and hero Benson Leung has been waging a one-man compliance campaign of Amazon reviews to warn of dodgy devices and praise the good. Reddit user bmcclure937 offers a spreadsheet summary of the reviews. It's a jungle out there, don't get fried.

136 comments

  1. Stupid design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you're relying on the cable having enough intelligence to prevent the two devices from hurting each other, you've already messed things up.

    1. Re:Stupid design by bondsbw · · Score: 4, Funny

      Some Reversible USB-C Cables/Adapters Could Cause Irreversible Damage

      The irony that USB is finally reversible, yet the damage it causes is not...

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    2. Re:Stupid design by x0ra · · Score: 5, Informative

      TFA's title is mislieading. The cable in question was wrongly wired. If you connect GND to V+, and V+ to GND, bad things *will* happen even with USB 1.0.

    3. Re: Stupid design by Redmancometh · · Score: 0

      Fuses? Is it 1985?

    4. Re:Stupid design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      I would like to correct you on the "cheaped out" as the guy already found and owns several quality cables. It was his choice to spend his time evaluating various cables from a litany of manufacturers to see if they complied with the USB specifications, hardly a case of trying to be cheap. As for the "POS" device, the power rails of the USB port are hooked up to several internal circuits. Most of which can survive a lot of abuse, but reverse voltage is not one that all the components lived through. In fact, if you look through the datasheets for most components you will quickly realize that being able to survive reverse voltage is actually somewhat rare. Fuses would have done squat to save him in this situation.

      Also I would advise you to read a bit more closely to his account of how the devices fried. 2 of them went up at once and the 3rd one went in a 2nd attempt. So really it was somewhat understandable that 3 devices were toasted. Though to your point, he (Leung) should have done a continuity check before any of those cables EVER saw a real device. Especially so given that he is purposely buying cables from all reaches of the earth to test them out.

      It also doesn't seem like said engineer is waging a holy war. From what I can see he posted it to his own personal G+ page and the news has just been spreading around as various sites picked up on it. I do agree that this is old news, its sad to see that journalism has degraded into retelling the same story over and over.

    5. Re: Stupid design by Spazmania · · Score: 4, Informative
      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    6. Re: Stupid design by t1oracle · · Score: 1

      So reversed wires cause irreversible damage?

    7. Re:Stupid design by hawguy · · Score: 1

      TFA's title is mislieading. The cable in question was wrongly wired. If you connect GND to V+, and V+ to GND, bad things *will* happen even with USB 1.0.

      I thought USB 1.0 spec'ed over-current production for all power pins? (which is usually done using self-resetting polyfuses)

    8. Re: Stupid design by WarJolt · · Score: 2

      You know how many times I've seen EEs blow up hardware hooking things up backwards?

      In the software world I see EEs cast datatypes every which way breaking the type safety. EEs that I know just don't understand that people will try to hook things up backwards and they should be protected from it. Compiler protect us when we aren't abusing the type system.

      We mix up type C connectors all the time now, so clearly the type safety is broken. We casted it into a host connector.

    9. Re:Stupid design by x0ra · · Score: 2

      we're not talking about over current, we're talking about simple wrong polarity.

    10. Re:Stupid design by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      reverse voltage is actually somewhat rare.

      All power supply input pins should be protected against reverse voltage. It's simple, and comprises a single FET. See here, for instance. There's not really any excuse for failing to protect internal components against reverse voltage, other than being cheap. I think we can thank the endless race to the bottom that consumer electronics is infamous for.

    11. Re:Stupid design by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      This is design 101. We've been Poka-yoke-ing connectors in other industries for decades.

      In fact, if you look through the datasheets for most components you will quickly realize that being able to survive reverse voltage is actually somewhat rare

      Because you're supposed to build it in Most components only do one thing and do it well. You build your own protection circuit. The ECMs we use at work will take 1000V on any pin. Could you imagine how far your car would make it without any protection circuits built in?

    12. Re:Stupid design by hawguy · · Score: 1

      we're not talking about over current, we're talking about simple wrong polarity.

      If reversed polarity doesn't lead to over current, then what happens that makes it so bad?

    13. Re: Stupid design by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Have done this myself wiring up a USB port with the pins the wrong way around and smoking a USB drive. Fortunately, nothing of value was lost.

    14. Re: Stupid design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do understand that the purpose of USB-C is that the PLUG is symmetric. So you cannot plug it in backwards. But, if the cable is wired *wrong*, bad shit happens.

      What happens if you wire your car backwards? - battery to red cable, + battery to mass. Well, probably not going to run so well.

      This stuff is not that complicated.

    15. Re:Stupid design by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      All power supply input pins should be protected against reverse voltage. It's simple, and comprises a single FET. See here, for instance. There's not really any excuse for failing to protect internal components against reverse voltage, other than being cheap. I think we can thank the endless race to the bottom that consumer electronics is infamous for.

      '

      Two reasons.

      Cheap is one - save on reverse polarity protection, save a few cents. When making millions of devices, it makes sense. It makes even more sense when the connector standard pretty much gives you the power you expect - e.g., a USB cable. The pins on USB are very well defined and power and ground appear on two very well known pins. Since a reverse-polarity USB plug is extremely rare, it seems reasonable to omit the protection.

      The second one is the device is dropping voltage and consuming power. In standard USB with 500mA at 5V, if the MOSFET takes 1V, that's half a watt of power you're losing in the transistor. (And really, you just use a diode). USB-C with up to 100W, you're looking at losing a lot of power in your reverse protection components.

      The USB plug is a pretty standardized plug with voltages appearing on specific pins. Reverse polarity connections are extremely rare since in general, the USB devices plugged into it will not work. So eliminating reverse polarity protection isn't the worst sin that could happen in a plug whose pinout and power pins are well known. Short of maliciously made devices, you should get power where you don't expect it.

    16. Re:Stupid design by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      This is design 101. We've been Poka-yoke-ing connectors in other industries for decades.

      In fact, if you look through the datasheets for most components you will quickly realize that being able to survive reverse voltage is actually somewhat rare

      Because you're supposed to build it in Most components only do one thing and do it well. You build your own protection circuit. The ECMs we use at work will take 1000V on any pin. Could you imagine how far your car would make it without any protection circuits built in?

      Poka-yoke illustrates this connector pefectly - USB-C works either way so it doesn't matter which way you plug in the cable and which way it goes.

