alt Hacker NewsSame!
I've also returned a few USB devices that ship with a USB-A to USB-C cable and ONLY charge in that mode, they also MUST charge with USB-C PD.
The two so far were a therapy light and some Zippo hand warmers. Like, who in the hell would design a device that has a USB-C port on it where only a fraction of chargers will work on it. It feels even worse than proprietary charges, because you see a USB-C port on it and think, oh I have a plug that fits it, and then it doesn't F**ing work. Idiot engineering/product teams, making the world suck with their falsely advertised USB-C ports. If anyone of you are on a team that ever makes this decision, just know that it is a stupid decision, and jump ship when you can.
Replies
> I've also returned a few USB devices that ship with a USB-A to USB-C cable and ONLY charge in that mode...
By "that mode", do you mean "1.5A @ 5V" permitted by BC, or do you mean "3A @ 20V" permitted by non-type-C PD?
> Like, who in the hell would design a device that has a USB-C port on it where only a fraction of chargers will work on it.
Who in the hell would design a charger that can do Type-C PD but can't do either pre-Type-C PD or BC? Does the charger in question also shit the bed when a USB 1.0 device attempts to draw 100mA @ 5V? I hope not! Were it me, I'd return that crappy thing for a refund.
The thing is, making a 5v-only device PD-compliant is literally one resistor. It costs well under a penny.
It's pure ignorance, not a decision, but the lack of one. Lack of caring, lack of having an actual engineer involved, just slapping an oval-shaped port into a product where a trapezoidal port had been, and blindly thinking that magically makes it spec-compliant.
Or not thinking about the spec at all.
I return these devices too. Lots of them. My e-commerce returns over the last year are probably 50% PD non-compliance, 50% all other defects combined.