
The Promise and Confusion of USB Type-C - prostoalex
http://recode.net/2016/01/20/the-promise-and-confusion-of-usb-type-c/
======
darkmighty
"Eventually, most of these connections will likely become wireless."

I have my doubts. It takes a lot of effort to enable 10GB/s wireless
transmission. The spectrum is physically constrained by bandwidth, noise and
interference, and it becomes evident in wireless. While a fairly cheap piece
of ethernet cable and router will enable several Gbit/s (up to 400 Gbit/s
soon, that's simple impossible in the 2.4Ghz band due to spectrum and current
interference situation. So you need to use a less overcrowded, shorter range
band with multiple physical antennas of large size, and you get beautiful
monstrosities such as this:

[http://www.amazon.com/dp/B016EWKQAQ](http://www.amazon.com/dp/B016EWKQAQ)

And the only way up from _there_ (about 10Gbit/s) imo, is to move to other
frequencies entirely, and lose many aspects that make wireless convenient,
like wall penetration and long range.

So I think wireless isn't a very elegant solution for high bandwidth. What
would be ideal I think is that every outlet would have a Type-C port that you
could plug your device and get both power and high speed internet.

Keep WiFi and other wireless technologies low power and low bandwidth
(actually improving the interference situation), like browsing, reading remote
sensors and controlling appliances -- for things/situations that are _meant_
to be remote, wireless.

Note: this was already addressed in some comments here... I'll leave this for
my own reference :)

~~~
jrockway
Those antennas are just for show.

There are plenty of short-range wireless technologies currently under
development that use the SHF/EHF bands to send data at very high speeds. There
is plenty of bandwidth up at 60GHz. Furthermore, the processing power of
affordable chips is very high, so they can control an array of antennas that
send the signal exactly where the other end of the connection is (WiFi is
starting to do this, and cellular networks have done this for a while). For
connecting your hard drive and monitor to a nearby laptop, I think this will
work fine.

The big "problem" with these bands is that they don't propagate through walls,
or even your hand or a sheet of paper. But with beamforming they can go around
your hand, so it's not a problem for things like connecting to monitors, in
theory.

Wall penetration is a big problem for WiFi. WiFi's very limited bandwidth is
shared among all stations that can hear each other. When walls block the
signal, it's like you're creating a brand new Universe free of other stations
and interference, and so you get free bandwidth. This is why corporate AP
deployments turn _down_ the power of their access points, so they only cover a
small area, thus allowing the system to have more total bandwidth.

Ideally the clients would also turn down their transmit power, but they don't
because that's bad for benchmarks and reviews, so they kind of ruin this by
bleeding their signals intended for the nearby AP into the range where other
clients that can't hear that AP are. Fortunately things like beamforming and
MU-MIMO are fixing this, by allowing receivers to move a null in their receive
antenna system to where the unwanted device is, thus providing isolation from
nearby devices and increasing the total bandwidth of the system. We've been
promised this for years but it's still in what I think are the early stages.

(As for the use case of "I want one WiFi router to cover my whole city!" we're
not there yet. You need an AP in every room, with a wired backhaul. Meshing
might solve this... but it is also in the very early stages.)

~~~
IshKebab
The antennas are not just for show. Having multiple antennas allows you to
increase bandwidth, reliability and range.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIMO](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIMO)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antenna_diversity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antenna_diversity)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beamforming](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beamforming)

~~~
jrockway
The post I replied to linked to this:
[http://www.amazon.com/dp/B016EWKQAQ](http://www.amazon.com/dp/B016EWKQAQ)

You do not need your antennas to look like that, that's pure marketing.

Here's an access point with 12 antennas:
[https://on.google.com/hub/](https://on.google.com/hub/)

