5 ms·

> The crux of the problem is that not all USB Type-C connectors support all of these different capabilities and, with one important exception, it’s almost impos

> The crux of the problem is that not all USB Type-C connectors support all of these different capabilities and, with one important exception, it’s almost impossible for an average person to figure out what a given USB Type-C equipped device supports without doing a good deal of research. A Google engineer has been reviewing USB Type-C cables on Amazon, in order to resolve some of the confusion[0]. His reviews have since been collected in a spreadsheet[1]. 0: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/11/google-engineer-leaves-scathing-reviews-of-dodgy-usb-type-c-cables-on-amazon/ http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/11/google-engineer-leave... 1: https://www.reddit.com/r/Nexus6P/comments/3robzo/google_spreadsheet_for_usbc_cables_with_benson/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Nexus6P/comments/3robzo/google_spre...

j_s 11y ago
As seen on Hacker News! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10508494 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10508494
jsheard 11y ago
Bensons reviews aren't really about capabilities. He's warning people against poorly designed A-to-C cables which identify as high-power sources, permitting the USB-C device to draw up to 3A from a USB-A port which is only required to handle 0.5A. It's a sad state of affairs that so many cable manufacturers can't get a simple ID resistor right.
- ethbro 11y ago
  Can't the owner of the USB copyright mark revoke and sue them for using it in a non-standard implementation? If you don't follow the spec, and nobody punishes you, don't be surprised if more people follow suit...
  - mkj 11y ago
    It's a trademark too, so if they don't enforce it then they'll lose it? Perhaps enforceability is already lost...
  - gleenn 11y ago
    Many cables don't include the symbol because it is expensive to get and requires passing tests they might fail. Go look at your cables, I bet you'll find ones without it, even ones that came with more expensive products.
  - rando289 11y ago
    It's trademark, not copyright. And... ya, maybe.
- digi_owl 11y ago
  Well the USB power specs are a unholy mess since 3.1 was introduced. You have your default 0.5A USB. Then you have the battery charging spec that goes up to about 2A (either negotiated in 0.1A increments, or in bulk via a data pin short at the supply end). Then you have your C port spec that defines C to A or B, via a resistor in the wire. And no less than two tiers of C to C via two other resistors. And then you have the power delivery spec. It builds on the Battery charging spec by allowing voltage to go up to 20V depending on the wire, and will work with any port (A, B or C). Basically what is happening is that various wires are being made according to the C spec, but using a C to C resistor where they should be using a C to A/B resistor. I suspect the confusion stems from both the Battery Charging spec and the C port spec use resistors. One of them in the wire, the other in the port, to signal that the device can draw more than 0.5A. Why any of that is even there when a C port have way more pins than any A or B port can deliver, and thus it should be bleedingly obvious that you are not dealing with a C to C wire, is beyond my comprehension.
  - Klathmon 11y ago
    Honestly as complicated as it is, if you are a manufacturer it's your job to read and understand those standards. Every spec has edge cases and little things that you need to watch out for, and if these manufacturers are missing pretty major pieces of this spec, well i'm not confident that they aren't missing parts for others as well.
mtgx 11y ago
Not related to the issue discussed in the article. It's about type-C supporting like 10 different speeds and modes.
- newjersey 11y ago
  I wish they put their foot down and said any cable/device that supports USB-C must support a. USB 3.1 b. USB Power Delivery. I am looking at vendors like OnePlus and Google/LGE for their OnePlus 2 and Nexus 5x which do not support USB 3.1 transfer speeds.
  - duskwuff 11y ago
    No, that's a terrible idea. Not all devices need USB 3.1 speed or Power Delivery. Requiring every device to support both would lead manufacturers to avoid the standard altogether.
    - newjersey 11y ago
      They could stay with Micro USB B though? Perhaps at least require all cables support USB 3.1 and power delivery?
      - stickfigure 11y ago
        The problem isn't the cable, it's what you're plugging into on the other end. I need to be able to plug my new phone into my old laptop.
        newjersey 11y ago
        if the USB Type-C cable was USB 3.1 compatible and the device (phone?) with the USB Type-C port was USB 3.1 compatible, I'd assume they'd still be able to talk to a USB 2.0 device (notebook pc?) on the other end. This is how I imagine USB works... I imagine one would try to negotiate the highest possible specification and degrade from there. We had a chance to make a standardization, to say that "not just it is reversible but we guarantee a fast route if it is Type C on both ends"

