4 ms·

I very much agree with you. I've deliberately avoided USB-C for this very reason. It's not that hard - I don't buy new gear very often, and I'm still using an o

I very much agree with you. I've deliberately avoided USB-C for this very reason. It's not that hard - I don't buy new gear very often, and I'm still using an old 5th-gen iPod every day - but there will be a day when I don't have much of a choice anymore. Bluetooth headphones, external hard drives, game controllers, media players, phones... The worst part about USB-C is that it can be implemented so wrong it bricks your device! A Google engineer for a while was testing cables and not infrequently they worked poorly, not at all, or outright fried devices. Granted this was years ago, but now with DisplayPort and Thunberbolt 3 over the same connector, the situation has become even more vague. https://plus.google.com/+BensonLeung/posts/jGP5249NppF https://plus.google.com/+BensonLeung/posts/jGP5249NppF 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...

cesarb 8y ago
> The worst part about USB-C is that it can be implemented so wrong it bricks your device! The miswiring that bricked his device, swapping GND and VBUS, could also happen with older USB plugs. There's nothing specific to USB-C about it, USB plugs have a defined polarity for the power pins since the very first version of the standard.
- kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
  Mitigating hardware damage is also the responsibility of the device manufacturers. Any external cable carrying power could experience a short circuit due to a fault. All USB hosts are required to limit current to deal with that. If they fail, it isn't the cable's fault.
- Retric 8y ago
  USB-C can send significantly more power, which makes it harder to protect devices in these cases.
  - nickysielicki 8y ago
    It only happens after negotiation, so the higher potential wattage plays no role here. You'd need both a bad cable and an out-of-spec wall wart.
    - inetknght 8y ago
      Do you think that combination of circumstances is rare enough that we shouldn't wonder about it?
      - nickysielicki 8y ago
        More or less. Either scenario, considered alone, is enough to ruin a downstream device. I don't think it's reasonable to worry about the combination of the two as different from either alone.
    - BeeOnRope 8y ago
      The failure can happen after negotiation, right?
      - nickysielicki 8y ago
        Yeah that's true, the cable could bend and cause a short after the negotiation, but how is a specification supposed to protect against this?
      - j16sdiz 8y ago
        Many reference design have a USB power surge protection circuit.
- dcbadacd 8y ago
  There's also the Nintendo Switch issue
  - gumby 8y ago
    That was due to non-compliance on Nintendo's part, hardly a USB Type C issue.
    - jabl 8y ago
      If the spec is so complex even a relatively big and stable corp like Nintendo can't get it right, well, maybe the spec is (partly) to blame?
      - johncolanduoni 8y ago
        Are there any widely used hardware specs that a "big and stable" corp hasn't gotten wrong in some implementation? Back when Ethernet was a lot simpler than it is now there were plenty of big players who couldn't even manage to provide unique MAC addresses. Is IEEE754 being too complex to blame for Intel's FDIV bug?
        dcbadacd 8y ago
        I haven't seen IEEE754 burning down devices though.
    - dcbadacd 8y ago
      Wasn't it that the switch asked for a lower voltage but the charger didn't have that mode and it gave the switch a tad more juice?
      - gumby 8y ago
        Nope; here are the gory details: https://plus.google.com/102612254593917101378/posts/2CUPZ5yVTRT https://plus.google.com/102612254593917101378/posts/2CUPZ5yV...
rstuart4133 8y ago
> The worst part about USB-C is that it can be implemented so wrong it bricks your device! A Google engineer for a while was testing cables and not infrequently they worked poorly, not at all, or outright fried devices. No spec is going to look good if you start blaming the spec when manufacturers sell things that don't conform to it. That is what the Google engineer found: these cables didn't conform to the spec. If you are going to do that then bricking the device is the least of your worries as USB is clearly to blame for this as well: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-27/knock-off-usb-charger-to-blame-for-womans-death/5555138 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-27/knock-off-usb-charger... The real USB 3.2 issue is different. As a way of telling the user what they are buying, the USB 3.2 2x2 scheme is so bad it's almost comical. They could have insisted every device be marked with the maximum it actually supported. I guess they thought making something like this mandatory: 20G/3A/60W+dp+tb for a device that supported 20G bit/sec, 3 amps and 30 watts with display port and thunderbolt pass through would use so much space there would be no place left for the market to earn their wages. Or something.

