Live data from Hacker News

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

arstechnica.com

71–80 of 158 posts

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

#71
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regular USB A/B had the same problem. I have been frustrated many times plugging in a micro B cable only to find that it carried power but not data

I don't think there was ever a USB spec that allowed you to skip the data lines. That is purely a chinese cost optimization. Meanwhile, the confusion with USB 3 (C?) is designed in .

You say cost optimization, I say safety feature.

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

#72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I cannot tell if you are joking, and that scares me worse than if you are completely serious.

I'm mostly serious, though I really don't know why 1×2 exists and why you'd build a part that supports it but not 2×2 (or, alternatively, that supports it instead of 2×1, which is, but for a name change, an older standard with the same nominal bandwidth), and the 2×2 will also support 2×1. But maybe there is an electrical engineering reason why it might be practical to do 1×2 but not 2×1 in some device.

Probably it’s for cables, in that a 1x2 cable can (I assume) be longer for cheaper than a 2x1 cable.

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

#73
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.

"Would love to see "USB 4" ." I'd rather go for a (possibly faster) Ethernet with a redesigned smaller connector supporting POE. Smaller devices such as mice and keyboards could talk at PHY level while smarter ones with beefier microcontrollers could employ more and more layers of the network stack so that routing/tunneling data over the network when needed would become trivial. Security wise, there would be no physi…

That was one of the original goals of Zeroconf. In 2002, Stuart Cheshire said [1]:

> My hope is that in the future — distant future perhaps — your computer will only need one wired communication technology. It will provide power on the connector like USB and FireWire, so it can power small peripheral devices. It will use IP packets like Ethernet, so it provides your wide-area communications for things like email and Web browsing, but it will also use Zeroconf IP so that connecting local devices is as easy as USB or FireWire is today. People ask me if I'm seriously suggesting that your keyboard and mouse should use the same connector as your Internet connection, and I am. There's no fundamental reason why a 10Mb/s Ethernet chip costs more than a USB chip. The problem is not cost, it is lack of power on the Ethernet connector, and (until now) lack of autoconfiguration to make it work. I would much rather have a computer with a row of identical universal IP communications ports, where I can connect anything I want to any port, instead of today's situation where the computer has a row of different sockets, each dedicated to its own specialized function.

[1]: http://www.stuartcheshire.org/TheIdeaBasket.html

Sadly, instead of using existing successful networking systems and automating the configuration, we've created a new union-of-all-possible-protocols with a new connector (or 5) and made understanding the compatibility matrix a nightmare.

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

#74
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…

If I were being cynical, I'd say their motivation is to get people to throw up their hands and say "I don't understand USB any more! Just give me the latest version of Thunderbolt. I know it supports the highest speeds and highest power, including displays and eGPUs, and all USB devices, and works on any new Mac."

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

#75
> For reasons that remain hard to understand, the decision was made to retroactively rebrand USB 3.0: 5Gb/s 3.0 connections became "USB 3.1 Gen 1," with the 10Gb/s connections being "USB 3.1 Gen 2." The consumer branding is "SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps."

Does anyone care about Gbps for USB? I've never hit the bandwith limitation on USB and see USB type-C as just an annoyance making me buy new cables.

> And 20Gb/s devices will be... "USB 3.2 Gen 2×2.

Pretty straight forward: USB 3.x supports 5 * 2^x Gbps. What we really need is MORE retrobranding!

- USB 2.0 becomes USB 3-3.4

- USB 1.0 full speed becomes USB 3-8.7

- USB low speed becomes USB 3-11.7

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

#76
post #36
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

And USB-C 10 Gbps cables aren't much cheaper, especially if they do 100W power delivery. Both probably could be cheaper if there were more demand for them, but siren song of cheap slow cables seems to have made it impossible to scale production up.

Well, realistically, you don't need 100 watt power delivery for a keyboard, so you might want a less robust cable.

The big mistake IMO was a lack of obvious keying. Very little stops me from using that 2w-capacity keyboard cable to try to charge my laptop. If we're lucky, there's signaling at the device to tell me what's wrong, but if they had made a different plug on the 100W cable, it would eliminate a lot of cockpit errors.

Having one cable for everything is a huge red herring. If you need a keyboard and a power brick and an external hard drive, you need three cables. It doesn't matter if they're different, as long as the OEM isn't pulling some Apple-style "one single port is enough" BS.

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

#77
post #75

> For reasons that remain hard to understand, the decision was made to retroactively rebrand USB 3.0: 5Gb/s 3.0 connections became "USB 3.1 Gen 1," with the 10Gb/s connections being "USB 3.1 Gen 2." The consumer branding is "SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps." Does anyone care about Gbps for USB? I've never hit the bandwith limitation on USB and see USB type-C as just an annoyance making me buy new cables. > And 20Gb/s devices w…

> Does anyone care about Gbps for USB? I've never hit the bandwith limitation on USB

You have if you've tried to used multiple external monitors over USB (a la macbooks).

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

#78

Lightning, although proprietary, is an amazing port compared to the mess that is USB. I am going to miss it once Apple phases it out.

It's easy to make a universal port when your universe is a small handful of your own devices with no numbers to live up to.

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

#79
post #75

> For reasons that remain hard to understand, the decision was made to retroactively rebrand USB 3.0: 5Gb/s 3.0 connections became "USB 3.1 Gen 1," with the 10Gb/s connections being "USB 3.1 Gen 2." The consumer branding is "SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps." Does anyone care about Gbps for USB? I've never hit the bandwith limitation on USB and see USB type-C as just an annoyance making me buy new cables. > And 20Gb/s devices w…

> Does anyone care about Gbps for USB? I've never hit the bandwith limitation on USB and see USB type-C as just an annoyance making me buy new cables.

External SSDs are probably the only time it matters, or even multiple drives connected through a USB hub.

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

#80
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.

The 5G thing is the carriers's doing, not the standards body.
Post reply on HN