4 ms·

At least WiFi figured out how to improve. Would love to see "USB 4" . No ".0" afterwards, just the simpler numeral. And if you need a bigger connector, then

by MR4D 8y ago

At least WiFi figured out how to improve. Would love to see "USB 4" . No ".0" afterwards, just the simpler numeral. And if you need a bigger connector, then buy the "USB 4 XL connector" cable.

squarefoot 8y ago
"Would love to see "USB 4" ." I'd rather go for a (possibly faster) Ethernet with a redesigned smaller connector supporting POE. Smaller devices such as mice and keyboards could talk at PHY level while smarter ones with beefier microcontrollers could employ more and more layers of the network stack so that routing/tunneling data over the network when needed would become trivial. Security wise, there would be no physical difference between an external local disk and a NAS, but software could be used to filter devices from the network. The upside is that there would be a single stack for everything: from storage to security cameras, audio systems, data acquisition gear, sensors and actuators etc. All ports would be electrically insulated, the stack is already open and wonderfully documented, the hardware is already near realtime and there are no royalties to be paid to use that.
- ken 8y ago
  That was one of the original goals of Zeroconf. In 2002, Stuart Cheshire said [1]: > My hope is that in the future — distant future perhaps — your computer will only need one wired communication technology. It will provide power on the connector like USB and FireWire, so it can power small peripheral devices. It will use IP packets like Ethernet, so it provides your wide-area communications for things like email and Web browsing, but it will also use Zeroconf IP so that connecting local devices is as easy as USB or FireWire is today. People ask me if I'm seriously suggesting that your keyboard and mouse should use the same connector as your Internet connection, and I am. There's no fundamental reason why a 10Mb/s Ethernet chip costs more than a USB chip. The problem is not cost, it is lack of power on the Ethernet connector, and (until now) lack of autoconfiguration to make it work. I would much rather have a computer with a row of identical universal IP communications ports, where I can connect anything I want to any port, instead of today's situation where the computer has a row of different sockets, each dedicated to its own specialized function. [1]: http://www.stuartcheshire.org/TheIdeaBasket.html http://www.stuartcheshire.org/TheIdeaBasket.html Sadly, instead of using existing successful networking systems and automating the configuration, we've created a new union-of-all-possible-protocols with a new connector (or 5) and made understanding the compatibility matrix a nightmare.
  - lioeters 8y ago
    Aah, that's a beautiful dream of a unified, wired communication technology standard. That's what we need more of, a coherent vision to guide design and development. Early Apple had that, it feels like, then lost the coherence in the 2010's. The phrase "design by committee" is often used to characterize what not to do, so it seems design by a small focused group or individual tends to go in the right direction. But there must be real-world examples of successful "design committees" or "standards bodies", who avoided the gravity/entropy towards producing monsters of complexity and compromise..
  - squarefoot 8y ago