      In fact, USB-C to USB-C cables are not the issue. It's USB-A to USB-C cables which cause the issues.

      As for your ECU - you build them to those specs, but you pay a lot more money for an engine computer. Try to build your ECU for $5 and make a profit and you'll probably compromise a lot of things.

    17. Re:Stupid design by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "All power supply input pins should be protected against reverse voltage. It's simple, and comprises a single FET."

      Too complex, costly, and unnecessary. A simple diode does the trick.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    18. Re: Stupid design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hah, more like managers want to get the parts count down. There's no fundamental reason why a device can't be designed to accept -5v on the +5v input, other than the marginal increase in complexity.

      The power supply port should never be wired directly to the internal power supply rails or battery, but plenty of companies scrimp on this interface. Even Apple has instructions to the user to unplug the laptop when fully charged.. why should a person need to be present for this, other than that they save manufacturing costs by making the battery management the users' responsibility.

    19. Re:Stupid design by Khyber · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Current doesn't kill silicon, voltage does. Example, you take an LED. It's a red one that runs at 2V. You can probably dump 3-4x that voltage through it without a resistor, and it won't care as long as the polarity is correct and it has adequate heat sinking. Now, this same LED has a reverse breakdown voltage. Many LEDs now days have native protection about double their nominal operative voltage. So for this LED, it can take upwards of ~4V reverse polarity. You give it 5V or higher in reverse, you will destroy the p-n junction.

      This knowledge is what is used to design LED arrays which can run natively off wall power without any power driver circuitry.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    20. Re: Stupid design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an electrical engineer -- sorry to break it to you, but you would be astounded by the thousands of fuses that protect you in your everyday life (particularly in commercial / industrial / institutional environments). In many cases...they're even safer than circuit breakers.

      Usually not at such paltry voltages and currents though.

    21. Re:Stupid design by aXis100 · · Score: 2

      Diodes cause an undesirable voltage drop in low voltage circuits like this. Even Schottky diodes at 0.2V or so is still significant.

      A FET however is a resistive device and can be as low as a few milliOhm. This means much lower voltage drop on the sorts of currents you'd see with USB.

    22. Re:Stupid design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet this one is commonly used since the voltage drop over the diode is way too high for many applications. (For any low power device using a single AA a diode will remove almost half the power.

      Remember, with a voltage drop of 0.7V you will have a significant power loss if you use the diode solution in applications below 7V.
      But it is great for cheap toys powered by a 9V battery.

    23. Re:Stupid design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too complex, costly, and unnecessary. A simple diode does the trick.

      But a diode wouldn't even work since it only allows current to flow one way, violating the USB-C spec

      For example, if you put the diode in one way you can have current flow from the host to the device, but then you can no longer have current flow from the device to the host so USB-C is broken.

      Alternately you can put the diode in the other way and allow current to flow from the device to the host properly, but then you no longer can have current flow from the host to the device, again breaking USB-C.

      If you wanted a connection type designed to only allow current to flow from the host to the device, why don't you just stick with something designed specifically for that like USB 1 or 2?

    24. Re: Stupid design by mikael · · Score: 1

      That's funny. Give them a C++ library with classes with constructors, algebraic operators, and they'll still want to create their own foundation classes that have the variables but no operators, requiring everyone else to have to work around that logic.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    25. Re:Stupid design by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      If reversed polarity doesn't lead to over current, then what happens that makes it so bad?

      Really? After all the times that Will Wheaton or Jordi decided to reverse the polarity, you have to ask?

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    26. Re:Stupid design by hawguy · · Score: 1

      Current doesn't kill silicon, voltage does. Example, you take an LED. It's a red one that runs at 2V. You can probably dump 3-4x that voltage through it without a resistor, and it won't care as long as the polarity is correct and it has adequate heat sinking. Now, this same LED has a reverse breakdown voltage. Many LEDs now days have native protection about double their nominal operative voltage. So for this LED, it can take upwards of ~4V reverse polarity. You give it 5V or higher in reverse, you will destroy the p-n junction.

      This knowledge is what is used to design LED arrays which can run natively off wall power without any power driver circuitry.

      V+ and GND are power supply rails, are you claiming that an external device can overdrive the computer (or USB chipset's) power supply without sending enough excess current through it that would trip the fuse?

    27. Re:Stupid design by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      USB C, how long did it take for them to get it right? USB-A should have never existed.

    28. Re:Stupid design by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Informative

      The second one is the device is dropping voltage and consuming power. In standard USB with 500mA at 5V, if the MOSFET takes 1V, that's half a watt of power you're losing in the transistor. (And really, you just use a diode). USB-C with up to 100W, you're looking at losing a lot of power in your reverse protection components.

      100% wrong.

      The MOSFET is not a diode. Diodes DO cause a 0.6-1V drop. That's why they use a MOSFET instead here in applications where a diode drop is too much. The MOSFET only drops as much as its internal Ron on-resistance allows. For a high-grade MOSFET, that can be in the single milliohms, so it's effectively a dead short. Cheapo MOSFETs are still in the low tens of milliohms. So with 3A of power, that's 1/4W with a crappy 30mohm MOSFET, or 72mW with one with a 8mohm on-resistance. The only reason you'd leave this out if reverse polarity is at all possible is cheapness.

    29. Re:Stupid design by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Yes, fuses will blow either by over-voltage in such a situation, as you need to overcome the voltage from that power supply in order to start doing damage.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    30. Re: Stupid design by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Ever wonder why no USB ports work in computers of the electrical engineering buildings in universities?

      Very few computer USB ports are resistant to abuse caused by short circuit, reverse power, or worse.

    31. Re: Stupid design by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      You know how many times I've seen EEs blow up hardware hooking things up backwards?

      This is why we invented bridge rectifiers

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    32. Re: Stupid design by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Ever wonder why no USB ports work in computers of the electrical engineering buildings in universities?

      Very few computer USB ports are resistant to abuse caused by short circuit, reverse power, or worse.

      the ones around my house (mainly phone chargers) have a finite half-life, as far as i can tell just from the mechanics of plugging in and out. as do the cables. on both the big USB end and the little microUSB end

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    33. Re:Stupid design by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      we're not talking about over current, we're talking about simple wrong polarity.

      you see, gay marriage will ruin America after all.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    34. Re:Stupid design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      . You give it 5V or higher in reverse, you will destroy the p-n junction.

