Read the original article here.

---

Case Study: The Universal Power Adapter for Mobile Devices (UPAMD) - A Standard That Failed to Connect

In the fast-paced world of technology, standards are crucial. They aim to bring order, compatibility, and efficiency to diverse devices and manufacturers. However, even well-intentioned and technically sound standards can fail to gain traction in the market, becoming cautionary tales of ambition unmet. The Universal Power Adapter for Mobile Devices (UPAMD), standardized as IEEE 1823-2015, is one such example, representing a significant effort that ultimately did not connect with its intended user base.

This resource examines UPAMD in the context of "The Most Infamous Tech Failures in History," exploring its technical details, noble goals, and the market forces that led to its effective non-adoption.

What Was UPAMD?

The Universal Power Adapter for Mobile Devices (UPAMD), officially documented as IEEE 1823-2015, was an ambitious standard developed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). Its primary goal was to create a single, standardized power supply solution for a wide range of mobile devices, particularly focusing on laptops and similar electronics.

The Problem UPAMD Aimed to Solve

Before universal standards like USB Power Delivery became common, users of mobile devices, especially laptops, faced a chaotic landscape of proprietary power adapters. Each manufacturer, and often different models from the same manufacturer, used unique connectors, voltages, and current ratings. This resulted in:

1. User Confusion: Users had to ensure they had the correct adapter for each device, leading to frustration when traveling or needing to replace a lost charger.
2. Electronic Waste: When a device became obsolete or broke, its unique adapter often became useless, contributing significantly to electronic waste.
3. Inconvenience: Carrying multiple chargers for different devices was cumbersome.

UPAMD was designed to eliminate this complexity by providing a single, universal power adapter standard that various devices could adhere to.

Technical Specifications and Design Features

The IEEE 1823-2015 standard defined several key technical aspects for this universal power adapter:

• Power Range: The standard targeted a power range of 10 to 130 watts (W), which is suitable for most laptops, monitors, and many other consumer electronic devices. An optional extended range allowed for up to 240 W, accommodating more power-hungry devices like some gaming laptops or workstations.
  • Context: Power (measured in Watts) is the product of Voltage (V) and Current (A). The standard specified ranges like 20 V at 6.5 A (for 130W) or 60 V at 4 A (for 240W), indicating the flexibility needed to power different devices efficiently.
• Energy Limits: Specific requirements were set for the maximum capacitive energy at the output (less than 15.1 µJ) and inductive energy at disconnect (less than 5.3 µJ).
  • Explanation: These limits relate to safety and performance. Capacitive energy stored in the adapter's output capacitors can cause a spark or arc when the connector is plugged or unplugged. Inductive energy stored in coils can also cause arcing upon disconnect. Limiting these energies reduces the risk of damage to the connector or device, and potentially minimizes safety hazards, especially in environments where sparks could be problematic.
• A New, Dedicated Connector: Crucially, UPAMD proposed an entirely new direct current (DC) power plug. It was specifically designed not to mate with any existing connector types. This was likely intended to prevent users from accidentally plugging devices into incompatible or potentially unsafe older power sources. The connector was also designed for durability, aiming for a lifetime of about ten years.
• Communication Channel: The standard included a provision for a communication channel between the power adapter and the connected device.
  • Explanation: This channel allows the device to "negotiate" its power requirements with the adapter. Instead of the adapter blindly supplying a fixed voltage and current, the device could communicate exactly how much power it needed, allowing the adapter to optimize its output and ensuring the device received the correct and safest power level. This is similar in principle to how standards like USB Power Delivery work.

Intended Benefits

By standardizing the power interface, UPAMD aimed to deliver significant benefits:

• Reduced Electronic Waste: A universal adapter could potentially serve multiple devices over its lifespan, meaning fewer adapters would be discarded when devices were replaced.
• Simplified User Experience: Travelers and consumers would only need one or a few standard adapters instead of a bag full of proprietary ones.
• Global Compatibility: A single standard would theoretically work for devices sold anywhere in the world (assuming input AC voltage flexibility in the adapter itself).
• Support for Various Devices: The power range was designed to cover laptops, but also potentially Ethernet switches, wireless routers, monitors, and other common consumer and office electronics.

The History of the Standard

The development timeline for UPAMD was relatively straightforward:

• June 17, 2010: The IEEE Standards Association approved the formation of the Universal Power Adapter for Mobile Devices working group (initially codenamed P1823).
• May 15, 2015: The standard was officially published as IEEE Std 1823-2015.

This shows a standard developed over approximately five years by a recognized global standards body, indicating a significant investment of time and expertise.

The Critical Issue: A Failure to Launch

Despite the technical development and publication of the standard, the defining characteristic of UPAMD, and the reason it appears in the context of tech failures, is its near-total lack of commercial adoption in its intended market of end-user mobile devices.

In 2019, years after the standard was published, the chair of the IEEE 1823 working group confirmed the situation, stating there were "no known examples of commercial deployments of UPAMD in end-user devices." While prototypes were made by some power supply vendors, these did not translate into products available to consumers.

This lack of market penetration means that UPAMD, despite its technical definition and goals, failed to achieve its purpose of unifying power adapters for mobile devices.

Why Did UPAMD Fail to Gain Traction? The Rise of the Competition

The primary reason cited for UPAMD's failure to be adopted in the IT market is the simultaneous rise and dominance of USB Power Delivery (USB PD), particularly utilizing the USB Type-C connector.

