Be careful what charger you use with the HTC 10...

[marlin29311]

I'm sorry, but your advice is in left field. Ask my girlfriend why her sons tire blew out after she got brand new tires at Costco installed on his Accord? That's the third tire a tech there has blown out. I told my girlfriend a million times, just let Honda do their job. They are certified and trained to work on specific vehicles. They don't see 10 different brands of cars in a week. They have an inclination on problematic areas for specific Honda vehicles. I'm 100% certain they can properly install tires.

Why did a mechanic on my military base break a $200 tire pressure sensor on my truck after installing new tires? Then try and tape it up with electrical tape to cover up his handy work. Only to have the dealership discover it the next day because the fault light kept coming on and I had to take it to the dealership. My vehicles only go to the dealership and you wouldn't take a Prius to a normal mechanic.

In the military just because you can repair an F-16, doesn't mean you can repair an F-22. They are both fighter jets. But two totally separate fighter jets. The same apply to cars. There is a reason why we have specific mechanics to certain aircraft.

Mazda and Mercedes using the same battery manufacturer? You can't be serious right? Their corporations aren't even in the same country!

Google doesn't make chargers. They contract it out just like with Nexus devices. You think Google has time to do R&D on a charger when they aren't even a cell phone manufacturer? Seriously?

I know this thread is about chargers, but I can't seriously let these comments go.

You do realize that there is 0 difference between the way a tire is mounted on a rim between all manufacturers, right? To be honest, I'd rather have someone that only changes tires to do the tires on my car versus the general mechanic who goes between working on your alternator and then putting tires on back to engine work. Much more specialized, but I digress. If you have a crappy mechanic, then you had a crappy mechanic - happens everywhere. Costco happens to have a very strong tire installation training program from Michelin - you had a lazy employee, that's all.

TPM sensors are like $50, not $200. They cost $200 to service due to work involved with dismounting a tire and inflation since no one really knows about the stupid things. Again, here you've been hit by lazy/crappy employee. And I have plenty of friends who have Prius' who go to reputable local mechanics and save $$$$$ vs a dealer who's looking to post a profit on every service transaction.

There is no industry standardization across fighter jets because there isn't a market like there is for cars. Do you know how much standardization there is for the automotive industry? You do know that every car sold in the United States uses the OBD-II system, right? There is a crap ton of industry standardization because of government intervention as well as economies of scale. If Mazda and Mercedes used different tire/wheel applications or battery standards, most aftermarket companies wouldn't exist and prices would be even higher than they are today. Your average mechanic can do the majority of car services on any vehicle - the specialization comes into proprietary applications, such as engine design, etc.

You realize that you just contradicted yourself, right? Mazda and Mercedes aren't battery manufacturers, they contract that work out to someone who does! I love the "aren't in the same country" line - priceless. Batteries are one of the most standardized pieces of automotive equipment and are only made by a handful of manufacturers. If you think that every automotive OEM is building their own batteries, I have a bridge to sell you...

Sorry for this response, but ignorance just bothers me when it comes to stuff like this.

The real issue at hand for the chargers boils down to the USB-C standard not being properly implemented/adopted by everyone. I know I got downvoted for my comment on the original article, but this isn't HTC's fault - it's the consortium behind USB-C. You don't see HDMI cables being used in improper ways, do you? No, because it was locked and set properly. USB needs to get their standard nailed down and prevent anyone from manipulating it in any which way, otherwise the standard is not going to be a standard.

 

[erwaso]

OK.... to clear out some noise.

View attachment 227996

You either follow the specification or your don't. Quick Charge 2.0 and 3.0 are not compatible with the USB Type C specifications. Sure, Qualcomm is poo-pooing the reports, but read Benson Leung's thoughts here. Benson (a Google engineer) has no bones to pick with Qualcomm, and no reason to mislead us. All the dude has been doing is obsessing over all things USB-C to look out for us, and more or less single-handedly protect us from hack cable and charger manufacturers. Qualcomm's bias is massive in this case as USB Type C comes with its own fast charging tech, tech that is FREE TO USE... whereas Qualcomm's Quick Charge is a revenue stream for them.

So what we have is a phone, the HTC 10 (the LG G5 is the same way I've read) that claims that it supports both USB Type C (the above pick is from HTC's own site) as well as Qualcomm's Quick Charge. But the problem is that, by definition, the wiring configuration and technology needed for Quick Charge to work violates the USB Type C standard.

So HTC is claiming that it follows the specification when it most certainly does not. And it does so in such a way that is inherently dangerous and entirely misleading to the public.

So its not quickcharge because it is type C, but it will still charge to 50% in 30 mins. Does this logic just have destruction written all over it?

 

[dpham00]

OK.... to clear out some noise.

