From a Pi consumer perspective, this is not that big of a deal. However, it damages the purpose (in name) of USB C. Isn't C supposed to be the 'all purpose' spec? If we have popular manufacturers failing to follow the spec, we end up with cables marked as 'compatible with Raspberry Pi' or 'compatible with Nintendo Switch'. To the average consumer (and even most techies), USB C was supposed to be the 'one size fits al…
USB C has confused me for the same reason. I read often about how there is no expectation that two USB-C cables/ports will work together. Why design them to fit together if they won't always work right?
USB-C is designed for graceful degradation.
There are two main types of non-captive cables: USB 2.0 only and USB 2.0 plus USB 3.x. Hosts and devices have to support at least USB 2.0, so if you try to connect two USB 3.x devices with a USB 2.0 only cable, it'll fallback to a USB 2.0 connection.
There are two main current levels: 3A and 5A. Cables which can carry higher power have a small chip describing this fact; if the chip is missing, the power source will limit itself to 3A.
Then there are the alternate modes. If you try to plug a device which only understands an alternate mode (for instance, a DisplayPort adapter), and the host doesn't understand that alternate mode (or can't understand it, like in the case of a USB-A port with a USB-A to USB-C cable), that device will instead appear as an USB 2.x device (the "billboard device"), which the operating system can use to show an error popup.
And so on. At every corner of the spec you can notice an interest in making it degrade gracefully. Of course, that can only work when the manufacturers follow the spec correctly.