      Reverse biasing a diode doesn't damage it. Just like sending power through it normally, it is the heat that will damage it. Heat as you know is a function of wattage and heat sinking. Since with most silicon, the voltage is fixed and the heat sink is fix, the only variable left is current. So, yes current kills silicon.

    35. Re: Stupid design by Redmancometh · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean fusible relays?

  2. Re:This is why you buy Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Well apple fanbois certainly like to plug things both ways.

  3. Timothy you've mentioned this before.. by sims+2 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Timothy you've mentioned this before..
    http://hardware.slashdot.org/s...

    --
    Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    1. Re:Timothy you've mentioned this before.. by p0p0 · · Score: 1

      Gotta get that sweet sweet ad revenue.

    2. Re:Timothy you've mentioned this before.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Timothy is a bot that interns are using to post stories. Ask whipslash if you don't believe me.

    3. Re:Timothy you've mentioned this before.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You dumb twat! We use adblock around here..

    4. Re:Timothy you've mentioned this before.. by rsmith-mac · · Score: 2

      To be fair to Timothy, up until now Benson had never received a cable that was so incorrectly built that it killed his testing equipment and a laptop. To find a cable that bad, that's news.

  4. Essentially a dupe from 3 months ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/15/11/05/1959216/google-engineer-warns-against-perils-of-buying-cheap-third-party-usb-c-cables

    1. Re:Essentially a dupe from 3 months ago by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is a new development. Benson Leung found a cable so bad it destroyed his analyzing equipment, and he says he won't be able to do reviews anymore because of it. The cable was actually missing wires internally, among other things.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Essentially a dupe from 3 months ago by ArtForz · · Score: 5, Informative

      The missing wires weren't the really bad part - the result of that would've "merely" been that it wouldn't work as a USB3 SuperSpeed cable and only connect in USB2 High Speed mode.
      What really set that one apart was that it had VCC and GND swapped on one end.

    3. Re:Essentially a dupe from 3 months ago by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      You have to wonder how a cable like that gets released.....didn't they plug it in even once?
      Stuff like that makes me start to believe stories about people who got electrocuted while talking on a charging phone.......

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:Essentially a dupe from 3 months ago by Dan+East · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but his "testing equipment" isn't all that great if it can't handle that. I mean, that's pretty much the simplest problem there can be right? Entire pins of the cable swapped. Ethernet testers are designed to catch this exact thing. Slap a diode on the frigging test equipment or something.

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    5. Re:Essentially a dupe from 3 months ago by x0ra · · Score: 1

      Come... "lab equipment" here is a dongle and a chromebook, not a $10k setup...

    6. Re:Essentially a dupe from 3 months ago by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but his "testing equipment" isn't all that great if it can't handle that.

      As someone else mentioned, it wasn't all that great, just a chromebook and a traffic sniffer.
      Still, USB 3 is capable of 5amps of current, so it can fry stuff fairly easily.......

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re:Essentially a dupe from 3 months ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ethernet can survive that because there is not a steady DC offset. This is achieved via isolation transformers on both ends of the signal path. It doesn't matter if a wire is crossed, you just get garbage data instead of blowing up something. The story in question is a very different beast as it is supposed to deliver power over that connector.

      If you want to put your money where your mouth is, go take a ubiquity AP (or any other device with passive POE) and make a custom cable to swap VCC and GND. Then you get back to us with how well that works.

    8. Re:Essentially a dupe from 3 months ago by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 2

      The surprising thing in all of this is a lack of regulation.

      Surely there ought to be a body like the FCC that issues a certification for electrical components sold by a major American online retailer like Amazon before these things even get listed.

    9. Re:Essentially a dupe from 3 months ago by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      That sounds like an invitation for corruption. A few large companies manage to take control of the FCC (or whatever), who then sets regulations that only large companies can follow. Or a similar problem.
      It is enough to check if the cable has been certified by Underwriters Laboratories or something similar.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    10. Re:Essentially a dupe from 3 months ago by Mike610544 · · Score: 4, Informative

      There is an organization that certifies USB stuff. If a cable has a little sticker with that certification logo, it's probably good.

      Not sure how much they do to prevent unauthorized use though.

      --
      ... also, I can kill you with my brain.
    11. Re:Essentially a dupe from 3 months ago by AmazingRuss · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be surprised if the people that manufacture them have no idea what they are for.

    12. Re:Essentially a dupe from 3 months ago by phantomfive · · Score: 2
      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    13. Re:Essentially a dupe from 3 months ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There ought to be? The UL has been around since the 19th century.

    14. Re:Essentially a dupe from 3 months ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come... "lab equipment" here is a dongle and a chromebook, not a $10k setup...

      You could probably use 3 of these network tester, a few network cables, and a pair of these to cobble together a good preliminary usb-C tester. (I have no idea if saikosystems is a valid place to buy something.)

      If I was going to seriously test usb-c cables, I might make something like that. It doesn't tell you anything about how reliable a connection is, or frequency response, or not much anyway, but it should at least let you know if it is safe to plug in. Then again, if that passes, and you are careful to match up twisted pairs with twisted pairs, you might be able to use a network sweep tester on it to some extent. I've no idea how meaningful the results would be though. Might be interesting though, particularly if you saw radically different results between brands..

    15. Re:Essentially a dupe from 3 months ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This link is missing from the parent. breakout board. The site was found via random google search...

    16. Re:Essentially a dupe from 3 months ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A chromebook has millions of semiconductor junctions. They couldn't spare one to create a diode with a reverse bias voltage of greater than 20v?

    17. Re:Essentially a dupe from 3 months ago by nnull · · Score: 1

      You realize UL is not testing for how good quality the product is or how the pins are connected, right? UL wouldn't get you anywhere. UL really doesn't care.

    18. Re:Essentially a dupe from 3 months ago by encad · · Score: 1

      I still can't understand, how test equipment gets fried by this, because they should be able to test the cable, even if its wires are wrong all the way. But what can I say, we have test equipment for a bus used in building applications, should be able to withstand exposition to surges, should....

    19. Re:Essentially a dupe from 3 months ago by mikael · · Score: 1

      The Atari 800 used to have 9 pin sockets for the game controllers. These matched RS232 connectors. We replaced the cheap plastic moulded connectors with metal RS232 connectors. Only downside was that touching the metal case against the lower pins of the socket would reset the machine.

