5 ms·

Everything is optional. USB-IF is for manufacturers, most of whom want to do whatever the cheapest quickest thing is. The user experience absolutely comes seco

Everything is optional. USB-IF is for manufacturers, most of whom want to do whatever the cheapest quickest thing is. The user experience absolutely comes second to manufacturing cost and marking convenience. The naming confusion exists because cheap manufacturers don't want to be branded as the "lesser" product or be offering a "lesser" computer. The confusion aids them. They can ship a slightly cheaper computer or device but market it as USB 3.2 Gen whatever, despite it basically being a USB 2 device. All features will be optional because mandating features means the chip costs $0.02 more, the cable they slap in the box would be more expensive, etc and they don't want to pay it.

_wmd 8y ago
If only it were just about cost, comprehensiveness might be a better way to look at it. I really don't want my laptop's keyboard and trackpad to require clocks to drive my clicks and keystrokes at 40Gbps, that's just going to murder batteries and bank accounts for no reason whatsoever. So you're left with a choice in this wonderful alternative non-optional world: some expensive temperature controlled oscillator with accompanying nuclear power plant integrated into every mouse, with a dual core processor just in case the host wishes to speak mouse-over-Thunderbolt, with a 240V connector on the mouse just in case the host wants to charge from it, or mice living on a separate low throughput bus where such requirements don't exist. We had that already, it was called the 1970s-1990s, it was an even bigger mess than what we have now, and is exactly what USB's mandate is to avoid It's not like this is a new problem to USB, it's been a tri-modal specification from the outset to cope with completely different requirements of the peripherals that were to be unified, these horrible recent complexity outcomes are just a natural extension from the early days. It wasn't so long ago that every budget peripheral manufacturer outside of e.g. printers and mice were forced to bundle expansion cards to implement custom busses just so you could talk to their e.g. scanner. This was still the reality of things as late as 1995 or so. Here we didn't just have custom connectors on the back of the machine, but custom cards that had to be installed to implement those connectors. In the 24 years since 1995, outside of display interfaces I count only 2 major new busses to date -- Firewire and USB. That sounds like a success to me
- gumby 8y ago
  > I really don't want my laptop's keyboard and trackpad to require clocks to drive my clicks and keystrokes at 40Gbps, that's just going to murder batteries and bank accounts for no reason whatsoever. If it makes you feel better: you can make an ultra cheap type C cable that's basically the same as your old Type A cables and will act like your old fashioned cable except you can plug it in either way in any port.
- WhitneyLand 8y ago
  Not sure you're countering my argument at all because I of course agree we can't just blindly do things that make systems impractical to buy or use. If fact I would certainly be all for a few basic well thought out combinations as mentioned: >>one thing with nothing optional (or at least a very small number of combinations) The problem is, that's not what USB-C/USB-3 whatever is. It's permutations must be in the millions at least, literally. That degree of complexity is simply not necessary to satisfy (forgot 80/20) 99% of users. The 1% (like people here) as usual would have more specialized/flexible/technically oriented options. It's not comparable to counting number of buses or standards. It's more about the sum total of complexity and confusion within a generation of an ecosystem. Especially when manufactures could have better profits and simplify the equation quite a bit by taking looking at things longer term and as an ecosystem. It's ironic that often the "savings" you mention individual manufacturers are trying to achieve is a false dichotomy, which becomes visible only when they are willing to take a step back and look at things more holistically. Often what appears to be only benefiting another company...well you know, the old rising tide lifting all boats thing and so forth and so on...
  - johncolanduoni 8y ago
    What are the degrees of freedom in the spec that are resulting in millions of permutations of optional features?
    - rhn_mk1 8y ago
      Not millions, but: - Power Delivery supports some 5 different maximum values - 3 different Battery Charging modes - 5 alternate modes according to Wikipedia (C only) - >10 different plugs (not an independent variable though) - 6 different signalling rates All of those are baked in in the hardware layer. It gets worse when you realize that cables have to support the right combination. It gets even worse when including things that piggyback on USB, like dual-purpose HDMI and USB ports, Thunderbolt, noncompliant chargers (Apple), Quick Charge, audio alternate mode.
coldtea 8y ago
>The naming confusion exists because cheap manufacturers don't want to be branded as the "lesser" product or be offering a "lesser" computer. The confusion aids them. Then force them to add appropriate clear markings (of the capabilities in a very simple format), or hit them with fines and deny them the ability to sell to the market without them.

