Slashdot Mirror
Google 'Strongly' Recommends Against Third-Party Fast Charging Technology On Android (techcrunch.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: Everyone, it seems, is going the fast charging route these days. Thanks to the nearing ubiquity of USB-C on flagship devices, the feature is quickly becoming a standard -- "standard" in the sense that everyone is doing it, not so much that there's any consistency to the tech. All in all, it's a nice addition to manufacturers' newfound focus on battery life. And while Google has embraced its own version on its new Pixel devices, the company's not so keen on letting everyone implement their own version. In newly released Android Compatibility Definition papers issued for Nougat, the company stops short of an outright ban on technologies like Qualcomm's Quick Charge, though it does take a pretty clear stand, "strongly recommend[ing]" against it. At issue, among other things here, is potential compatibility issues with standard USB chargers. Google said in its latest revision of the Android Compatibility Definition Document, "Type-C devices are STRONGLY RECOMMENDED to not support proprietary charging methods that modify Vbus voltage beyond default levels, or alter sink/source roles as such may result in interoperability issues with the chargers or devices that support the standard USB Power Delivery methods. While this is called out as "STRONGLY RECOMMENDED," in future Android versions we might REQUIRE all type-C devices to support full interoperability with standard type-C chargers."
Anker is supposed to be a bunch of ex-Google engineers, right? They make a bunch of random stuff... would their products also be deemed ill-advised?
Today it's fast charging. Tomorrow that won't be good enough, so we'll go to hyper charging. Then ludicrous charging. Given the prevalence of these devices in society, I see this as a disaster waiting to happen.
Fast charging is also the result of procrastination. It's the same justification that created a multi-gallon buffer between the low fuel warning light and idiocy. The human body needs a few hours rest at least once every 24 hours. This is the time to safely charge these devices that maintain that charge for as least as long as you do, if not longer.
Devices that support fast charging are fully interoperable with standard chargers. I'm not sure if all fast chargers are compatible with standard USB devices but I don't see why they shouldn't detect it and have a fallback mode. The right way to deal with this is to standardize fast charging. Until that happens people will find a way to use it. Just banning it is idiotic.
The USB power delivery spec standardizes how to increase Vbus voltage and max current. Power profile 5 increases the voltage to 20V with 5A current for 100W of power. It can be implemented on either type A, micro USB, or type C. It used to be that the USB spec only standardized up to 7.5W power draw, which became a limiter on charging time. Now that we have the new power delivery spec extension, there are zero good reasons to implement proprietary charging standards to move beyond 7.5W.
Despite this, Qualcomm is still heavily marketing its proprietary quickcharge 3.0 system to smartphone manufacturers, purely for the incremental profits on licensed wall chargers. I'm glad to see Google throwing their weight around a little in an effort to shut down what is purely a money grab.
For new generation fast life.
...is strongly pushing their instant discharge technology! And there is no need of third-party products.
Let me if I understand it correctly, Google Pixel uses their own proprietary charging but Android folks strongly recommend against it? If they can't get their own company to stop adopting non-recommended products, what chance do they have of others paying any attention to such recommendations?
This may be a dumb question, but maybe someone will explain it to me.
Why does the O/S have anything to do with the battery charging circuit, and how could there be a compatibility issue between the two?
I wonder how many of the Galaxy Note 7 fires were using rapid charging.
Interesting question though it wouldn't top my list of possible explanations I don't think it could be ruled out either.
Basically all google is really saying is follow the USB-C standard
It is incredibly naive of Google to trust that third parties will follow the USB-C standard if there is money to be made in not following it. There is an old saying that "people generally don't do what you expect, they do what you inspect". Or as another put it "trust but verify". If it is important enough to worry about then Google should be implementing measures to ensure that it will not work unless they follow the USB-C standard. If the USB-C standard provides no means to check if it is being followed then it is a flawed standard and should (in principle) be scrapped for a better one.
How about phone manufacturers spend the extra dollar that it costs to put in the trivial circuitry necessary so that you can apply almost any voltage, current, or polarity to the device without it going up in smoke?
