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

I stopped trusting USB-C cable labels and started testing them

makeuseof.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 266 posts

Re: I stopped trusting USB-C cable labels and started testing them

#181

Post by hulitu »

stouset wrote: post #84
ryandrake wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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?

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

Yes.

Re: I stopped trusting USB-C cable labels and started testing them

#182

Post by brookst »

dmos62 wrote: post #144
stouset wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Ehem, we already do that. USB-C is an umbrella term and everyone has a homebaked organizing system to tell which USB-C cable can do what, or a homebaked testing routine where we run through 5 cables each time we need to connect something. That's what the article is about. Calling all these cables USB-C and making them look indistinguishable is a very leaky abstraction.

So there are 4 different current-carrying levels, from 2.5A to 5A EPR.

There are 6 different transfer speeds, from 480mbps to 120gbps.

There’s DisplayPort yes/no.

There are 4 thunderbolt genrations, each with its own marker.

Some of those are dependent (480mbps cables don’t have markers), so it’s not a full permutation problem. Only about 20 different combinations are valid.

Is the proposal to have 20 different physical connectors? Or to prune the space down to 6 or so by requiring all cables to be very thick, or to support higher transfer speeds than make any sense for a charging cable?

It’s not a leaky abstraction. It’s a physical interface standard that does not guarantee electrical properties. Same way you can plug a 6A cord and a 20A cord into the same electrical outlet.

Re: I stopped trusting USB-C cable labels and started testing them

#183

Post by brookst »

stingraycharles wrote: post #121
QuantumNomad_ wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple should care because customers will blame slow charging times and slow transfer speeds on the phone

I think Apple much rather tells users that this is exactly what they warned them about when they were forced to support USB-C and will advise users to only buy official cables from Apple.

You mean USB-C, the standard that they largely led development of?

Re: I stopped trusting USB-C cable labels and started testing them

#184

Post by brookst »

cameldrv wrote: post #102
ryandrake wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

It could be like resistors, different color stripes for each capability: transfer speed, maximum amperage, DisplayPort, thunderbolt, etc.

Re: I stopped trusting USB-C cable labels and started testing them

#185

Post by hulitu »

functionmouse wrote: post #169
Kirby64 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you want all cables to be thick, $60, and cap out at 1 meter long, this is not a reasonable standard. 480mbps USB-C is perfectly adequate for many applications. Likewise for 60W cables.

Actually, different cables should be called something different.

But they ran out of names. The S in USB still sucks. Just try to transfer a lot of small files over USB.

Re: I stopped trusting USB-C cable labels and started testing them

#186

Post by hulitu »

mrheosuper wrote: post #147
riffraff wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm also happy we have a single connector but, n=1, I have a couple things that will not work with all cables. I have no idea why, nor have I bothered to find out, I just marked the cables they came with (which are USB-A to USB-C) same as GP did.

>I have no idea why, nor have I bothered to find out The reason is simple; your device violated the USB-C spec by saving $0.0000002 of BOM cost

> your device violated the USB-C spec

I heard there are more than one USB-C specs.

Re: I stopped trusting USB-C cable labels and started testing them

#187

Post by mrheosuper »

kakacik wrote: post #152
mrheosuper wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the spec is applied for either $1 Chinese toy or $10000 Apple Mac studio. Such dynamic range requires a lot of detail

Spec range is not the issue, its the inept thinking of designers that people should qll become little detectives and find out themselves what which cable does. Which is ridiculous assumption and judt doesnt work in real life. Clear big labeling saying version, speed, watts or similar mix so everybody can quickly glance and know whats being sold. Whatever chinese crapware has mislabeled is another topic.

You mean this: https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/usb_type-c_cable_pow...

Re: I stopped trusting USB-C cable labels and started testing them

#188

Post by gchamonlive »

ryandrake wrote: post #73
Kirby64 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you want all cables to be thick, $60, and cap out at 1 meter long, this is not a reasonable standard. 480mbps USB-C is perfectly adequate for many applications. Likewise for 60W cables.

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.

The terminology is something like

  TECH PHYSICAL-TYPE
  USB  A/B/C
So a USB-D would imply a different physical connection and end up confusing the consumer even more.

If the cable supports 60w charging or only 25w, if it's full or half bandwidth, those characteristics seem to me like we are talking about grading quality, so a better expansion would be:

  TECH PHYSICAL-TYPE GRADE
  USB  A/B/C         1/2/3
And define which quality the cable should present to achieve higher or lower grade levels, depending on the convention.

Re: I stopped trusting USB-C cable labels and started testing them

#189

Post by maccard »

pimterry wrote: post #155
ryandrake wrote: post #70

> But I shouldn't have had to do any of this. It's time cables came with a label of their own, or some sort of color coding. There shouldn't even need to be a label. A USB-C cable should be a USB-C cable should be a USB-C cable. There should be a single connectivity/performance spec, and if the cable meets it, it can be called a USB-C cable, and if it doesn't, it should have to be marketed as USB-JUNK or something. T…

> A USB-C cable should be a USB-C cable should be a USB-C cable. This would completely defeat the point. There is a range of needs for cables. Some devices have simple needs for power/data transfer/extra functionality, and some devices have more. A $3 USB-powered lamp does not need a cable for gigabit data transfer and 100W charging - this cable would be more expensive than the product. Similarly, new features & perf…

But the current situation is I can take two devices with a USB C connector, connect them with a USB c cable, and they won’t work. Is that really better?

Re: I stopped trusting USB-C cable labels and started testing them

#190

Post by tremon »

Kirby64 wrote: post #72
ryandrake wrote: post #70

> But I shouldn't have had to do any of this. It's time cables came with a label of their own, or some sort of color coding. There shouldn't even need to be a label. A USB-C cable should be a USB-C cable should be a USB-C cable. There should be a single connectivity/performance spec, and if the cable meets it, it can be called a USB-C cable, and if it doesn't, it should have to be marketed as USB-JUNK or something. T…

Unless you want all cables to be thick, $60, and cap out at 1 meter long, this is not a reasonable standard. 480mbps USB-C is perfectly adequate for many applications. Likewise for 60W cables.

That's still an astonishing design failure: different ports have different connectors for a reason. Can you imagine a what would have happened if the car charging infrastructure would have used your regular 120/230V plugs? There is zero reason why 480mbps USB-C should exist when we already had 480mbps USB-A, except for misguided designers prioritizing aesthetics over usability.
Post reply on HN