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

51–60 of 158 posts

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

#51

Post by elcomet »

Theodores wrote: post #42
MR4D wrote: post #8

At least WiFi figured out how to improve. Would love to see "USB 4" . No ".0" afterwards, just the simpler numeral. And if you need a bigger connector, then buy the "USB 4 XL connector" cable.

I had the pleasure of working with a girl who referred to 'ethernet cables' as 'server cables' as that was the functionality provided by ethernet, the wifi on her Macbook meant the internet was always on but lacked 'server access', hence the name of the 'ethernet cable' as a 'server cable'. In this spirit I think that 'USB 4' really needs to be 'USB 4G'. Then you can have phones and the connectors use the same number…

What about devices that don't have interet access ?

This seems like a very bad idea, the two technologies don't move at the same speed and are totally unrelated. I think it would be even more confusing for consumers.

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

#52

Post by imcs »

iClaudiusX wrote: post #44
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…

The motivation is the same for re-branding 4G-LTE as 5G (or 6G). Sell the same thing with a new name so customers are tricked into thinking you're selling something newer and better based on the spec sheet without context.

> Sell the same thing with a new name so customers are tricked into thinking you're selling something newer and better

This is an argument towards rebranding to NEW USB 4! Which is ironically what we want at this point. There's a deranged lunatic in charge of USB naming that's inconveniencing everyone, including the companies that sell USB devices. Funnily enough corporate interests and user interests should converge on this but for some reason no-one's stopped this chaos yet.

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

#53

Post by Izkata »

elcomet wrote: post #48
aboutruby wrote: post #39

Here is a helpful chart of USB versions and their connectors: https://preview.redd.it/s9dun6a1xmpz.png?width=960&crop=smar... e.g. USB 3.2 has the same connector as USB-C edit: I personally care far more about the connector than exact specs of each version

> USB 3.2 has the same connector as USB-C USB-C is a connector, so you cannot say "has the same connector as USB-C". It is the only connector for USB 3.2, and a connector that is compatible with USB 3.1 Gen 2. Edit: I meant it is the only connector for USB 3.2 "Gen 2x2", and compatible with 3.1 Gen 2 (now called 3.2 Gen 2)

> It is the only connector for USB 3.2, and a connector that is compatible with USB 3.1 Gen 2.

From what I've been able to find, not even that is reliably true. Looks like the older connectors can be labeled USB 3.2 as long as they use the "x1" scheme in the label and are capable of reaching the speed of that scheme.

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

#54

Post by thaumasiotes »

elcomet wrote: post #48
aboutruby wrote: post #39

Here is a helpful chart of USB versions and their connectors: https://preview.redd.it/s9dun6a1xmpz.png?width=960&crop=smar... e.g. USB 3.2 has the same connector as USB-C edit: I personally care far more about the connector than exact specs of each version

> USB 3.2 has the same connector as USB-C USB-C is a connector, so you cannot say "has the same connector as USB-C". It is the only connector for USB 3.2, and a connector that is compatible with USB 3.1 Gen 2. Edit: I meant it is the only connector for USB 3.2 "Gen 2x2", and compatible with 3.1 Gen 2 (now called 3.2 Gen 2)

There is no USB 3.1 Gen 2. There is only USB 3.2 Gen 2. ;D

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

#55

Post by mattashii »

u320 wrote: post #43
Tsiklon wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you've got A, B, C, Micro, and Mini connectors all that conform to 3.0 and 3.1 spec... Alas the standard needs standardised....

And A is always the same socket regardless of version while B is not. It's a mess.

> And A is always the same socket regardless of version

Even this is technically incorrect: USB-3 A-type sockets, though backwards compatible for f/m and m/f connecting with USB-2, have 5 more contacts compared to USB-2 type A sockets.

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

#56

Post by agumonkey »

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.

I remember the brain bliss of seeing the first usb-c article. Funny how the world goes

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

#57

Post by thaumasiotes »

thefounder wrote: post #26

Wouldn't make sense to just use the speed as version ? i.e USB 5GB, USB 10GB-C, USB 20GB etc

They do that, in the "consumer branding". This is an odd case where the marketing is better-thought-out than the spec.

You have to live with calling it a "SuperSpeed" cable instead of a USB cable, though. :p

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

#58

Post by CamperBob2 »

alexandercrohde wrote: post #25
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.

How will that help? The incompetence of the standards body is the problem at hand.

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

#59

Post by jng »

elcomet wrote: post #51
Theodores wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had the pleasure of working with a girl who referred to 'ethernet cables' as 'server cables' as that was the functionality provided by ethernet, the wifi on her Macbook meant the internet was always on but lacked 'server access', hence the name of the 'ethernet cable' as a 'server cable'. In this spirit I think that 'USB 4' really needs to be 'USB 4G'. Then you can have phones and the connectors use the same number…

What about devices that don't have interet access ? This seems like a very bad idea, the two technologies don't move at the same speed and are totally unrelated. I think it would be even more confusing for consumers.

I think you missed the sarcasm in the post you're responding to.

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

#60

Post by aidenn0 »

nimish wrote: post #6

People confused with the branding don't realize that USB is by manufacturers for manufacturers, so anything that lets them claim on the box they support USB 420.69 while doing the least amount of work and spend is a-OK. This is what happens when standards bodies have perverse incentives to confuse. See the SD Association for even worse branding.

This isn't entirely true. The point of the manufacturers together agreeing on a standard is to remove some of these perverse incentives; here's how it works in theory:

Without the standards group:

If manufacturer A is confusing, then they can sell more than manufacturers B and C. So in turn manufacturers B and C will be confusing as well in order to keep up. This is bad for consumers and generates ill will against USB in general (globally bad for A B and C)

With the standards group:

Manufacturers A B & C all agree on something non-confusing, and in order to use the USB trademark, they can't deviate from what they agreed upon. USB is now sunshine and rainbows so USB customers are happy in general (globally good for A B & C).

Something has broken down in the system if they make names that are confusing since USB being confusing is bad for everybody, and none of the manufacturers get a leg up on the others if they all use the same confusing language.

Post reply on HN