Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given that this is the only practical application you have to wonder why we ever had the one way plugs in the first place.
Two major reasons, as far as I understand things. Firstly, reversible plugs are harder to make structurally resilient, they only become feasible cost-wise as stronger materials become cheaper and manufacturing grows more efficient. Secondly, reversible plugs are a lot more complex. Compare the 4(ish) pins of USB-A to the 24 pins on USB-C. Not all of them are strictly necessary for parity with USB-A, but you could cut…
I’ve made a Cursed USB-C 2.0 device
61–70 of 143 posts
Re: I’ve made a Cursed USB-C 2.0 device
#62Am I reading this right that by shorting the up and down D+ (and D-) line as one is supposed to by the spec, one essentially creates a HF stub? Or doesn't the stub matter for signal integrity / EMI because it's only a couple of mm and fully enclosed by the shield of the plug and the receptacle?
This doesn't work for the super-speed differential pairs because they're actually different lanes.
Re: I’ve made a Cursed USB-C 2.0 device
#63Now I want a USB-C thumb drive that has different data on different sides. Like the old 5 1/4" diskette drives where you flipped the disk for double capacity. Using it for retro-gaming would be fun. When the game says "Flip the Disk" you flip the USB drive.
Re: I’ve made a Cursed USB-C 2.0 device
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
Two major reasons, as far as I understand things. Firstly, reversible plugs are harder to make structurally resilient, they only become feasible cost-wise as stronger materials become cheaper and manufacturing grows more efficient. Secondly, reversible plugs are a lot more complex. Compare the 4(ish) pins of USB-A to the 24 pins on USB-C. Not all of them are strictly necessary for parity with USB-A, but you could cut…
Assuming the structural issues are solved, isn't it literally as easy as doubling each pin in a 180° fashion and shorting each pair? What additional controller complexity would this lead to (assuming termination issues are solved)?
Re: I’ve made a Cursed USB-C 2.0 device
#65Re: I’ve made a Cursed USB-C 2.0 device
#66I feel like USB-C is cursed enough on its own. The sheer number of times I’ve had to explain to family members why just because the two USB-C ports on a laptop look the same, doesn’t mean they work the same.
I find it funny how people used to complain about the sheer number of times they had to explain to family members exactly the opposite: "No need to ask. If you can plug it in, then it will work. Computers are fool-proof like that. No, it's not like the jacks on the hi-fi" As in, someone got a new mouse and didn't know where to plug it into their computer, when in fact there was only one DB-9 connector on the computer…
But yes, I agree the USB-C plug mess is probably the worst. It has became worse than what it "wanted" to solve. The only way to make it work as broadly advertised again would be if all plugs supported all protocols (that make sense for a given device) and PD options, etc. on all devices and with common cables, at max bandwidth everywhere, but not only I'm not sure this is technically possible, this would probably be cost prohibitive.
And so what is the point? The net number of ports decreases on laptops, and there is no need on most gadget devices (beyond data+PD). The only point is for manufacturers to economize 50 cts and make the new inferior laptops pass as better than the old ones because they use the shinny new USB-C plugs. I would be happy if the price was actually 1/2 of the old models.
Re: I’ve made a Cursed USB-C 2.0 device
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given that this is the only practical application you have to wonder why we ever had the one way plugs in the first place.
Two major reasons, as far as I understand things. Firstly, reversible plugs are harder to make structurally resilient, they only become feasible cost-wise as stronger materials become cheaper and manufacturing grows more efficient. Secondly, reversible plugs are a lot more complex. Compare the 4(ish) pins of USB-A to the 24 pins on USB-C. Not all of them are strictly necessary for parity with USB-A, but you could cut…
Re: I’ve made a Cursed USB-C 2.0 device
#68I feel like USB-C is cursed enough on its own. The sheer number of times I’ve had to explain to family members why just because the two USB-C ports on a laptop look the same, doesn’t mean they work the same.
But it's still costly at the start of the refinement cycle, and it's hard to bootstrap without allowing manufacturers to do cheaper cut down feature versions to get the ball rolling. It needs to provide some marginal value in the mean time and real promise, even if it means some higher overhead in the establishment phase. So for someone buying a new device in 2025 or 2030, USB-C may still exist but I think issues with what ports do what will be lessened. We already see devices like Macbook Pros where all the USB-C ports are functional, and while those are on the higher end of pricing they aren't stratospheric enterprise territory either. I suspect it won't take that many hardware generations for that sort of thing to spread downward. The question is if that's worth the immediate trouble.
And at least for USB-C, I personally think it'll be worth it. It's a good connector, and the improved capabilities are valuable. We've had USB-A for a long, long time, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to guess that USB-C will stick around similarly. There was demand for something more compact and reversible with other QoL benefits along for the ride, and I think it's worth the upfront cost to get the whole industry onboard something that can converge rather then ending up with various manufacturers going their own routes.
Re: I’ve made a Cursed USB-C 2.0 device
#69Google makes "cursed" devices in production :) The Chromebook debug functionality is only accessible in one orientation: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/third_party/hdc... (but that's with a special cable)