Hacker News Reader

Comment by spicybright | Hacker News Reader

USB3 seems like such a sh*t storm.

Too many features, no standardized labeling for what cables support, not truly reversible connectors, dongles and hubs that barely work unless you drop hundreds, etc.

I'm hoping to god we learn for USB4.

View on HN

USB 4 is essentially Thunderbolt 3. It transports either USB 3(.2), PCIe, or DisplayPort in one of two variants.

Support for these features is still mostly optional. The only real upgrade is that -- as far as I can tell -- USB4 requires host devices to support DisplayPort. It's still a USB-C connector, so I don't see the cabling situation improving.

Come on, USB 3 was just gustier winds in the Giant Red Eye of shitstorms that is USB. USB 4 will innovate only in respect to how it manages to deliver new dimensions of incompatibility.

I miss USB2 and such because anything you bought would work for a good amount of time. It's hard to get 4 wires and a connector wrong.

I agree that that will be the most likely outcome, but I wish it wasn't going to be that way.

How many variants of features are there really in practice for cables? Particularly for "brand name" cables from Anker, Amazon Basics, etc?

I've only ever noticed Thunderbolt (which I've always seen denoted by a lightning bolt) and USB-C. And never really had a compatibility issue outside of that.

One issue I have noticed is that there are dozens of 5 and 7 port USB A hubs out there, but there are basically no 5 or 7 port USB-C hubs. Lots of multi-purpose hubs with SD slot, multiple USB-A ports, and maybe 2 or 3 usb-c ports. And those USB-C ports will often have higher output via power delivery protocol, so obviously there's a thermal limit to how many of those you can pack onto a small hub. But why are there no non-power delivery simple usb-c hubs that would be a drop-in replacement for USB A hubs? It seems like this is kind of an issue for more simple peripheries to switch over to USB-C.

> I've only ever noticed Thunderbolt (which I've always seen denoted by a lightning bolt) and USB-C. And never really had a compatibility issue outside of that.

Oh boy. When it comes to data, USB-C cables can be either limited to USB 2 or fully featured USB 3.2. But that's just one dimension - for high power PD your cable has to be e-marked, and for longer cables (1m) they have to be active in order to support Thunderbolt at full speed.

I'm hoping to god we learn for USB4.

If one looks at how well Bluetooth finally got straightened out after version 5, I think we have good reason to hope!

> not truly reversible connectors

What do you mean by that? USB-C connectors are not truly reversible? USB3 can also exist in USB-A and B variants that are indeed non reversible.

a round connector that can be inserted in any orientation would be ideal... we can only dream

It's way past time for USB over TRRS.

That would require a pretty long connector and a correspondingly deep port.

why would it need to be longer then a current USB connector?

I don't think you can just take the current design and "make it round." You can't just put pins on a cylinder. They wouldn't align as you rotated the connector. The other way to do it would be co-axially like a headphone jack...but those are deep.

> I don't think you can just take the current design and "make it round."

While you are taking the rectangle and turning it into a circle, go ahead and change the design...

Because it is a round pin, the only way to get more individual contacts is to make the pin longer. If you try to distinguish in another direction you could not rotate the plugs anymore. Edit: whoops had an old page open

We could use 2.5mm headphone jacks. TRRS would be enough pins for USB 2. Just need marketing to convince people that slower and less interference is good and valorous.

Because of how the connector is laid out, it's possible for devices to not work (or to work differently) depending which way up you plug it in: https://twitter.com/mifune/status/1373564866443759617

Oh that, I remember seeing the video. Are there any real world devices that have problems depending on the orientation though? This one is just a demo meant to demonstrate that if you really want to, you could make usb-c dependent on the orientation.

I've got a Nexus 5x that now only charges if my USB A -> C cables are oriented properly. When it was new, it would charge in both directions as expected.

Perhaps not, I suspect that the pins are probably normally tied together. That it's possible, and some of the failure modes are _weird_ is a bit frustrating.

Yes. Early USB-C controllers had notorious issues with CC pins getting fried out by short-to-Vbus events, which could make the port work only in one orientation (or not work at all if you're unlucky enough to fry both CC pins).

I bought this USB-C extension cable, and learned that it only works for USB debugging on Android when the Pixel's stock cable is plugged in the "correct" way. There's even a little label on the end of the extension cord telling you to reverse the connection if it doesn't work. /facepalm

https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B071DMMW4J

Lightning

Reply on news.ycombinator.com