      That mistake was duplicated with the desktop PC where the EGA connector was also 9 pin. You could end up plugging a monitor into the RS232 port.

      Then there's SCART, where the cable was attached to the socket diagonally, constantly putting pressure that would pull the socket out.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    20. Re: Essentially a dupe from 3 months ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's low power wiring, not a safety issue. Keep the regulators as far away as possible. Do you have any idea of the cost and time that goes into UL certification?

      The market isn't perfect, but it can handle this one. You can take your chances on a $5 cable, and it will probably be fine, or you can shell out for a USB certified cable from a reliable company via a reputable vendor. Don't force everyone to pay a premium because of a few bad parts.

    21. Re:Essentially a dupe from 3 months ago by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The test equipment wasn't designed to test for mis-wirings like this. Most equipment will fail if you plug in something like this, although the USB cable wasn't that bad, it merely had the power line connected to the wrong pin.

      His equipment was a laptop and a dongle designed to sniff the USB port for protocol problems. It wasn't expecting something this bad.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  5. Test your equipment by jgotts · · Score: 5, Informative

    When it comes to USB, test your equipment, even if you haven't upgraded to Type C yet.

    I've personally discovered two counterfeit or substandard (depending upon your personal definitions of the terms) USB charging cables.

    What I use to test is a Samsung Galaxy Tab 3 10-inch tablet. This tablet wants approximately 0.7-0.8 amps at 5 volts, but it will charge in a degraded mode if the charging cable isn't up to snuff, or if it's plugged into a desktop or laptop (which normally only supply 0.5 amps).

    Every cable should begin by charging in the degraded mode when plugged into my laptop and then upgrade to normal charging mode when plugged into any of my half dozen or so 2 amp USB chargers. Among over a dozen cables, I detected two that were not up to snuff, and you'd be surprised at my results. One cable from the dollar store was garbage, but another, colored cable from the dollar store that had fancy LEDs was fine. Three 10 feet cables were fine. The other reject was an average-looking cable with an average feel. It did not appear to be substandard or counterfeit.

    If you want to get fancy you can get a device from banggood.com that measures current and voltage across the USB port. They cost about $3 shipped. That is how I determined that my tablet will draw approximately 0.7-0.8 amps. From that experience I'd be surprised if many devices actually draw a full 2 amps. It's nice to have a 2 amp supply, though, because it gives you a safety factor if your cables are somewhat substandard. Maybe the newest 2016 phones will draw close to 2 amps. Get the meter and find out!

    Based upon my experience, the best USB chargers are from Samsung and anything else that has a counterfeit-resistant UL sticker. And also based upon my experience, if you notice that a charging cable is getting warm, you should probably replace it because it's dissipating electricity as heat rather than conducting it.

    1. Re: Test your equipment by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      How about it should work as described? I doubt most users would be testing equipment to be sure it matches spec. They would simply expect it to work, as it should.

      If enough cases of exploding computers happen, due to a proliferation of dodgy USB-C cables, I would believe it would quickly get the attention of law makers, rather than just the tech community and merchants?

      At the same time, enough exploding computers may simply drive people to high-end brands, if they care enough about their investment.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    2. Re: Test your equipment by MrKrillls · · Score: 1

      "....If enough cases of exploding computers happen, due to a proliferation of dodgy USB-C cables, I would believe it would quickly get the attention of law makers..."

      Lawmakers give attention to computer users?

      --
      Don't step on the baby.
    3. Re:Test your equipment by nnull · · Score: 1

      Based upon my experience, the best USB chargers are from Samsung and anything else that has a counterfeit-resistant UL sticker. And also based upon my experience, if you notice that a charging cable is getting warm, you should probably replace it because it's dissipating electricity as heat rather than conducting it.

      UL doesn't guarantee you anything in quality. They only put the sticker on there if it complies with certain electrical standards but not the quality of the product. People need to get that out of their heads that UL is some sort of magic label that guarantees their product is of good quality, it isn't. It's only compliant with some UL standard that meets electrical safety, and that UL listing could only be for the wire and insulation only. And for low voltage products, that UL label is pretty much meaningless in a lot of cases. There are other certification bodies that do measure the quality of the product, like usb.org.

  6. Not a USB 3 problem by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

    This isn't a USB 3 problem, it's just a general problem with stuff you plug in to computers.

    The issue was that the power and ground wires were swapped over. Even on USB 2 that only supplies 500mA it would most likely have killed something. And the same goes for every other port on the machine, including HDMI, Thunderbolt, FireWire, PS2 and eSATA+power.

    Any type of cable wired this way is liable to kill something.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    1. Re:Not a USB 3 problem by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Most USB2 hosts include a polyfuse. Not all, but most. The purpose of the polyfuse is to prevent a shorted device from damaging the host. That doesn't work so well with a 3A port, because even normal charging current is quite enough to set a substandard cable smouldering.

    2. Re:Not a USB 3 problem by sexconker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You should never be able to permanently damage a grounded device by connecting something to its ground line. The ground line should be safe for all sane voltages (all bets are obviously off with lightning). On laptops and phones and shit this is a problem because they aren't grounded and have to dump out to the case or something. Even when plugged in, many laptops aren't grounded.

      Modern motherboards advertise physical USB port protection for such bullshit precisely because it's becoming a more common issue with shitty USB devices and cables. It's not a USB 3 problem it's a USB and shitty implementations problem, but that's what happens when you commoditize so hard that all anyone ever does is buy the cheapest item listed that ships with Prime.

    3. Re:Not a USB 3 problem by radiumsoup · · Score: 1

      that's what happens when you commoditize so hard that all anyone ever does is buy the cheapest item listed that ships with Prime.

      Clearly, the solution then is to only buy Monster cables. ;P

    4. Re:Not a USB 3 problem by willy_me · · Score: 2

      Most USB2 hosts include a current limited load switch. When an overcurrent is detected, it turns off the switch and signals the host. This allows the host to display a warning to the user. Just using a PTC resettable fuse does not allow for any user feedback. Also, those PTC fuses are not very accurate and take some time to blow. The load switches are less impacted by changes in the ambient temperature and are much faster to react to an overcurrent event.

    5. Re:Not a USB 3 problem by dfsmith · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's a shame that USB went with Vbus/Gnd rather than V+/V-. The latter would allow the negative side to drift away from ground (which is typically kept on the shield in a zero-current path). They had to devote a small section to voltage drops it in the latest spec (3.6.10.1 in USB_PS_R2_0 V1.1: bottom line is 375mV of Gnd rise and 625mV of Vbus drop).

