Affiliate links on Android Authority may earn us a commission.Learn more.
Qualcomm responds to USB Type-C and Quick Charge 3.0 compatibility concerns
August 21, 2025
Despite the fact that USB Type-C was designed to make life easier with its error-less insertion initiative – it’s symmetrical after all – there have been a number of concerning issues that have cropped up. One such support scandal surfaced yesterday involving not one, but two brand new flagship phones. Specifically, theHTC 10andLG’s G5have been discussed, though the issue itself can pertain to a larger spectrum of devices.
Simply put, there is concern that theQuick Charge 3.0technology on-board these new smartphones is incompatible with the charging standards of USB Type-C 3.1 specifications, which state that the port’s Vbus line should be held between 4.45 and 5.25 volts. Qualcomm’s Quick Charge, however, works by increasing the voltage to 9 or 12 volts, which clearly breaches the port’s baseline specifications. The nitty-grittycan be found in our coverage here.
In seeking to get to the bottom of the situation,Android Central contacted Qualcommto get an official statement regarding this concern, and was provided with the following message:
On the surface the statement seeks to imply that there is no safety concern, and that no problems have been reported to Qualcomm in regards to any compatibility problems. At the same time however, there is no specific language that addresses the specification-related concerns with USB Type-C itself.
Coupled Concerns
While Qualcomm’s PR department may be trying to alleviate the concerns raised recently, there are still relatively few devices on the market with USB Type-C and Qualcomm Quick Charge 3.0 technology. While no customer claims may have been reportedso faras per the information in the above statement, it does not necessarily mean there won’t be in the future. This, in and of itself, is made even more problematic by the ongoing concern about third party USB Type-C cables andthe potential hazards they may poseto thevery devices meant to workwith them.
This overall situation, is then further coupled in almost co-morbid fashion, with the fact that companies like Samsung have chosen to pass on USB Type-C for itsGalaxy S7 and Galaxy S7 Edgehandsets. This will likely reduce the number of potential number accessories made using the standard asthe largest player in the industryhas decided to forgo its inclusion. Additionally, devices likethe Windows 10-powered Galaxy TabPro Smake use of USB Type-C but have justonesingle port on the entire device meaning that customersmustpurchase a USB Type-C adapter to even plug-in a mini-USB keyboard or other such accessory. It is literally the same problem as Apple’s 12-inch Macbook faces.
Until more companies begin to make USB Type-C accessories, there remains a usability issue with the standard. Until third party plug producers can put out products that don’t fry hardware, there remains a safety issue. And now – with this Qualcomm Quick Charge “problem” – there remains a potentially lingering concern that just using a device withmanufacturer-suppliedcables mightstillcause a safety concern.
As pointed out yesterday, Qualcomm’s proprietary technology has always extended the USB standard, rather than being a part of it. Charging Type-C phones via a normal 5V USB connection shouldn’t present any problems, as we are simply looking at two competing standards for fast charging. Still, this new mini “scandal” is just another unfortunate blot on the image of what is designed to be the future of wired interfacing.
Assuming there is no possible safety issue, thereisstill a larger one for Qualcomm the company, as further perpetuation – or eventual reported problems – may linger throughout the year, not unlike what occurred in the last one with respect to the Snapdragon 810 chip-set and its much-publicized overheating problem.
What do you think? Is this issue getting out of hand, or are there legitimate concerns to consider?
Thank you for being part of our community. Read ourComment Policybefore posting.
