
USB 3.2 is going to make the current USB branding even worse - nottorp
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/02/usb-3-2-is-going-to-make-the-current-usb-branding-even-worse/
======
yssrn
USB-IF has to be doing this to deliberately confuse end users, right? I get
that it's a specification number, not a product name, but they have to know
that this will only cause problems for customers trying to find the
appropriate cable.

Incredibly, their language usage specifications doc
[https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/usb_3_2_language_pro...](https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/usb_3_2_language_product_and_packaging_guidelines_final.pdf)
begins with this:

> USB-IF emphasizes the importance and value of consistent messaging on USB
> product packaging, marketing materials, and advertising. Inconsistent use of
> terminology creates confusion in the marketplace, can be misleading to
> consumers and potentially diminishes USB-IF’s trademark rights.

I simply don't understand USB-IF's motivation to make this so confusing for
everyone. Their board consists of Apple, HP, Intel, Microsoft, TI, Renesas,
and STMicroelectronics, so it isn't like it's controlled by low end trashy
cable manufacturers trying to make a quick buck from confused customers.

~~~
chrismorgan
When quoting, please prefix lines with > instead of using preformatted text:
preformatted text for blocks of prose is horribly unusable, everywhere.

~~~
rconti
Unfortunately, HN is so bad at publicizing and making this easy. I spent years
assuming others knew some magical tool I didn't, before realizing people just
do everything manually and stick to the same unwritten style guide.

~~~
Wowfunhappy
...it felt pretty obvious to me? ">" is pretty commonly used, in email for
instance.

~~~
rconti
agreed, I just thought I was missing some hidden feature. Like, I have to do
the line breaks myself? I guess?

------
protomyth
Who the heck came up with USB 3.2 Gen 2×2? That has got to be the dumbest
idea. No one cares how it works, we just have to go through the utter crap of
buying a cable. Does the low end manufactures pull the most weight in this org
because that's the only way this makes any sense.

~~~
mjevans
Why not enumerate it based entirely on features, also toss in what power
delivery it's rated at in watts and volts.

USB 3 20Gbit PD 100W 20V

~~~
thefounder
What's "3" for?

~~~
isostatic
socket format?

~~~
Tsiklon
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....

~~~
u320
And A is always the same socket regardless of version while B is not. It's a
mess.

~~~
mattashii
> And A is always the same socket regardless of version

Even this is technically incorrect: USB-3 A-type sockets, though backwards
compatible for f/m and m/f connecting with USB-2, have 5 more contacts
compared to USB-2 type A sockets.

------
hsk0823
USB 3.X / USB-C / Thunderbolt 3, all of it together is confusing enough for
those technical, add marketing speak to the mix and it's just going to end up
with a mish mosh of different words that mean absolutely nothing and tell the
end user very little.

Add to the fact that everyone is skimping on the actual USB 3 standards and a
large amount of shitty products on the market that don't do what they say they
do (due to poor quality control, making wires longer than spec expecting them
to work to spec), we have to rely on guys like Benson to crowdsource working
and non working products.

[https://bensonapprovedcom.wordpress.com/](https://bensonapprovedcom.wordpress.com/)

~~~
peterlk
For real. Why not just call it USB 4.0 and divorce the branding from the
technical specification? You can put a thing on the back of the box that says
"implements USB specification 3.2.16a-rfc#4619" or whatever.

~~~
zokier
> 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

~~~
stephenr
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 make sure you get what you
want/need.

~~~
zokier
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.

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

~~~
zokier
> 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

~~~
stephenr
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_

------
aboutruby
Here is a helpful chart of USB versions and their connectors:
[https://preview.redd.it/s9dun6a1xmpz.png?width=960&crop=smar...](https://preview.redd.it/s9dun6a1xmpz.png?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=fc8b58328a64e841d1ef62d5f90fe843617c9413)

e.g. USB 3.2 has the same connector as USB-C

edit: I personally care far more about the connector than exact specs of each
version

~~~
elcomet
> USB 3.2 has the same connector as USB-C

USB-C _is_ a connector, so you cannot say "has the same connector as USB-C".

It is the only connector for USB 3.2, and a connector that is compatible with
USB 3.1 Gen 2.

Edit: I meant it is the only connector for USB 3.2 "Gen 2x2", and compatible
with 3.1 Gen 2 (now called 3.2 Gen 2)

~~~
Izkata
> It is the only connector for USB 3.2, and a connector that is compatible
> with USB 3.1 Gen 2.