• USB Power Delivery (USB PD):

  USB Power Delivery (USB PD): A specification that allows for increased power transfer over USB, significantly beyond the standard USB capabilities. It enables devices to negotiate power levels, allowing for both charging and powering of larger devices like laptops (up to 240W with the latest versions) over a USB connection.

  USB PD development coincided with, and in some ways outpaced, UPAMD. While UPAMD was defining a new, dedicated power connector, USB PD leveraged the emerging, versatile USB Type-C connector.

• The Versatility of USB Type-C: The USB-C connector offered a multi-purpose solution capable of carrying data, video signals (via DisplayPort or HDMI alternate modes), and power (via USB PD) over a single cable.

  • Example: A single USB-C port on a laptop could be used to connect to an external display, transfer data to a hard drive, and receive power from a dock or charger simultaneously.

This inherent versatility of USB-C was a critical advantage. Manufacturers were already adopting USB-C for data and video, making the addition of USB PD capabilities a natural progression. Consumers also rapidly embraced the idea of a single connector for multiple functions.

• Market Momentum and Ecosystem: The USB Implementers Forum (USB-IF), which governs USB standards, had significant industry buy-in and momentum. Companies were heavily invested in developing USB-C and USB PD products (cables, chargers, hubs, devices). This created a powerful ecosystem that UPAMD, with its entirely new, power-only connector, could not compete with.

• Timing: The UPAMD standard was published in 2015, the same year that USB-C began appearing on mainstream laptops (like the 2015 MacBook). By the time UPAMD was formally standardized, the industry was already rapidly converging on USB-C and USB PD as the future for both power and data.

In essence, while UPAMD was a dedicated, technically sound standard for power, it was outmaneuvered by a competing, multi-purpose standard (USB-C/USB PD) that offered greater versatility and had already gained significant industry traction. The market chose the more integrated, versatile solution over the dedicated power standard.

Comparison with Related Standards

The existence of other standardization efforts highlights the widespread desire for universal charging solutions, but also the fragmentation that prevented a single standard from winning until USB-C achieved dominance.

• USB Power Delivery (USB PD): As discussed, this became the de facto standard for universal power delivery over USB-C, directly competing with UPAMD's goal in the mobile device space. USB PD's Extended Power Range (EPR) now matches and exceeds UPAMD's 240W capability.
• IEC 62700 ("DC Power supply for notebook computer"): This is an international technical specification with similar goals to UPAMD, defining requirements for external power supplies for notebooks.
• EN 62684:2010 / IEC 62684:2011 (Common external power supply for smartphones): An earlier standard focused specifically on low-power chargers for smartphones, which famously led to the micro-USB standard being widely adopted before the transition to USB-C for smartphones.

The presence of multiple standards bodies and specifications attempting to solve similar problems simultaneously illustrates the challenge of achieving true global interoperability and the difficulty for any single standard (like UPAMD) to emerge victorious without overwhelming industry support.

Lessons Learned: A Cautionary Tale of Standardization

The fate of UPAMD serves as a valuable case study in the challenges of technology standardization and market adoption:

1. Technical Merit Is Not Enough: UPAMD was a technically defined standard with clear goals. However, technical soundness does not guarantee market success.
2. Competition and Ecosystem Matter: Standards do not exist in a vacuum. They compete with existing solutions and alternative emerging technologies. The presence of a strong, versatile competitor with significant industry backing (USB-C/USB PD) was a major factor in UPAMD's failure.
3. Market Timing is Crucial: Developing a standard takes time. By the time UPAMD was finalized, the market had already begun moving decisively towards a different solution for the same problem space.
4. Versatility Wins: In many cases, a multi-purpose solution that integrates several functions (data, video, power) into one interface is more attractive to manufacturers and consumers than a single-purpose standard, even if the single-purpose standard is technically optimized for its specific task.
5. Standards Bodies Need Agility: Standards bodies must be aware of the evolving technological landscape and competitive forces to ensure their efforts remain relevant and have a realistic chance of adoption.

While the core mission of UPAMD in the mobile device market failed, the concept of standardizing power adapters lives on through standards like USB PD. There remains some potential, as noted by the working group chair, for IEEE 1823 to find niche applications in areas like automotive DC power distribution, where its specific technical characteristics or control methods (like CAN Bus mentioned in the quote) might be advantageous in harsh environments compared to USB-C. However, this would represent a pivot from its original, primary objective.

Conclusion

The Universal Power Adapter for Mobile Devices (UPAMD, IEEE 1823-2015) represents a significant, albeit ultimately unsuccessful, attempt to standardize power adapters for mobile devices. Developed with the noble goals of reducing electronic waste and simplifying user experience, the standard defined a dedicated power connector and communication protocol with robust technical specifications.

However, its lack of adoption in the intended market, particularly in the face of the ascendant and more versatile USB Type-C connector with USB Power Delivery, marks it as a notable example of a technology standard that failed to connect with market realities. UPAMD serves as a valuable lesson for engineers, standard bodies, and businesses alike, illustrating that successful adoption requires not only technical excellence but also favorable market conditions, timely development, strong industry support, and the ability to compete effectively with alternative solutions. While not a failure in terms of technical definition, its outcome in the marketplace solidifies its place as a prominent, albeit quiet, entry in the history of tech failures related to missed opportunities and competitive defeat.