View attachment 227996

You either follow the specification or your don't. Quick Charge 2.0 and 3.0 are not compatible with the USB Type C specifications. Sure, Qualcomm is poo-pooing the reports, but read Benson Leung's thoughts here. Benson (a Google engineer) has no bones to pick with Qualcomm, and no reason to mislead us. All the dude has been doing is obsessing over all things USB-C to look out for us, and more or less single-handedly protect us from hack cable and charger manufacturers. Qualcomm's bias is massive in this case as USB Type C comes with its own fast charging tech, tech that is FREE TO USE... whereas Qualcomm's Quick Charge is a revenue stream for them.

So what we have is a phone, the HTC 10 (the LG G5 is the same way I've read) that claims that it supports both USB Type C (the above pick is from HTC's own site) as well as Qualcomm's Quick Charge. But the problem is that, by definition, the wiring configuration and technology needed for Quick Charge to work violates the USB Type C standard.

So HTC is claiming that it follows the specification when it most certainly does not. And it does so in such a way that is inherently dangerous and entirely misleading to the public.

Also to add... Standard connectors have standard requirements. Htc can use whatever charging port they want so long as it meets the requirements... So if they want qc 2.0 /3.0, use micro usb. No one is forcing them to use usb c. If they wish to use a newer standard(usb c) , make sure whatever they are doing meets the spec requirements.

Just like with the wall outlets... The usa style plugs will not fit into the 220v standard port. This is for safety reasons and also so it doesn't damage your equipment.

The same applies here to htc/usb c.

 

[LeoRex]

So its not quickcharge because it is type C, but it will still charge to 50% in 30 mins. Does this logic just have destruction written all over it?

Other way around.... If HTC wants to use Qualcomm's QuickCharge, they should have kept the connection as micro-usb. But they used the same connection as the new USB Type C specification and listed the phone as being compliant to the new Type C spec... even though it most certainly is not.

 

[erasat]

Other way around.... If HTC wants to use Qualcomm's QuickCharge, they should have kept the connection as micro-usb. But they used the same connection as the new USB Type C specification and listed the phone as being compliant to the new Type C spec... even though it most certainly is not.

The way Samsung did it... I know for Samsung it was for a double purpose, because by keeping the Micro USB they could keep pairing it up with the Gear VR, BUT, I'm sure Samsung, being the #1 Android seller knew about the repercussions of changing to Type C just by having the latest and greatest, and I'll say what I said when the S7 was announced, at this point, I prefer having a Micro USB than a Type C, for me it still too early for mass adoption, too many things can go wrong for the mass, in other words, this requires more time and knowledge for the general public and not just for people that comes to this forums. Normal people don't read, they see a cable that looks that fits and they simply connect it no matter what can happens, complaints? they come later.

I'm waiting for T-Mobile to finally gets the HTC 10 in stock so I can get mine with the Jump on Demand, I'm changing my S7 and keeping the S7 edge, and I'm honest by saying that as of now I still prefer Micro USB, Quick Charge and Fast Wireless Charge to the USB-C, to think that I already needed to buy adapters to be able to use my actual cables is a thing, to now be worried if the charger I'm using is compatible or not it's not just a thing is an issue, and for the mass, what HTC (and LG) did now in my opinion just means hassle and confusion for the general public.

 

[Aquila]

I'm sure Samsung, being the #1 Android seller knew about the repercussions of changing to Type C just by having the latest and greatest

Samsung could easily have used the USB-C and followed the USB-C standards and had a great charging experience that would work exactly the same way as the Nexus line, etc. They still do fast charging, it's just not "QuickCharge 2.0/3.0". That'd just be not following HTC's mistake and making a better charging experience.

 

[KSDroid01]

Also to add... Standard connectors have standard requirements. Htc can use whatever charging port they want so long as it meets the requirements... So if they want qc 2.0 /3.0, use micro usb. No one is forcing them to use usb c. If they wish to use a newer standard(usb c) , make sure whatever they are doing meets the spec requirements.

Just like with the wall outlets... The usa style plugs will not fit into the 220v standard port. This is for safety reasons and also so it doesn't damage your equipment.

The same applies here to htc/usb c.

OK, maybe a stupid comment. Set aside for a moment all the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth about the Type C vs QC charging issues for a moment: if you use a Type-C compliant cable, and connect to your computer or storage device, won't this phone gives you the benefit of the higher data transfer speeds of USB-C? And won't you still get the potential video output capabilities of USB-C 3.1? And don't you theoretically still get USB-C's built-in capability to charge simultaneously while transferring data? And you certainly do get the physical benefits of the reversible connector.

