How many kinds of USB-C to USB-C cables are there?
people.kernel.org
people.kernel.org
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.
Here is the answer: if you need DisplayPort 1.0-1.2, a 5 Gbps cable is enough.
If you need DP 1.3-1.4 (where they upped the transfer rate for higher resolution and fps,) you need a 10 Gbps cable.
If you need DP 2.0 (I don't think products are out yet, the standard was finalized last month,) you will need a USB4 20 Gbps cable.
Is it 5Gbit/s per twisted pair? That would make sense as displayport uses 4 pairs so 4 * 5 comfortably gets you the 12.54 with plenty left over for regular data. But then it would matter for the 10gbit/s cables if it's talking about superspeed 1x2 (2x5gbit/s) or 2x1 (1x10gbit/s).
A USB3 cable has 4 differential pairs. When in alt mode, all 4 pairs transmit in the same direction, so a 5 Gbit/s cable can transmit 20 Gbit/s.
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.
More expensive doesn’t necessarily mean more support ... thunderbolt is not usb-c even tho they have the same connector on the end ...
If you are in the market for an expensive and long thunderbolt cable — caldigit makes one. I just bought it and felt annoyed at paying 50 dollars for a cable — but I’m also glad for the technology needed to make this cable possible to exist so ... maybe I can swallow this as funding the future?
https://www.amazon.com/CalDigit-Intel-Certified-Thunderbolt-...
At the other end of the spectrum, there don't seem to be any cables that support both thunderbolt 3 and USB 3 at 2 meters, no matter how much you're willing to spend.
I may be wrong here, but from what I understand this doesn't seem to be the case (DP, Thunderbolt, etc. are all "optional"). It would also mean that all cables would be limited to 50cm.
The USB-IF is composed of manufacturers that wanted to be able to cheap out on cables; so of course they made all the expensive features optional, at the expense of anything USB-C was designed to accomplish.
In an alternate world where USB-IF was headed by a benevolent-dictator-for-life, USB-C wouldn't have any optional features. (It'd also be in nearly nothing, because no manufacturer would want to pay the BOM costs of supporting it.)
It'd be everywhere if manufacturers had no other choice. Mass production would keep the price low.
In that reality, Apple would be actually courageous for switching to USB-C and forcing everyone's hand. The EU could jump in to, and tell phone manufacturers that if they want to switch away from plain old USB, they can switch over to USB-C, but no going back to proprietary connectors bullshit. This would be a much nicer world indeed.
Last time Apple was courageous ─ the headphone jack got killed. The word 'courage' was used to onboard Airpods and move the general trend towards sealing off most ingress points on a device; contemporaneously selling an adapter for a pretty penny.
Whilst I agree that some manufacturers followed the above-mentioned trend. They were not pushed, but rather jumped willingly, as it made financial and commercial sense by applying the maxim - where Apple leads, others must usually follow. There were also unsubstantiated rumours of Apple abandoning their role in development of USB-C implementation, perhaps due to the lack of a moat[0]. Nevertheless, I don't expect them to be altruistic in their motives and fully expect them to monetise the USB-C standard via a plethora of cables and dongles, possibly under the umbrella of MFi program, especially targeting the lack of certification and/or the vacuum/ambiguity created by USB-IF, leaving the rest of the field to carry on dealing with the existing issues.
Also, I would much rather put up with the current botched up state of affairs, than have EU involved in meddling with it and make things even worse.
Hence my use of the word "actually" - the headphone jack situation is IMO anticonsumer, not courageous.
As for EU involvement, it seems to have worked out for the best with forcing phone manufacturers to use USB for charging - I still remember the days of feature phones, where we were all drowning in phone chargers and (separate) data cables, as each brand and each model generation within the brand used different ports and voltages. It was ridiculous levels of plastic and electronics waste for the sake of business shenanigans.
You are romanticising the notion of Apple and EU being the standard rod-bearers. Despite using electrical waste and dubious business practices as a reason for EU involvement, it would seem that you are unaware of the saga of the 'common charger' and the villainous role played by Apple.
A key take-away:
The EU's failure to regulate, in essence, provides Apple with an argument to keep their own solution.
For Apple, the common charger is a success story – of regulation avoided.
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)
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).
This is just plain wrong.
The USB standard explicitly allows cables that have a USB-C connector and don't support any USB features above USB 2.0.
For future reference, a Thunderbolt 3 cable (which is USB-C connector) will work.
Isn't USB4 = the next Thunderbolt standard?
