Google 'Strongly' Recommends Against Third-Party Fast Charging Technology On Android (techcrunch.com) 90
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."
What about Anker? (Score:1)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
Google is so large that "ex-Google engineers" just means "people". As in "Anker is supposed to be a bunch of people, right?" :-)
That said, I have a few of their products, which seem to be OK.
Re: (Score:2)
In my family we have a number of Anker products as well, all of which I am happy with.
That said, Anker did do a recall and replacement for some of their USB 3 cables: https://plus.google.com/+Benso... [google.com]
Which brings me to a rant, if the fsking cable has to be smarter than some strands of copper insulated from each other and of appropriate gauge to carry the current, the fsking standard is flawed to begin with. At no point whatsoever should cables have ever been an issue. All the "smarts" should be in the devic
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yes, but the time for you to convince the USB standard authors of this was around 1996. They came up with a standard that very deliberately made it possible to construct dumb-and-cheap peripherals at the expense of significant complexity in the host computer's driver. Did you know that a device driver author has to write an interpreter in order to parse what should be done with the structure fields sent by a USB human interface device? Essentially, the device can send whatever fields it wants to, in w
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but why is that 5 cent resistor in the cable and not the device the cable would plug into?
Re:What about Anker? (Score:4, Informative)
Plethora of USB connectors (Score:2)
Re: Plethora of USB connectors (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the article was talking about tech inside the phone, Qualcomm quick charge 3 etc. Not third party accessories.
Never fast enough will lead to disaster. (Score:1, Interesting)
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 th
Re: (Score:2)
So you think they'll all go plaid eventually?
. It's the same justification that created a multi-gallon buffer between the low fuel warning light and idiocy.
This is just a mechanical result of the floater design.
Re: (Score:2)
So you think they'll all go plaid eventually?
We'll likely find out that ludicrous speed exceeds the laws of science, but that certainly won't stop an unregulated manufacturer from making and selling plaid power chargers, with the need-it-now generation able to bypass UL standards and common sense via Amazon, with free two-day shipping!
. It's the same justification that created a multi-gallon buffer between the low fuel warning light and idiocy.
This is just a mechanical result of the floater design.
You're right, and I stand corrected. The low fuel warning light itself is a result of procrastination. The mechanical benefit beyond that is simply viewed as a dare feeding idiocy.
Re:Never fast enough will lead to disaster. (Score:4, Insightful)
If only phones could be made thicker to increase battery capacity, no more carrying around fast chargers and power banks
Re: (Score:2)
Wireless charging really helps get topped up during the day. A lot of cafes and restaurants in Japan seem to have mains sockets for chargers, but few wireless chargers unfortunately.
Opportunistic charging is the key to beating the limitations of batteries. It's the same with electric vehicles. People see the short range and charge time of 12+ hours and freak out, but actually most charging is done while you are not waiting for it anyway.
Re:Never fast enough will lead to disaster. (Score:4, Interesting)
Trust but verify (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that Google isn't manufacturing all those phones, chargers, and cables. It's not clear how much power they have to enforce standard compliance even among Android vendors, much less among people selling third party accessories like chargers and cables. And it's really hard for the phone to check standard compliance for those third party devices. OTOH, Google does have at least one engineer whose job seems to be testing third party USB type-C cables for standards compliance and posting on-li
Re: (Score:2)
USB-C isn't any more fire-proof that Quickcharge. Google just want everyone to standardize so that USB fast chargers are universal. If they don't the EU will probably mandate it eventually anyway.
The fire could have been caused by a number of things that USB-C won't help with. 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. The battery chemistry or construction could h
Responsibilities (Score:2)
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 t
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Google has been doing this for several years now, and understands quite well what the incentives are and how the OEMs play the game.
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.
Not necessary. Right now the CDD is just saying STRONGLY RECOMMENDED, which Google knows perfectly well OEMs will ignore. That's why the CDD also added the warning that it might be REQUIRED in the future. The OEMs understand fully that when Google says "might" in this sort of context, they have to read it as "will", meaning the OEMs had better get on board with USB-C fast charg
Re: (Score:2)
The GN7 used QC2 from what I understand, likely because of their decision to split the GS7's SoC between QC and Samsung parts. I know that the phone version used QC2 because of lowest common denominator support and I am fairly sure that carried over to the Note.
That said the problem with the GN7's fires was not a battery defect but a manufacturing/assembly problem where the batteries were physically damaged and 'crimped' to the point where they internally shorted. I should be talking to someone today who pr
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how many of the Galaxy Note 7 fires were using rapid charging. Basically all google is really saying is follow the USB-C standard
How does USB Type C lead to a 'better' charging than either Type A or micro-USB (depending on which end of a charger is being discussed here)?
