upvote

points

by Kirby641 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby ryandrake1 hours ago|
next
[-]
So, call it USB-D or something, if one cable is significantly different (in purpose, performance, form factor) than another cable. Don't just call everything the same label, and let the non-technical buyer beware.
reply
upvoteby stouset1 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Okay, great, it’s called USB-D. Is this a new connector? Or do we now need to resort to labeling cables and checking the label?

Do we do this for every new version and combination of versions for USB? USB-PD? Thunderbolt? DisplayPort?

reply
upvoteby ReactiveJelly42 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
The computer / phone should auto-detect and tell you on-screen
reply
upvoteby zx80806 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
The hell Apple or Google cares.
reply
upvoteby cameldrv25 minutes ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
There are names for all of the features. It would be cool if there were some sort of color code or physical indication of a cables capability, but one of the cool things about usb-c is that the same connector works for really cheap stuff and really high end stuff. For example, in a pinch I can charge my MacBook (slowly) from a $5 gas station usb charger.
reply
upvoteby Kirby641 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
USB-A has many variants and we don’t call it a different connector. Heck, USB-B and micro USB both have 3.0 variants that are physically different and we don’t call them something different either. I don’t see the problem here. This is just semantics, especially when they aren’t even labeled period… people just see a cable and will try plugging it in.
reply
upvoteby ryandrake50 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
The other USBs are no better TBH. I still remember USB Full Speed and USB High Speed. Do you remember, without looking it up, which one is faster? Same form factor, same physical connector.
reply
upvoteby Kirby6439 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
USB2 has been backwards compatible from the beginning though. I can’t think of a time in the past… 15, maybe 20 years where a USB cable wasn’t capable of high speed, unless it didn’t have data lines at all.

(And yes, I don’t need to look it up. But also I’m extremely familiar with the USB spec and have been tangentially involved with the USB-IF)

reply
upvoteby MetaWhirledPeas1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
The naming could be better for sure.
reply
upvoteby revolvingthrow1 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
I have several 1m long TB4 cables (100W, video, 40Gbps) and they’re neither particularly thick nor were they anywhere close to $60.

The best you can get is TB5 (240W, up to 120 Gbps data transfer) and at 1m long they’re $32 or so from CableMatters. Those are admittedly somewhat thicker, but not stiff.

I wish there was a higher baseline data transfer mandated for usb-c. Sure, 40gbps isn’t needed for all cables, but is some piddly 5gbps too much to ask? We had usb 2.0 speeds back when CPUs just barely entered 1 GHz range, it’s practically ancient technology. Admittedly most people never transfer any data over usb, but with this logic we might as well have usb-c that does charging only. Being able to pick any cable and have 5 gbps baseline means that any usb-c cable is fundamentally usable, if slow. 480 mbps is… ugh.

I don’t have an issue with 60W being the baseline, it’s enough for most laptops and the average GaN charger is 65 W (or less) anyway.

reply
upvoteby Kirby6456 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
> Sure, 40gbps isn’t needed for all cables, but is some piddly 5gbps too much to ask?

5gbps means you add 8 additional wires to every cable, and also would require that both devices on each side implement 5gbps PHYs for their USB (if you mandated it on devices too). It’s a large cost, especially when you’re talking about billions of cables.

reply