      The Ethernet guys realized this would be a problem so they made their signals transformer isolated. But USB is designed for short runs and cheap interfaces, not 100m runs across different electrical grids.

      Note, however, that this case was not related to the ground potential at all. Vbus and Gnd were reversed, exceeding the Vgnd_drop limit by over 9V (2400%), or possibly 40V (>10000%) if the device had managed to negotiate the new voltage limits before it died.

    6. Re:Not a USB 3 problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently, part of the problem is that USB-C connectors are often used as charging ports for power coming into a device, as well as powering external devices. Polyfuses are used to protect the power going outward to power other devices.

      And while USB-C plugs are designed to be reversible, this is done by assigning the pins such that power is passively applied to the same pins in either alignment. There is no way for it to handle an improperly manufactured cable that reverses the power polarity.

    7. Re:Not a USB 3 problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know this from experience.

      I used to have a mini mouse that stored the cable by winding it around the base and then snapping the port into the bottom - this put a ton of stress on the cable right at the base of the port. Naturally the insulation broke and the cable shorted out, complete with that puff of blue smoke, giving me a massive heart attack (I didn't know about the polyfuse then and thought I just fried my laptop).

    8. Re:Not a USB 3 problem by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The current limiting helps when you have a short or other over-current situation, but not so much when the port sees a negative voltage. That's basically what happened, the +5V line saw -5V instead. Being 10V lower than it was designed for killed it, most likely by blowing the FETs in the current limited supply.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:Not a USB 3 problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The host would still see a positive voltage and a huge current draw, to which it should react by cutting the power and notifying the OS.

    10. Re:Not a USB 3 problem by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      The Ethernet guys realized this would be a problem so they made their signals transformer isolated.

      The ethernet guys designed an electrical system that required differential signalling back when the easiest way of doing so was a pulse transformer. The voltage had nothing to do with it. The pulse transformer is a throwback to a long lost day that does nothing other than add bulk to units at both side.

      Even with USB you're more than welcome to short your D+/D- pins to VCC or GND and nothing at all will happen. Also USB signals were never designed for long distance transmission where ground rise or voltage drop was a conceivable problem (although with the latest demands for more power the latter is an issue). None of that has to do with the signalling though, and the signalling has (as you already pointed out) nothing to do with the actual problem.

    11. Re:Not a USB 3 problem by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      What is ground? Ground is just a reference. You may just as well say they powered the target device with -5v instead of +5v.
      This wasn't the result of connecting something to the ground, it was the result of connecting an incorrect voltage to the Vcc line.

      Also you got your thinking 100% backwards. Only on an UNGROUNDED device can you not damage something by attaching a ground connection, because only then can you ensure that no current flows. Got a wiring problem that put 240V on the earth of your USB device? Plug it into the laptop, no problem at all, plug it into a lovely grounded desktop and you're digging out your wallet to replace broken stuff and changing your underwear.

    12. Re:Not a USB 3 problem by dfsmith · · Score: 1

      You probably won't break anything shorting D+/D- to Vbus or Gnd, but <0.3V signals SE0 reset on USB, and the voltage thresholds are set at 0.3V and 2.8V relative to Gnd. Ethernet permits common mode voltages of +/-20V and 40kHz (802.3 section 12.5.3.2.5).

      Another interesting cable technology is MIDI, which was designed to connect instruments are are intentionally ungrounded. They use current signalling designed to directly drive opto-isolators!

    13. Re:Not a USB 3 problem by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      You probably won't break anything shorting D+/D- to Vbus or Gnd, but <0.3V signals SE0 reset on USB, and the voltage thresholds are set at 0.3V and 2.8V relative to Gnd. Ethernet permits common mode voltages of +/-20V and 40kHz (802.3 section 12.5.3.2.5).

      Another interesting cable technology is MIDI, which was designed to connect instruments are are intentionally ungrounded. They use current signalling designed to directly drive opto-isolators!

      You definitely won't. There's specific states of the system defined for shorted D+/- lines to GND and Vcc.
      Ethernet needs to contest with common mode voltages too. When your cable run is 100m in a tray next to power cables you can inductively pick up quite a bit of voltage.

      But that isn't in itself a requirement or a result of using pulse transformers.

  7. Inexpensive reliable testers by John+Allsup · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We need inexpensive reliable testers for usb cables. Basically a box where you plug the cables in and it does the various electrical tests.

    --
    John_Chalisque
    1. Re:Inexpensive reliable testers by SeaFox · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We need inexpensive reliable testers for usb cables. Basically a box where you plug the cables in and it does the various electrical tests.

      Isn't the whole point of standard that the consumer should know that two devices are equitable in abilities?
      The problem here is the owner of the USB 3.0 spec is not releasing their legal hounds on companies manufacturing "USB 3.0" cables that don't truly support the standard.

    2. Re:Inexpensive reliable testers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Android tablet, inexpensive enough?

    3. Re:Inexpensive reliable testers by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      I've thought of something similar. I tend to buy cheap cables off ebay (and elsewhere) and I've had some bad ones (and a lot of good ones). Generally, it's been a risk I'm willing to take but it would be nice to know ahead of time the bad ones (and some work fine in one situation but not in others)

    4. Re:Inexpensive reliable testers by TheReaperD · · Score: 1

      Makes we wonder if he could sure the USB specification people for false advertising and not enforcing their standard?

      --
      "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
  8. Re:This is why you buy Apple by SeaFox · · Score: 2

    They just design things right from the beginning - don't buy cheap - don't drive Honda!

    What is that, Some sort of joke? Hondas have a reputation of being more dependable (and more expensive) than their domestic counterparts.

  9. err-reversable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    err-reversable

    I thank you.

  10. Re:Apple by x0ra · · Score: 3, Informative

    what was your point, exactly ? https://www.choice.com.au/elec...

  11. Re:This is why you buy Apple by Junta · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but they're no Acura....

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  12. Cables not the only thing non-compliant, IMO.... by mark-t · · Score: 1, Interesting

    If you plug in a non-compliant usb-c cable into a device's usb port, a compliant device should be able to recognize it as such and simply refuse to operate. It should categorically *NOT* cause the device to cease to operate.

    The fact that this guy apparently shorted a $1000 computer because of a badly made $10 cable IMO shows just as much of a flaw in the computer as it does in the cable.

