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

USB inventor explains why the connector was not designed to be reversible (2019)

pcgamer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

531–540 of 544 posts

Re: USB inventor explains why the connector was not designed to be reversible (2019)

#531

Post by jongjong »

kelnos wrote: post #381
jongjong wrote: post #377

I don't know if this is common but I've encountered an issue with two different devices with the latest reversible USBs that it would only charge if I plugged it in one way and not the other. I would plug my phone and I had to check the screen to see if it was charging or not; if not, I had to unplug, turn the connector around and plug back in the other way. I remember longing for the older micro USB where the right…

Yep, probably damage to either the connector on the cable, or the port on the device. Does the connector also feel a bit looser when you plug it in the non-working way? (Not required, but it's a dead giveaway.)

The plug held firmly. I believe it was the port on the device as changing the cable didn't resolve the issue.

Re: USB inventor explains why the connector was not designed to be reversible (2019)

#532

Post by palata »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #488
palata wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's my point: where do you put the limit? A gun allows you to shoot yourself in the foot. Does that make it a bad gun? I think most of us would agree here: if you are at high risk of shooting yourself in the foot, you should not be given a gun. Nobody ever says "oh, this laptop is bad, because if you take it in the bath you will probably break it". But for some reason, for professional programmers , we consider it…

Well, my point is that not everybody thinks that it's unbearable to require programmers to be careful with their tool. So I'm not sure if your point really works as a result. But that said, I personally am one who thinks we should try to do better with programming languages, so I'll give you my $.02 for what little it's worth. The difference between something like a gun being able to blow your foot off, and the C pro…

> Well, my point is that not everybody thinks that it's unbearable to require programmers to be careful with their tool. So I'm not sure if your point really works as a result.

Oh, I had misunderstood it, sorry (I thought it was a criticism of "those weird C people").

> With a gun, even the most beginner gun handler understands that whatever the gun is aimed at will have a bad time when you fire it. They therefore can very easily know the answer to "when I fire this, will I shoot my own foot" is "no, because I'm not aiming at my foot".

I tend to disagree: usually people do spend some time learning how to use their gun before we give them the responsibility of carrying one. There are many rules to follow, and still there are accidents (even from professionals). I wouldn't say that a gun is "fool-proof". I wouldn't give an assault rifle to somebody, let them fire a few rounds, and then bring the rifle in my car while I'm driving without checking anything. Actually I would pay attention to everything they do and I would check that the gun is unloaded myself.

Sure, getting a loaded gun, removing the safety and firing is easy. Carrying and using a gun correctly is not. To compare that to C, copy-pasting a `main` function and running it is easy. Writing good C code is not. But writing good Rust or Kotlin code is not easy either. That's what it takes to be a professional: you have to learn to use your tools.

Re: USB inventor explains why the connector was not designed to be reversible (2019)

#533

Post by extraduder_ire »

kergonath wrote: post #490
eternityforest wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wasn't it based on the GB link cable?

I’ve seen that claim but AFAICT it comes from a single source, which was a presentation by someone involved in the FireWire connector design. So at this point it’s more of an urban legend, until we have some solid confirmation. It does not really matter though, they are very similar in construction, and are very sturdy, and I really like them both :)

I've seen the same claim made. Apparently it was the sturdiness that led to it being copied. Good enough for kids beating on it and stepping on the ends, more than good enough for professional applications.

Re: USB inventor explains why the connector was not designed to be reversible (2019)

#534

Post by extraduder_ire »

slikrick wrote: post #42
dharmab wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> From my understanding I think that is not technically possible because to pass video they need the data lines but maybe I'm mistaken? Counterexample: The Meta Quest link cables use a USB-C style connector but internally are very different from a regular cable.

and that can happen with literally every cable, people have abused USB-A and RJ45 for many decades...

My APC UPS is connected to my computer with a USB-A to rj45 cable. It is the most cursed cable I own, narrowly beating out the type-A to type-A usb2 cable I needed to buy to get a HTC vive to work. (I later "upgraded" to a type-c cable with A-to-C adapters on either end.)

IIRC, the Ethernet standard means ports should tolerate 5V, but I'm still spooked someone's going to use the cable thinking it's something else.

Re: USB inventor explains why the connector was not designed to be reversible (2019)

#535

Post by fennecfoxy »

whoooooo123 wrote: post #190
snakeyjake wrote: post #140

> Making USB reversible to begin with would have necessitated twice as many wires and twice as many circuits, and would have doubled the cost. This is... not correct. You can make USB reversible with 1 extra pin and 1 extra wire. Grounds on pins 1 and 5, data on pins 2 and 4, and VCC on pin 3. Then have those pins on both sides of the plug and a socket with a single set of contacts on one side. That's BASICALLY what…

The problem with USB-a isn't that it's non reversible, it's that it's non-reversible _and_ rectangular, so it's not clear at a glance which way round it should go. All they had to do was make the connector have a non-symmetrical shape so that it's immediately obvious which way round it goes when you pick it up - you could do it without even looking. Think of how much time we'd have collectively saved with this minor…

Tbf I think the most prevalent issue with USB was from people plugging them in where they cannot see the port properly, ie the back of a computer tower (most often) or back of TV/console etc.

Not really sure that that's USB's fault so much as a lack of front USB ports. I think in those cases the consumer can chose to get some sort of hub that's easier to access/can be pulled out from behind their setup.

