Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

USB 3.2 is going to make the current USB branding even worse

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 158 posts

Re: USB 3.2 is going to make the current USB branding even worse

#21

Post by rconti »

chrismorgan wrote: post #14
yssrn wrote: post #5

USB-IF has to be doing this to deliberately confuse end users, right? I get that it's a specification number, not a product name, but they have to know that this will only cause problems for customers trying to find the appropriate cable. Incredibly, their language usage specifications doc https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/usb_3_2_language_pro... begins with this: > USB-IF emphasizes the importance and value of…

When quoting, please prefix lines with > instead of using preformatted text: preformatted text for blocks of prose is horribly unusable, everywhere.

Unfortunately, HN is so bad at publicizing and making this easy. I spent years assuming others knew some magical tool I didn't, before realizing people just do everything manually and stick to the same unwritten style guide.

Re: USB 3.2 is going to make the current USB branding even worse

#22

Post by Gibbon1 »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #10

Something has to be done to stop these people. What, I don't know. But their Joker-like approach to USB standards and practices is costing us all dearly.

I just had a thought USB is now more of a clusterf^H^H^H^H^H^H^H complicated than the mess of cables interfaces it was meant to replace back in the mid 90's.

Re: USB 3.2 is going to make the current USB branding even worse

#23

Post by tass »

chrismorgan wrote: post #14
yssrn wrote: post #5

USB-IF has to be doing this to deliberately confuse end users, right? I get that it's a specification number, not a product name, but they have to know that this will only cause problems for customers trying to find the appropriate cable. Incredibly, their language usage specifications doc https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/usb_3_2_language_pro... begins with this: > USB-IF emphasizes the importance and value of…

When quoting, please prefix lines with > instead of using preformatted text: preformatted text for blocks of prose is horribly unusable, everywhere.

Drives me nuts! For everyone on a phone:

> USB-IF emphasizes the importance and value of consistent messaging on USB product packaging, marketing materials, and advertising. Inconsistent use of terminology creates confusion in the marketplace, can be misleading to consumers and potentially diminishes USB-IF’s trademark rights.

Re: USB 3.2 is going to make the current USB branding even worse

#24

Post by mjevans »

protomyth wrote: post #2

Who the heck came up with USB 3.2 Gen 2×2? That has got to be the dumbest idea. No one cares how it works, we just have to go through the utter crap of buying a cable. Does the low end manufactures pull the most weight in this org because that's the only way this makes any sense.

Why not enumerate it based entirely on features, also toss in what power delivery it's rated at in watts and volts.

USB 3 20Gbit PD 100W 20V

Re: USB 3.2 is going to make the current USB branding even worse

#25

Post by alexandercrohde »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #10

Something has to be done to stop these people. What, I don't know. But their Joker-like approach to USB standards and practices is costing us all dearly.

What has to be done is consumers need to refuse to buy components with non-standard USBs.

Re: USB 3.2 is going to make the current USB branding even worse

#27

Post by yssrn »

chrismorgan wrote: post #14
yssrn wrote: post #5

USB-IF has to be doing this to deliberately confuse end users, right? I get that it's a specification number, not a product name, but they have to know that this will only cause problems for customers trying to find the appropriate cable. Incredibly, their language usage specifications doc https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/usb_3_2_language_pro... begins with this: > USB-IF emphasizes the importance and value of…

When quoting, please prefix lines with > instead of using preformatted text: preformatted text for blocks of prose is horribly unusable, everywhere.

Apologies, I read the site every day but post so rarely that I forgot that's the consensus way to block quote. Thanks!

Re: USB 3.2 is going to make the current USB branding even worse

#28

Post by thefounder »

mjevans wrote: post #24
protomyth wrote: post #2

Who the heck came up with USB 3.2 Gen 2×2? That has got to be the dumbest idea. No one cares how it works, we just have to go through the utter crap of buying a cable. Does the low end manufactures pull the most weight in this org because that's the only way this makes any sense.

Why not enumerate it based entirely on features, also toss in what power delivery it's rated at in watts and volts. USB 3 20Gbit PD 100W 20V

What's "3" for?

Re: USB 3.2 is going to make the current USB branding even worse

#29

Post by zzzcpan »

protomyth wrote: post #13
zzzcpan wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It makes more sense for high end manufacturers, who want to sell expensive high end cables and make it hard for people to find and buy cheap compatible cables from anyone else.

Actually, I think its the other way. The confusing branding helps any low-end manufacture to do the least amount (cheapest) work to get something that looks like a high-end designation.

I don't think confusion can help them here. It helps to steer consumers towards less scary choice though, i.e. to the brand they trust.

Remember how in the Nokia days manufacturers of mobile phones all made incompatible chargers and data cables. Eventually they were hit with regulations. I think this is similar, but more advanced plot against consumers with plausible deniability.

Re: USB 3.2 is going to make the current USB branding even worse

#30

Post by thefounder »

mikeash wrote: post #20
giancarlostoro wrote: post #17

I really loved USB-C then they screwed it up so badly. Can we have 1 cable that is required to have every exact feature available, no exceptions? Works on any device, supports everything from storage to video transfer (Monitors) and whatever else Apple would add to it.

Look at Thunderbolt, where a cheap-ass cable still costs $20, for an idea of how that would turn out.

That's a licensing issue/cost.
Post reply on HN