From what I've been able to find, not even that is reliably true. Looks like
the older connectors can be labeled USB 3.2 as long as they use the "x1"
scheme in the label and are capable of reaching the speed of that scheme.

------
nimish
People confused with the branding don't realize that USB is by manufacturers
for manufacturers, so anything that lets them claim on the box they support
USB 420.69 while doing the least amount of work and spend is a-OK.

This is what happens when standards bodies have perverse incentives to
confuse. See the SD Association for even worse branding.

~~~
aidenn0
This isn't entirely true. The point of the manufacturers together agreeing on
a standard is to remove some of these perverse incentives; here's how it works
in theory:

Without the standards group:

If manufacturer A is confusing, then they can sell more than manufacturers B
and C. So in turn manufacturers B and C will be confusing as well in order to
keep up. This is bad for consumers and generates ill will against USB in
general (globally bad for A B and C)

With the standards group:

Manufacturers A B & C all agree on something non-confusing, and in order to
use the USB trademark, they can't deviate from what they agreed upon. USB is
now sunshine and rainbows so USB customers are happy in general (globally good
for A B & C).

Something has broken down in the system if they make names that are confusing
since USB being confusing is bad for everybody, and none of the manufacturers
get a leg up on the others if they all use the same confusing language.

------
giancarlostoro
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.

~~~
mikeash
Look at Thunderbolt, where a cheap-ass cable still costs $20, for an idea of
how that would turn out.

~~~
gok
And USB-C 10 Gbps cables aren't much cheaper, especially if they do 100W power
delivery. Both probably could be cheaper if there were more demand for them,
but siren song of cheap slow cables seems to have made it impossible to scale
production up.

~~~
hakfoo
Well, realistically, you don't need 100 watt power delivery for a keyboard, so
you might want a less robust cable.

The big mistake IMO was a lack of obvious keying. Very little stops me from
using that 2w-capacity keyboard cable to try to charge my laptop. If we're
lucky, there's signaling at the device to tell me what's wrong, but if they
had made a different plug on the 100W cable, it would eliminate a lot of
cockpit errors.

Having one cable for everything is a huge red herring. If you need a keyboard
and a power brick and an external hard drive, you need three cables. It
doesn't matter if they're different, as long as the OEM isn't pulling some
Apple-style "one single port is enough" BS.

~~~
gok
So you'd want a low speed connector, a high speed connector, a high wattage
connector and also a high speed + high wattage connector? So 4 plugs, or more
if you want to add even faster speeds in the future. And then you need cables
which have one of each of those connectors on each end, so we're talking about
dozens of variants.

No thank you. The drama around USB-C is insanely overblown; the vast majority
of use cases are fine with the 60 watt + 480 mbps required minimum
configuration for USB-C cables. In the few rare exceptions where you need >60
watts or higher speed, you're generally going to have purpose-built hardware
anyway, so just devoting a special cable to that isn't such a big deal.

~~~
jwr
I think the drama is mostly about the fact that there is no way to tell what a
cable (or a port) "supports" by looking at it.

------
xg15
> _For reasons that remain hard to understand, the decision was made to
> retroactively rebrand USB 3.0: 5Gb /s 3.0 connections became "USB 3.1 Gen
> 1," ..._

> _USB 3.2 doubles down on this confusion. 5Gb /s devices are now "USB 3.2 Gen
> 1."_

So when they eventually release USB 3.3, my rusty old memory stick will be
auto-upgraded to USB 3.3 Gen 1? I like it!

(/s)

------
zokier
Honestly, the USB-IF guidance is pretty sane here. The "USB 3.0" or "USB 3.1
gen 1" or whatever simply should not appear anywhere in the consumer space.
Everything should be labeled and using "SuperSpeed USB _X_ Gbps".

I'd go as far to say that articles like this exactly help keep the confusion
up because the way they keep bringing up the term "USB 3.2" etc as something
that consumers should care about, when it is something that should be avoided.

> What this branding meant is that many manufacturers say that a device
> supports "USB 3.1" even if it's only a "USB 3.1 Gen 1" device running at
> 5Gb/s. Meanwhile, other manufacturers do the sensible thing: they use "USB
> 3.0" to denote 5Gb/s devices and reserve "USB 3.1" for 10Gb/s parts.