Although like others I'm a bit frustrated by the confusion over the quick-charging issues, but after experiencing how blazing fast QC 3.0 is, in not ready to give it up for what is to me the uncertain charging capabilities of native USB-C. If the obvious benefits of USB-C are indeed present in this phone, I for one am willing to educate myself and be careful in my selection of a charger while waiting for the dust to settle on the charging issue, while conditionally giving HTC kudos for helping to "future-proof" my phone.

Posted via the 10

 

[Aquila]

We don't know if the HTC 10 USB 3.1 Type C port will support the full features of USB 3.1 because, while as far as we know they followed that standard, we know they didn't follow the Type C standard - and so it's somewhat in the air when trying to determine what exactly they sabotaged and what they left compliant. It should still work properly in that way - and there's very little damage risk charging from a PC as those USB 3.0 ports will provide a max of .9A on data ports and on dedicated charging ports a max of 1.5A. USB 3.1 ports support up to 3A on the 5V bus, which is the same as the stock Nexus chargers (15W) - and is slightly less than the stock HTC QC charger - which appears to be 1.7A with 9V (15.3W). The most interesting thing here is that HTC had no need, whatsoever, to include QC - because it gained them a maximum of .3W charging - which is at max a 2% increase during the deepest charging draws - or a maximum of 36 seconds faster, all other things equal (battery size, same depth of charge, etc).

Short answer - most likely the connection to a PC will work properly with a charging downstream port of any configuration (USB 2, 3 or 3.1) and shouldn't have any risk to the user. The risk comes from using a power supply that is able to push more watts than the stock charger (for example a 60W charger) and the QC rather than C standard makes it inclined to try to suck in more than the 3A/5V supply that would charge it almost exactly as fast as the QC3 tech allows it to charge on the stock charger.

I'd hold back on the kudos on this issue because what they did here is shortsighted and dangerous. This isn't future proof, it's literally stuck in 2016 because it requires HTC's stock charger or a charger that is weaker to be safe. They did a lot of things right on the 10 in general, but this part was done very wrong.

 

[bellken]

I charged my htc 10 using an Aukey QC 2.0 charger with my htc supplied usb type c cable, and, it was fine - no overheating. You just need to be cautious about using non-phone chargers (i.e. chargers supplied with tablets, and, other high powered devices).

 

[Kevin OQuinn]

We don't know if the HTC 10 USB 3.1 Type C port will support the full features of USB 3.1 because, while as far as we know they followed that standard, we know they didn't follow the Type C standard - and so it's somewhat in the air when trying to determine what exactly they sabotaged and what they left compliant. It should still work properly in that way - and there's very little damage risk charging from a PC as those USB 3.0 ports will provide a max of .9A on data ports and on dedicated charging ports a max of 1.5A. USB 3.1 ports support up to 3A on the 5V bus, which is the same as the stock Nexus chargers (15W) - and is slightly less than the stock HTC QC charger - which appears to be 1.7A with 9V (15.3W). The most interesting thing here is that HTC had no need, whatsoever, to include QC - because it gained them a maximum of .3W charging - which is at max a 2% increase during the deepest charging draws - or a maximum of 36 seconds faster, all other things equal (battery size, same depth of charge, etc).

Short answer - most likely the connection to a PC will work properly with a charging downstream port of any configuration (USB 2, 3 or 3.1) and shouldn't have any risk to the user. The risk comes from using a power supply that is able to push more watts than the stock charger (for example a 60W charger) and the QC rather than C standard makes it inclined to try to suck in more than the 3A/5V supply that would charge it almost exactly as fast as the QC3 tech allows it to charge on the stock charger.

I'd hold back on the kudos on this issue because what they did here is shortsighted and dangerous. This isn't future proof, it's literally stuck in 2016 because it requires HTC's stock charger or a charger that is weaker to be safe. They did a lot of things right on the 10 in general, but this part was done very wrong.

That will depend on how PC MOBO makers implement type-c ports on their boards. What if they choose to not adhere to Power Delivery and also don't use QC? How do we know how that will behave with the 10?

I would assume (HUGE assumption) that plugging the 10 into a Gen 3.1 capable USB-C port will result in fast data transfer, but I haven't seen anyone that has tried that (partly because finding those ports on PC's is still really tough).

 

[mfreeland]

From Qualcomm's website.....
A: Quick Charge is designed to be connector-independent. Quick Charge can be implemented with a variety of formats, including USB Type-A, USB micro, USB Type-C, and other proprietary connectors.

Quick Charge high-voltage operation is designed to minimize charging issues associated with long or thin cables, allowing for a superior charging experience, independent of cable type.

