I honestly have no idea what you're trying to ask.
Keep in mind that:
* USB3.0 was released in 2008.
* USB3.1 was released in 2013.
* USB3.2 was released in 2017.
Each standard is standalone, and specifies all of its transfer modes. I wouldn't be surprised if each of these specs also included fixes, and thus technically would represent different specs.
No, it's not.
If you implement it from the legacy USB 3.0 spec then you don't care about it. It's SuperSpeed, and that's it.
If instead you implement it to comply with the USB3.1 spec then you have two separate transfer modes specified in the 3.1 standard: the legacy Gen1 and the newly-added Gen2.
If instead you implement it based on the USB 3.2 spec then that standard specifies four distinct transfer modes: the Gen1 specified in USB3.2, the Gen2 specified in USB3.2, and the new ones.
> just because the USB Consortium said so.
Who exactly do you think the USB consortium is? I mean, how do you think a standard is put together?
Yes, it is.
> If instead you implement it to comply with the USB3.1 spec then you have two separate transfer modes specified in the 3.1 standard: the legacy Gen1 and the newly-added Gen2.
No. If your device only supports 5 Gb/sec speeds, it's USB 3.0, yes. "SuperSpeed" and all that jazz. But with USB 3.2, it's now (magically) USB 3.2 Gen 1[0]:
> Under this rebranding, the standard previously known as USB 3.0 or USB 3.1 Gen 1 will now be called USB 3.2 Gen 1. Furthermore, the standard previously known as USB 3.1 Gen 2 will now be renamed to USB 3.2 Gen 2.
Yes, there's different transfer speeds, but if you only support 5 Gb/sec, you're a "Gen 1" device. If you're arguing that implementing USB 3.1 mandates support of the 10 Gb/sec mode, you're wrong. If that was the case, there'd be no point of this "Gen" nonsense because a 20 Gb/sec device would just be "USB 3.2" and a 5 Gb/sec device would be "USB 3.0".
Remember the whole debacle a few weeks ago about HDMI 2.1 essentially just being HDMI 2.0? Why would they do that other than to confuse? The only reason for this (USB) stupid naming is to confuse consumers into thinking that their 5 Gb/sec device is "top of the line" because it supports "USB 3.2" or "USB4".
For example, here's a "USB 3.2 Gen 1" flash drive.[1] It's a 5 Gb/sec flash drive, but it's 3.2 instead of the more appropriate 3.0. Why? To confuse.
> Who exactly do you think the USB consortium is? I mean, how do you think a standard is put together?
I think it's a consortium of companies. Many of which have marketing teams. And I'm right.[2]
[0]: https://www.msi.com/blog/new-usb-standard-usb-3-2-gen-1-gen2...
[1]: https://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-128GB-Ultra-Flash-Drive/dp/B0...
That's not how things work.
Devices are implemented while targeting a standard.
If you implement a USB 3.0 device then you do not support any data transfer mode capable of doing more than 5Gb/s. If you're a customer looking for more than 5Gb/s and you see that a device is only USB3.0 then you already know that it won't cut it.
That's the whole point of this submission. M1 macs don't support USB 3.1, only USB 3.0. Why? because they patently don't support the transfer speeds made possible by the new data transfer mode introduced in USB 3.1.
M1 macs support USB4.
USB specs define multiple transmission modes and speeds from port to port over a cable that one can support. They define alt modes you can support.
Separately there are conformances and marks. E.g. if your cable supports transfer according to USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 in our lab, you can _market it_ as Superspeed 20Gbps, put the logo on the connectors, etc.
So the argument would be that Apple M1 doesn’t support Superspeed 10Gbps.
Which, as an aside, I’ll need a lot more than one person testing with a single (likely non-conformant) cable before I will believe.
3.1 took 3.0’s features and added more optional features to make a larger document.
3.2 likewise.
You are likely thinking the actual feature marketing names. Things like USB-C connectors and Superspeed 20 Gbps. These do not change release to release. They also might require conformance testing to use those names.
I actually blame the current mess on PC motherboard manufacturers for wiring up a crapload of non-conforming ports, like a “USB-A Gen 2x2” with a red plastic tab. IMHO thy did this because nobody wanted to take the risk of actually pushing toward USB-C. It left them without a way to use a certified/marketing name, hence pretending engineering names were appropriate.