cesarb 8y ago

> The worst part about USB-C is that it can be implemented so wrong it bricks your device! The miswiring that bricked his device, swapping GND and VBUS, could also happen with older USB plugs. There's nothing specific to USB-C about it, USB plugs have a defined polarity for the power pins since the very first version of the standard.

kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
Mitigating hardware damage is also the responsibility of the device manufacturers. Any external cable carrying power could experience a short circuit due to a fault. All USB hosts are required to limit current to deal with that. If they fail, it isn't the cable's fault.
Retric 8y ago
USB-C can send significantly more power, which makes it harder to protect devices in these cases.
- nickysielicki 8y ago
  It only happens after negotiation, so the higher potential wattage plays no role here. You'd need both a bad cable and an out-of-spec wall wart.
  - inetknght 8y ago
    Do you think that combination of circumstances is rare enough that we shouldn't wonder about it?
    - nickysielicki 8y ago
      More or less. Either scenario, considered alone, is enough to ruin a downstream device. I don't think it's reasonable to worry about the combination of the two as different from either alone.
  - BeeOnRope 8y ago
    The failure can happen after negotiation, right?
    - nickysielicki 8y ago
      Yeah that's true, the cable could bend and cause a short after the negotiation, but how is a specification supposed to protect against this?
    - j16sdiz 8y ago
      Many reference design have a USB power surge protection circuit.
dcbadacd 8y ago
There's also the Nintendo Switch issue
- gumby 8y ago
  That was due to non-compliance on Nintendo's part, hardly a USB Type C issue.
  - jabl 8y ago
    If the spec is so complex even a relatively big and stable corp like Nintendo can't get it right, well, maybe the spec is (partly) to blame?
    - johncolanduoni 8y ago
      Are there any widely used hardware specs that a "big and stable" corp hasn't gotten wrong in some implementation? Back when Ethernet was a lot simpler than it is now there were plenty of big players who couldn't even manage to provide unique MAC addresses. Is IEEE754 being too complex to blame for Intel's FDIV bug?
      - dcbadacd 8y ago
        I haven't seen IEEE754 burning down devices though.
  - dcbadacd 8y ago
    Wasn't it that the switch asked for a lower voltage but the charger didn't have that mode and it gave the switch a tad more juice?
    - gumby 8y ago
      Nope; here are the gory details: https://plus.google.com/102612254593917101378/posts/2CUPZ5yVTRT https://plus.google.com/102612254593917101378/posts/2CUPZ5yV...

rstuart4133 8y ago

> The worst part about USB-C is that it can be implemented so wrong it bricks your device! A Google engineer for a while was testing cables and not infrequently they worked poorly, not at all, or outright fried devices. No spec is going to look good if you start blaming the spec when manufacturers sell things that don't conform to it. That is what the Google engineer found: these cables didn't conform to the spec. If you are going to do that then bricking the device is the least of your worries as USB is clearly to blame for this as well: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-27/knock-off-usb-charger-to-blame-for-womans-death/5555138 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-27/knock-off-usb-charger... The real USB 3.2 issue is different. As a way of telling the user what they are buying, the USB 3.2 2x2 scheme is so bad it's almost comical. They could have insisted every device be marked with the maximum it actually supported. I guess they thought making something like this mandatory: 20G/3A/60W+dp+tb for a device that supported 20G bit/sec, 3 amps and 30 watts with display port and thunderbolt pass through would use so much space there would be no place left for the market to earn their wages. Or something.