Still not seeing the issue here. USB 3.0 is USB 3.0 no matter what connectors is on the end of the cable. I've used the stock QC as well as one I just bought on Amazon, as well as my old QC2.0, which still charges quickly. I do A/V for a living a deal with all kinds of connectors and formats as well as power supplies and chargers.....Aside from someone reporting a possible defective charger, I don't think there's any issue here.

 

[Aquila]

From Qualcomm's website.....
A: Quick Charge is designed to be connector-independent. Quick Charge can be implemented with a variety of formats, including USB Type-A, USB micro, USB Type-C, and other proprietary connectors.

Quick Charge high-voltage operation is designed to minimize charging issues associated with long or thin cables, allowing for a superior charging experience, independent of cable type.

Still not seeing the issue here. USB 3.0 is USB 3.0 no matter what connectors is on the end of the cable. I've used the stock QC as well as one I just bought on Amazon, as well as my old QC2.0, which still charges quickly. I do A/V for a living a deal with all kinds of connectors and formats as well as power supplies and chargers.....Aside from someone reporting a possible defective charger, I don't think there's any issue here.

Yeah, this is the part where Qualcomm is completely wrong - in a sense. What they're saying is true, you CAN put QC on just about any type of connector. But doing so is a horrible idea on USB -C, because, at least so far until someone invents a way, you CAN NOT have a USB-C connector that follows the USB-C standards AND has QC. Because QC breaks the rules. So you can have it, but it's non-compliant. So pretending there's no conflict is the disingenuous part on Qualcomm's part.

 

[TechHonda]

Comments removed by moderators.

 

[erasat]

Samsung could easily have used the USB-C and followed the USB-C standards and had a great charging experience that would work exactly the same way as the Nexus line, etc. They still do fast charging, it's just not "QuickCharge 2.0/3.0". That'd just be not following HTC's mistake and making a better charging experience.

They could have but then they would lose their hook for their Gear VR. I think that by the time the Galaxy Note 6 is relased they will have a second generation Gear VR with USB C connection and that's when they will fully switch to USB C, their position on the S7 for me was totally understandable and like I mentioned before, at this point on time, I totally agree with them.

 

[Aquila]

They could have but then they would lose their hook for their Gear VR. I think that by the time the Galaxy Note 6 is relased they will have a second generation Gear VR with USB C connection and that's when they will fully switch to USB C, their position on the S7 for me was totally understandable and like I mentioned before, at this point on time, I totally agree with them.

Oh you're completely right on your point, I'm just adding that the choice isn't between keeping micro USB and making an HTC level sabotage/blunder episode. There's a middle ground, which is using USB-C correctly.

 

[isdaako]

A slight tangent, is the only difference between 3.0 and 3.1 data speeds? Or is it also somehow different for power / charging?

 

[Aquila]

A slight tangent, is the only difference between 3.0 and 3.1 data speeds? Or is it also somehow different for power / charging?

The max charge from USB 3.0 is 1.5 A while 3.1 is 3.0 A.

 

[ugxvibe]

This may sound a bit ignorant, and I am an HTC fanboy.. but is the fact that the Pixel charger being 60 watts not the main cause of concern here? I would bet that with such a high output the software in the 10 is not designed to even look at such a high number to manage the amount of power coming through to give the warning about incompatible charger. Would not a software update to let the phone know a nuclear powered charge is connected and to cease charging immediately?

I understand all the USB C shortcuts that have been discussed but I would think that a software update would prevent anything like this from happening regardless. And what is the criteria for the 10 to determine an incompatible charger in the first place?

 

[Aquila]

This may sound a bit ignorant, and I am an HTC fanboy.. but is the fact that the Pixel charger being 60 watts not the main cause of concern here? I would bet that with such a high output the software in the 10 is not designed to even look at such a high number to manage the amount of power coming through to give the warning about incompatible charger. Would not a software update to let the phone know a nuclear powered charge is connected and to cease charging immediately?

I understand all the USB C shortcuts that have been discussed but I would think that a software update would prevent anything like this from happening regardless. And what is the criteria for the 10 to determine an incompatible charger in the first place?

The Pixel charger will charge Nexus phones with no risk or issues. Because they're all complaint. A software patch can't fix this, only a recall can. This is tied to miswiring the USB port. HTC already has software that is meant to alert the user and prevent the phone from drawing power, which is why we say the sabotage is intentional - because you don't make that software unless you know you're doing it wrong. That software failed for Jerry and he lucked out and didn't have his house burn down or his device destroyed. That won't be the case for everyone who doesn't know better.

 

[Aquila]

I know everyone wants to blame something other than HTC, but it isn't logically possible - not even to blame it on Qualcomm. Qualcomm did something ignorant, but HTC knew that and made it worse. Google, Pixel, The USB consortium and the user are all doing exactly what they're supposed to do - and HTC is making that dangerous.