    All that the computer needed to have on the port was a breaker that would trip if or when the expected limits were exceeded and it would have been fine.

  13. The Cost of Quality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    A quick analysis of the workbook by TheRealHocusLocus finds that "Approved" cables cost ~60% more than unapproved cables on the average.

    Apprvd Average of Cost
    NO $10.61
    Yes $16.71

    -- Jared

  14. But all cables are the SAME! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone who has read any of the numerous HDMI-cable discussions knows: "All cables are the same. Just buy the cheapest cable."
    It's completely impossible for one cable to be better than another, despite using better materials and processes and quality control procedures, better shielding, thicker conductors or more twists, etc. It's all just ones and zeros so cables don't matter. If there's power, that's a 1, right?

    So any problems you encounter with "sparkles" or dropouts or loose connectors (or in this case, very slow charging, heat, melting, smoke or fire) are obviously the fault of the device. Never pay more than $2 for a cable or you're getting ripped off! :-/

    1. Re:But all cables are the SAME! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's ridiculous. That only works if the cable actually conforms to the cited specification. Some of the cheap cables violate the standard, which is what happened in this case. Some of them will fry your equipment, but more often they just don't fit quite right and you wind up damaging the port.

      Sometimes the cheap ones are built in a way that's less resiliant, which is fine for HDMI cables that are plugged in once and then just left for months, but USB cables have to be plugged and unplugged rather frequently, so a cable that has a connector that's slightly off can do a lot of damage to the devices you're using it with.

    2. Re:But all cables are the SAME! by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 2

      Please don't let any of us stop you from shelling out for oxygen-free, directional, sub-molecularly-orientated USB cables.

    3. Re:But all cables are the SAME! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And have fun with your crappy cables causing mysterious issues.
      I buy decent quality, name brand cables that tend to be moderately priced, and much more reliable than the cheapest available. That includes things like Monoprice, Amazon Basics, typical audio/video brands, or even a normally exorbitantly overpriced cable that happens to be on clearance for a reasonable price here and there. I've had much better luck with those than the crappy ones. MicroUSB and USB Type C cables are even worse, they fall out, don't fit correctly, don't properly fast-charge, or worst case, do what this post mentions.

      Bottom line, buy quality cables from reputable sources, and save yourself all the hassle. It's not worth the few dollars "saved."

    4. Re:But all cables are the SAME! by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Of those, oxygen free copper is actually real thing you can buy, for example:

      http://www.sequoia-brass-coppe...

      It's used for high temperature, high hydrogen environments (it doesn't go brittle unlike standard purity copper), for very high ductility (it's super high purity, and impurities are often what impart strength in metal alloys) and for applications where you want copper stock with very high chemical purity.

      It's also completely pointless for audio cables.

      The vendor in question (nothing special---they were simply the first link for C10100 which is the basic grade of oxygen free copper) has a nice list of applications of the stuff. Audio is not mentioned anywhere.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    5. Re:But all cables are the SAME! by KGIII · · Score: 2

      I think the assumption is that you're either paying the least or the most expensive. To be honest, the least is sometimes acceptable but I can never justify the most expensive - even if I've got the money. I've found that mid-range pricing is often indicative of good value and reliability.

      The above is not limited to cables. It works for cars, shoes, clothing, shop equipment, and most everything else. At least it does in my experience. Very seldom is the least expensive or most expensive choice the best option. I don't buy the best computer or computer parts. I don't buy the cheapest computer parts. I don't buy the most expensive automobile nor do I buy the cheapest - normally. I did deck out my current new car but that was splurging and I wanted the features. It was expensive but it's not the most expensive.

      The law of diminishing returns rears its ugly head again. As does a human need to make things far more complicated than they need to be and the crazy desire to believe in extremes. I am not a headshrinker, I do not know why it is we humans do that but a whole lot of us seem to. I'm sometimes a bit surprised that we wandered down out of the trees.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  15. Re:This is why you buy Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It was a Chromebook that got destroyed by an improperly wired (red and black wires swapped) cable.

  16. Re:This is why you buy Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly. That's why I'll always go for the Acura NSX over the lame Honda NSX.

  17. Port Design by albeit+unknown · · Score: 2

    The damage is the fault of the port design, not the cable. The port should be able to handle short circuits, switched wires, and incorrect power control signals without permanent damage. What if the perfectly approved Apple cable has been chafed and is now shorted to ground? Fail gracefully.

    1. Re:Port Design by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      What if the perfectly approved Apple cable has been chafed and is now shorted to ground? Fail gracefully.

      That's what you might think, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say a cable that would fail gracefully when shorted to ground would not pass mains voltage mains to ground (e.g. the phone case). Read the articles before you blame shoddy aftermarket chargers, as the 2nd one involved a genuine Apple charger; but what you're saying is that the cable, connector, and/or device should somehow prevent this.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    2. Re:Port Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The second one apparently involved a licensed charger. The question is though, why has this not happened outside of Russia and China? Given that the number of iPhone/iPad users outside of China and Russia would outnumber the Russian/Chinese users by quite a lot, why are these incidents isolated to those particular countries? (I did find one in Thailand with a guy dying who was using a thirdparty unlicensed charger).
      Is it possible that all of these deaths can be attributed to third party chargers which failed in the charger and short circuited the mains to the cable? Can you really blame a cable designed to carry 2A at 5v for not handling 110/220v gracefully?

    3. Re: Port Design by guruevi · · Score: 1

      The device should prevent this. USB has to negotiate higher currents so high currents shouldn't be present in the first place. Second, short circuits and overcurrents should be handled by the host as well as reverse wiring by the device. In the device it's easy: 1 diode short circuits a reverse polarity situation causing an overcurrent >500mA on the host which switches it's polyfuse.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    4. Re: Port Design by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Wow, where'd you get your EE degree? That's impressive!

      Your complete lack of understanding of how electricity works, that is. And USB, for that matter.

      For starters, the way USB handles overcurrent conditions is by limiting current to slightly more than requested (or slightly more than 500mA, 900mA for USB 3.1, if no negotiation has occurred) and monitoring current draw. In that way, even a dead short can not damage the device and the moment an overcurrent condition is detected, the port is shut down. This is all handled in the chipset and is a requirement of USB certification; the chipsets used in the Chromebook Pixel and the test gear mentioned in the articles I've read (I didn't read this article so I don't know if this particular article mentions which equipment was used, but I've read several others on this incident) are USB certified.