The use of CAPS in the document appear to be guidance directives.
They use MUST, SHOULD and STRONGLY RECOMMENDED as sign posts for guiding the reader toward the "dos and don'ts" of proper android OS design.
I guess I am not sure that I see the arrow from STRONGLY RECOMMENDED to REQUIRED.... especially since they already use MUST for that purpose.
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
Google is reminding the device makers to follow the USB spec because bad things can happen if they don't. Google is enforcing this compliance with the spec with an implied threat to end doing business with them.
Which is meaningless because it doesn't prevent some no-name generic maker of USB charge cables that doesn't give a flying turd about doing business with Google from trying to shave a few cents off the cost of their cables to boost their bottom line. If there is money to be made by cutting corners then you can be certain that corners will be cut by someone and hilarity will ensue.
Both are fine but they don't actually address what QC3 does, they just deliver more juice. QC3 will change voltage in 200mV increments on the fly, allow 2 chargers for lower temps and better heat distribution, and actively monitor the battery for conditions which degrade life. There is a lot more to it, but pushing more wattage through USB-PD is REALLY BAD FOR BATTERY LIFE. I wrote up some pretty in-depth articles on both USB-PD and QC3 lined below if you care.
This is the long way of saying what Google is asking for is idiotic. If you look at the size of modern batteries and the rate at which USB-C can deliver power, we are bordering on all-night charges already. If you up the delivered power via PD, you will not meet the 500 charge minimum life carriers demand thus not sell any phones. Worse yet that number is about to go to 800 really soon if it is not already there. Plus you will have people pissed off that their phone is drawing more current than the charger is supplying while plugged in and being used.
In short I question Google's sanity on this one. I am asking around to see what the official take on this is from involved parties, but I suspect the original article's take is way off base. I won't say why yet, I like to know before I mouth off publicly.
-Charlie
http://semiaccurate.com/2012/0...
http://semiaccurate.com/2015/0...
Which is meaningless because it doesn't prevent some no-name generic maker of USB charge cables that doesn't give a flying turd about doing business with Google from trying to shave a few cents off the cost of their cables to boost their bottom line. If there is money to be made by cutting corners then you can be certain that corners will be cut by someone and hilarity will ensue.
It's not meaningless because then Google doesn't have to take a hit to their brand when those cables, devices, whatever go up in smoke.
The point is that Google is looking out for Google, not that Google is looking out for some no-name maker of USB shit. Google wants happy customers, they do it by putting their name on quality stuff.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
USB Type-C could've been awesome... a single standard to unify all platforms, eliminating version differences and stopping manufacturers from juicing up and modifying stuff to make their devices work better or something.
I just cannot understand how, after all bad examples that showed up with regular USB, the USB implementers forum didn't make it a hard standard. Or at least one with a handful of categories to absolutely be followed for approval.
Instead of solving previous problems, USB Type C made problems even worse. USB Type C is less reliable than regular USB, it has way more compatibility issues, and with the extra juice it can also lead to a single badly made cable absolutely destroying both devices connected to it.
You now have USB Type C hubs that will work in some devices while not working in others, you have cables that will work in some devices while destroying others, you have a horribly wide range of capabilities that may or may not work on your USB Type-C device depending on how it was implemented, and there is absolutely no way for the consumer to tell. It's a horrorshow.
I get it that this is mostly manufacturer's fault for not following the standard correctly, but there must be some way of making it certifiable without making it proprietary.
The cables have an ID chip in them that will specify their rating as to amps and voltage, plus a few other things. If you read my USB-PD story linked above, you will get the details. In short both ends start at the USB base and negotiate up their capabilities for voltage and amperage for send, receive, or both. They will do this within the bounds of the cable connecting them, and while both sides have limited capabilities to sense the cable properties, they really depend on the USB-PD ID chip.
This ID chip is of course counterfeit-proof, something we know that low end manufacturers are not capable of cloning or getting around in, oh, say, 12 seconds. So in short DO NOT BUY CHEAP/NO-NAME USB-PD CABLES FROM EVEN A POSSIBLY QUESTIONABLE SOURCE. Amazon, I am looking at you. Really. 100W = big fire quickly.
