4 ms·

"Okay, I’ll admit it — it’s not exactly the sexiest topic in tech." I actually find USB-C one of the most "sexiest". As the author himself puts it, it's a "Vir

by oxplot 11y ago

"Okay, I’ll admit it — it’s not exactly the sexiest topic in tech." I actually find USB-C one of the most "sexiest". As the author himself puts it, it's a "Virtualization" of connectivity ports. But I think it virtualizes "power" delivery too. With a high powered adapter (e.g. 80 watts) and USB PD (Power Delivery) support on both ends, I can use a single adapter with many devices. Wait a while and you'll see adapters with multiple USB-C ports on them each supplying difference voltages to connected devices. The possibilities are mouth watering. I'm currently researching to build a DC-DC converter and I'm thinking of providing a USB-C output with PD support.

VLM 11y ago
"I can" More like "you could". The point of an insanely complex protocol with zillions of shipped variants is to benefit top to bottom silo manufacturers (apple, etc) while destroying the market for non silo manufacturers. USB 1 really could charge off almost any port and almost any port could access almost any flash drive. That is being eliminated other than in silo'd ecosystems. My favorite part of type C is the high voltages, its going to be fun watching Chinese grade cables short and utterly fry and ignite USB connected devices. Much like the fire department inspector gets out of whack about seeing extension cords plugged into extension cords, the inspector of the future is going to condemn office buildings where USB cables are present, of any sort, due to USB-C contamination.
- oxplot 11y ago
  x86 and Unix are insanely complex too and a big part of that complexity has to do with backward compatibility. I've scanned through the specs and I haven't seen any complexity just for the sake of it. Care to point out any specifics? Also note that some of the added complexity is to support new features, such as power provider/consumer switching and power safety. As for the substandard Chinese grade products, they've always done that and will continue to do it. Bulk of existing USB chargers you find have horrible ripples and have power factors that seem to have been engineered to be embarrassingly low.

by oxplot 11y ago

VLM 11y ago

"I can" More like "you could". The point of an insanely complex protocol with zillions of shipped variants is to benefit top to bottom silo manufacturers (apple, etc) while destroying the market for non silo manufacturers. USB 1 really could charge off almost any port and almost any port could access almost any flash drive. That is being eliminated other than in silo'd ecosystems. My favorite part of type C is the high voltages, its going to be fun watching Chinese grade cables short and utterly fry and ignite USB connected devices. Much like the fire department inspector gets out of whack about seeing extension cords plugged into extension cords, the inspector of the future is going to condemn office buildings where USB cables are present, of any sort, due to USB-C contamination.

oxplot 11y ago
x86 and Unix are insanely complex too and a big part of that complexity has to do with backward compatibility. I've scanned through the specs and I haven't seen any complexity just for the sake of it. Care to point out any specifics? Also note that some of the added complexity is to support new features, such as power provider/consumer switching and power safety. As for the substandard Chinese grade products, they've always done that and will continue to do it. Bulk of existing USB chargers you find have horrible ripples and have power factors that seem to have been engineered to be embarrassingly low.