> What is Thunderbolt 3?
> Computer ports with Thunderbolt 3 provide 40Gbps Thunderbolt – double the speed of the previous generation, USB 3.1 10Gbps, and DisplayPort 1.2.
I'm curious: which active cable did you use that didn't support DP?
Regular USB-C monitor is not support, USB 3.1/3.0/2.0 and USB-C is not support https://amazon.com/Thunderbolt-Certified-Nekteck-Compatible-...
USB 2.0 ️[check], USB 3.0 [ ], DisplayPort [ ] https://amazon.com/Belkin-Thunderbolt-Cable-Feet-Meters/dp/B...
Can you point me to any 2-meter thunderbolt@40GHz cable that does support USB 3 and/or DisplayPort? None of the ones in this chart can do it: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vnpEXfo2HCGADdd9G2x9... Only the 1-meter active cable can.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB-C#Alternate_Mode_partner_s...
What a clusterfuck of a standard.
Maybe a good indication would be to check your CPU usage before and after using 5Gb/s and 10Gb/s cables. Even then it's not a great indication, many modern processors have dedicated modules on the CPU for video compression/decompression (given how large the use case is, it makes sense).
And then you have other factors that may prevent you getting full speed:
* Connection between the cable and the device on both sides (oxidization, scratches, etc)
* Manufacturing flaws or damage during delivery/use in the cable (un-shielded areas, breakages in the cable, imperfections in metals, etc)
* Temperature - if you're pulling 20W through this cable it's not entirely impossible you might start noticing some heat, especially if it wasn't designed to take the power draw (increased heat due to power pull = greater resistance = worse signal)
My pointy is, as we turn up the requirements of these cables, just making sure they deliver on their promises will become more difficult. Most people won't have an oscilloscope that can even measure these cables anymore and just the act of putting the oscilloscope on the lines increases capacitance and changes how the signal looks.
A while back I had issues with two Ethernet cables (CAT 7 I think), both straight out of the packet, one performed at half speed and the other at full. I was tearing my hair out for a while before I realized why the network was bottle necked.
They seem to have either no names or too many names where it's unclear what is intended for the consumer.
Just giving the cable a clear name (in words, not icons), so you could know what you were buying, and a device could say "you need this kind of cable", and a person could write a blog saying "to support DP-Alt-Mode you need X kind of cable" and all use the terminology... would seem to go a long way.
It seems odd that the USB people have not figured this out.
We can't even figure out what the CALL em all consistently.
Exactly! We can call the one for small peripherals "USB", the one for monitors "VGA", the one for networking "ethernet", the one for power "AC"... I suspect most users can figure out how to manage that.
Snark aside, I actually agree with you. The market powers that be completely messed this up. Basically, phones have limited port space. And for their benefit, and only their benefit, we've tried to cram together the entirety of device I/O into one multi-pronged standard that was clearly never going to work.
And those phones? Their fancy USB-C ports are almost exclusively idle. A median high end phone never does anything with that port it couldn't have gotten with a single barrel connector with ~10V DC.
I'll take 10 minutes extra effort every few years to order the correct cable in exchange for that...
Wrong kind of names. For these cables, all you should need to know is a speed rating. And they almost work that way, but the ball got dropped in a few places and the cables are badly labeled, so it turns into a nightmare.
> And for their benefit, and only their benefit, we've tried to cram together the entirety of device I/O into one multi-pronged standard that was clearly never going to work.
I can't agree at all with that. The needs of phones were already satisfied by USB micro, long before any of this cramming started. USB-C's complication is not because of phones.
And even though the data connection is rarely used, it sucks to not have it available for file transfers and backups and tethering. And barrel plugs are terrible for charging on the go. You have far fewer outlets than USB, and there are too many different sizes.
Before the legislation, most phone chargers had the wire fixed to the transformer, and were unique to each manufacturer. The law reduced the e-waste from obsolete chargers, but didn't care so much for the wire.
Der Micro-USB-Standard bezeichnet eine Regelung auf Basis des USB-Standards, nach der ab 2011 die Steckverbinder für die Stromversorgung von Mobiltelefonen und anderen elektronischen Geräten in Europa vereinheitlicht wurden (Norm EN 62684:2011). [...] Das Kabel kann entweder fest oder durch einen Stecker mit dem Ladegerät verbunden sein. Bei einem steckbaren Kabel ist ein Standard-USB-Stecker (Typ A) zur Verbindung mit dem Ladegerät zu nutzen.
