With new USB connector, no more wrong-way-up cables | Hacker News Reader

With new USB connector, no more wrong-way-up cables

news.cnet.com

33 pointsshearnie53 comments

It's nice that they're finally fixing this, but I feel like Gruber's take [1] is probably right. It's a little odd that there are no pictures, but this won't be released until 2016. As he points out that's four years after the Lightning connector came out.

It's been dead obvious since USB first came out that having a cable that worked either way would have been easier to plug in. We've been through a couple of revisions of the smaller connectors (A, mini-B, micro-B, the new USB3 version) but you won't start to see this for another two+ years.

[1] http://daringfireball.net/linked/2013/12/04/usb-lightning

2016 definitely seems late. I also would've expected the speed to be more like 20 Gbps by then, but it's just double the USB 3.0 speed. That doesn't seem like a huge improvement.

USB 3.1 is already finished. The Type-C connector will be used for several future versions, it's not tied to a single protocol or speed.

> I feel like Gruber's take

You have expressed a thought, not an emotion.

http://www.wildmind.org/applied/depression/distinguishing-th...

Wow, that page is full of garbage.

Use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-message instead.

Hi! Welcome to the english language, is this your first week?

I looked at the page you linked and I realize there are people like those described there. That being said:

I think some people (at least one :) use "I feel" to express a notion that is too intuitive for a concrete statement like "I think".

I feel like that's what MBCook intended. ;)

If Gruber's take is true, then why Mac doesn't have a Lightning port? Or at least a Lightning to Thunderbolt cable.

They have a USB to Lightning since Lighting isn't that fast yet and the USB connector on the Mac side is a heck of a lot easier to plug into then the Thunderbolt.

That is the single best thing I've ever seen Gruber write. His blog is so pro-Apple that it often fails to express their genuine merits and instead betrays his contempt for their opposition. Meanwhile that is a very incisive synthesis of each perspective that brought clarity to the legitimacy of Apple's position and the situation as a whole.

It's always been baffling to me how bad consumer connectors are. Lightning is the best from a UX standpoint, but why'd it take until 2012? Do the people who sit on these standards boards ever actually plug anything in?

Well, it's not just a simple plug: "The plug itself incorporates a processor which detects the plug's orientation and routes the electrical signals to the correct pins." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_(connector)

Depressingly... "Official Lightning connectors contain an authentication chip that makes it difficult for third-party manufacturers to produce compatible accessories without being approved by Apple."

All that's true (FULL DISCLOSURE: I work at Apple), but the physical plug that Lightning uses is fantastic. Nothing in there seems to be particularly dependent on the state of technology in 2012.

I mean, USB is better than the physically identical but electrically distinct PS/2 ports, but that's not setting the bar particularly high.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I work at Apple

Unless you got your message vetted through PR, you're in danger of termination now. (Completely not joking. It's happened before.)

USB (a relatively novel rectangular connector) is physically identical to PS/2 (a historically standard round mini DIN connector)? This sort of reasoning is completely alien to me, which is probably why I'll never be as rich as Jobs.

USB connectors don't have any intelligence, they're just a way to connect a few wires together. In that sense, they work exactly like PS/2, AT keyboard connectors, Atari 2600 joysticks, and headphones. The only differences are the shapes and locations of the individual connections.

The lightning connector isn't passive, it contains some active circuitry, so it's not nearly as simple.

Edit: seems I misread the meaning.

A physical connector has an electro-mechanical function, and the PHY layer has an electronic function. Regardless the technology, both are always required.

So, lightning located some (small) part of the PHY in the connector rather than in the client or host (where it would likely be cheaper). Apple could have merely cross-wired the pins on each side of the connector to achieve a reversible design and thus eliminated this excess complexity.

I suspect the design is motivated by IP/counterfeit protection. I do not believe any of that benefits the end user at all.

Right, that was confusing. What I was trying to say is that USB was an improvement on PS2, where the mouse and keyboard ports were identical to the user.

That's how I read that sentence the first time, too, but you can parse that sentence so it's true:

Two USB ports which are electrically identical are superior to two PS/2 ports, one for keyboard and one for mouse, which are electrically different.

IIRC, PS/2 mouse and keyboard ports are electrically identical, and the reason that they can't be used interchangeably is that addressing for PS/2 devices is hardcoded at the software level, i.e. the BIOS always expects a keyboard connected to a specific port and a mouse connected to the other.

If you're willing to sacrifice half of the conductors, you can make it such that, for example, conductor 1 is always on the left.

You could make USB this way easily with 4 conductors on each side whose order is correct regardless of which side of the cable is up. There'd be 8 total conductors on the connector.

