4 ms·

I think this is what will cause USB-C to fail. It’s taking a simple problem (allow reversible, higher-bandwidth connections) and making it complex. The latest

I think this is what will cause USB-C to fail. It’s taking a simple problem (allow reversible, higher-bandwidth connections) and making it complex. The latest spec requires encryption. In a cable. Which might be ok for some applications, but certainly not necessary for all items. Now you have so many versions, which may or may not implement a laundry list of features. And people just want simple, no fuss cables.

AlphaSite 8y ago
> I think this is what will cause USB-C to fail. I think this ship has sailed. If the alt modes fail, that's fine, but the core spec is fine.
cesarb 8y ago
> I think this is what will cause USB-C to fail. It’s taking a simple problem (allow reversible, higher-bandwidth connections) and making it complex. Actually, it's still simple. For devices and hosts using USB 2.0, the only real change with the USB-C connector is a single extra resistor. For devices and hosts using USB 3.x, they only have to detect which of two pins has the resistor on the other side to select which of the two high-bandwidth channels should be used. And there are two main types of cable: USB 2.0 cables and full-featured cables, like the old non-USB-C USB 2.0 and USB 3.x cables. The extra complexity only appears when you want the extra features which are new to USB-C: higher voltage and/or current, alternate modes, using both high-bandwidth channels at the same time (USB 3.2), and so on.