The Micro-USB standard is a regulation on the basis of the USB standard, according to which the plug for charging mobile phones and other electronic devices has been unified since 2011 (European Norm EN 62684:2011). [...] The cable can either be fixed to the charger or connected with a plug. In the latter case a USB-A plug is to be used.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_external_power_supply#R...
And the latter two would be "USB 3.3", "USB 3.4", problem solved :)
Initially, there was USB 3.0 at 5Gbps, USB 2.0 at 480Mbps, and USB 1.1 at 12 Mbps.
Then, when they added a 10Gbps mode, they called it USB 3.1 Gen 2, and renamed USB 3.0 to USB 3.1 Gen 1.
They already have plans for USB 3.2: 5Gbps will be USB 3.2 Gen 1, 10Gbps will be USB 3.2 Gen 2, and 20 Gbps will be USB 3.2 Gen 2x2. Yup, Gen 2x2 is next.
And there is no more USB 3.0 - presumably no vendor wants to have to sell an older number, so they rename them all so consumers are confused and think they are all the latest 3.x
ref: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/02/usb-3-2-is-going-to-...
As soon as its phones go USB-C, they're going to have to deal with half a million people on the internet complaining that their junk shop cable doesn't work right or do what they thought it would.
This already happens though. I have a dollar store "Lightning" cable that only has a third of the pins and only works one way.
The whole thing makes a mockery of the core reason for USB to exist, which was so we wouldn't need a unique cable for each device. And so here we are...
I have been told those names were not intended for the consumer. (And indeed "USB 3.1 gen 2" vs "USB3.1 gen 1", seriously?).
I think there is another set of names, also inconsistent and unparallel with each other or the first set of names, intended for the consumer, that nobody can seem to figure out.
More precisely: "Why don't they give them _reasonable_ usable names, and only one set so everyone uses the same one?"
This still seems to be an obvious part of the design of the product to me.
Learning just that one fact made it worth the click. I now know to just always look for SuperSpeed (or the SS marking) on any cable I buy.
If we could just all start calling them SuperSpeed cables, SuperSpeed10 for 10Gbps, and I assume we will eventually have SuperSpeed20, etc... that would be just fine by me! Honestly, better marketing IMO as well.
The time for the "USB" acronym has passed. Especially since the debacle of "USB3" and Gen1 Gen2 nonsense. "SuperSpeed", optionally followed by a number which indicates a data rate would be just lovely.
The whole catchy idea behind USB-C (unfortunately perpetuated here by people who should know better) is that there is ONE SOCKET, ONE PLUG and ONE CABLE. Oh, the dream of using a single connector.
Unfortunately, this is far from reality and the result is a complete mess, which is why I'm not a big fan of the whole USB-C thing. Especially given that I'm a hostage, because a certain computer company whose computers generally suck the least, decided to show courage by moving to USB-C even though the ecosystem is nowhere near mature — let's put pressure on the manufacturers by getting hostages (oops, "users") on board.
I wish USB-C mandated some sort of connector marking: color strips, or whatever, that would let me figure out what would work.
I still remember when the iMac came out with two USB ports, a CD drive, and nothing else. It was a couple of years too early, or did it prove that you could make a successful computer without vital things like a parallel port and a floppy drive?
There's nothing benefiting customers from this cable mess. It only enables dishonest businesses, as customers can't tell cables apart until they plug them in and try to use them.
I mean cable with all the features is damn expensive if you compare it to the usual(shitty quality) USB2.0 cables. Most folks would buy cheaper one because difference in prices between USB2.0 and USB-C with all features would be too high. It would feel like a rip-off to them.
The whole idea of "one connector that does everything" is flawed, unless you standardize what "everything" means and give users visual clues. Such as, oh, a different type of connector, like we used to have.
I get precisely ZERO benefit from using a USB-C connector for my monitor, I only get a large amount of pain.
The line I'm trying to stride here is, on the one hand, avoiding what USB-C ended up being, but on the other hand not returning back to the days of feature phones, where you had as many physically and electrically distinct charger and data ports as there were phone models. There must be a sane state somewhere in the middle.
Since when was USB-C such a major issue on Thinkpads?
OT, but what screen did you buy? I'm in the market as well for a USB-C powered travel monitor and was about to head down the what-cable-works rabbit hole.