I'm actually surprised this isn't the method that Apple decided to go with considering that it is simpler and presumably requires fewer additional parts.

Apple focuses on superficial simplicity. The complexity of the implementation, if hidden, is irrelevant. For example, the Mighty Mouse[1] using capacitive sensors instead of just having two buttons.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Mighty_Mouse

>Do the people who sit on these standards boards ever actually plug anything in?

The people on the standards board know about the fact that having the USB logo on the top of the cable's plug is a requirement of the spec, and thus they never attempt to put it in the wrong way up. It doesn't occur to them that most consumers will never know this.

Of course having the logo on top doesn't help in the dark or when the ports are vertical.

I'm consistently confused by mini/micro USB ports on the rare occasion I use them. It's the only trapezoidal connector I know of where the long end is on the bottom. I always think it's upside-down.

Flippable connectors were always considered, but deemed secondary to minimizing the manufacturing cost [1]. Considering that billions (trillions?) of USB ports and plugs in the world, I think they succeeded. After all, step 1 for creating a universal connector is to make it universal.

My question is: why is now the right time to presumably increase the cost per unit?

[1] http://www.economist.com/news/international/21588104-humble-...

As soon as I started using wireless charging I stopped caring about USB/Lightning, whatever. Since what you need 99% of the time is power only, if the data connector isn't the most convenient thing in the world, I don't really care. No connector can beat just dropping my phone down on a pad.

Even then, Bluetooth can help you there.

I want to see a no socket device

Does the unpleasant physical shape of the USB connector improve the electrical properties somehow?

I've always been curious why the 3.5mm jack isn't used for more things, it's small, easy to use, makes a sturdy connection, and handles way more plug-unplug cycles than micro-usb.

Probably because it's known as an audio connector, unfortunately.

Still, there are other uses: http://web.eecs.umich.edu/~prabal/projects/hijack/

8.5kb/s isn't great, but for low-resolution data sampling it's not bad. (I assume.)

The shape matters, yes.. especially as the frequency goes up. Even audio has the RCA connector for better shielding and a notion of controlled impedance. Not that 'unpleasant' is a requirement for these things :P

Am I the only one who hates the idea of having to deal with an entirely new plug paradigm for USB? It's one of the few things that has been able to remain a constant on PCs of mine for the past 10 years, along with Ethernet cords.

I agree. Reversible is better, but not better enough to be worth being different.

By the time this comes out, 15 years will have been a pretty good run for a connector (ignoring the craziness that VGA is still with us).

How is this different/better from Apple's connector?

I'm sure it'll be very different. Probably not better, except that it'll be open.

As open as USB is. There have been a few articles on HN showing what the limits of that is.

It won't be patented by Apple. Which is a hindrance to a 'universal' connector design. Of course Apple started patenting its connectors in part to give it a weapon against inferior cable/accessory makers (or so I'm told).

I think the iPod / iPhone chargers that caused fires was a concern.

If a company isn't worried about fallout from negligently designed mains equipment, they certainly aren't worried about patent lawlers.

If I remember right, and it started with golf clubs of all things, patents give you a way to stop the import of these items. I figure Apple patents everything anyway.

Occam's Razor: Apple patented it in order to own the invention.

It'll be on non-apple devices.

Perhaps offering a host connector specification, more speed, higher power capability, industry standardization, non-proprietary implementation, and lower cost are some advantages.

Sounds like a Lightning connector.

$2 < $30, innit.

Flipper USB, a US company sells cables/adaptors with USB-A plug that works both ways. I've no experience of them though, and it still leaves the Micro-B connector with a wrong way up

http://www.flipperusbsales.com/flipperhome.html

http://xkcd.com/927/

Came here for this. I don't even buy that many electronics, and I still have a dozen different (normal/macro/mini) USB cables. Now I have to throw them all into a landfill to get basic connectivity? Or worse still, hang on to both the old ones and the new ones to connect different devices, and buy adapters? First world problems, yes, but taking 1 minute of 10 million people's time is arguably as bad as taking a 100 minutes of a 100,000 people's time.

They should have designed and released it with USB 3. 2016 is way too late. The damage has already been done.

Damage to what? The "USB name?" I don't think it's going anywhere, even if we do have to wait until 2016 for a better design. Two years isn't long, considering we've been dealing with this since 1997 or so. Unless you mean physical damage to your USB ports...then, yeah.

Presumably, the damage to the possibility of any new standard taking hold, given how many USB2 devices are now out there in the world.

i have just thought it yesterday, and i think it could be done for the current type of usb. i have a model in my brain currently

Reply on news.ycombinator.com