Both manufacturers are doing the wrong thing: referring to the USB standard
version at all. Devices should not say that they support "USB 3.0" or "USB 3.1
gen 1". They should say they support "Superspeed USB" or "Superspeed USB 10
Gbps".

Superspeed might be a silly name, but the branding there is almost perfectly
unambiguous, and nicely explicit about the data rate in a way that "USB 3.2
gen 2x2" is not.

What is the most surprising is that USB-IF isn't able to keep the vendors in
line despite being industry consortium and owning all the relevant trademarks
and other IP. They really should start enforcing their policies more
aggressively.

~~~
vatueil
That's really no excuse for USB-IF's terrible versioning scheme.

"SuperSpeed" is useless in terms of branding because even technical users,
much less your average consumer, have no idea what that means. Is "SuperSpeed"
faster than "High Speed" or "Full Speed"? (Answer: "Full Speed" < "High Speed"
< "SuperSpeed".)

"20 Gbps USB" is better than "USB 3.2 Gen 2x2", sure, but that's not exactly a
high bar. It just means USB has failed so badly with version numbers that
people would rather just quote a spec figure.

Wishing for everyone to switch over to "SuperSpeed" and "SuperSpeed+" will not
make it so. Fact is, both users and manufacturers are accustomed to "USB 3.0",
"USB 3.1", etc. And it's not hard to see why people prefer simple version
numbers as opposed to meaningless labels.

USB-IF should have simply released USB 3.1 and USB 3.2 without this ridiculous
business of retroactively renaming older versions.

~~~
zokier
The USB versioning makes perfect sense when you think it as the version of the
standard, literally the document itself, which encompasses all the modes. And
it does make sense to have single standard instead of having the information
scattered across dozen historical standards that have been partially
superceded.

I would point out that this is not a new thing. The situation was exactly the
same with USB 2.0, technically it was perfectly correct to call compliant full
speed device "USB 2.0", because 2.0 did indeed include full speed mode (as
does presumably all the USB 3.x standards)

------
NotANaN
Is it USB 2 or USB 3? Is it 3.0, 3.1, or 3.2? Gen 1, Gen 2, or Gen 2x2? Do I
need USB-A or Micro USB or USB-C? Do I need USB-A on one end of this cable and
USB-C on the other, or some other combination? Does it support Quick Charge or
Power Delivery? If it's Power Delivery, how many Watts?

Those are just some of the questions non-technical consumers are expected to
know the answers to when they are buying USB products.

This is absurd.

------
EduardoBautista
Lightning, although proprietary, is an amazing port compared to the mess that
is USB. I am going to miss it once Apple phases it out.

~~~
koala_man
It's easy to make a universal port when your universe is a small handful of
your own devices with no numbers to live up to.

~~~
microtherion
The "small handful" adds up to about a billion devices, but it's true that
they were made by a single manufacturer.

~~~
koala_man
A billion devices, but just 24 different ones, over 3 product lines, plus a
couple of trivial, slow ones like keyboards.

------
CamperBob2
Something has to be done to stop these people.

What, I don't know. But their Joker-like approach to USB standards and
practices is costing us all dearly.

~~~
Gibbon1
I just had a thought USB is now more of a clusterf^H^H^H^H^H^H^H complicated
than the mess of cables interfaces it was meant to replace back in the mid
90's.

~~~
flukus
It's amazing how much that mess of cables either wasn't solved or wasn't
solved by USB. My power, network, sound and display cables weren't replaced by
USB, my printer was replaced by a phone/tablet. It replaced the PS2 ports for
keyboard and mouse, saving about 2 seconds of setup time at the cost of more
latency.

It his (or has been) handy for connecting gadgets and drives over the years,
but maybe we should go back to PS2 and just use it USB for "front of the
machine" ports.

~~~
dwaite
Counterpoint: A mix of USB-C, Bluetooth and Wifi have replaced my power,
network, sound, microphone, printer, keyboard, mouse, phone charging, and
display cables.

------
chx
Shameless plug: if you want to become less confused about USB-C my primer is
at
[https://superuser.com/a/1200112/41259](https://superuser.com/a/1200112/41259)
and also
[https://www.reddit.com/r/thinkpad/wiki/newdocks](https://www.reddit.com/r/thinkpad/wiki/newdocks)
contains some helpful intro.

