They chose to use a standard so yes it's a problem that they didn't follow it. It's pretty cut & dry here.

Fortunately in this case it fails to 0V so it's not a dangerous or damaging failure, but still the spec literally hands you a schematic. Is it that hard to just copy it? Why did they even try to be clever and use their own design in the first place just to save a single 5.1k ohm resistor?

>but still the spec literally hands you a schematic. Is it that hard to just copy it? Why did they even try to be clever and use their own design in the first place just to save a single 5.1k ohm resistor?

See also: People who like to get all creative with encryption library implementations in commercial settings. If implementing a standard protocol, unless you have a very good reason otherwise, you should;

1. Go and find the guide by the people who designed it.

2. Read the guide and make test thingies till you are sure you understand it.

3. Now go and do what the guide tells you to do.

I can give the automotive electronics perspective here. Suppose that resistor costs 2c, including the actual part cost, PCB space, pick-and-place machine time (inc. more frequent spool replacement). Further suppose you expect to sell one million of this device.

$0.02 x 1E6 = $20k

If you are the circuit designer making, say, $150k, you just justified about a month of your salary (after accounting for benefits and other overhead). Your manager may parade you in front of the team at the next big group meeting as an example of how to achieve the BOM efficiency the company need to hit profit margin targets.

I've never bought into that reasoning on the automotive side. Selling "one million of this device," as you say, will bring in $20 billion. So yes, they can afford $20K to do the job right.

Also, SMT resistors at that quantity level are more like 1/10 of a cent, not 2 cents, and the PnP machine is running anyway. In fact you often end up using more resistors than strictly necessary, just because the machine holds a limited number of reels and it's cheaper to use more of the same part to arrive at a desired value than to add a new line item.

Things should be as cheap as possible, but no cheaper. Optimizing the cost of individual resistors is almost always a classic example of measuring the wrong thing. We should strive to avoid making excuses for doing that.

If it was purely about saving costs why even use USB-C, though? They could have just said that a 3A micro-usb supply is now required for USB power. The Pi4 isn't actually using any of the increased power delivery provided by USB-C PD, which is in the higher voltage range, after all. It just wants 5V 3A, which micro-usb can certainly handle as well (there are a variety of such power supplies for previous Pi's in fact).

Seems like a really questionable cost-savings maneuver to switch to a way more complicated & expensive connector for nearly no reason, and then penny pitch on one resistor.

Costs taken into consideration sure, but the Raspberry Pi Foundation is a charity, so I'm not sure the same sort of incentives exist on a personal basis. It probably is just the engineering attitude of saving costs as much as possible.

Those small SMD resistors come on a reel, and they're typically much cheaper than 2 cent: more like 0.1 cent. Still, that's $1000 for one million units.

Generally when I use a SBC like a raspberry pi or esp 8266/32, I use an existing cell phone charger + whatever cable is nearest to where I'm sitting.

I 100% expect the SBC to work with any combination of charger and cable. I have lots of existing cell phone charges and cables so unless I were purchasing this for someone else I don't think I would consider ordering the branded raspberry pi charger/cable.

Compatibility with existing cables is a big deal; I won't be ordering my Pi 4 until sometime after this is resolved.

The Pi 3 already didn't work with random PSUs or cables one has around.

But it still worked with just a sufficiently powerful PSU, while the Pi 4 requires something implementing the USB-C standard. Honestly, I'd prefer a round plug I could use with a 12V PSU.

And you would be disappointed. 3/4 of the micro-usb cables I purchased of my favorite purveyor of cheap chinesium does not power a pi3, and when it does brown-out

Have a hard look at the simple 'how can anyone possibly get a piece of wire wrong' cable, or even better test it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n70N_sBYepQ

At least in that case, its a matter of looking at the Amps to make sure there is enough juice.

I don't think anyone believes it is a big problem, but it's a minor annoyance with an easy resolution that will improve the general robustness of the product when it's fixed. Which is a great thing for a cheap all-purpose device like the raspi.

You might want to use a type c charger you already have or a power bank.

Or the person buying it is the increasingly number of non-technical people buying Raspberry Pis. To them, its just broken and needs to be returned.

I'd be pretty damn annoyed if I went to set up my new media center and discovered that I was gonna need to go out, buy a selection of different cables, and figure out which one works.

Or you just buy the official cable, which seems to be competitively priced. It's not ideal, but also not that big of a deal now that it is known. (Yes, it would be incredibly frustrating if you encountered this and was not aware)

As a consumer I think it's a big problem. Having identical ports that work differently is even more confusing than having a half dozen different ports. I can look at a micro-USB cable and a mini-USB cable and tell in 2 seconds which one works with the device I have - I can't do that if the ports look the same but behave differently.

It's enough of a usability fail that I won't buy one until it's fixed.

Just buy the official power supply instead of "finding" random junk.

...but then why follow specifications at all?

The computer costs $35-55. Mistakes get made and they'll fix it. Get over it.