-Charlie
The step-down regulator could have failed and dumped high voltage into the battery. The temperature sensor could have failed or the threshold been set too high and allowed thermal runaway.
Technically, on modern (non NiMH, not Li-Ion used in RC cars) batteries - both Lithium-Ion and Lithium-Polimer - the battery controller (and its array of sensors) are built *into* the cell.
So, the shitty dead-cheap 3rd party non-actually compliant chargers (that google is warning against) won't be responsible to handle thermal exception in the battery. The battery cell itself will have circuitry to detect high temperature and shut down.
- No matter how shitty the charger, the battery manager will shut down the battery if the temperature gets too high.
- Conversely no matter how high quality the charger, it won't detect and react to any temperature change inside the battery. It will just deliver perfectly stable ripple-free 5V (or higher for newer USB charging standard), right up until the point it detects a problem on its side (e.g.: over-current following a battery failure due to the whole phone being on fire).
- On the 3rd hand: yeah a non-shitty actually-standard-compliant charger is much less likely to fail and dump the wall plug's full 220 volts straight to the phone.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
It will start a fire, and you will blame the cell phone battery
No, you wont. Because there wasn't any "Samsung" name written on the phone.
(Just don't pay attention to the other phone manufacturer tip-toe-ing out of the room trying not to attract attention to the fact that Samsung probably aren't the only smartphones in the whole universe to ever catch fire).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
And some people are going to look at the situation and switch to iPhones because "at least they don't have this problem."
I appreciate your ironic use of quotes. As if no other smartphone in the whole known universe has ever exploded.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
How about phone manufacturers spend the extra dollar that it costs to put in the trivial circuitry necessary so that you can apply almost any voltage, current, or polarity to the device without it going up in smoke?
Well....
I. "...but how will Marketing be able to insist that this year's phone is 0.5mm thinner than last year, and 0.25mm thinner than the competition (and accidentally also be able to cut cheese)".
(a.k.a.: The Apple Audio Jack stupid excuse)
II. "...but then this noname phone will cost 1 dollar more than the competition and the sheeple will rush to the cheapest shit available which WON'T be us anymore".
(a.k.a.: The shitty excuse of most cheap low quality chinese electronics)
III. "...what is this 'protection circuitry' you're speaking about ? I can't understand your mumbo jumbo. What... ? 'How I got there... ?'
Last week I was soldering vacuum-cleaner's control boards, and because I am apparently able to yield a soldering iron, my brother-in-law recruted me because his neighboor got an humongous order for this latest popular wireless smart-gizmo and suddenly needs more people to fullfill all these orders as the speed at which their are coming. And this gizmo is so popular and trending right now, that there's so much money to be made!...
What you ask... ? 'What I've been doing before vacuum cleaners ?' Well my 3rd cousin taught me to use a soldering iron because he needed to fullfill a batshit crazy huge amount of order on these 'Hover-board'-thingy and apparently, because I'm a bit handy (was sewing jeans the week before)."
(a.ka.: The horrendous 'but it is so cheap' excuse of any shitty gadget that has become hugely popular overnight. Too much popular for it's own good.
See: Hoverboards recently, see laptop batteries in the early 2000s, etc.)
IV. "...to actually try to conquer them by economically bankrupting them by selling them critically important equipement that is buggy..."
(a.k.a.: actually doesn't happen *that much* in China because "there's so much money to be made!!!".
But actually was believed by USA during the cold war and they hoped that they'll manage to pull such a trick on the URSS, as if the URSS would never know and hire tons of cheap labor to debug the the flawed equipment.
And as if the URSS would be able to bankrupt themselves on their own due to other circumstances)
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
This is what is so ridiculous about the USB standard - the number of connector types: Type A, Type B, (now) Type C, Mini-USB (now deprecated), Micro-A, Micro B and Micro AB. Why couldn't they just standardize on one type and run w/ it? Also, what does a connector have to do w/ fast charging i.e. what prevents a micro-USB connector from charging fast?