    I didn't know about that interview, thanks for sharing. It seems so natural to me to go for the one technology that fits all needs (Ethernet+POE and possibly a smaller connector). All it would need is a big player to implement that, then release the changes for free with no strings attached, but probably most parties involved can't squeeze the same profits out of open technologies. Here's an idea to push for this technology. I have no way to develop this, neither the technical knowledge nor the money required, but comments welcome anyway. Essentially I would: 1- design a smaller connector that could host all Ethernet pairs plus power supply, say a smaller RJ45 with contacts on both sides, no need to reinvent the wheel here. 2- for testing purposes, build a small bridge board (a matchbox sized black box) between the socket and the original Ethernet plug and a nearby USB port for power alone. Ethernet pairs would pass untouched (or possibly replicated through a switch chipset+magnetics) while the bridge board would contain any necessary circuit to power any load connected to the updated Ethernet port(s). Remember we're aiming at ditching USB for that purpose, that's why I wouldn't map Ethernet on an USB-Eth chip even for testing; and all power would be taken by the device supply asap. 3- Now we have some cheap hardware which is easy to replicate to use on every platform, including SBCs where the USB connector could be spared because we take all power from the board. Let's move to software. Some proof of concept would be needed to demonstrate that, so here's my question: how hard would be to satisfy point [1] and build some hardware (mice, keyboards, audio etc) that can use the new network standard to show its benefits to the industry?
- MR4D 8y ago
  I was speaking branding, not tech stack. Sorry if that caused any confusion.
Theodores 8y ago
I had the pleasure of working with a girl who referred to 'ethernet cables' as 'server cables' as that was the functionality provided by ethernet, the wifi on her Macbook meant the internet was always on but lacked 'server access', hence the name of the 'ethernet cable' as a 'server cable'. In this spirit I think that 'USB 4' really needs to be 'USB 4G'. Then you can have phones and the connectors use the same number. My former workmate would understand it. A '4G' cable for a '4G' mobile phone signal, that would be simple and the least techie people could understand it whilst people on HN faceplant in perpetuity. USB '5G' would be along with '5G' phones. Everyone could be happy and cables could be fairly random, just try a selection until you get one that works, the clue being that cheaper ones for power adaptors don't let you connect your '5G port' on your computer to your screen or move data to your phone, much like mini USB now. Who reads labels anyway?
- elcomet 8y ago
  What about devices that don't have interet access ? This seems like a very bad idea, the two technologies don't move at the same speed and are totally unrelated. I think it would be even more confusing for consumers.
  - jng 8y ago
    I think you missed the sarcasm in the post you're responding to.
zokier 8y ago
"SuperSpeed USB" is your "USB 4".
- MR4D 8y ago
  But what do they name it when they upgrade Superspeed? Ethernet at least had 10Mb, 100Mb 1000Mb/Gig, etc.
  - zokier 8y ago
    They already did upgrade SuperSpeed. Twice. > USB-IF’s recommended nomenclature for consumers is “SuperSpeed USB” for 5Gbps products, “SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps” for 10Gbps products and “SuperSpeed USB 20Gbps” for 20Gbps products

