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

131–140 of 158 posts

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

#131

Post by londons_explore »

dTal wrote: post #85
ken wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say cost optimization, I say safety feature.

That "safety feature" prevents the client device from negotiating a higher current limit than 100mA. The host controller may generously provide more, but there's no guarantee of this without the data lines.

The host is required to not be damaged by a short circuit on the power lines.

That means a device can ignore the signalling entirely and just keep taking more power till the supply turns off, and then scale back 10 percent.

More and more Android phones do that, and it works very well.

Only disadvantage is if you plug it into a hub, it can cause the whole hub to go out for a bit. Devices solve that by not using the above algorithm when they detect any active signalling.

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

#132

Post by zokier »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #129
zokier wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it shouldn't be labeled any of those. Instead it should be labeled "SuperSpeed USB" and nothing else. And that hasn't changed over the different USB revisions.

Except the list of speeds is ridiculously arcane. People can easily figure out that 3.1 beats 3 beats 2. Good luck getting them to guess whether "full speed" beats "high speed", or why there are three different things all called "Superspeed+"

There is not supposed to be any superspeed+ branding. From USB-IF guidelines:

> NOTE: SuperSpeed Plus, Enhanced SuperSpeed and SuperSpeed+ are defined in the USB specifications however these terms are not intended to be used in product names, messaging, packaging or any other consumer-facing content.

> USB-IF’s recommended nomenclature for consumers is “SuperSpeed USB” for 5Gbps products, “SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps” for 10Gbps products and “SuperSpeed USB 20Gbps” for 20Gbps products

Those are hardly "ridiculously arcane". Full speed is not really relevant, so only thing consumers need to know is that superspeed > high speed, which I don't think as very high bar.

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

#133

Post by zokier »

stephenr wrote: post #122
zokier wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why not just call it USB 4.0 and divorce the branding from the technical specification? That is exactly what the "SuperSpeed USB" branding is all about. The technical spec is USB 3.whatever and the brand name is " SuperSpeed USB". But neither the press nor vendors seem to be able to stay in the line and actually consistently use only the branding, so here we are

But SuperSpeed was 5Gbps. Then it was SuperSpeed+. This was the nice aspect of Firewire - once 1394B was out - everyone referred to them as Firewire 400 and Firewire 800. No ambiguity. Heck even Thunderbolt does this better - 1 and 2 are interchangeable device/cable-wise, and just support higher speeds, but it's just a new 'version' and it just doubles the bandwidth. With USB you have to read all the fine print to ma…

SuperSpeed+ was never supposed to be exposed to consumers:

> NOTE: SuperSpeed Plus, Enhanced SuperSpeed and SuperSpeed+ are defined in the USB specifications however these terms are not intended to be used in product names, messaging, packaging or any other consumer-facing content.

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

#134

Post by mr_toad »

Tsiklon wrote: post #41
isostatic wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

socket format?

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....

> Alas the standard needs standardised....

https://www.xkcd.com/927/

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

#135

Post by afiori »

afiori wrote: post #125
ksec wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>because everybody will use USB-C cables That is assuming all USB-C Cable will support all power combinations ( They don't ) All USB 3.2 Speed ( They Don't ), and All Thunderbolt Spec ( They Don't ). And it is precisely this comment that makes me thick why USB-C has won. Until the problem becomes so wide spread you have to test each cable whether it is working as intended before people will call for changes.

For now I am refusing to buy anything that need a USB-C cable

To clarify: At the moment I have no use for the added functionality of USB-C, I understand why it is useful to many. For my needs USB-C only means compatibility problems.

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

#136

Post by IronBacon »

close04 wrote: post #119
ken wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

It allows manufacturers (yes, many of the same ones on the USB-IF board) to "upgrade" their products by printing another label. USB-IF doing this repeatedly while being fully aware of the consequences can't have any other explanation. This is just like the 4G-5G-5Ge debacle. Both being motivated solely by financial gain.

> This is just like the 4G-5G-5Ge debacle. Both being motivated solely by financial gain.

You are forgetting 4G LTE... ^__^;

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

#137

Post by giancarlostoro »

kylec wrote: post #47
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.

Apple sells one: https://www.apple.com/shop/product/MQ4H2AM/A/thunderbolt-3-u... It does Thunderbolt 3, USB-C 3.1 Gen 2, and up to 100W of power delivery. It's a shame it's only available in one kinda-short length, but I think that's a technical limitation (any longer would require an active cable for Thunderbolt).

Curious how compatible it is with other non-Apple devices? The worst thing I've heard of is phones getting burnt out by overpowered USB-C chargers which I think is crazy and why the spec should enforce one and only one type of cable. I've been buying USB-C cables from Anker and from Belkyn that I've seen at Walmart cause they're brands I trust not to screw things up in a ridiculous way, thankfully my phones have survived both so far. I rather pay a little more if it means my phone wont get damaged.

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

#138

Post by stephenr »

zokier wrote: post #133
stephenr wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But SuperSpeed was 5Gbps. Then it was SuperSpeed+. This was the nice aspect of Firewire - once 1394B was out - everyone referred to them as Firewire 400 and Firewire 800. No ambiguity. Heck even Thunderbolt does this better - 1 and 2 are interchangeable device/cable-wise, and just support higher speeds, but it's just a new 'version' and it just doubles the bandwidth. With USB you have to read all the fine print to ma…

SuperSpeed+ was never supposed to be exposed to consumers: > NOTE: SuperSpeed Plus, Enhanced SuperSpeed and SuperSpeed+ are defined in the USB specifications however these terms are not intended to be used in product names, messaging, packaging or any other consumer-facing content.

Oh great so it's all just meant to be "SuperSpeed".. "How super?" "Guess".

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

#139

Post by zokier »

stephenr wrote: post #138
zokier wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SuperSpeed+ was never supposed to be exposed to consumers: > NOTE: SuperSpeed Plus, Enhanced SuperSpeed and SuperSpeed+ are defined in the USB specifications however these terms are not intended to be used in product names, messaging, packaging or any other consumer-facing content.

Oh great so it's all just meant to be "SuperSpeed".. "How super?" "Guess".

> USB-IF’s recommended nomenclature for consumers is “SuperSpeed USB” for 5Gbps products, “SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps” for 10Gbps products and “SuperSpeed USB 20Gbps” for 20Gbps products

Yes, guess how super “SuperSpeed USB 20Gbps” is

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

#140

Post by stephenr »

zokier wrote: post #139
stephenr wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh great so it's all just meant to be "SuperSpeed".. "How super?" "Guess".

> USB-IF’s recommended nomenclature for consumers is “SuperSpeed USB” for 5Gbps products, “SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps” for 10Gbps products and “SuperSpeed USB 20Gbps” for 20Gbps products Yes, guess how super “SuperSpeed USB 20Gbps” is

But the lowest speed doesn't specify the speed - so unless a user happens to have read the USB-IF recommendations for naming, they won't know that there is a difference, if the manufacturers even follow said recommendations
Post reply on HN