      Second, this was not an overcurrent condition, but a reverse-voltage condition, so the above would be irrelevant if it weren't in response to your own irrelevant mention of current and overcurrent conditions. This had literally nothing to do with current and literally everything to do with polarity.

      Third, that's not how diodes work. Diodes restrict the flow of electrons (not entirely block, mind you) in one direction, the don't short circuit anything and they certainly don't affect current. One could argue that putting too small of a diode in a circuit would add resistance, which would affect current, but then you're runnign a component out of spec and it is acting as a resistor, not a diode, because that's now what diodes do; and even in that instance, it would be limiting current, not drawing it and creating an overcurrent situation. That means, while a diode may have saved the device, it would not have involved a polyfuse in any way, shape, or form; it would have done so by reducing the reverse voltage, not by "short circuit[ing] the reverse polarity situation causing an overcurrent".

      But, even then, diodes aren't magic. Remember, they don't magically stop current flow in one direction, they simply massively restrict it. To a point. Once that point is reached, the floodgates open and *bam*, current flows through. That that means is, if the diode is rated with a breakdown voltage of 5v (and why wouldn't it be in a 5v circuit?) and you reverse 5.1v through it, well... there you have it. The net result is either -5.1v through the circuit, if the circuit was not already energized, or -0.1v if it was. Negative voltage, either way. And let's not forget that it is common (and even specified) for slightly higher voltages to be used when charging which, I'll remind you, is also specified for USB 3.

      That's not to say there aren't solutions, or that one or more of those solutions doesn't involve diodes; there certainly are solutions and they should have been employed here. A diode with a breakdown voltage higher than what one might expect to see sent down the wire by mistake (say 12v, the highest rail voltage in a PC, or 19v, the common laptop battery pack voltage; a 24v breakdown voltage should suffice) should adequately protect the device from and reverse voltage condition it might encounter. And before you suggest that it wouldn't protect against mains voltage, I'll remind you that mains is AC; there's no point protecting against that voltage in one direction when it's going to be allowed through in the other. You're toast by then anyway; and your polyfuse blew long after the overvoltage killed your USB controller.

      As for why there wasn't a diode in the power path with a 24v breakdown voltage? If I had to guess, it's because the common expected failure mode is excessive forward voltage, which is much more difficult to deal with. Engineering is hard; it's even harder when you don't know what you're talking about, which makes it easier for you to think you've got it right (as you seem to believe) while getting it massively wrong. There's not much point in protecting against the thing that has 0.00001% of killing your device (reverse voltage, under the assumption of using properly made cables) if you're leaving the thing that has a 99% chance of killing it wide open (overvoltage, under the same assumption); that's engineering.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    5. Re: Port Design by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I got my EE degree in a non-English language and haven't used it much in my US career.

      How does a wire cause a reverse voltage (-5V on Pin 1) when all it gets is +5V?
      Pin 1 VCC (+5 V, red wire)
      Pin 4 Ground (black wire)

      We're talking about the wires (pin 1 and 4) carrying the voltages being reversed right? The data wires should be on optocouplers or some form of transformer.

      The simplest protection against miswiring a voltage source or preventing reverse current from flowing (eg. in PV panels) is a diode in series with the voltage source. It should be a bit more complex (probably a FET), but if you have an EE degree, you get the idea. When the 5V goes on the ground wire there should be some current flowing, enough (diode + resistor across the wire for the simplest of diagrams) to shut down the controller (however it wants to control that, polyfuse is just an idea, the USB design was after my time).

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    6. Re: Port Design by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      I lack an EE degree as I'm a software developer and not a hardware guy (some day, perhaps...) but I do generally get the basics. It still comes down to planning for the least likely scenario when you can't do anything about the more likely ones, but that's product design, not port design; even if that level of protection was in the spec (and I haven't looked at 3.1 in detail) there's nothing preventing manufacturers from leaving it out and just not using the logo. Beyond that, while it would have been preferable (for the end user) to have reverse polarity protection, you know as well as I do that accounting and marketing run engineering anymore; if it's not marketable, accounting insists it gets cut. Input protection is only marketable in deveopment boards and high-end testing gear, so it gets left out of consumer kit. Welcome to modern life...

      I'm not saying I agree with it, just that this is the state of consumer product engineering and your choices (especially as an EE) are to either put yourself in a position to change it, or get used to it. We lowly consumers are expected to have out hands around out ankles at all times, didn't you know?

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    7. Re: Port Design by Vegemeister · · Score: 1

      I believe the suggestion was a parallel diode that would be reverse-biased in normal operation. If a cable was connected with the polarity swapped, it would clamp the negative voltage and trigger the overcurrent protection on the driving end.

    8. Re: Port Design by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Now that explanation makes sense. We're still relying on external equipment to function per the spec, though, and actually have overcurrent protection; we're also hoping that said protection activates before our equipment is destroyed. And it's still the much less likely scenario, compared to overvoltage, which is more difficult to protect against; if that's not being handled, it still doesn't make sense to handle reverse voltage.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    9. Re:Port Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The second one apparently involved a licensed charger.

      Did it? The story isn't clear on that, also that story is rather fishy. Under normal circumstances the charger would be send 5V DC down the wire, that isn't sufficient to electrocute someone even if they are sitting in a bath. Another possibility is that the charger was faulty and sent 240V AC down the wire, but that would also destroy the phone, which the story claims was was still working.

      Also the story was in the Daily Mail, not a reliable source, if it sounds good, then they don't care much to check if it is true.

      With the story as presented, it clearly isn't a factual account of how the woman died, maybe there is some truth to it, as in she was electrocuted in the bath, but it was murder, and the murderer tried to cover their tracks by making it look like she was electrocuted by her phone falling into the water. Or the story was completely fabricated and no-one died. Or maybe there is some truth to it, but some of the details are wrong, but in that case we can't be sure what is true and what isn't.

  18. Re: This is why you buy Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whats wrong with that?

  19. Re:Cables not the only thing non-compliant, IMO... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    USB-C are assigned to passively provide charging power at the same position regardless of the plug's orientation. It is NOT designed to handle the case of mis-wired cables that provide external power of reversed polarity. Instead, it is simply designed so that users can not cause problems with correctly-wired cables, under the reasonable premise that users won't be manufacturing their own non-compliant USB cables. The same result could happen if any other type of USB cable had its power pins reversed and provided power to a device.