Now that C exists though, idk if we really need to go much further. Connector much smaller than it is now will become fragile.

I've always thought they could add a single fiber core to USB cables for some "ultra high speed" standard, since USB4 is predicted to top out at 80GBps, but we could get 50Tbps or so over a single fiber if we really needed to.

But after owning several fiber cables, for networking and HDMI fiber based cables...yeah they're far, far too weak to replace copper. Just look at 'em wrong and they snap/break.

Plus tbf if we get 80gbps from usb4...the problem then becomes that we don't reaaaally have a use case for that speed. Maybe network adaptors, but beyond that...I mean a modern SSD will saturate that with a sequential read I suppose, but still.

Re: USB inventor explains why the connector was not designed to be reversible (2019)

#536

Post by effie »

klysm wrote: post #373
levidos wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't that square metal be used as ground?

You don’t always want the shield coupled to the signal ground. If it’s coupled on both sides then you can have all kinds of fun problems. Ideally, the shield should be connected to the ground on one end

> Question: “I have been told that you should only ground the Ethernet cable at one end. Is this true?”

>

> Answer: “Sometimes yes, but only if you are seeking to avoid a ground loop. You likely don’t have to worry about this. If you are running shielded Ethernet between two structures that have their own separate AC systems or separate grounding rods installed, then YES, you should worry about what is known as a ground loop. A ground loop occurs when you have actual conflicting AC ground systems. Merely bonding your Ethernet cable at multiple points to the same AC grounding system in a single structure does not create ground loops. Think in terms of ground rods. How many ground rods are involved? If you have more than one with more than one structure involved then you are wise to bond to ground at a single end only.”

From https://www.truecable.com/blogs/cable-academy/residential-bo...

Re: USB inventor explains why the connector was not designed to be reversible (2019)

#537

Post by extraduder_ire »

nubinetwork wrote: post #4

I've seen people try to connect ps/2 and vga cables upside down, and mash all the pins in the process. I'm fine with flipping a USB cable over a couple times until it goes in. /shrug

My personal favourite is people jamming VGA cables into serial ports on the back of PCs. Like, they both have pins sticking out of them.

Re: USB inventor explains why the connector was not designed to be reversible (2019)

#538

Post by npunt »

sokoloff wrote: post #379
npunt wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So whats your solution? We all get that this is imperfect, the question is can the solution be improved upon within the constraints, and if not, what constraints should change? Because USB-C does a lot and touches a lot of things, I think there's a tendency to place the blame on it (and specifically its cables) for any circumstance where 'plug does not work as expected', which I agree is a frustrating problem that is…

There isn't a particularly Pareto-better solution (other than better labeling, as you suggest). One of the things I find particularly aggravating though is the discussion that goes approximately "it's outrageous that I should have to buy a new cable for my device " followed almost immediately by "yeah, it turns out I have to buy a new cable for my device ..."

agree!

Re: USB inventor explains why the connector was not designed to be reversible (2019)

#539

Post by npunt »

crote wrote: post #460
p1mrx wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

USB-IF should publish a table of every possible cable/adapter/receptacle type, with a short alphanumeric code that can be printed or molded onto the connector. The set of permutations is too large to fit into an icon, but a lookup table allows for unlimited detail.

There aren't that many permutations. Power-wise it is 60W, 100W (deprecated), and 240W. Data-wise it is 480Mbps, 5Gbps, 20Gbps, 40Gbps, 80Gbps. A simple power/data rating like already specified[0] is enough for >99% of cables. [0]: https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/usb-if_usb_type-c_ca...

Totally it's a very solvable problem w not many variants.

It's unfortunate the USB group chose these particular labels. They're so ugly that you'd never want one on a cable, and they don't reduce to small sizes well. It's like they were never designed to be put on cables, or they never consulted anyone who ever used or sold a cable as to whether they were going to use it.

I'd have preferred something that could be depressed into the plastic mold of the connector with two icons, a bolt and a dot:

- default (USB2, whatever min watts) is blank cable

- 60w has one bolt, 100w+ has two bolts

- 5gbps has one dot, 20 has two, 40 three, 80 four

That way you avoid the uncleanness of labels and their eventual scratching off, while maintaining at-a-glance (and even physical feel) understanding of cable capability. It also scales to future improvements. Honestly I think this would solve like 90% of people's complaints with USB-C.

Re: USB inventor explains why the connector was not designed to be reversible (2019)

#540

Post by mbar84 »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #74
lesuorac wrote: post #13

I know everybody is still on the high from USB-C but I'm still going to go on the record it will be one of the biggest disasters in cable history. 1) There's going to be video-only cables; low-voltage only cables; etc and this time everything is usb-c so you can literally only tell which ables work by testing all of the dozen cables instead of the 1-2 USB-As you have. 2) The connector is symmetrical but the pins aren…

I had to do a double take after reading this comment to make sure I wasn't reading an old thread from 2014 or something. USB-C has been out for years now and neither of these predictions have come to pass. Your comment aged poorly before you even finished writing it. USB-C isn't without its problems, but neither of those are one of them.

I have one USB-C cable that I know can be used to charge my laptop. I can't grab any old USB-C cable and use it to charge from my the exact same power brick. I have other cables from USB-C to Display-Port and I know only of one that does 2160p@60hz.
Post reply on HN