1. You can still charge over USB-C. (The 16" cannot charge at full speed over USB-C, because it charges at 140W which is more than USB PD can currently deliver. But it will still charge to full, just slower.)

2. The other side of the cable is USB-C.

USB-PD can currently deliver 140W, but it's fairly recent and Apple probably didn't have the lead time to implement that in these machines. Should be there in macbooks soon, I hope?

If 140MW is more than USB PD can deliver, then how can the other side of the cable be USB-C?

Because the 140W charging adapter supports USB-C EPR (extended power range) [0], which allows compatible USB-C chargers, cables, and devices to work at up to 240W. (Obviously Apple's 140W charger only supports up to 140W.) However, the spec is so new that there's currently no USB-C to USB-C cable that supports 140W. I don't think we know yet if the MacBooks can charge at 140W with an EPR USB-C cable, not least because nobody is selling that cable yet. But I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't work because that'd require all three USB-C ports to support it.)

The MagSafe 3 cable goes from 140W USB-C to MagSafe, but the USB-C charger is 100% standards-compliant USB-C EPR.

[0]: https://www.reddit.com/r/UsbCHardware/comments/qat7ej/new_ap...

That's really good news.

140W charging on the 16" had me worried that Apple was using a proprietary/non-conforming extension to USB-C, just like Nintendo did for the Switch. The reports of bricked Switches from standard USB-C chargers was an unfortunate demonstration of why this is a bad idea, and why it's important that Apple is using a standard (even if it's very new) method of increasing power delivery.

I really doubt that Apple would have gone out of their way to invent their own power profiles for the 16-inch MacBook Pro if one didn't already exist.

The 16-inch MacBook Pro certainly doesn't need 140 W to run. The Intel i9 MacBook Pro comes with a "measly" 96 W charger and it tops up just fine. The 140 W is there for fast charging and if they had to stick to 100 W, they could've made a professional machine just fine. It's not like the most common complaint about the MacBooks between 2016 and 2021 was "it charges up too slow".

Well, Apple did go out of their way to invent the new power profiles - they just did it via the USB-IF.

FWIW, Apple pretty much writes the USB-C standard.

Extended Power Range gets you 240W: https://usb.org/document-library/usb-type-cr-cable-and-conne...

It’s non-conformant, presumably.

There’s no real problem making a charger than can deliver more than the spec allows, but you wouldn’t be able to use it with a C-C cable. This isn’t one.

USB PD 3.0 can do up to 100 W, USB PD 3.1 can do up to 240 W.

Guessing they can only do 3.0 on the data ports for now and the MagSafe connector is just USB PD 3.1 implementation without any possibility for data.

The MagSafe port uses USB PD 3.1 EPR. The USB-C ports on the MacBooks don't actually support EPR, so they're limited to 100W.

With the other end being MagSafe apple has no need to adhere to usb pd specs.

makes sense, thank you

If you finish reading the article, the answers you seek are therein.

1. You can still use ANY USB-C port to charge the laptop. 2. The power adapter is USB-C to MagSafe 3.

Not an owner, but from the announcement:

1. You can charge over usb-c.

2. Yes, the magsafe cable as usb-c at the other end.

This was answered in the article you're commenting on. But what wasn't addressed was that the charging cable costs FIFTY QUID (I don't know what that is in BUCKS) but ... that's a lot for a stupid cable.

From the announcement video, they said you can charge over both USB-C and MagSafe.

On the website for the notebook the "In the box" section shows a separate MagSafe -> USB-C cable.

Don't own one but the reporting has been solid that USB-C charging is still available and that the magsafe cable just has USB-C on the other end.

1. yes, you can charge with usb-c

2. it is a usb-c plug

1. Yes 2. It’s a USB c cable