  20. Re:This is why you buy Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You failed the sense of humor check. You should note s/he mentioned apple because the OP did.

  21. What's the difference between USA and USB? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    One connects to all of your devices and accesses the data, the other is a hardware standard.

  22. Re:Cables not the only thing non-compliant, IMO... by mark-t · · Score: 1

    Imagine what would happen if there were no protections from people attaching equipment to their phone lines.... one person could sabatoge every landline telephone on his entire block.

    If it's connecting to something made by a third party, it shouldn't matter if it is using a "standard" jack or not.... protection mechanisms should exist to ensure that noncompliant devices don't damage it.

    Doing otherwise is the hardware equivalent of allowing a stack overflow bug based on unexpected user input.

  23. thank you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OMG - this is the most useful thing I've read on Slashdot in a while!!! (not sarcastic - I have a new nexus)

  24. Re:Cables not the only thing non-compliant, IMO... by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

    It was a Google employee whose company supplied computer was designed by the company themselves. He probably copped some flack from his manager for destroying a thousand dollar piece of hardware. But equally the QA team may cop bigger flack for not testing this scenario.

    Wait for the 2016 model correcting this problem. :)

  25. There Is A FireWire Joke In Here Somewhere. by zenlessyank · · Score: 1

    Ooops. Damn Patents.

  26. Re:This is why you buy Apple by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 2

    Hondas have a reputation of being more dependable (and more expensive) than their domestic counterparts.

    Yeah, 20 years ago. Now, not so much.

    Neither of the two most recent Hondas I've owned lasted nearly as long as they should have. I no longer buy them.

    --
    You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
  27. Re:Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That recall is for the adaptor bit that slots into the actual charger allowing you to connect it directly into the socket. My adaptor bit is part of that recall but I really cannot be bothered to get it exchanged as I use the corded adaptor - who actually wants a 3"x3"x1" box hanging off a wall/powerboard socket?
    If I remember right, there have been like 4 or 6 events where people have gotten a shock which prompted this recall...

  28. Fishy counter-reviews and "unhelpful" spamming by Suddenly_Dead · · Score: 1

    Just looking over Benson Leung's reviews list, some of these items are transparently fishy. For instance, this Benson review currently has nearly 50% "unhelpful", while the product page is fully of sketchy positive reviews. It's a USB cable, who takes photos and writes essays about them (people with multimeters and cable testers aside)? Tried it in FakeSpot, and it figures the product has "68% low quality reviews".

    Fake positive reviews and "unhelpful" spamming on negative reviews. Does Amazon have any mechanism to deal with this type of gaming?

  29. Re:This is why you buy Apple by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

    Hondas have a reputation of being more dependable (and more expensive) than their domestic counterparts.

    Honda is "domestic" by most criteria. Most Honda cars sold in America, are manufactured in America, from American parts, using American labor. Also, much of their stock is owned by Americans, so the profits as well as the wages stay in America.

  30. Fishy counter-reviews and "unhelpful" spamming by Suddenly_Dead · · Score: 1

    Just looking over Benson Leung's reviews list, some of these items are transparently fishy. For instance, this Benson review has nearly 50% "unhelpful", while the product page is fully of sketchy positive reviews. It's a USB cable, who takes photos and writes essays about them? Tried it in FakeSpot, and it figures the product has "68% low quality reviews".

    Fake positive reviews and "unhelpful" spamming on negative reviews. Does Amazon have any mechanism to deal with this type of gaming?

  31. Questionable sanity by petes_PoV · · Score: 1

    One crappy cord, and his $1500 computer would be fried.

    From the article. It almost sounds like the guy was determined to continue his quest for a crappy cable until he destroyed an expensive laptop.

    Any sane person - or one using equipment they have paid for, themselves - would have tested on something less expensive if not actually sacrificial. But no! This guy decides that a high-end computer should be his victim.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
  32. Three Ampères by Grindalf · · Score: 1

    Three Ampères is a lot! I bet there are a lot of engineers that thought it was a typo when they looked at the maximum tolerance needed in the USB-C spec. :-)

    --
    The purpose of existence is to make money.
  33. Re:This is why you buy Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most of the commas, that you type don't, need to be there.

  34. Re:This is why you buy Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only one of the commas that he typed doesn't need to be there, according to at least one newspaper style guide.

  35. Re:This is why you buy Apple by KGIII · · Score: 1

    Some of the cars made by Honda are fantastic. I'm a bit of an automobile aficionado and have a fairly decent collection. In this collection is a fully restored Honda. It's not even all that old. It's a 1988 Honda Accord LX. I've written about it quite a few times now and even shared a picture or two. It's a lovely little, hassle free, car that I can opt to grab and drive across the country at any time I want. I don't need to have it gone over by a mechanic. I don't need to give it a tune-up. I can just hop in it and go.

    Well, I could if I were home.

    However, they're awesome cars. They're reliable. They're even capable of being low-cost. They're a great value for the money. If they're properly maintained, they will last for years and years. They tend to need fewer repairs than many other cars - if they're getting proper maintenance and being sensibly driven. They're lovely mechanical devices with complex systems and interactions and capable of great things. They're even fairly inexpensive when compared with vehicles with similar traits and features.

    I'm not entirely sure that analogy is quite what you were going for. A Honda is capable of being a fantastic automobile and they have some very excellent motorcycles and larger vehicles. Don't make me look for pics and then tell you about my Honda... I'll do it. The pics are already online. I just gotta figure out where I uploaded them.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  36. Re:This is why you buy Apple by SeaFox · · Score: 1

    Yes, but I was referring to design and engineering.

  37. Re:This is why you buy Apple by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    What is that, Some sort of joke? Hondas have a reputation of being more dependable (and more expensive) than their domestic counterparts.

    What are you smoking. Must be good.

    Nobody I've ever known that has owned say a Chevy or Ford claims that. They never buy another Honda either. Not even on a bet. When you're ready for a real car, buy something else. Put you checkbook away. You won't need it as much.

    On the other hand, if you think they're great keep buying them. I'll laugh as I pass you in my caddy. There's a good chance that I spend less on maintaining that caddy than you do on the Honda.

  38. Re:This is why you buy Apple by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

    Honda has a reputation for unreliable cars there?
    I've always heard about Japanese cars as the top end of reliability, ahead of everything else, even the German.