> While this might appear to be a consumer-hostile move from Apple, there are reasons the company might want a certification process. Obviously, Apple stands to make some money from charging for the certified parts and technology, but consumers will also have more confidence in buying products they know are guaranteed to work seamlessly with the iPhone.
> Despite all of the praise USB-C gets for its universal connector, there are a lot of problems with it too. It is nearly impossible to tell what capabilities a cable might have just by looking at it, which could potentially damage a product if connected in an unexpected way.
---
https://www.zdnet.com/home-and-office/smart-office/using-the...
> Some cables could carry 100W and handle 10Gbps, while others might be limited to 60W and 5Gbps or even 480Mbps.
> The idea is to stop 100W of power from being pushed down a cable that can't handle it. This could, at worse, result in fires.
> One problem with E-Mark is that it's not as widely supported as it should be. While a quality charger shouldn't try to push 60W or even 100W down an unsuitable cable, I've seen it happen.
> And unless you're aware of it, you'd have no idea that it was unsafe.
> Then there's the issue of cables that claim to have the E-Mark which do not have the E-Mark. Unless you have a tool that can read the E-Mark, you have to take the manufacturer's word for it.
---
I'm going to contend this isn't so much subverting EU rules but rather trying to ensure that Apple won't get blamed when someone uses a cable that can't handle the power when plugged in given that there's not a good standard out there for this and no enforcement of the "ok, there's something - try this..."
> Despite all of the praise USB-C gets for its universal connector, there are a lot of problems with it too. It is nearly impossible to tell what capabilities a cable might have just by looking at it, which could potentially damage a product if connected in an unexpected way.
---
https://www.zdnet.com/home-and-office/smart-office/using-the...
> Some cables could carry 100W and handle 10Gbps, while others might be limited to 60W and 5Gbps or even 480Mbps.
> The idea is to stop 100W of power from being pushed down a cable that can't handle it. This could, at worse, result in fires.
> One problem with E-Mark is that it's not as widely supported as it should be. While a quality charger shouldn't try to push 60W or even 100W down an unsuitable cable, I've seen it happen.
> And unless you're aware of it, you'd have no idea that it was unsafe.
> Then there's the issue of cables that claim to have the E-Mark which do not have the E-Mark. Unless you have a tool that can read the E-Mark, you have to take the manufacturer's word for it.
---
I'm going to contend this isn't so much subverting EU rules but rather trying to ensure that Apple won't get blamed when someone uses a cable that can't handle the power when plugged in given that there's not a good standard out there for this and no enforcement of the "ok, there's something - try this..."