j_s 11y ago

As seen on Hacker News! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10508494 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10508494

jsheard 11y ago

Bensons reviews aren't really about capabilities. He's warning people against poorly designed A-to-C cables which identify as high-power sources, permitting the USB-C device to draw up to 3A from a USB-A port which is only required to handle 0.5A. It's a sad state of affairs that so many cable manufacturers can't get a simple ID resistor right.

ethbro 11y ago
Can't the owner of the USB copyright mark revoke and sue them for using it in a non-standard implementation? If you don't follow the spec, and nobody punishes you, don't be surprised if more people follow suit...
- mkj 11y ago
  It's a trademark too, so if they don't enforce it then they'll lose it? Perhaps enforceability is already lost...
- gleenn 11y ago
  Many cables don't include the symbol because it is expensive to get and requires passing tests they might fail. Go look at your cables, I bet you'll find ones without it, even ones that came with more expensive products.
- rando289 11y ago
  It's trademark, not copyright. And... ya, maybe.
digi_owl 11y ago
Well the USB power specs are a unholy mess since 3.1 was introduced. You have your default 0.5A USB. Then you have the battery charging spec that goes up to about 2A (either negotiated in 0.1A increments, or in bulk via a data pin short at the supply end). Then you have your C port spec that defines C to A or B, via a resistor in the wire. And no less than two tiers of C to C via two other resistors. And then you have the power delivery spec. It builds on the Battery charging spec by allowing voltage to go up to 20V depending on the wire, and will work with any port (A, B or C). Basically what is happening is that various wires are being made according to the C spec, but using a C to C resistor where they should be using a C to A/B resistor. I suspect the confusion stems from both the Battery Charging spec and the C port spec use resistors. One of them in the wire, the other in the port, to signal that the device can draw more than 0.5A. Why any of that is even there when a C port have way more pins than any A or B port can deliver, and thus it should be bleedingly obvious that you are not dealing with a C to C wire, is beyond my comprehension.
- Klathmon 11y ago
  Honestly as complicated as it is, if you are a manufacturer it's your job to read and understand those standards. Every spec has edge cases and little things that you need to watch out for, and if these manufacturers are missing pretty major pieces of this spec, well i'm not confident that they aren't missing parts for others as well.

mtgx 11y ago

Not related to the issue discussed in the article. It's about type-C supporting like 10 different speeds and modes.

newjersey 11y ago
I wish they put their foot down and said any cable/device that supports USB-C must support a. USB 3.1 b. USB Power Delivery. I am looking at vendors like OnePlus and Google/LGE for their OnePlus 2 and Nexus 5x which do not support USB 3.1 transfer speeds.
- duskwuff 11y ago
  No, that's a terrible idea. Not all devices need USB 3.1 speed or Power Delivery. Requiring every device to support both would lead manufacturers to avoid the standard altogether.
  - newjersey 11y ago
    They could stay with Micro USB B though? Perhaps at least require all cables support USB 3.1 and power delivery?
    - stickfigure 11y ago
      The problem isn't the cable, it's what you're plugging into on the other end. I need to be able to plug my new phone into my old laptop.
      - newjersey 11y ago
        if the USB Type-C cable was USB 3.1 compatible and the device (phone?) with the USB Type-C port was USB 3.1 compatible, I'd assume they'd still be able to talk to a USB 2.0 device (notebook pc?) on the other end. This is how I imagine USB works... I imagine one would try to negotiate the highest possible specification and degrade from there. We had a chance to make a standardization, to say that "not just it is reversible but we guarantee a fast route if it is Type C on both ends"