Hacker News Reader

The USB-C mandate is good, but the actual USB-C spec is not, with how confusing it became because now the USB-C connector doesn't tell you whether the cable is charge-only, USB 2.0, USB 3.1, USB 3.2 or USB 4.0. So everytime I grab a cable I need to test it and label it accordingly.

With USB-A and B, you knew at a glance at least which speeds it supported.

View on HN

There's no such thing as a charge-only USB-C cable that's compliant with USB standards. So if it's got a USB logo, and isn't a counterfeit, then it's not charge-only. Of course there are plenty of counterfeits.

Otherwise entirely correct, the marking requirements for USB-C are terrible. And the ports don't have any good way to show which alternate functions they support. You can have 40Gib/s USB-4.0 without the DisplayPort alternate mode supported, for example.

The fact that they don't meet a standard doesn't negate the fact that they exist, are for sale, and that most people do not understand the very technical specifications, or even what the USB logo represents.

No, but it means there’s a consumer safety issue rather than a problem with the standard just as someone selling contaminated meat does not mean that the food safety labeling laws are broken.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com