by MR4D 8y ago

At least WiFi figured out how to improve. Would love to see "USB 4" . No ".0" afterwards, just the simpler numeral. And if you need a bigger connector, then buy the "USB 4 XL connector" cable.

squarefoot 8y ago

"Would love to see "USB 4" ." I'd rather go for a (possibly faster) Ethernet with a redesigned smaller connector supporting POE. Smaller devices such as mice and keyboards could talk at PHY level while smarter ones with beefier microcontrollers could employ more and more layers of the network stack so that routing/tunneling data over the network when needed would become trivial. Security wise, there would be no physical difference between an external local disk and a NAS, but software could be used to filter devices from the network. The upside is that there would be a single stack for everything: from storage to security cameras, audio systems, data acquisition gear, sensors and actuators etc. All ports would be electrically insulated, the stack is already open and wonderfully documented, the hardware is already near realtime and there are no royalties to be paid to use that.

ken 8y ago
That was one of the original goals of Zeroconf. In 2002, Stuart Cheshire said [1]: > My hope is that in the future — distant future perhaps — your computer will only need one wired communication technology. It will provide power on the connector like USB and FireWire, so it can power small peripheral devices. It will use IP packets like Ethernet, so it provides your wide-area communications for things like email and Web browsing, but it will also use Zeroconf IP so that connecting local devices is as easy as USB or FireWire is today. People ask me if I'm seriously suggesting that your keyboard and mouse should use the same connector as your Internet connection, and I am. There's no fundamental reason why a 10Mb/s Ethernet chip costs more than a USB chip. The problem is not cost, it is lack of power on the Ethernet connector, and (until now) lack of autoconfiguration to make it work. I would much rather have a computer with a row of identical universal IP communications ports, where I can connect anything I want to any port, instead of today's situation where the computer has a row of different sockets, each dedicated to its own specialized function. [1]: http://www.stuartcheshire.org/TheIdeaBasket.html http://www.stuartcheshire.org/TheIdeaBasket.html Sadly, instead of using existing successful networking systems and automating the configuration, we've created a new union-of-all-possible-protocols with a new connector (or 5) and made understanding the compatibility matrix a nightmare.
- lioeters 8y ago
  Aah, that's a beautiful dream of a unified, wired communication technology standard. That's what we need more of, a coherent vision to guide design and development. Early Apple had that, it feels like, then lost the coherence in the 2010's. The phrase "design by committee" is often used to characterize what not to do, so it seems design by a small focused group or individual tends to go in the right direction. But there must be real-world examples of successful "design committees" or "standards bodies", who avoided the gravity/entropy towards producing monsters of complexity and compromise..
- squarefoot 8y ago
  I didn't know about that interview, thanks for sharing. It seems so natural to me to go for the one technology that fits all needs (Ethernet+POE and possibly a smaller connector). All it would need is a big player to implement that, then release the changes for free with no strings attached, but probably most parties involved can't squeeze the same profits out of open technologies. Here's an idea to push for this technology. I have no way to develop this, neither the technical knowledge nor the money required, but comments welcome anyway. Essentially I would: 1- design a smaller connector that could host all Ethernet pairs plus power supply, say a smaller RJ45 with contacts on both sides, no need to reinvent the wheel here. 2- for testing purposes, build a small bridge board (a matchbox sized black box) between the socket and the original Ethernet plug and a nearby USB port for power alone. Ethernet pairs would pass untouched (or possibly replicated through a switch chipset+magnetics) while the bridge board would contain any necessary circuit to power any load connected to the updated Ethernet port(s). Remember we're aiming at ditching USB for that purpose, that's why I wouldn't map Ethernet on an USB-Eth chip even for testing; and all power would be taken by the device supply asap. 3- Now we have some cheap hardware which is easy to replicate to use on every platform, including SBCs where the USB connector could be spared because we take all power from the board. Let's move to software. Some proof of concept would be needed to demonstrate that, so here's my question: how hard would be to satisfy point [1] and build some hardware (mice, keyboards, audio etc) that can use the new network standard to show its benefits to the industry?
MR4D 8y ago
I was speaking branding, not tech stack. Sorry if that caused any confusion.

Theodores 8y ago

I had the pleasure of working with a girl who referred to 'ethernet cables' as 'server cables' as that was the functionality provided by ethernet, the wifi on her Macbook meant the internet was always on but lacked 'server access', hence the name of the 'ethernet cable' as a 'server cable'. In this spirit I think that 'USB 4' really needs to be 'USB 4G'. Then you can have phones and the connectors use the same number. My former workmate would understand it. A '4G' cable for a '4G' mobile phone signal, that would be simple and the least techie people could understand it whilst people on HN faceplant in perpetuity. USB '5G' would be along with '5G' phones. Everyone could be happy and cables could be fairly random, just try a selection until you get one that works, the clue being that cheaper ones for power adaptors don't let you connect your '5G port' on your computer to your screen or move data to your phone, much like mini USB now. Who reads labels anyway?

elcomet 8y ago
What about devices that don't have interet access ? This seems like a very bad idea, the two technologies don't move at the same speed and are totally unrelated. I think it would be even more confusing for consumers.
- jng 8y ago
  I think you missed the sarcasm in the post you're responding to.

zokier 8y ago

"SuperSpeed USB" is your "USB 4".

MR4D 8y ago
But what do they name it when they upgrade Superspeed? Ethernet at least had 10Mb, 100Mb 1000Mb/Gig, etc.
- zokier 8y ago
  They already did upgrade SuperSpeed. Twice. > USB-IF’s recommended nomenclature for consumers is “SuperSpeed USB” for 5Gbps products, “SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps” for 10Gbps products and “SuperSpeed USB 20Gbps” for 20Gbps products