Re: (Score:2)
Given how phones were catching fire while not on charge and catching fire after Samsung rolled out a patch to limit battery stress during charging I'll go with zero... Even though this was my first thought too.
Re: (Score:1)
Charging things while you sleep is a matter of convenience, not safety. Charging lithium polymer batteries is "dangerous". Exceeding the maximum rated current or voltage can cause the battery to catch fire. You don't want to be asleep while that happens. Charging slowly is safer, but not completely safe.
Re: (Score:2)
Charging things while you sleep is a matter of convenience, not safety.
Charging these types of devices slowly while you sleep is a matter of convenience and safety, which not pushing hardware beyond the electrical spec or common sense is Google's entire point here.
They're certainly not tabling the issue because they're worried about your electric bill during peak hours, or distracted driving incidents caused by digging that charger out from under the seat while doing 80MPH on the freeway.
Re: (Score:3)
Except my phone often can't keep up with my usage. I work 9 to 6 and get home with 50% battery or less, even if I don't use it much. Then maybe I need to go out, do some extra work, or even dinner outside. I don't use my phone while I have dinner, but I wouldn't want to have 30% battery or less if I have an accident or something. Or like when I got the call at 2AM that my uncle had died and had to stay up all night with my mom and aunt while the family made funeral arrangements.
Or maybe I live in the third
Re: (Score:2)
Your phone seems to suck... I can end the day with >50% after heavy usable on a OnePlus One or Nexus 6P. I don't use it much at work and typically get home with about 90% (the mobile signal is poor where I work so it has to ramp up the radio power).
Re: (Score:2)
Except my phone often can't keep up with my usage. I work 9 to 6 and get home with 50% battery or less, even if I don't use it much....I LOVE the Turbo Charge on my Moto X that can recharge to 100% in less than 1 hour.
YMMV, but with performance like that, no wonder your brand has jumped the shark and gone right to "turbo" charging.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Bah.
I don't plug my Pixel XL in when I go to bed and it's actually really nice not to have to. I don't have any wires (or charging pads) cluttering my nightstand and I don't have to think about it. I also don't have to worry about my phone being "tethered" when I blearily pick it up to shut off the alarm. Thanks to pretty good battery life (I get close to two full days on a full charge) and fast charging, I really only plug my phone in when I get in the car. My phone gets connected to power when I place i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: But they are (Score:5, Informative)
There is a standard for faster charging. It's called USB-C, or if that isn't fast enough, USB Power Delivery. There are legitimate compatibility concerns over the various proprietary extensions that do the same things but differently.
Google is being dumb (Score:3)
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 a
Re: (Score:2)
I fail to see how the two are connected. Specifically the voltage delivered via USB-C / PD / whatever is not what ends up at the battery terminals so it should have no bearing on battery life. That is entirely up to the discretion of the charger and all that Google seems to be asking for is that if devices are going to draw lots of juice via USB-C they do it in a standard way.
Or am I missing something?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. First see what the guy below said (currently ranked 0 but worth a read), and then there is the responsiveness. USB-PD doesn't have the granularity and speed to deliver power in a way that won't hurt the battery. It can't shift quickly enough of finely enough to avoid hurting the battery. Could you do the same with USB-PD? Eventually yes, but it is really designed for charging laptops and powering big monitors, not for careful charging of mobile devices.
As was said below, you effectively have to dissip
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't this assume linear regulation in the phone itself? Is that actually done in the charging circuit? That may be the bit I am unable to rationalise.
Re: (Score:2)
Basically yes, but not necessarily operating the phone circuit at optimal efficiency. I think it is engineered to charge the battery as quickly as possible while minimizing damage/degradation to the cells. The charger circuitry efficiency is a big concern too, but secondary to preserving the cell life. That said this problem is optimization on a dozen axis or more, not just A vs B.
-Charlie
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, checked in on it, you are dead on.
-Charlie
Re: (Score:2)
No. USB-PD is not a "firehose". That is not how electricity works. USB-PD specifies certain discrete voltage levels, but you can draw as much or as little current as you want. Devices are supposed to have a buck converter to adapt the voltage of the input to the voltage of the battery, and they can do so at a wide range of input voltages.
The only reason to raise the voltage at the USB connector is to reduce resistive losses in the cable by reducing the required current. Once the electricity arrives at the d
Re: (Score:2)
Totally the right call (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Totally the right call (Score:4, Informative)
It provides more (4) power conductors, so each one only has to carry 1.25A.
