Hacker News Reader

Comment by cesarb | Hacker News Reader

Announcement: https://usb.org/sites/default/files/2022-10/USB-IF%20USB%208...

Specifications released today:

- USB4 Specification v2.0 <https://www.usb.org/document-library/usb4r-specification-v20>

- USB Type-C® Cable and Connector Specification Release 2.2 <https://www.usb.org/document-library/usb-type-cr-cable-and-c...>

- USB Power Delivery Revision 2.0 Version 1.3 and Revision 3.1 Version 1.6 <https://www.usb.org/document-library/usb-power-delivery>

Yes, they really called it "USB4 v2.0"...

View on HN

Hardware revision numbering schemes can sometimes get wonky... but it's almost as-if the USB folks live in a bubble and are completely unaware of the meme their naming scheme has become.

There has got to be a more simple naming scheme that's easier to follow...

> it's almost as-if the USB folks live in a bubble and are completely unaware of the meme their naming scheme has become.

It's almost as if it was designed by a committee.

Run by the same companies that marked USB products

Hi, USB committee member here. I hear your concern and I’m officially launching the USB4 v2.0 naming schema v0.5b task force to analyze the naming schema. Thank you for your concern.

Semantic versioning would be just fine here I’d say; e.g. they could have named this USB 4.1 to indicate compatibility.

Alas, I suspect there are many conflicting desires here, and marketing may have something to do with it — the ability to convince customers into buying new hardware by confusing them may have something to do with it.

that name is the spec name, the marketing names have been cleaned up and are much more sane: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/09/usb-if-says-goodbye-...

> When those products come out, though, the USB-IF hopes they aren't introduced to consumers as "USB4 Version 2.0" or even some type of "SuperSpeed USB." After 12 years, the USB-IF no longer recommends that vendors use terms like "SuperSpeed USB 20Gbps" (for the spec called USB 3.2 Gen 2x2, for example) and instead opt for names like "USB 20Gbps."

> If the USB-IF had its way, products using its new open standard will be described as "USB 80Gbps."

Despite the ongoing chaos of USB-IF's technical nomenclature, it sounds like they are well aware of the problem, and the consumer-facing solution they recommend doesn’t sound bad at all.

Are they going to allow color-coding and icons to indicate what a cable or connector is capable of?

The new branding just has Gbps and Watts. The problem is that 99% of USB cables seem to be unlabeled knockoffs; no branding system can solve that problem.

More sane indeed; glad they realized it was completely non-sense. Thanks for sharing; the post you linked is actually much better than OP's link USB4 specs.

I don't think that's a great excuse. It's find for companies to have internal and external (marketing) names for the same thing, but these are both public! They have two public names for the same thing which is arguably even more confusing.

Look at that article:

> The USB-IF still recommends vendors label USB 2.0, which can take the form of USB-C, USB-A, USB-B, and more, as "Hi-Speed USB" with no performance indicator. > > "Hi-Speed USB has been around for over 20 years and is well established in the marketplace"

They are seriously under the delusion that anyone except USB nerds has even heard of "hi-speed USB".

You're asking for the impossible.

To developers, the difference between USB 3.1 2x2 and USB 4 is material, and they need two different names.

To end users, they're identical, and different names are confusing.

Changing the labelling of USB 2.0 would be a cure worse than the disease. Approximately nobody is introducing new USB2 products, so having <1% of USB2 products use new nomenclature would only increase confusion rather than decrease it.

> To end users, they're identical, and different names are confusing.

They're not though are they? For example USB4 supports Thunderbolt 3 and PCIe tunnelling but USB 3.2 2x2 does not.

Those are optional features in USB4 so you might as well treat them as not existing.

> Revision 2.0 Version 1.3 and Revision 3.1 Version 1.6

WTF?

I’m surprised they didn’t call it USB4 SuperSpeed

That probably will still make it as a product name, somewhere.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com