------
ksec
So they decided to put some maths behind the new Spec to _simplifies_ the
branding.

USB 3.2 Gen 1 = (3 + 2) x Gen 1 = 5Gbps

USB 3.2 Gen 2 = (3 + 2) x Gen 2 = 10Gbps

USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 = (3 + 2) x Gen 2 x 2 = 20Gbps

Pretty Clever ( Or Dumb ).

To make matter worst they still have not make USB-C mandatory for USB 3.2. So
you could have a USB 3.2 Gen 2 Host with a USB-A Cable that didn't not support
the previous USB 3.0 SuperSpeed ( 5Gbps ) so it will fall back to USB 2.0
Speed ( 480Mbps ) , Or a USB-A Cable that did not support the USB 3.1
SuperSeed+ ( 10Gbps ) which is also called USB 3.1 Gen 2 and is now called USB
3.2 Gen 2 so it will fall back to USB 3.0 SuperSpeed ( 5Gbps ) and was called
USB 3.1 Gen 1 and now called USB 3.2 Gen 1.

You also have crappy USB-C cables that does not confirm to the USB-C spec. And
the consequences depends on the quality of the cable. [1] And in some extreme
cases, you could have a USB-C cable that do not support USB 3.2 Gen 2 x 2,
because some how only pins on one side are working as intended.

Although things has gotten better since his post and Google has been putting
some pressure into fixing it. USB-C is still a bloody bag of hurt. So in case
anyone is still rooting for iPhone using USB-C _without_ MFi. I seriously hope
people will reconsider. Using MFi will defeat the purpose of USB-C since you
will need a MFi Cable, which is one way to say current lightning to USB-C
cable spec and cable are fine. And in case you are wondering about iPad Pro,
you should take a look at the controller size, it is roughly 5 times bigger.

Or we make USB 4.0 that standardise on USB-C and force a much more stringent
specification on Power Delivery, Speed and Quality. But as we all should be
able to tell this isn't a technical problem, more like political, design by
committees, marketing problem.

[1]
[https://bensonapprovedcom.wordpress.com](https://bensonapprovedcom.wordpress.com)

------
MR4D
At least WiFi figured out how to improve.

Would love to see "USB 4" .

No ".0" afterwards, just the simpler numeral.

And if you need a bigger connector, then buy the "USB 4 XL connector" cable.

~~~
squarefoot
"Would love to see "USB 4" ."

I'd rather go for a (possibly faster) Ethernet with a redesigned smaller
connector supporting POE. Smaller devices such as mice and keyboards could
talk at PHY level while smarter ones with beefier microcontrollers could
employ more and more layers of the network stack so that routing/tunneling
data over the network when needed would become trivial. Security wise, there
would be no physical difference between an external local disk and a NAS, but
software could be used to filter devices from the network. The upside is that
there would be a single stack for everything: from storage to security
cameras, audio systems, data acquisition gear, sensors and actuators etc. All
ports would be electrically insulated, the stack is already open and
wonderfully documented, the hardware is already near realtime and there are no
royalties to be paid to use that.

~~~
ken
That was one of the original goals of Zeroconf. In 2002, Stuart Cheshire said
[1]:

> My hope is that in the future — distant future perhaps — your computer will
> only need one wired communication technology. It will provide power on the
> connector like USB and FireWire, so it can power small peripheral devices.
> It will use IP packets like Ethernet, so it provides your wide-area
> communications for things like email and Web browsing, but it will also use
> Zeroconf IP so that connecting local devices is as easy as USB or FireWire
> is today. People ask me if I'm seriously suggesting that your keyboard and
> mouse should use the same connector as your Internet connection, and I am.
> There's no fundamental reason why a 10Mb/s Ethernet chip costs more than a
> USB chip. The problem is not cost, it is lack of power on the Ethernet
> connector, and (until now) lack of autoconfiguration to make it work. I
> would much rather have a computer with a row of identical universal IP
> communications ports, where I can connect anything I want to any port,
> instead of today's situation where the computer has a row of different
> sockets, each dedicated to its own specialized function.