~~~
darkmighty
Oh you're right you can pack them more discreet, but that should have a worse
performance than the one I showed. That's because the coherence length of
wireless is fundamentally related to the wavelength -- so to get independent
signals you need a certain physical separation, no matter how clever you are
with their placing.

~~~
throwaway7767
Antenna length and placement certainly is a huge factor in wireless
performance. But those specific antennas on the linked router are thick and
huge mostly because of the plastic decoration around them. As the GP said,
it's marketing.

------
w1ntermute
> The crux of the problem is that not all USB Type-C connectors support all of
> these different capabilities and, with one important exception, it’s almost
> impossible for an average person to figure out what a given USB Type-C
> equipped device supports without doing a good deal of research.

A Google engineer has been reviewing USB Type-C cables on Amazon, in order to
resolve some of the confusion[0]. His reviews have since been collected in a
spreadsheet[1].

0: [http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/11/google-engineer-
leave...](http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/11/google-engineer-leaves-
scathing-reviews-of-dodgy-usb-type-c-cables-on-amazon/)

1:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Nexus6P/comments/3robzo/google_spre...](https://www.reddit.com/r/Nexus6P/comments/3robzo/google_spreadsheet_for_usbc_cables_with_benson/)

~~~
jsheard
Bensons reviews aren't really about capabilities. He's warning people against
poorly designed A-to-C cables which identify as high-power sources, permitting
the USB-C device to draw up to 3A from a USB-A port which is only required to
handle 0.5A.

It's a sad state of affairs that so many cable manufacturers can't get a
simple ID resistor right.

~~~
ethbro
Can't the owner of the USB copyright mark revoke and sue them for using it in
a non-standard implementation?

If you don't follow the spec, and nobody punishes you, don't be surprised if
more people follow suit...

~~~
gleenn
Many cables don't include the symbol because it is expensive to get and
requires passing tests they might fail. Go look at your cables, I bet you'll
find ones without it, even ones that came with more expensive products.

------
mattikus
"Just because a device has USB Type-C connectors does not mean it supports
power or any other alternate mode, such as support for video standards
DisplayPort or MHL (used on some smartphones to drive larger >In fact,
technically, it’s even possible to have USB Type-C ports that don’t support
USB 3.1, although in reality, that’s highly unlikely to ever occur."

This is actually a bigger problem than the author theorizes. Both the Nexus 6p
and the Nexus 5x support USB-C on USB 2.0 rather than 3.0 or even 3.1. When
USB-C computers become more prevalent, people might be sad to see their fancy
device lacking the promised bandwidth they associate with the connector rather
than the protocol.

~~~
recursive
I care more about symmetrical plugs than I do about bandwidth. Hallelujah! My
prayers have been answered!

~~~
mattmaroon
It's my favorite thing about the nexus 5x. The 3a charger ain't bad either.

------
ksec
I may get downvoted into oblivion for this, but i do much prefer to pay and
use Apple's Lighting Cable with MFi for charging.

The amount of absolutely terrible USB cables alongside with disastrous Charger
are simply insane.

I hope there is a USB-C Certification, or Heck rename it as USB-D or
something, that provide guarantees to speed ( USB3.1 ) and Power Delivery etc.

Personally I dont see much confusion with the USB -C cable, as long as you use
it to plug into the same Logo Shown on both side it should be ok. The Logo
being a display of Whether it is using HDMI / Thunderbolt etc.

------
jjoonathan
First we had mSATA and M.2 types A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, and M
with profiles S1, S2, S3, D1, D2, D3, D4, and D5. Now we have USB Type-C which
may-or-may-not support a handful of other standards, speeds, and wattages.

What happened? Did the hw/cable vendors take over the standards bodies and
"growth hack" in some defensive differentiation?

------
crudbug
+1 for "Virtualization" for physical port insight.

What we need now is a logo for each supported protocol on the back of every
device or on top of the port (if available) - power / displayport / usb /
thunderbolt.

~~~
marshray
Don't worry, they'll all be there on the back of your game console in raised
black on black plastic.

If it's not on the back, it will be printed in special low contrast gray
paint.

------
oxplot
"Okay, I’ll admit it — it’s not exactly the sexiest topic in tech."

I actually find USB-C one of the most "sexiest". As the author himself puts
it, it's a "Virtualization" of connectivity ports. But I think it virtualizes
"power" delivery too. With a high powered adapter (e.g. 80 watts) and USB PD
(Power Delivery) support on both ends, I can use a single adapter with many
devices. Wait a while and you'll see adapters with multiple USB-C ports on
them each supplying difference voltages to connected devices. The
possibilities are mouth watering.

I'm currently researching to build a DC-DC converter and I'm thinking of
providing a USB-C output with PD support.

~~~
VLM
"I can" More like "you could".

The point of an insanely complex protocol with zillions of shipped variants is
to benefit top to bottom silo manufacturers (apple, etc) while destroying the
market for non silo manufacturers.

USB 1 really could charge off almost any port and almost any port could access
almost any flash drive. That is being eliminated other than in silo'd
ecosystems.

My favorite part of type C is the high voltages, its going to be fun watching
Chinese grade cables short and utterly fry and ignite USB connected devices.
Much like the fire department inspector gets out of whack about seeing
extension cords plugged into extension cords, the inspector of the future is
going to condemn office buildings where USB cables are present, of any sort,
due to USB-C contamination.

~~~
oxplot
x86 and Unix are insanely complex too and a big part of that complexity has to
do with backward compatibility. I've scanned through the specs and I haven't
seen any complexity just for the sake of it. Care to point out any specifics?
Also note that some of the added complexity is to support new features, such
as power provider/consumer switching and power safety.

As for the substandard Chinese grade products, they've always done that and
will continue to do it. Bulk of existing USB chargers you find have horrible
ripples and have power factors that seem to have been engineered to be
embarrassingly low.

------
p1mrx
Even the standard C-C cables aren't all the same: some are wired for USB 2.0
(with 6 wires) and others for USB 3.1 (with 17 wires).

As one might expect, the 3.1 cables are thicker, more expensive, and pretty
much impossible to find in lengths greater than 1 meter.

~~~
X-Istence
USB 3.1 has a huge issue that it pollutes all over the 2.4 Ghz/5Ghz space
thereby reducing Wifi/Bluetooth to almost useless.

Longer cables exacerbate the issue and make it worse because it now is a nice
long antenna.

~~~
CamperBob2
Not really. Once it's longer than 1/4 wavelength at the frequency in question
(about an inch at WiFi frequencies) it doesn't matter how long it is.

------
philfreo
With the new MacBook it seems like Apple is moving towards USB C as the does-
everything connector, including for charging.

However on the iPhone and other recent mobile devices they seem to really be
behind Lightning.

Is there some reason why the iPhone and MacBook couldn't or shouldn't use the
same?

~~~
tomp
USB-C is too thick to fit in the (thin) iPhone, so Apple must use something
else.

~~~
legulere
That's a myth. With lightning you additionally need space for pins in the
device. With usb type c the pins lie in the inside of the port.

------
mrkoot
In March 2015, Karsten Nohl is quoted wrt type C in the context of BadUSB:

'"The additional openness and flexibility of USB Type-C comes with more attack
surface," says Karsten Nohl, one of the researchers who first discovered
BadUSB. "No solution for BadUSB is in sight even with this new standard."'

(source: [http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/16/8226193/new-apple-
macbook-...](http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/16/8226193/new-apple-macbook-usb-
type-c-security-risk-badusb) )

Any new developments or new information available on that, other than, say,
iOS prompting the user on 'Trust This Computer'?

~~~
throwaway7767
I'm certainly not excited about the idea of all the random USB devices I plug
into my machine having a PCIe lane with DMA capabilities available to it.
Random vendor-provided USB mass storage sticks being able to read all the
system memory? What could possibly go wrong?

In theory, IOMMU can mitigate these risks. In practice, barely any OS actually
enables those protections, and AFAIK the CPU manufacturers (at least Intel)
are still using availability of IOMMU as a differentiating factor for high-end
CPUs.

------
marcosscriven
I recall being utterly astonished to read[0] that the USB C cable that comes
with the latest MacBook only supports USB 2 speeds!

"You can also use the USB-C Charge Cable to transfer data at USB 2.0 speeds
between your MacBook and another USB-C device."

[0] [https://support.apple.com/en-gb/HT204360](https://support.apple.com/en-
gb/HT204360)

------
paulmd
OK, so if I have this straight:

* USB Type-C is the physical connector, and in practice usually implies USB 3.1 gen-2 support

* USB 3.1 gen-2 is a signalling specification which depending on the device will support some combination of USB 3.0 data transfer, advanced power/charging capability, video signals, and PCIe lanes

* USB 3.1 gen 1 is just USB 3.0

* However, Type-C devices can fall back to USB 2.0/1.1 speeds if they don't support super-/hi-speed transfer, or if the cable is not wired with the extra pins for 3.0.

Allowing Type-C cables to be sold with only the 6 wires for 2.0 instead of the
17 wires for 3.1, in particular, is a real head-scratcher.

Also, renaming 3.0 to 3.1 Gen 1 is a bonehead move since they're totally
different. One is a data transfer standard while the other is a Thunderbolt-
style multi-stream connector. In practice that makes the "USB 3.1" designation
entirely meaningless.

------
ankurdhama
It's not the cable that matters rather what kind of "controllers" on each end
of the cable are connected and that causes a lot of confusion as people think
of all those features as being "cable" based rather than controllers.

------
jcassell
The progression of USB Type-C is simply going to continue to split the web of
port connectors as we enter into a season where Thunderbolt 3.0 is already
confusing everyday users vs Thunderbolt v.1&2.

What we need is a single identifier for a wireless standard, not the continued
progression in port and the problem with icon design. USB was supposed to the
universal port, but even what the author suggests will be the dawn of a new
era of connectivity, what we really should be relishing are new steps in
wireless methodology.

~~~
NateDad
Wireless is a pipe dream. You can't power something wirelessly over any
reasonable distance with any reasonable power draw... furthermore, the
bandwidth capacity needed just keeps increasing such that even _wired_
standards have a hard time keeping up. Ever tried running a 4k monitor over
HDMI? Older versions couldn't even do it.

So, you need a cable for power, and you need that cable for video, you might
as well make it bring over all your data, too.

------
TazeTSchnitzel
Speed is an issue too. The 2015 MacBook has USB-C with 3.0 speeds (which is
considered USB 3.1 gen 1 or something, it's not the new high speed mode 3.1
adds, see: [http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/08/what-the-usb-if-is-
do...](http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/08/what-the-usb-if-is-doing-to-
clear-up-confusion-about-all-these-usb-specs/))

------
legulere
> Also, full-bandwidth Thunderbolt 3 cables can be expensive, because they
> require active electronics inside them.

So far all thunderbolt cables needed active electronics. Now you can use cheap
full-featured usb-c cables for thunderbolt (at reduced speed).

> it’s even possible to have USB Type-C ports that don’t support USB 3.1,
> although in reality, that’s highly unlikely to ever occur.

The cited macbook doesn't support 10Gbit/s

------
notthetup
How I wish there were some nice diagrams in this article explaining which
standards are superset of which and how the different connectors look like.

------
manaskarekar
I haven't gone searching for answers, but purely from speculation, the
sturdiness of the USB Type-C ports seems like a regression with comparison to
USB 1/2/3 ports. I love how rugged USB ports have felt in the past (that is,
before type-C).

~~~
desdiv
Funny, because data says otherwise:

Original USB: 1,500 connect-disconnect cycles

Mini USB: 5000 cycles

Micro-USB: 10,000 cycles

USB Type-C: 10,000 cycles

[0] [http://www.anandtech.com/show/8377/usb-typec-connector-
speci...](http://www.anandtech.com/show/8377/usb-typec-connector-
specifications-finalized)

~~~
shawn-furyan
Connect-Disconnect cycle performance doesn't have much to do with a cable's
"rugged"-ness, i.e. robustness to normal stressors encountered during normal
use. I've destroyed a million percent more Micro-USB cables than previous USB
standard cables because the connectors are prone to irrevocably deforming when
stepped on or when the cable gets lightly tugged up or down when plugged into
a device.

Simply put, connect-disconnect cycles aren't the biggest threat that USB style
cables encounter in normal use, and so this metric has little to say on the
topic of cable ruggedness.