Re: (Score:1)
Unless, of course, you buy non-certified or counterfeit cables. It will start a fire, and you will blame the cell phone battery unless you were near enough to notice where it started.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't think anyone is going to try charging a cell phone battery at 100W; that's so laptops can use a USB type-C connector for both power and connecting to peripherals. If you tried to use 100W to charge a tiny cell phone battery, you might very well put enough heat into the battery to get it to blow up, regardless of what cable you were using. I don't think any of the rapid chargers are drawing more than about 20 W.
Blame... (Score:2)
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).
Smart cables (Score:2)
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 i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now that USB cables have more or less hit a saturation point in my household (can't lose them because every charger already has multiple free cables running out of it) I just buy quality cables on amazon. Usually under $12 a pop for a 3 or 6 pack from a reputable name, 5 star rating and thousands of reviews. It's possible that they could switch to making crappy cables at any time, but that would sink their brand, their ratings and their sales, so there's good incentive not to do that.
Would I buy a 5
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, I don't know, I bought an Aukey QC2.0 charger for my Zenfone2, it charges at 9V 2A and it is really convenient, it's proprieaty I agree but USB-C was not mainstream a few years ago...
Re: (Score:2)
This is just progress. Like Flash being deprecated once HTML5 could do everything that Flash could, with better compatibility, performance, and security. Once USB has a 100-Watt charging profile, there's no point in still having QC 3.0
Latest Trends from Google (Score:1)
Samsung instead... (Score:1)
...is strongly pushing their instant discharge technology! And there is no need of third-party products.
Do as we say, not as we do? (Score:1)
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?
Re: Do as we say, not as we do? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not sure what the article means by "its own version", but the official Pixel charger uses USB Power Delivery for 18W charging.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me if I understand it correctly, Google Pixel uses their own proprietary charging but Android folks strongly recommend against it?
They don't. No Google phone has ever supported anything other than USB-PD as specified by the USB consortium. It's one of the reasons you shouldn't charge a Pixel with an Apple charger ... unless you have the patience of a saint.
Re: May be a dumb question (Score:5, Informative)
There's no inherent connection, except whatever software support the hardware might need. The guidelines/requirements here are for Google to allow hardware vendors to use the Android trademarks, qualify for Google Play apps, and so forth. Google is using that as an incentive for the third party vendors to use standard power mechanisms rather than proprietary ones.
Re: (Score:3)
Because they know that people don't always use the chargers that came with their devices. People buy extras so they can have one at home and one at work. They borrow chargers from friends. Sometimes, they even plug their phones into their computers to charge.
If you plug a devices that was designed around the USB Power Delivery spec into a charger that was designed around a proprietary rapid charging standard, (or vice versa) the two devices aren't going to understand each-other correctly during the process
Re: (Score:1)
It would REALLY suck your USB standard phone signaled the charger that it wants 5V@3A and the charger, which uses a proprietary charge protocol, misunderstood the message and not only upped VBUS to 20V, but put 20V across all of the data pairs as well.
If that were to happen and the phone were to be irreparably damaged, the blame is going to get spread around between the charger and phone manufacturers. And some people are going to look at the situation and switch to iPhones because "at least they don't have this problem."
Definitely more of a safety issue than a damage issue. Higher currents applied to the battery mean more heat. More heat can mean overheating. Overheating means fire for lithium batteries. They can't come out and say this because it'll invoke panic based on the Samsung debacle, but this is where they're going.
Samsung in the sport light... (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
It's about Google protecting its brand. A device that uses Google's OS has a connection in the mind of the consumer. If a device associated with Google fails in some way (such as bursting into flames for not complying with the USB charging spec) then that reflects poorly on Google even though they had nothing to do with the hardware.
Bad car analogy time...
Imagine if Ford bought Firestone tires for their trucks. Ford, out of a concern for performance of the truck, decides to lower the inflation pressure o
Corners will be cut if money can be made doing it (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
voltage/current limiters (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Think about who makes these phones. I have been in meetings where the OEM/ODM on the other side of the table looked at me and said, "that would add $.14/1000 units, totally out of the question". Don't hold your breath.
-Charlie
Re: (Score:2)
"fools! our advanced SEB (spontaneous exploding battery) tech is completely impervious to any and all current and voltage limiting efforts!" -- samsung engineer
Re: voltage/current limiters (Score:2)
Some phone designers have the courage to not waste space on such things when they could instead make an already too-thin phone even thinner.
Well, at least one phone designer has that much courage...
Limitations... (Score:2)
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 'protectio
CAPS (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a little-known fact that Google incorporates Slashdot's lameness filter into all of its documentation systems.
Bummer... (Score:2)
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