[1]:
[http://www.stuartcheshire.org/TheIdeaBasket.html](http://www.stuartcheshire.org/TheIdeaBasket.html)

Sadly, instead of using existing successful networking systems and automating
the configuration, we've created a new union-of-all-possible-protocols with a
new connector (or 5) and made understanding the compatibility matrix a
nightmare.

~~~
squarefoot
I didn't know about that interview, thanks for sharing. It seems so natural to
me to go for the one technology that fits all needs (Ethernet+POE and possibly
a smaller connector). All it would need is a big player to implement that,
then release the changes for free with no strings attached, but probably most
parties involved can't squeeze the same profits out of open technologies.

Here's an idea to push for this technology. I have no way to develop this,
neither the technical knowledge nor the money required, but comments welcome
anyway. Essentially I would:

    
    
      1- design a smaller connector that could host all Ethernet pairs plus power supply,

say a smaller RJ45 with contacts on both sides, no need to reinvent the wheel
here.

    
    
      2- for testing purposes, build a small bridge board (a matchbox sized black box) between the socket and the
     original Ethernet plug and a nearby USB port for power alone. Ethernet pairs would pass untouched (or possibly
     replicated through a switch chipset+magnetics) while the bridge board would contain any necessary circuit to power

any load connected to the updated Ethernet port(s). Remember we're aiming at
ditching USB for that purpose, that's why I wouldn't map Ethernet on an USB-
Eth chip even for testing; and all power would be taken by the device supply
asap.

    
    
      3- Now we have some cheap hardware which is easy to replicate to use on every platform, including SBCs where the 

USB connector could be spared because we take all power from the board. Let's
move to software.

Some proof of concept would be needed to demonstrate that, so here's my
question: how hard would be to satisfy point [1] and build some hardware
(mice, keyboards, audio etc) that can use the new network standard to show its
benefits to the industry?

------
asadhaider
Don't know if it's my dyslexic brain, but did anyone else have a hard time
reading that article due to trying to keep sense of the different standards
names?

~~~
yssrn
It's not just you — it's virtually everyone who will be purchasing a "USB 3.2"
cable in the future!

------
agumonkey
I feel USB workgroup is having its Winamp moment. Skip USB4 and bring us
version 5: as lean as the v2 but with the good bits of v3.

------
thefounder
Wouldn't make sense to just use the speed as version ? i.e USB 5GB, USB
10GB-C, USB 20GB etc

~~~
thaumasiotes
They do that, in the "consumer branding". This is an odd case where the
marketing is better-thought-out than the spec.

You have to live with calling it a "SuperSpeed" cable instead of a USB cable,
though. :p

------
dwaite
Where the USB-IF messed up - they should have used their trademark to
standardize these cables.

They should have visibly differentiated charging and data cables, and required
all cables with USB connectors at both ends to be rated 100W, and this new 20
gbps (2x2) speed if also supporting data.

Cables with USB-C and another USB port at the end should be required to meet
both the power and data requirements of that connector. (so no charging
compatibility connectors). USB-C to USB-A should have been restricted to 3.0
only.

Alt modes can use a plain USB-C cable (like Thunderbolt 3 does), but cannot
place additional restrictions on the cable if they want USB connectors on both
ends.

If the cable has any other connector on the end (such as DisplayPort), it
would be up to the creator of the DisplayPort alt mode to indicate if there
are any differing requirements.

Likewise if the cable is integrated into a device, it can meet its needs - be
charging only, only use USB 2,etc.

This imho would solve nearly all the problems - the problem is that I can pick
up a USB-C to USB-C cable and it could literally be one of (at least) six
things internally - with no markings to differentiate.

------
KSS42
BTW, here is the actual guidance/press release from USB-IF

[https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/usb_3_2_language_pro...](https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/usb_3_2_language_product_and_packaging_guidelines_final.pdf)

To me it seems the "press" is distorting this press release.

Excerpt :

USB 3.2 Gen 1

o Product capability: product signals at 5Gbps

o Marketing name: SuperSpeed USB

USB 3.2 Gen 2

o Product capability: product signals at 10Gbps

o Marketing name: SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps

USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 o Product capability: product signals at 20Gbps

o Marketing name: SuperSpeed USB 20Gbps

USB 3.2 Key Messages

• Defines multi-lane operation for new USB 3.2 hosts and devices, allowing for
up to two lanes of 10Gbps operation to realize a 20Gbps data transfer rate,
without sacrificing cable length.

• Delivers compelling performance boosts to meet requirements for demanding
USB storage, display, and docking applications.

• Enables end-users to move content across devices quickly, conveniently and
without worrying about compatibility.

• Backwards compatible with all existing USB products; will operate at lowest
common speed capability.

------
ttsda
Why don't they simply change usb-c cable identification into a couple numbers,
a bit like trousers?

One for power, one for data. It could be any scale, as long as products like
monitors would need data > x, phones will charge faster up to power y, laptops
need power z, etc. Two numbers are easy enough to emboss, engrave, print into
a connector, cable or device...

------
kanox
> For reasons that remain hard to understand, the decision was made to
> retroactively rebrand USB 3.0: 5Gb/s 3.0 connections became "USB 3.1 Gen 1,"
> with the 10Gb/s connections being "USB 3.1 Gen 2." The consumer branding is
> "SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps."

Does anyone care about Gbps for USB? I've never hit the bandwith limitation on
USB and see USB type-C as just an annoyance making me buy new cables.

> And 20Gb/s devices will be... "USB 3.2 Gen 2×2.

Pretty straight forward: USB 3.x supports 5 * 2^x Gbps. What we really need is
MORE retrobranding!

\- USB 2.0 becomes USB 3-3.4

\- USB 1.0 full speed becomes USB 3-8.7

\- USB low speed becomes USB 3-11.7

~~~
mmanfrin
> Does anyone care about Gbps for USB? I've never hit the bandwith limitation
> on USB

You have if you've tried to used multiple external monitors over USB (a la
macbooks).

~~~
kanox
HDMI over USB sound like hardware abuse to me. All systems I've only ever
owned had write_mostly interfaces for video display.

Really, USB speed limits are mostly bound by flash memory limits so
manufacturers struggle to justify a replacement. I guess faster charging is
nice?

------
jrochkind1
So the very same device can be accurately labelled "USB 3.0", "USB 3.1 Gen 1"
and "USB 3.2 Gen 1". Those are all actually the same thing? Do I have this
right?

~~~
zokier
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.

~~~
Dylan16807
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+"

~~~
zokier
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.

~~~
Dylan16807
Did they delete the 1x2 mode? If not, the answer to "Does this cable support
SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps?" becomes significantly more complicated than it should
be.

But fine, if we actually see everything branded as "SuperSpeed USB XXGbps"
then it's overly long but it's understandable.

I am not convinced we won't see a hideous hodgepodge of different branding
guides, though. Some saying "SuperSpeed USB __Gbps", some saying "USB 3.2",
some saying "gen __", some saying "SuperSpeed+"

------
theblackcat1002
USB with and without thunderbolt was already confusing enough for your normal
joe. Now you have 3 version of USB 3.2 with require you to do a detail
specsheet lookup before plugging in?

------
flukus
They should just rebrand it as SB and be done with it, there's nothing
universal about it anymore.

------
profalseidol
Probably the same person who made decisions for Java branding back in Sun
Micro days.

------
baroffoos
One of the really bad branding issues / borderline scams I have dealt with is
devices saying USB 3 compatible when what they mean is usb 2 but it happens to
work with usb 3 ports using usb 2.

------
ytch
* USB 3.2 Gen 2 10 Gbps * USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 20 Gbps

Therefore, If a motherboard has two USB 3.2 Gen 2 10 Gbps port, can it be
labeled as USB 3.2 Gen 2x2?

------
mistat
It's like they're marketing pain relief, all new formula, super rapid fast
action, targets pain directly....

------
purplezooey
Ok, guess I'll go back to RS-485

------
Animats
And then there's USB-C, which is an attempt to cram all the ports on the back
of a desktop into one tiny connector. It has USB! It has HDMI! It sometimes
has DisplayPort! Maybe audio, too! It has power! In both directions, even!
Sometimes it even has JTAG, but we don't talk about that.

How does all this interact with UCB 3.2?

~~~
deafcalculus
Good luck finding a cable that supports what you want. It might only be a
matter of time before we have to have chips in the cable to indicate what it
can and cannot do!

------
DannyB2
You thought USB-C was going to solve all your problems?

But they need a new reason to sell you more cables, dongles, and adapters.

Maybe they can call the next one USB 5G! That not only helps confuse the
branding even more, but . . . It worked for AT&T.

