I appreciate seeing the update on the first post regarding the lack of support for native USB-C charging.
I do think it’s not entirely accurate to discuss the fast-charging aspect of it as a rationale for not supporting the USB-C negotiation protocol. I’d prefer a simple acknowledgement that it was overlooked in the initial run, due to it not being a feature anyone actually felt the need to use during the prototyping. The inability to work with USB-C sources, whether they are powerbanks, laptops, or (a couple of years in the future) wall warts or integrated car chargers, etc, will be an inconvenience, and completely unrelated to the fast-charging aspect of the LT1. It’s obviously just something that was overlooked, and not intentionally omitted, particularly given the negligible difference in build complexity and cost.
By not acknowledging the (minor, low-impact for most, discovered in the first batch, easy to work-around) defect for what it is risks some forum members beginning to wonder if there is other ‘spin’ around the product. During my limited participation with this GB, I have seen a lot of evidence of serious commitment in time and energy to producing an amazing lantern, and great transparency around the build process. I am not fussed by the mix-up with allocation of discount codes for the initial batch, or the inconsistent bridging on some of the solder-points, as that is entirely natural in an initial production run. Indeed, I really appreciate the transparent discussion surrounding these things, knowing that the processes and tooling can be refined in light of this feedback. The USB-C situation is exactly the same: virtually noone who has the option to purchase a batch 1 lantern would pass it up. Don’t say it’s related to fast-charging, just acknowledge it’s another minor tweak to make in future batches.