* USB 3.1 (Type-C to Type-C) Charge Only * USB 3.1 (Type-C to Type-C) Charge and Data @5Gb * USB 3.1 (Type-C to Type-C) Charge and Data @10Gb * Thunderbolt 3 (Type-C to Type-C) Charge and Data @20Gb * Thunderbolt 3 (Type-C to Type-C) Charge and Data @40Gb
I believe 5/20Gb cables are generally rated at 65W and 10/40Gb cables at 100W. But like you've noted there's no standard labeling. So it's hard to find what you're looking for half the time.
It's just easiest to find Thunderbolt 3 cables since those are backwards compatible and if you buy the 40Gb ones you're going to be safer with regard to plugging both your laptop into a charger and your phone.
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.
>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.
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.
Tons of regular consumers think that USB-C is a protocol and frequently complain that things they think should work together don’t, because they’re actually radically different ports electrically that happen to be shaped the same.
Gaming forums are rife with elaborate conspiracy theories behind why Nintendo won’t “just” release an eGPU Dock for the Switch, which it “obviously” “must” support because it’s USB-C and eGPUs have “supported” USB-C for years.
And now, Nintendo has announced a Switch Lite with no TV out (presumably they removed the DisplayPort crossbar IC that does alternate mode muxing with the USB 3.0 signal, to reduce manufacturing costs). But Joe Average Consumer is up in arms, this “must be them sabotaging it in software”, because “video out is a required part of the USB-C standard, this wouldn’t even save them any money, USB-C always physically supports video out”.
The average consumer in no way understands that USB-C is just a connector shape that a bunch of different incompatible things use. They think that, like almost all previous ports, the shape indicates a common protocol that is shared by things that have that shape. And they are absolutely complaining about a lack of what they perceive should be compatibility.
It probably saves some amount of money, but I'd bet that deliberately leaving it out to encourage sales of the full switch is a bigger factor.
Otherwise I agree with you about protocol confusion.
(Would you even need a mux? I don't think the switch uses USB 3 for anything.)
And if it was using a mux to pick signals they wouldn't run at the same time anyway.
Though presumably the switch lite doesn't need to support USB at all.
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.
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.
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.
With USB-C, whether or not a device will do all, some, or any at all of its functions, depends not just on the device, but on what you're connecting it to and which one of the countless types of cables you happen to have, all of which look identical to someone who's not an EE with appropriate equipment.
Makes me think, maybe I should start selling USB-C cable testers, because if old USB taught me anything, is that you can't trust cable manufacturers to not lie, even if the cable standard is as simple as it gets.
That's also the problem that USB solved. Until USB-C came around.
With your PCIe example, again - I don't expect every card to do everything. But I do expect every card to work on my computer's PCIe bus.
So I'm not sure having HDMI is better or worse. I would prefer having slightly cheaper monitor, if anyway I'm going to buy proper DisplayPort cable.
And that's the serious underlying design flaw.
Yes they do - that's the point of a communications standard. Any device with a USB 3.0 port will work with any USB peripheral ever, given suitable drivers. Your HDMI example makes no sense because it's backwards; of course I don't expect an HDMI2.0 monitor to be 4K, any more than I expect a flash drive to act as a keyboard - but I absolutely expect a port that supports flash drives to support keyboards, and I expect a computer with an HDMI2.0 port to support 4K monitors.
The departure with USB-C is that it isn't a communications standard. Unlike any previous USB port, having the port is not a guarantee that it will work with any peripheral with that plug. The situation with the cables merely reflects this fundamental usability flaw - even if all cables did everything, assessing compatibility would still be confusing.
USB-C is the first time most people have run into their cable's shape not corresponding to the cable's capability
(folks trying to do 4k video with shitty HDMI cables excepted)
In my case I have a switch, 2 macbook pros (2018, 2019) and an iPad pro (11.5") and I've not had much of a hard time finding cables, at least for power.
I tried using it to connect a USB-C SSD to my MacBook Pro 2014, using a Thundebolt 2 M-M wire, and the adaptor plugged into the SSD enclosure. It didn't work, though thankfully it didn't fry anything either.
The Thunderbolt adaptor also doesn't work with MiniDP-VGA or MiniDP-HDMI adaptors. So I would need to buy a whole new set of video adaptors if I upgrade my laptop. Needless to say, I'm not in a hurry to do so.
I like adaptors, and I have a large collection in my bag already for video out/in, phone charging, FireWire/Thunderbolt disk mode, and more. But I haven't even started collecting USB-C adaptors because it would only be for friends ("Sorry for the technical difficulties with the projector...") and I don't know which ones will work.
