![[)roi(]](/forum/data/avatars/m/8/8711.jpg?1563828683){kind=avatar}
Wrong; these are no longer a simple set of wires: http://www.chipworks.com/en/technic...ources/blog/inside-the-apple-lightning-cable/
Hence this Apple note: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT5609
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: If you were buying a TV today, which brand would you choose?
Apple now really going overboard.
- Thread starter Defib
- Start date
Hence this Apple note: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT5609
[)roi(];12303926 said:
Charge controller is still in the phone. The only logic in the cable is to flip the pins around, depending on which way round you insert it, and of course to identify the cable as genuine. If you look at the apple note you linked, you will see that there is no mention of batteries exploding or swelling only "charging issues", which could mean undercharging. Closest thing to exploding battery is "Excessive heat in the connector".
mmmhhh so how does that make any difference re crappy cables; surely the reason for the note is proof enough that they don't always get it right, i.e. bad cables / internal circuitry can damage the device. Ps. They mention Device Damage which btw is an all inclusive term.
[)roi(];12304030 said:
Well, if you don't do the pin swapping correctly, you could damage the device. From what you linked, it seems likely that there is some sort of protection integrated in the cable, which probably protects against over-current/over-voltage. But to have the charge controller in the cable would be madness, since there are lots of parameters you need to send the controller, and it would need to cater for different devices (iPhone/iPad etc.).
To be honest, I would not use a generic cable if I had an iPhone, but our discussion is whether it is possible for a battery to swell/explode with a generic cable. Show me a case where that has happened, and I will concede. Batteries swelling is a Samsung thing (probably patented) and batteries exploding is a Nokia thing...
Clearly you've not read the chip works article or TI right ups on the circuitry incorporated in the cables.
...and this is the brief for the chip on TI's site:
Clearly the design is far more complex than you give it credit.
As to the risk with non MFi certified cables; it's well documented that this circuitry constitutes a costly portion of the manufacturing costs of this cable; probably a key area for cost cutting with the cheaper cables; for example, the use of inferior alternatives or simpler circuitry that doesn't incorporate any of the gauging features.
On batteries; I certainly don't have to Google for you?
Last edited:
[)roi(];12304066 said:
That excerpt from the chipworks website. It clearly states that they do not know what it is, since chips with similar numbers are eeproms or battery monitor ICs. So I don't know what you are on about.
Plus, if the battery fuel gauge is in the cable, how do you suggest the phone will display the battery percentage to you? Also, for a battery fuel gauge to learn accurately, it needs to be able to monitor the battery constantly, during charge and discharge...
They found the die with the marking BQ2025, a TI chip classified as battery fuel gauge. Your argument so far is a black & white one, surely there's a shade of gray. I doubt Apple would have included this type of chip if it was completely unnecessary.
We started this debate on whether the cable could play a part in increased risk; clearly the inclusion of this circuitry shows some increased complexity over the previous standard; and whilst I agree that the primary battery logic & circuits are contained within the device, I also posit that the inclusion of this circuitry in the cable is somehow fundamental to the health of device whilst charging; probably why Apple disabled all non MFi certified cables / extenders / adapters during the 7.1 update.
Certainly not conclusive at all; all the Apple / Samsung investigation reports I've read have pointed to device failures stemming from the use of non MFi components; yet I don't doubt that some failures might be endemic to internal device component quality controls.
In either case the reason why both Samsung and Apple are trying to circumvent fakes is probably due to their internal investigations pointing to device damaged from these uncertified fakes (Occam's razor), as opposed to conspiracy theories about how both are using a perceived threat to maximize financials returns.
Oh boy, you are programmer and you are unable to pass google search parameters without javascript?[)roi(];12303906 said:
Back to topic, actually you are ignorant thinking that you can charge lithium 3.7 cells with USB sourced 5V. Since introducing lithium batteries charging circuit is always inside the phone. Take it as granted, stop discredit yourself.
Shame you can't even succeed at an insult; do you really believe Google's standard search page doesn't use Javascript? -- oh wellOh boy, you are programmer and you are unable to pass google search parameters without javascript?
don't get despondent, if you keep trying you'll finally figure it out.Congratulations, at least you've improved your responses vs. your previous grammar soup.
Unfortunately it seems you still can't read?
[)roi(];12304166 said:
Last edited:
Shame it seem you read as badly as you write; I suggest you read up on the specifications of the TI chip.
Rudimental
Expert Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2009
- Messages
- 1,457
- Reaction score
- 2
I just read this thread, and I'm waiting for the moment when he actually reads what Chipworks says about BQ2025.
http://i.imgur.com/EMrknJP.gif
You finally agreed to the facts, but in meantime you accused me for ignorance and followed with other derogatory comments. I remind you it was not right, do you understand, moron?[)roi(];12305346 said:
Last edited:
Nope, read again... I certainly never disagreed that such circuitry was in device; what I did argue against is the assumption of the cable being completely passive.
Ps. Congrats you at least made sense this time, even though you proved once again to be sporting the colors you keep trying to endow on me: yes and just in case you didn't get it I do mean the colors of moron.
Last edited:
Unlike some I don't restrict my reading to one site; basically what you're missing is that the chip is part of a family of TI chips that provide not only a proprietary TI serial protocol but also battery management features.
The point you're probably getting stuck on is the former feature; however if you took the time to actually read ALL the chipworks articles then you'd see they also refer to the latter feature, secondly they specifically single out power management, and the correct wiring of this chip according to the TI specifications.
Now without Apple's input all we can do is speculate; nobody including Chipworks can be sure what features Apple is actually utilizing and how?
My point on this is that TI do make chips that only provide their proprietary TI serial protocol, however that is not the chip Apple chose to use. Hence its quite probable they using the chip to for example: optimize charging.
Here's another site positing a use after the Chipwork discovery.
http://9to5mac.com/2012/10/16/ti-ch...os-devices-to-save-electricity-when-charging/
Rudimental
Expert Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2009
- Messages
- 1,457
- Reaction score
- 2
d0b33
Honorary Master
I can confirm the bad battery life, mine seems to drain quickly on 7.1, I tried resetting settings still no luck.
Speculating, having no electronic background...[)roi(];12305922 said:
I can say, charging optimisation is already in the charging PVM controller inside the phone (with firmware supervisor). It doesn't make sense to move it outside.
It could be however discharging protection for accessories receiving power from the phone. Such function can be discovered after such accessory equipment is released.
Last edited: