There has been a dichotomy for several years: generic adapters are $2-$5, while proprietary adapters are $20-$50. It's not due to the BOM cost of the chip, which is probably less than the cost of the copper. This might be the first mainstream adapter with a chip, other than PL2302-based USB-serial adapters, that are cheap.
Some are actually better than Apple, the braided lightning cables are a lot harder to break. You can even get them with LEDs if that's you thing.
In my experience they work just as well, but quality can sometimes really vary. I hope this leads to cheap clones from reputable manufacturers who have high quality standards.
I'm using a cable now that looks exactly the same as an official Apple one and works just as well (iPhone 5S iOS 8.2).
Generic clones can be of awesome quality or complete garbage
Non-generic stuff tends to offer much more consistency, which I think is what you pay (though there are plenty of cases where it's not worth it).
I tried searching based on the part number and apparently my google-fu was weak.
edit: There are two other open source Type C projects (and they stick with the Hostess snack theme):
As for USB 2.0 conversion those pins are directly on the connector . No need for anything beyond routing out those pins to a different connector. USB Type-C is essentially a USB 3.0 connector, but changed to be symmetrical and the SuperSpeed pins are used for other things like DP or other highspeed serial busses.
I'd guess that fiber optics is only a net win over large enough distances that you make up the latency from converting electrics signals to optical and back.
It's a whole different problem to have even a short distance connection go up to GHz speeds.
I know optical on-chip networks have been the subject of research for many years, and I've heard rumblings of optical interconnects between chips. I don't know their current status, nor whether they look to be useful in practice. Hence my question.
The "High Speed Lanes" (on which normally USB3.0 data is transferred) is re-purposed as a displayport connection.
(in the block diagram ML(0…3)± are the differential display-port "lanes", they are connected to the USB "C" plug SSD(p/n)(1…4) shielded differential pairs)
Nobody would consider a print-out of the Linux kernel's source code to be an acceptable means of distributing it.
To the contrary, bound and printed copies of the PGP source code were used to get around ITAR export controls on crypto in the '90s.
The claim is that it's open-source, not open-rendering. There's no thing you can insert a PDF into to be able to manipulate the design in a meaningful way.
Even as a visual reference, it's not very useful. Googling the the two main chips gives no useful search results. If you did manually recreate the schematic, you would still have no way of building anything with it.
The schematic, even in image form, is the source as far as my experience goes. No, it isn't turnkey, but the schematic (in CAD file format or not) is the design. Everything after that is primarily implementation- more analogous to modern day compilers and linkers, IMO.
Even if they gave you layout files, they would likely be both a pain, and not very useful. Like getting someone else's *.o files. You probably won't be using the same tools, and you probably won't have the same boardhouse, the same parts... I didn't really come to grips with how incredibly nonstandard (or maybe just incredibly varied) parts footprints are until I made my first >100 part count SMD board. It quickly became clear why companies develop their own parts libraries, and why they cling ferociously to existing vendors, supply lines, and specific parts.
Suppose I gave you an article/paper in a proprietary file format you can't convert, with a font you don't have, painstakingly arranged for a paper size you've never heard of, in color gradients your printer can't resolve, that uses features only a couple printers can print. Would that be helpful? Me, I'd rather just get the raw .txt file and .jpg's...
This remains an excellent reference design to build upon. The world of PCB design is more labor intensive, but this would be perfectly simple to reimplement using hobby-level PCB software.
Or is my midwestern-ness showing?