
How many kinds of USB-C to USB-C cables are there? - zdw
https://people.kernel.org/bleung/how-many-kinds-of-usb-c-to-usb-c-cables-are-there
======
starsinspace
After buying a screen which has only a USB-C DP-Alt-Mode input, I was recently
in the market for a matching cable. My only requirements were “it should be as
long as possible, at least 2 meters” and “it needs to support DP-Alt-Mode”.

Now I thought this would be easy, just ask Google what kind of cable I need,
right...? Well... no. Not at all. I wasn’t able to find any information
whatsoever what kind of USB-C cable is needed for supporting Alt-DP-Mode. I
guessed (really guessed, couldn’t find information) a USB 2.0 USB-C cable
wouldn’t be good enough. But is a 5Gbps cable enough? Or is a 10Gbps cable
needed? Or maybe neither and I need to buy one of those really expensive USB-C
Thunderbolt 3 cables...?

In the end I just bought a 2 meter USB-C 3.2 5 Gbps and just hoped for the
best. And indeed it works. Yay!

The thing is... I’m a technical person, and even I can’t figure this out. How
is a non-technical person supposed to navigate this?

And by the way: one piece of information I did find about USB-C and Alt-DP-
Mode is that the current spec for Alt-DP-Mode doesn’t allow use of active
cables, so length is limited to 2 meters. That’s another pitfall restriction.

~~~
derefr
The answer is supposed to be easy; it's "you need to buy one of those really
expensive USB-C Thunderbolt 3 cables, because those cables—the ones that do
everything—are supposed to be the _only_ type of USB-C cables."

USB-C cables are supposed to be universal, i.e. have all the features, all the
time; and thus, USB-C cables _should_ (in 2019) be very expensive. Any USB-C
cable that _isn 't_ very expensive (in 2019) isn't following the standard.

~~~
kllrnohj
Note that Thunderbolt 3 is _not_ part of the USB 3.2 standard. It's the basis
for USB 4, but right now to be fully standards compliant with everything USB-C
itself can fully do you do _not_ need to be Thunderbolt 3 compatible, because
thunderbolt 3 is not part of the spec at all.

And even if you wanted to be Maximum Compatibility even with Thunderbolt 3 you
may not have that option as TB3 tops out at a cable length of 2 meters, and at
that length you're dealing with half-rate bandwidth (just 20Gbps instead of
the full 40Gpbs - which you only get up to 0.5m)

~~~
throw0101a
> _Note that Thunderbolt 3 is not part of the USB 3.2 standard._

It may be better to say that Thunderbolt 3 is a 'superset' of USB: TB is its
own protocol, which allows for the carrying of USB over it (as well as PCIe
and DisplayPort).

------
msbarnett
This only seems to be counting USB-C to USB-C _USB 3_ cables

The actual situation is much worse when you add in passive and active C-to-C
Thunderbolt, MHL, DP, and HDMI cables, some but not all combinations of which
may or may not optionally support some but not all combinations of other
signals as well — eg) a passive TB3 C-to-C cable will support DP and USB3 (but
not MHL or HDMI), but an _active_ TB3 C-to-C cable will be guaranteed to
support only TB3, but may _optionally_ support DP.

Visually making a complex matrix of incompatible things look identical has
resulted in an absolutely hopeless situation for consumers, who trained by
decades of “connector shape == bus” think that USB-C is a monolithic bus that
supports all of these different use cases and then don’t understand why they
can’t “just”, say, plug their USB-C Nintendo Switch (wired for USB 3.0 w/ a DP
alt. mode signal) into a USB-C eGPU (wired for TB3) using whatever “USB-C
cable” they have lying around, which could potentially support _none_ of the
incompatible protocols either port can handle anyway.

~~~
Causality1
It's a bloody goddamned nightmare. For example, a brief review of my devices:

>Phone A. Type-C port limited to USB 2 data speeds but supports HDMI out via
DisplayLink.

>Phone B. Type-C port that supports USB 3.1 speeds but doesn't do video out.

>Tablet A. Type-C port that supports USB 3 speeds but only charges through a
MicroUSB port.

>Tablet B. Type-C port that supports USB 3 speeds and charging, but only
charges at 0.8 amps through the type-C port and relies on a pogo-pin dock for
actual 15-watt charging.

That's not even mentioning all the devices that advertise one thing and then
break the standard in a hundred different ways like the Switch.

~~~
derefr
I don't see your point. Devices are free to support or not support whatever
capabilities they want. Having a specific port is no guarantee that the device
will use this or that capability offered over that port; mostly it's a
guarantee it'll use _at least one_ capability offered by that port.

The problem with USB-C is that many of the cables don't do everything. Nobody
else is complaining that the _devices_ don't do everything. Devices have never
done everything possible under the communications standards they support.

Would you expect a monitor that supports HDMI2.0, to be a 4K monitor, just
because HDMI2.0 supports 4K monitors? I would think not.

~~~
wongarsu
If a device has an HDMI port I know I can use that to connect a display. I
don't know details like the supported resolutions, but at least I know that's
a supported use case.

If I notice that a device has a USB-C port all I really learned is that it has
a USB-C port. Who knows what it does.

~~~
derefr
But that's _most_ port standards that have ever existed.

What can a device do with a parallel port? A serial port? A SCSI port? A
Firewire port? Who knows? It's up to the device. It can certainly _send
signals_ over that port, of some kind. But what kind of signals? Up to the
device. The host can hopefully probe a device-class out of the client and
stand up an appropriate driver to talk to it.

A CD player has a 3.5mm audio jack. Pop quiz: does it support SPDIF? In fact,
is it line-level or phono-level output? (An important question to avoid
blowing out your equipment!) Answer, in both cases: who knows?

You find a random CAT-6 drop in the wall. Does it contain Ethernet? Does it
contain _Power-over-Ethernet_? Does it contain both? No way to know without
asking someone or plugging it in.

Or, for a slightly more interesting example of a "port": what can a random
peripheral board do with a motherboard's PCI-e (or PCI, or ISA, or any
historical equivalent) port? Well, whatever it likes. Does anyone expect
_every_ PCI card to be simultaneously a network card, graphics card, sound
card, RAID card, etc., just because those are all things PCI can carry? Of
course not. PCI-e is a single port, and a single protocol (sort of), but that
doesn't mean it's a single set of exposed capabilities.

~~~
beefalo
I think one of the things that makes USB-C particularly problematic here is
that "plug it in and find out" can be harmful to devices since devices can
draw 100W of power through the port.

~~~
cesarb
> since devices can draw 100W of power through the port

Devices can only draw 100W of power, which is 5A at 20V, after negotiation;
before negotiation (or if negotiation fails), only 5V is available, like in
the older USB connector types.

~~~
jazzyjackson
Well that's the spec but I've personally had a Google Pixel melt its own
charging port when plugged in with a cheap USBC cable off amazon.

------
manacit
I've had a USB-C capable device (MBP) for a few years now, and it originally
was extremely annoying. Needing dongles for _everything_ was annoying, and
getting rid of Magsafe meant a lot of my existing chargers that I'd
accumulated no longer worked. My work laptop (at the time) didn't use USB-C,
so I had to keep two chargers around, and I couldn't charge my iPhone from my
laptop at all.

Fast forward a few years and I think it's great.

I have a dock at home that I can plug both my work and personal laptop in and
have it work seamlessly with two 4k monitors, gigabit ethernet, mouse,
keyboard, speakers, etc.

After biting the bullet and getting some USB C -> Lightning cables, I actually
need to carry fewer chargers, fewer cables and everything sort of just works.
The new iPad Pro helps a lot with that as well. USB PD means that everything
charges faster, as well.

USB-C is sort of a nightmare until it's not, and that transition is basically
an entire product cycle (or two) for people, which means a lot of time. At
some point, I hope that issues like this become more identified in software
(as mentioned), and cheap USB C cables that only have 2.0 support are less
common.

Furthermore, while there was once a point where the physical layer matched up
well enough with product support, actually connecting a display has always
been a pain in the ass. Devices are still shipping with VGA ports because of
it - USB-C is no panacea, but I think it's a huge improvement in aggregate.

~~~
msbarnett
With a MacBook Pro it’s not so bad, because rather than try to save a few
cents Apple wired every USB-C port for everything that it supports, so there’s
no real distinction between ports (but you still need to distinguish between
very similar looking cables that handle, say USB 3.0 in one case and an active
TB3 40 Gbps in another)

It’s at the low end of the market that USB-C is an entire mess. _This_ port on
your laptop can connect to the charger, but this one doesn’t. All of them do
3.0, but this one does 3.1. This one does DisplayPort but not that one. None
do Thunderbolt 3 but you had to read the specs twice and guess that from the
fact it’s just not mentioned. Hard for regular consumers to understand, and
remember, when it all looks the same.

~~~
Yizahi
Except that even Apple forgot certain options in their 50$ USB-C charger and
it is therefore non-compliant with specification. Apparently USB-C is hard.

source: [https://twitter.com/USBCGuy](https://twitter.com/USBCGuy)

~~~
msbarnett
Yeah that’s a whole extra layer of fun. On top of the incompatible matrix of
protocols you’ve got all of these devices (the Apple charger, the Nintendo
Switch Dock, the Raspberry Pi 4, probably any number of cheap gadgets with bad
USB-C ports) that don’t even work with things they _should_ be compatible
with.

USB-C is the wild godammned west.

------
ffritz
Found this[0] some while ago on reddit. It shows the mess that is the USB-C
cable market in a spreadsheet with every feature each cable supports.

It’s crazy.

[0]:[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vnpEXfo2HCGADdd9G2x9...](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vnpEXfo2HCGADdd9G2x9dMDWqENiY2kgBJUu29f_TX8/pubhtml#)

------
crispyambulance
So frustrating.

One would think that after nearly 2 decades of consumer confusion over USB
cables that it would be possible to just mark the cables in a clear way with a
non-confusing, easily looked up logo (or better, with a alphanumeric-code).

It makes me wonder if manufacturers are just doing this to increase the churn
of cable sales, so consumers end up buying more cables because "some work and
some don't".

~~~
shrimp_emoji
That or it's a spectacular example of committee design failure.

I can't tell what runs deeper: evil or stupidity. :D

~~~
falcolas
"Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice."

I don't have an attribution, but it's an apt quote.

~~~
krick
> I don't have an attribution

This is called "Hanlon's razor" and, by the way, it is probably a silliest,
baseless, most overused saying on the Internet...

~~~
cobbzilla
No, the original razor is “never assume malice before having ruled out
ignorance and stupidity”. This is an ironic (and funny!) riff on it.

------
claar
I wish they would have also discussed how this relates to Thunderbolt 3, which
I believe would add at least two cable types: "7 (TB3 passive)" and "8 (TB3
active)"... of course I'm probably completely misunderstanding this crazy
labyrinth of lookalikes.

Here's a lovely statement regarding TB3 from an online FAQ:

Are all Thunderbolt 3 (USB-C) cables created equal? No, in fact, there are two
types of Thunderbolt 3 (USB-C) cables, passive and active. Passive cables cost
less and can reach up to 40 Gb/s data transfer if the length is 0.5m or less
and 20 Gb/s if over 0.5m. Active cables can reach up to 40 Gb/s data transfer
with a length of up to 2m.

~~~
Dylan16807
Thunderbolt gets to be an entire extra dimension, thanks to cables that
support thunderbolt but not USB 3.

------
mjevans
I did NOT know about the Tree, SS Tree, and SS Tree 10 logos actually meaning
something, but if that's what's required roughly a quarter of the problem
solved.

Another quarter would be mandating clear markings for the Power Delivery
capability: I suggest PD{amps}A OR PD{watts}W as text markings, and also the
use of some color code; yes both.

The other 50% of this would be to REQUIRE that marketing use specific terms so
that search engine results would be useful and to BAN re-use of those same
terms if a feature is not supported.

Ideally that last step would include a suffix 'max' for indicating the highest
supported tech protocol.

E.G. the current cable could claim (some lesser modes skipped) USB SuperSpeed,
USB SuperSpeed 10 max, PD3A, PD5A max, PD15W, PD60W, PD100W max

While a lesser cable might drop bits from the enumeration of the
specification. It would also allow searching by a wattage/amperage (in case it
matters: E.G. some devices might support 5A but not the higher volts, others
the reverse).

------
mmastrac
There's always pain after a USB spec gets released. This has been pretty much
par since USB 1.0 - switch chips were flaky back then, USB drives were quirky
and getting them working on anything other than a specific version of Windows
was a crapshoot, etc.

Eventually all-in-one chips get less buggy, cable manufacturing gets cheaper
and we move on to the next spec level and repeat.

~~~
basilgohar
Yes, and I'm looking forward to USB-C ubiquity in the near future, but these
are definitely signs that this rollout could have used some more thought put
into it. I'm for "USB-C all the things" but I have sympathy for the gripes
about knowing what to use when.

------
zokier
I'd prefer if articles like this tried to nudge the tech community towards
using the (imho) clearer nomenclature recommended by USB-IF: “High Speed USB”
for 480Mbps products, “SuperSpeed USB” for 5Gbps products, “SuperSpeed USB
10Gbps” for 10Gbps products and “SuperSpeed USB 20Gbps” for 20Gbps products,
instead of USB X.Y Gen Z which is sort of ambiguous.

------
zaroth
This part at the end was intriguing...

> _Cables 2-6 are required by the USB specification to include an electronic
> marker chip which contains vital information about the cable. The host
> should be able to read that eMarker, and identify what its data and power
> capabilities are. If the host sees that the user is attempting to use
> DisplayPort Alternate Mode with the wrong cable, rather than a silent
> failure (ie, the external display doesn 't light up), the OS should tell the
> user via a notification they may be using the wrong cable, and educate the
> user about cables with the right logo._

But how is the _host OS_ going to notify me that the cable is the wrong kind
of cable to support display output, if it doesn't even know that I'm trying to
connect a monitor on the other side? Can I fallback to legacy USB2 speed to
identify the peripheral and then decide a higher speed cable is required?Would
it have to be based on the user action of trying to toggle the primary display
(i.e. Windows-P), triggering a prompt _assuming_ a monitor was connected and
that the cable is the wrong type?

Perhaps rather than the _host_ trying to guess that, it would be better for
the _peripheral_ to detect on its side that the cable is the wrong type, and
then displaying a very helpful full-screen slide explaining the issue. In the
case of a monitor, it could even include a QR code to scan with your phone to
bring up further documentation, complete with Amazon affiliate links to buy a
better cable, you know, because you know, _monetize_ all the things. </s>

------
beaugunderson
I recently bought a USB-C extension cable (so that I could have a USB-C port
nearer at the front of a desktop computer instead of the back) and it came
with this label stuck to it:

> USB 3.1/3.0 is supported on both side. USB 2.0 is only supported on one
> side. If it doesn't work, please reverse it.

"Reverse" here meaning unplug one end and rotate the cable 180 degrees around
the long axis. Or unplug both ends and rotate the whole cable around the long
axis? Or try one end, then the other end, then both ends at once? Truly
mystifying.

------
dstaley
I'm particularly interested in the last paragraph. Is there anything out there
that can read these emarkers and tell me the capabilities of a given cable? I
have so many USB C cables that I honestly don't know which support what, so
it'd be nice if I had a way to definitively determine their capabilities.

------
brownbat
USB has become an odd sort of universal standard where everyone's best bet is
to stick with the cable that came with the device.

~~~
r00fus
I follow with that result, we establish a causal $ reason for this mess -
USBIF signatory manufacturers wanting to not compete with the aftermarket.

------
Havoc
This is a complete and utter failure of standard setting bodies.

From a consumer perspective there is no discernible standard to speak of.

On the plus side the reddit spreadsheet (!!!) about these cables ffritz posted
suggests most charge at either 60 or 100W which is fast enough so I'll just
avoid USB C for data transfers entirely

------
dfeojm-zlib
USB-C needs a Nutritional Information-like label:

\- Speeds supported

\- Currents supported

\- etc.

------
BluSyn
Does anybody know how USB4 will impact this? Will any cable that will be
labeled as USB4 need to be full spec, or will there be a similar situation of
cables with varying degrees of compatibility all labeled USB4?

~~~
wmf
If we assume that USB4 is basically Thunderbolt 3 that means full spec cables
will be too expensive so they will definitely allow lower-spec cables. And if
it keeps using the USB-C connector then all the bad old cables are still
there.

~~~
solarkraft
IIRC USB4 is planned to be _exactly_ Thunderbolt 3.

What is needed is an easily identifiable branding, which I have some hope left
USB4 will finally provide.

------
sahaskatta
Another really shocking thing I recently discovered was the maximum length on
a USB cable. USB 2.0 supports a max of 5 meters (~16 feet). Meanwhile a USB
3.0 cable only offers a max length of 3 meters.

~~~
Mirioron
And since USB 4 will be Thunder Bolt, expect cable length to become even
shorter.

------
breatheoften
The standard absolutely needs to support the ability for computer and
peripherals to detect what kind of cable is connected ... then we need
consumer level implementation at the os to tell people when their cable is
insufficient for the task they are trying to accomplish — with this, bring on
all the cost saving measures for cables.

Without it — fucking idiot standards committees can go rot in hell for the
blight they wrought upon the world ...

~~~
cesarb
> The standard absolutely needs to support the ability for computer and
> peripherals to detect what kind of cable is connected

The USB-C standard has always had that ability. There's a pair of pins on the
connector dedicated to that.

On a basic USB-C to USB-C cable, the first pin of this pair is connected to
the corresponding pin on the other end, and the second pin is left
unconnected; on an USB-C to USB-B or USB-A cable, this first pin is connected
through a resistor with a specific value to the VBUS or GND pin (which one
depends on the connector type); and on a more advanced USB-C to USB-C cable,
or on an adapter to something like DisplayPort, the second pin is also
connected, to a chip which informs the computer about the cable's extra
functionality (and also negotiates the alternate mode in case of an adapter).

The device on either end of the cable uses that pair of pins to: negotiate
which end will initially be the "host" and which one will be the "peripheral";
detect when the cable is inverted; ask the cable about its capabilities; ask
the other device to increase the power or change which device is supplying
power; negotiate alternate modes like DisplayPort; and a few other functions.
The only thing these pins aren't used to, as far as I know, is to distinguish
between an USB 2.0 and a basic USB 3.0 cable; instead, the same method as the
older USB-A or USB-B plug is used.

------
delish
For anyone else who was confused by:

> A USB 3.0 capable USB-B plug was physically larger than a 2.0 plug and would
> not fit into a USB 2.0-only receptacle.

recall that it's this USB-hubby one: [https://www.amazon.com/TNP-SuperSpeed-
Connector-Bi-Direction...](https://www.amazon.com/TNP-SuperSpeed-Connector-Bi-
Directional-Extender/dp/B0154MTY2S)

~~~
zokier
Oh, don't forget the sort of weirdo micro-USB 3 connector: [https://www.droid-
life.com/2013/09/26/yes-the-galaxy-note-3-...](https://www.droid-
life.com/2013/09/26/yes-the-galaxy-note-3-has-a-microusb-3-0-port/)

It is admirable to try to maintain backwards compatibility, but still it is
pretty strange connector for mass consumer market.

~~~
darkpuma
The backwards compatibility of that connector on my S5 saved my ass numerous
times. I really appreciate that design.

------
j0057
Then there's also OnePlus Dash charge, which looks like a USB power brick with
a USB-C cable. However the phone negotiates higher voltage with special
circuitry in the adapter, so that kind of takes away from the 'Universal' in
'USB'. At least I now know that it might maybe work with a superspeed cable.

------
givinguflac
I look forward to usb4, which will merge with thunderbolt and simultaneously
add and remove complexity from this situation.

------
TorKlingberg
I have never encountered a C-to-C cable with only USB 2 support. Are they are
really a thing?

~~~
gok
Most are in fact. When I searched for "USB C cable" on Amazon just now, I had
to scroll to the 16th result to find a non-USB2 C-to-C cable.

~~~
TorKlingberg
When I search for "USB C cable" on Amazon UK, 90% of the results are A-to-C
cables. The first C-to-C cable is an Amazon Basics 2.0 cable, so you are
right.

------
JohnFen
This is one of the reasons why USB-C doesn't particularly interest me. USB-C
doesn't provide any benefits that I value, but comes with an increase in
complexity and potential for (sometimes physically damaging) error.

------
pif
> How many kinds of USB-C to USB-C cables are there?

Too many!

Any number greater than 1 is too many.

------
nabla9
Huh. This was unknown unknown for me–I didn't know didn't know. I knew how to
check device ports for markings, but it did not occur to me that I must check
the cables too.

------
mherdeg
Nice! The list of six items is a more concise read than
[https://blog.fosketts.net/2016/10/29/total-nightmare-usb-
c-t...](https://blog.fosketts.net/2016/10/29/total-nightmare-usb-c-
thunderbolt-3/) , which also raised some concerns about the profound
differentness of many identical looking cables.

------
basicplus2
In my oinion all USB-C cables should be identical and negotiation for power
etc should be done inside the connected equipment, not inside a cable
connecting the two pieces of equipment.

However it is an excellent opportunity to cheaply embed spyware chips inside
USB cables with markings that cannot be distinguished from the genuine
Electronic Marker chips.

------
giancarlostoro
It is so sad how perfect USB C could of been, and then they had to make so
many variants that aren't easy to tell apart from one another not immediately
obvious. I hope they do some USB3 stuff where they start coloring cables on
the end that conform entirely to a given standard.

------
gowld
Here are the types, with names provide by me, what they would be called if
USB-IF was sane and friendly:

USB-C v2a3: USB 2.0 rated at 3A

USB-C v2a5: USB 2.0 rated at 5A

USB-C v3a3 and v3g1a3: USB 3.2 Gen 1 (5gbps) rated at 3A

USB-C v3a5 and v3g1a5: USB 3.2 Gen 1 (5gbps) rated at 5A

USB-C v3g2a3 USB 3.2 Gen 2 (10gbps) rated at 3A

USB-C v3g2a5: USB 3.2 Gen 2 (10gpbs) rated at 5A

------
notatoad
It's so refreshing to read an article that starts out like a rant and ends
with an actually pretty decent solution. I look forward to the day when all my
devices can tell me if the cable I've plugged in is good enough or not

------
orthoxerox
What I want is for every display to have a USB-C port that can power an
external thumbstick PC while transmitting video and audio in the other
direction. eGPUs already work more or less the same way, so the technology is
there.

------
pier25
Much like TB3 ports that have a small lighting icon, all USB-C ports and
cables should have an icon that explains what type of cable you are expected
to plug.

It would not completely solve the problem, but I think it would reduce it
considerably.

------
Simulacra
It has become beyond ridiculous. We need to standardized around one cable. I
get it, we can't have government doing this, but I'm at a complete loss for
who else could? IEEE?

~~~
wmf
USB-IF already has certification but they aren't willing to kill off non-
certified cables (which are 99% of the market).

~~~
DoofusOfDeath
I wonder if this puts them at risk of losing the "USB" trademark because
they're not actively defending it.

~~~
flukus
Given the mess they've made is the certification/trademark actually worth
anything? If what cable works with what devices is going to be a crap shoot
anyway then it's not like it's a meaningful seal of quality to end users.

------
hendry
Even if I have a good cable, what I find confusing is what to expect USB-C
speeds to be between devices.

Say I mount my GH5 with my MBP. What can I expect the speeds to be?

------
PunksATawnyFill
This fails to include Thunderbolt in the discussion, which is a major
omission.

------
killjoywashere
So, if I always buy "USB 3.2 Gen 2 (10gpbs) rated at 5A", am I ok?

~~~
zaroth
Apparently yes, unless you need Thunderbolt!

------
broabprobe
Not to mention thunderbolt 3 even!

------
mikece
At the risk of sounding like I'm making a parody of an XKCD comic --
[https://xkcd.com/927/](https://xkcd.com/927/) \-- there does need to be a new
standard physical connection that's compliant with TB3 and at least 100W PD.
Then USB-C can be for backward compatibility and the new connection (USB-D?
TD3PD?) can be future-looking only: no legacy support.

~~~
kevin_thibedeau
I don't honestly know why anyone would design a product that used 100W via
USB. Even without the issue of dodgy cables, it just sounds like a bad idea
and a solution to a problem that shouldn't exist. If I ever ran across such a
product I would question their other engineering decisions and pass on the
purchase.

~~~
wmf
This is used for charging laptops. Personally, I love having a single cable
for power, USB, and DisplayPort.

~~~
AnIdiotOnTheNet
You ever wonder what the purpose of keying connectors is? I'm curious, because
it's one of those time-tested ways to ensure that things get plugged into the
correct ports and avoid costly accidents. Really simple too.

Why on earth is a standard as ridiculously complicated as USB-C a better idea?
What is the practical value of an "everything" connector when its spec is so
complicated that it really doesn't support "everything" at all?

~~~
jasomill
Unfortunately, using identical connectors for incompatible protocols — often
hazardously incompatible (to equipment) protocols — is an equally time-tested
industry tradition, and not only in more cost-conscious market segments.

High-voltage differential SCSI comes immediately to mind — one might imagine
there'd have been enough margin and price inelasticity in the market for $200
cables used to connect rooms full of $20,000+ storage devices to support the
development and manufacture of _slightly_ different connectors to prevent
damage by connection to then-ubiquitous single-ended SCSI busses, but I
suppose the projections for increased sales or reduced maintenance costs (for
the vendors) due to redesigning the connector weren't high enough to justify a
decision to standardize on different connectors for single-ended and
differential SCSI.

Similarly, given that USB-C was essentially a _fait accompli_ on the drawing
board, short of material risk of injury or death due to misuse of otherwise
compliant cables, I'm not convinced any one player in the industry — or any
group of players likely to collaborate on something such as this — has both
the means and the motive to seriously suggest something better.

Why build a better mousetrap when the world can't afford to beat a path away
from your door?

~~~
Dylan16807
> identical connectors for incompatible protocols — often hazardously
> incompatible (to equipment) protocols

The main actual hazard with USB-C is that somebody solders the low voltage
power pins backwards. What that has happened, it could happen to absolutely
any type of cable, so it's not exactly a problem with the standard.

------
dyu
Sounds like the Boeing 737 MAX problem (without the killing part).

------
benj111
Really what were the USB guys thinking.

I had to 'fix' my inlaws computer today because some shovelware browser was
autostarting, and had a banner across the top to change the autostart
settings.

How am I supposed to communicate the finer points of USB-c USB 3 and all the
various combinations to them, when I cant even keep track myself. USB was
successful because it was plug and play, simple, easy to use. All the things
USB3c isn't.