This isn’t correct. I use it daily to connect a MacBook Pro with Thunderbolt 2 ports to a RAID enclosure/dock with Thunderbolt 3 ports via a TB2 cable terminated with this adapter. An external monitor is attached to the enclosure, as well as several USB devices. The display port alternate mode signal and USB hub functionality all works simultaneously with the RAID.
Of course, half the problem with USB-C is that the failures are incredibly opaque, so it’s hard to say why the adapter failed in your case. Maybe you plugged it into a USB 3 USB-C port instead of a TB3 USB-C port? My enclosure has separate USB-C ports for each protocol, and I need to be careful to select the right one.
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.
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.
I had a friend bring over a Dell laptop with a USB C port that I naively assumed had TB3 support (it was listed as being "optional" on Dell's website). Turns out that the only way to actually know was to either watch it not work with a Dock, or to go into the BIOS and witness some missing settings that indicated TB3 support was not present.
For better or for worse, though, that's a manufacturer problem - they could have easily just not allowed _any_ USB C charging and stuck with an AC adapter, or spent the extra coin to make all of the ports work with a TB controller, etc. Companies have been making user-hostile decisions in the name of cost cuttings (1366x768 screens in 2018) forever, it seems like USB C is just another avenue for that.
Not to be confused with Apple's Lightning connector, of course...
For what it's worth, I personally would be thrilled by such a decision. I'm against having my power supplied through a data cable and data port. In theory it's safe, of course, but in practice people have fried equipment with bad cables. It's a hard standard to get right. It's as if we were all using Rust for systems programming up until 2016, when we all switched to C because it was "more powerful". In theory you can write safe C. In practice ...
I also think display connections should have their own interface. It needlessly complicates the protocol when we already have perfectly good connectors for this, HDMI, micro-HDMI, Displayport...
USB should be a dumb protocol with a passive cable. The only distinguishing feature between different USB C cables should be transfer speed, and different rates should be given a clearly labeled version number and distinguishing color, like USB 3.1, 3.2 etc.
Of course no one's actually going to implement this, probably the companies involved profit off of incompatibilities. Whenever you have to buy a new cable or new device because it's not supported by the old standard, it's proof this approach is winning.
source: https://twitter.com/USBCGuy
USB-C is the wild godammned west.
I can't speak to what else is on the market, but there's not more I'd want from this.
The only issue I've had is that my Macbook sometimes flips my two displays, but I believe that's an OS problem.
https://www.owcdigital.com/products/thunderbolt-3-dock-14-po...
Beyond that, the additional wattage that USB C PD provides means that I can charge my iPhone and iPad significantly faster than even with Apple's "fast" 12W charger previously. This is really nice when I am traveling or just forgot to charge my iPhone.
In addition, now that more devices are coming with USB C support, I can charge everything from my laptop to my Bose headphones with the same cable and charger, which would have not been possible before.
Umm, so do I, but USB-C isn't involved.
It’s crazy.
[0]:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vnpEXfo2HCGADdd9G2x9...
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".
I can't tell what runs deeper: evil or stupidity. :D
I don't have an attribution, but it's an apt quote.
This is called "Hanlon's razor" and, by the way, it is probably a silliest, baseless, most overused saying on the Internet...
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.
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).
Eventually all-in-one chips get less buggy, cable manufacturing gets cheaper and we move on to the next spec level and repeat.
> 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>
> 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.
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
- Speeds supported
- Currents supported
- etc.
What is needed is an easily identifiable branding, which I have some hope left USB4 will finally provide.
Without it — fucking idiot standards committees can go rot in hell for the blight they wrought upon the world ...
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.
The need for that alone is a big sign that the standard is flawed from a user perspective. Ideally, it should be impossible to use the wrong cable for a task. Traditionally, this is done by making the shape of the connector different.
> 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...
It is admirable to try to maintain backwards compatibility, but still it is pretty strange connector for mass consumer market.
Too many!
Any number greater than 1 is too many.
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.
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
It would not completely solve the problem, but I think it would reduce it considerably.
Say I mount my GH5 with my MBP. What can I expect the speeds to be?
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?
By converting to a docking station that requires a simple small plug for everything, that makes them much cheaper. Instead of making a huge chunk of plastic that the laptop has to click into.
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?
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.
"Power adapters for Mac notebooks are available in 29W, 30W, 45W, 60W, 61W, 85W, and 87W varieties." [1]
Maybe you'd want your laptop to power external monitors via the other USB-C ports?
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.