Earlier quoted context omitted.
because USB-C is a shorthand for USB Type C
So? Is there a hard limit on just one “Type” in the formal name?
Not if your aim is to confuse your costumer
I stopped trusting USB-C cable labels and started testing them
241–250 of 272 posts
Re: I stopped trusting USB-C cable labels and started testing them
#242Re: I stopped trusting USB-C cable labels and started testing them
#243Earlier 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.
I have several 1m long TB4 cables (100W, video, 40Gbps) and they’re neither particularly thick nor were they anywhere close to $60. The best you can get is TB5 (240W, up to 120 Gbps data transfer) and at 1m long they’re $32 or so from CableMatters. Those are admittedly somewhat thicker, but not stiff. I wish there was a higher baseline data transfer mandated for usb-c. Sure, 40gbps isn’t needed for all cables, but is…
[deleted]
Re: I stopped trusting USB-C cable labels and started testing them
#244Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 physi…
That can be solved the same way it was solved for SD / CFe cards. Just have a single mark which guarantees a baseline set of requirements. - "USB Speed 2" means [20gbps, thunderbolt 3, displayport, 20 watts]. - "USB Speed 3" means 100gbps, thunderbolt 4, etc. - "Power 100" means 100 watts minimum. Make a little logo for each standard - "S2" / "S3" / "P100" which can be branded onto each end of the cable. People who c…
You mean something like this, which we have since 2021: https://learn.adafruit.com/understanding-usb-type-c-cable-ty...
Re: I stopped trusting USB-C cable labels and started testing them
#245Earlier 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.
It’s not hard to make a functional standard, the USB folks just don’t care, IMO. If they had simply worked on better naming, things would be much more clear. (now they’d need to do something crazy like USB-C 40G PD60 as a name in order to fix things, unless the next version of USB is a clean break) Now they’ve made a mess of things, and cables AND connectors are all over the place.
We have standard labeling since 2021, the problem manufactures don't use it.
Re: I stopped trusting USB-C cable labels and started testing them
#246Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
No, they mean USB-C, the port they switched all but a handful of their devices to before any other manufacturer.
While GP’s take is ridiculous (if common), I do think the notion that Apple led the charge on USB-C is mostly a myth, outside of them being active participants on the USB Implementor’s Forum.
Re: I stopped trusting USB-C cable labels and started testing them
#247Earlier 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?
> Do we do this for every new version and combination of versions for USB? USB-PD? Thunderbolt? DisplayPort? Yes.
I don’t think you fully comprehend the matrix of legal possibilities for a cable with USB-C connectors.
Re: I stopped trusting USB-C cable labels and started testing them
#248Earlier 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
USB-C is a physical connector layout.
The full cable that is between the two connector ends has an enormous matrix of specifications it can support. There are variations of bandwidth, power delivery (or not), Thunderbolt versions (or not), DisplayPort versions (or not) and other things I’m forgetting.
A cable that supports all of these things costs like $70+.
Between two devices, the cable, and enormously complicated interop between variations of the supported standards, there are myriad ways for devices to fail to work together.
Re: I stopped trusting USB-C cable labels and started testing them
#249Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. Then USB is forever frozen in time, unless we start using new connectors. This was the tradeoff we got when standardizing on one connector. The protocol versions change (USB, USB-PD, Thunderbolt), the cables that go between each connector change based on the needs of the spec they supports. But the connectors sta…
> just use whatever cable came with the device the problem comes when the device and cable get separated, and the cable is "helpfully" organized into the bin with the rest of the USB-c cables.
This not being a problem is supposedly the entire reason for USB-C.
Re: I stopped trusting USB-C cable labels and started testing them
#250> 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…
I would like to see some color band coding. Not logos--they're often done in a very hard to read fashion.
And the way the USB spec works you can't make a does-everything cable. Maximum data rate is inversely related to length, fast cables must be short.