_wmd 8y ago

If only it were just about cost, comprehensiveness might be a better way to look at it. I really don't want my laptop's keyboard and trackpad to require clocks to drive my clicks and keystrokes at 40Gbps, that's just going to murder batteries and bank accounts for no reason whatsoever. So you're left with a choice in this wonderful alternative non-optional world: some expensive temperature controlled oscillator with accompanying nuclear power plant integrated into every mouse, with a dual core processor just in case the host wishes to speak mouse-over-Thunderbolt, with a 240V connector on the mouse just in case the host wants to charge from it, or mice living on a separate low throughput bus where such requirements don't exist. We had that already, it was called the 1970s-1990s, it was an even bigger mess than what we have now, and is exactly what USB's mandate is to avoid It's not like this is a new problem to USB, it's been a tri-modal specification from the outset to cope with completely different requirements of the peripherals that were to be unified, these horrible recent complexity outcomes are just a natural extension from the early days. It wasn't so long ago that every budget peripheral manufacturer outside of e.g. printers and mice were forced to bundle expansion cards to implement custom busses just so you could talk to their e.g. scanner. This was still the reality of things as late as 1995 or so. Here we didn't just have custom connectors on the back of the machine, but custom cards that had to be installed to implement those connectors. In the 24 years since 1995, outside of display interfaces I count only 2 major new busses to date -- Firewire and USB. That sounds like a success to me

gumby 8y ago
> I really don't want my laptop's keyboard and trackpad to require clocks to drive my clicks and keystrokes at 40Gbps, that's just going to murder batteries and bank accounts for no reason whatsoever. If it makes you feel better: you can make an ultra cheap type C cable that's basically the same as your old Type A cables and will act like your old fashioned cable except you can plug it in either way in any port.
WhitneyLand 8y ago
Not sure you're countering my argument at all because I of course agree we can't just blindly do things that make systems impractical to buy or use. If fact I would certainly be all for a few basic well thought out combinations as mentioned: >>one thing with nothing optional (or at least a very small number of combinations) The problem is, that's not what USB-C/USB-3 whatever is. It's permutations must be in the millions at least, literally. That degree of complexity is simply not necessary to satisfy (forgot 80/20) 99% of users. The 1% (like people here) as usual would have more specialized/flexible/technically oriented options. It's not comparable to counting number of buses or standards. It's more about the sum total of complexity and confusion within a generation of an ecosystem. Especially when manufactures could have better profits and simplify the equation quite a bit by taking looking at things longer term and as an ecosystem. It's ironic that often the "savings" you mention individual manufacturers are trying to achieve is a false dichotomy, which becomes visible only when they are willing to take a step back and look at things more holistically. Often what appears to be only benefiting another company...well you know, the old rising tide lifting all boats thing and so forth and so on...
- johncolanduoni 8y ago
  What are the degrees of freedom in the spec that are resulting in millions of permutations of optional features?
  - rhn_mk1 8y ago
    Not millions, but: - Power Delivery supports some 5 different maximum values - 3 different Battery Charging modes - 5 alternate modes according to Wikipedia (C only) - >10 different plugs (not an independent variable though) - 6 different signalling rates All of those are baked in in the hardware layer. It gets worse when you realize that cables have to support the right combination. It gets even worse when including things that piggyback on USB, like dual-purpose HDMI and USB ports, Thunderbolt, noncompliant chargers (Apple), Quick Charge, audio alternate mode.

coldtea 8y ago

>The naming confusion exists because cheap manufacturers don't want to be branded as the "lesser" product or be offering a "lesser" computer. The confusion aids them. Then force them to add appropriate clear markings (of the capabilities in a very simple format), or hit them with fines and deny them the ability to sell to the market without them.