Apple’s recently 40W Dynamic Power Adapter with 60W Max sneaks in a standard that the charging industry really needs: clear, consumer-facing labeling on sustained versus peak power. That simple bit of honesty is something a lot of Android brands could take on board in the market, as there are a lot out there with headline-grabbing wattage figures that don’t necessarily tell us much about the thermals day-to-day.
Peak vs. sustained: The numbers that count
Fast charging is not a single number, it’s a curve. Phones take a high current during the initial “constant current” stage, then taper back after that in both “constant voltage” and the final top-off. Heat limits in the charger, cable and handset have led to repeated warnings that ‘peak’ is typically a flash in the pan. (Labs and reviewers separately testing charge performance report 100W–120W chargers falling to 20-50W a few minutes into the session, with the last twenty percent of a charge taking an especially lengthy time.)
Consumers feel that gap. Best in test: Stagnated, 120W A brick marked at 120W implies blistering speed all the way through but the overall wattage over a full cycle isn’t anywhere near that. Protection of the battery health, thermals on PCB and room temperature are keeping this sustained figure from going up. That’s not a problem — physics is physics — but it presents a marketing problem when the box screams only the peak.
Apple adapter says it all
Apple has refreshingly literal branding: 60W is as high as this AC adaptor can comfortably go at room temperature, 40W is what you expect once it’s been stabilised under a thermal offset.
Apple quotes between 0–50% in about 20 minutes with the latest iPhones (excluding entry level options) without saying anything for full-cycle times where tapering is prevalent. That framing corresponds with how charging really operates.
There’s also a standards story here. AppleInsider When it comes to the photos, AppleInsider noted that the charger supports USB Power Delivery with AVS (Adjustable Voltage Supply), which will allow voltages to be negotiated in 100mV increments for optimal efficiency across your devices. Community testing reports, such as this early one from Reddit user privaterbok, note the adapter can maintain anything close to 60W output for around/over 18 minutes before it begins to drop off toward a more sustainable 40W region with top surface temperatures reaching peaks of around 62C in a controlled setting. Phone thermals in the real world will likely clip that peak window, but even still, the transparency here is a good way to frame expectations.
The adapter seems to ignore PPS (Programmable Power Supply), a faster form of USB PD that many Android phones prefer. It’s a fail from that perspective, but adoption of AVS is still better than nothing for moving towards open, standards-based fast charging instead of proprietary lock-in.
What Android brands need to fix
Raw speed is a category where Android OEMs actually lead — think 100W, even 120W or 150W from brands using the likes of SuperVOOC, HyperCharge, and SuperDart. But we hardly ever hear the difference between this launch pad and cruise. On-box and in-store materials generally shout it from the rooftops to get people excited about that brief peak value, however they don’t explain to buyers what happens on other days when thermal throttling occurs, or if you use a third-party PD charger.
Here’s the solution: Write both numbers.
If that same brick can hit 120W for a brief ramp, but it delivers ~30–40W over most of your average session, identify it as “40W sustained, 120W peak,” and list the conditions (25°C ambient air temperature, single port use, certified cable). Add a couple of time measures: 0–50%, when max out in the best case and a normalized to 0–100% one. This transmits speed without hand-waving away the physics involved.
Equally important, lean into open protocols. A lot of Android phones can reach top speeds only with the OEM’s own charger and cable. With standard USB PD (plus PPS or AVS), people would experience fast, safe charging over more bricks, and power banks will reduce ewaste and confusion. The promise of PD has been advanced significantly by the USB-IF, with higher-power envelopes and finer control; OEMs ought to be meeting their customers there, not behind vendor-specific walls.
PPS, AVS and the road to openness
PPS and AVS serve to accomplish the same task tighter, more efficient control of voltage via different paths. PPS offers dynamic level shifting at voltage and current within very fine increments (typically down to 20mV), while AVS provides flexible selection of voltage with steps of 100mV, over a wider range. The cumulative result is less heat, better efficiency and to have a long life for your battery compared to that of fixed step charging.
We’re already seeing chargers that incorporate the best of both. The Pixel Flex Dual Port 67W from Google does support AVS as well as PPS, ensuring compatibility across laptops, tablets and phones too. Apple’s new brick doesn’t seem to include PPS, but it’s a sensible step forward for most everyone with a stake in the game. Ignore that at your fail and you’re a broken warranty claim if the standard Android makers do not only support both but also clear state on the box, just as they should peak/sustained power.
Honesty sells — and batteries
Clear labels shouldn’t hold a device back; they merely bring marketing into line with reality. Buyers receive fewer surprises and reviewers clearer benchmarks, and long-term battery health benefits are had when chargers and phones negotiate power intelligently. Bodies such as the USB-IF could even standardize a dual-number system (the numbers you get when input follows clearly defined conditions) to make comparisons easy.
Apple has proved a charger can be fast, more open and upfront about its limitations. Android brands are already leading on raw speed; now they should lead on clarity. Print the sustained number alongside the peak, list which protocols it supports and let te real numbers rule.
