Counter question: where does it say on there that it’s PD3.0?
Nowhere. I found no mention of PD anything which inspires some of my questions.
Perhaps it follows since stuff from the PD3 specs and that’s why that tester said it, but this is guesswork.
That’s indeed the sort of answer I was looking for. The testing device detects PD3. This somewhat suggests that electronically the PSU identifies itself as PD 3.0-compliant.
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you but the gist of your text is “why is this item not saying what a random guy said it should say??”
I want to understand the contradiction. The testing device declares that the PSU is PD3. But the test results led the blogger to claim it’s not PPS. So where is the lying occuring? I expect the PD protocols to establish a handshake whereby each side of the handshake discloses the PD revision it adheres to. Otherwise the protocol is quite shitty.
Edit: remember that companies need to pay fees when they advertise with the standard - they can just follow its spec without advertising it at all, I can see that happening for laptop producers specially as they don’t sell their power units as generic products (i.e. with a focus to market them).
That’s interesting. I suppose the fees finance a certification effort. And I suppose that’s fair enough. But if a device claims to be PD3 not on the label but makes this claim in the electronic protocol, the claim is a claim nonetheless. And I suppose it’s legally dicey. Dell could not be easily prosecuted for false advertising if they wrote nothing on the box or label that a buyer would see. But the hardware is still lying about its capability and I would think that would (or should) have consequences.
Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe 8 hours ago
As best I can find, there’s no logo/mark to indicate compliance with PD3.0, nor for PPS.
If it’s compliant with those, I suspect it’ll be in the documentation.
You’re probably on the right track - they designed this for their devices, will publish what it can do but not claim compliance with a spec they didn’t build specifically too.
In the High Level Design meetings (or equivalent), they probably laid out charging time/performance requirements which included using exsiting commodity tech and general conformance to USB C.
This so any PD compliant charger could charge the laptop, but their own charger would follow it’s own specs.