8 ms·

I think it's one of those things where it sounds good as an idea but breaks down in implementation. "Let's design a port/interconnect standard that does everyt

by sq_ 6y ago

I think it's one of those things where it sounds good as an idea but breaks down in implementation. "Let's design a port/interconnect standard that does everything" is great in concept, but one manufacturer or another is going to leave out bits in the cable to keep costs down or not implement something in their device-side firmware. You end up with the situation we have now where there's insane levels of fragmentation, and you can never be quite sure whether two things are going to work together or not.

viraptor 6y ago
Fortunately the time will likely sort it out. We had similar issues with the original USB at the beginning. (When you actually needed extra pci card to support it) Now USB connections "just work". Hopefully it will happen to usb-c as well.
- harha 6y ago
  Not quite - I use a wired Apple keyboard (otherwise a great keyboard, feels way better than the magic keyboard and the usb on the side connects to my mouse) that doesn’t work on my MacBook unless I use the extension cord, on another MacBook it works without. It might have to do with something with the NVRAM battery being weak but I didn’t have the time to explore further. [1] In theory we should be able to get rid of cables, but that is also a messed up standard, I’d rather connect my keyboard that extends to the mouse than switch devices with Bluetooth. Sounds like we need another standard: https://xkcd.com/927/ https://xkcd.com/927/ [1]: https://discussions.apple.com/thread/5676379 https://discussions.apple.com/thread/5676379
  - fnord123 6y ago
    >In theory we should be able to get rid of cables In theory, but no thanks. I don't want wireless peripherals.
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
      What's the downside of a wireless keyboard and mouse that just work?
      - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        Wireless is subject to interference and introduces new security concerns. They run on batteries which you then have to replace. They tend to cost more. That's a lot of trouble to avoid a two foot USB cable.
        Dylan16807 6y ago
        "In theory" all of those problems can be solved, though. I want to know why someone doesn't want wireless even in theory.
        AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        In theory there is no difference between theory and practice but in practice there is.
        Dylan16807 6y ago
        But we're not talking about practice. The difference between theory and practice is not a reason to dislike the theory version!
        AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        The theory version doesn't actually exist.
        fragmede 6y ago
        It is! In engineering, as discrete from science, the point of theory is to know what is going to happen in practice. If theory can't tell you, then it's useless for practical purposes. If the theory is ignoring important aspects of reality that make it useless, then what's the point of theory? Eg In theory we can move faster than light, we just need a source of infinite energy. In practice, "infinite" is an impossibly large amount of energy, so any theories that allow for faster than light travel are only interesting for entertainment/theoretical purposes. For wireless connections, the gulf between theory and practice is just too large, so theory remains theoretical.
  - ksec 6y ago
    Just wondering, by Apple Keyboard, is that the same as old Scissors Keyboard ? And by Magic Keyboard, you are referring to the new Keyboard on MacBook Pro 16"?
    - harha 6y ago
      I think so. From the page on apple keyboards [1] I’m referring to A1243 and A1843. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Keyboard https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Keyboard
- fmajid 6y ago
  It’s been 6 years since the 2015 single-USB-C MacBook came out. Patience is wearing thin. Also I don’t recall the original USB having widespread problems with non compliant cables that can fry your device or burn down your house. And of course there still aren’t any true USB-C hubs available. All this would be even worse without the tireless efforts of Benson Leung and his merry band of USB-C avengers.
  - ksec 6y ago
    Yes, and unlikely to change unless USB4 spec mandate anything. And so far this doesn't seems to be happening. i.e There is no real solution insight. And USB-C will remain the same for the next 3 - 5 years. And yet proponents are still defending it. It baffles me. Why cant we just admit mistakes and walk back to simple solution?
- ulfw 6y ago
  There was only a very short time with hardware issues on USB. What really plagued it in the beginning was that Play and Play (the big selling point for USB 1.0) was really mostly Plug and Pray.
  - smiley1437 6y ago
    In tech support we called it Plug and Die Thankfully it more or less sorted itself out, but I still secretly curse 'driver first' installations, so counterintuitive for users
zantana 6y ago
It always seems that the drivers or something could say what the cable did or if it was detecting a signal or something. I had a ton of octopus cable swag and took a bunch without testing on a trip and found out none of them charged my iphone! Frustrating to say the least!
ip26 6y ago
Clear branding would help with a lot of it. E.g. mark dumb cables that only do charging as USB-PWR while full feature cables are USB 50 or USB 100, for example, depending on data rate.
- StillBored 6y ago
  Which only covers a couple of the dozen different use cases, now covered by USB. Which is why thunderbolt and the like would require yet another marking. All this nullifies the point of having a single port+cable. If your going to mark it, why not just modify the cable to have different keys, one for charging, one for higher speed, etc. Then at least you know right away its not going to work. But for that matter, once you have fixed the plug & port compatibility you might have well have just used different ports. Because that is what you have, they just look similar enough to cause confusion. The whole thing, is just a false set of choices brought on in large part by the same industry (mobile phones) which couldn't be bothered to actually make their parts compatible with actual standards. Its doubtful you will ever see any of those manufactures actually build a fully compliant USB part either, since they have regularly proven to be unable to do it even with the simpler standards. This despite charging top dollar for parts that are built with the cheapest design/etc.
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    Sorting by speed, plus an icon for higher power cables, covers almost all real world uses. It would not have to be complex, and would not nullify the point of a single port/cable. Even just marking speed would mean a cable never unexpectedly fails to do its job.
    - close04 6y ago
      Worth mentioning that USB Type C is the plug and it is indeed universal. The protocols are a whole different matter and finding a good cable is a challenge.
      - StillBored 6y ago
londons_explore 6y ago
The solution to this is a "self test" every time a device is plugged in. Each device should run a full test suite of the cable and the device at the other end, and if any fail, it should refuse to work. Part of the test suite should be checking that the device at the other end of the cable is also running the test suite. Everything should be tested - for example if USB can transmit video over certain pins, the test suite should involve sending a frame of video, even if your device is a usb stick and doesn't need video. That way nobody can leave out bits of the spec. USB is insanely fast, so thousands of tests should be doable in under a second, and in fact if the other device can't pass the tests quick enough that should be reason for failure.
- bobbiechen 6y ago
  Who would buy, e.g., a laptop that refuses to work with most existing cables / devices? What do you gain from having a flash drive fail to work because you can't send video over it? I can see the value of having this test suite for you to run personally, when you want to test. Or having someone certify capabilities and publish the test results for a particular piece of hardware. But I can't imagine anyone (especially a non-tech-savvy person) using it by default and without an escape hatch - it should "just work".
  - pentae 6y ago
    Looked at the other way, who would buy a faulty cable that doesn't meet this self-test specification? That would be a feature imo. Cable makers will need to all start meeting the specification very quickly or nobody will buy their cable.
  - kelnos 6y ago
    I think the point is that if every device did this from the start, there wouldn't be a market for anything but cables that work for everything (because a cable that doesn't work for everything then works for nothing), so all cables would just work, for everything. That sounds pretty unrealistic to me, though.

by sq_ 6y ago

viraptor 6y ago

Fortunately the time will likely sort it out. We had similar issues with the original USB at the beginning. (When you actually needed extra pci card to support it) Now USB connections "just work". Hopefully it will happen to usb-c as well.

harha 6y ago
Not quite - I use a wired Apple keyboard (otherwise a great keyboard, feels way better than the magic keyboard and the usb on the side connects to my mouse) that doesn’t work on my MacBook unless I use the extension cord, on another MacBook it works without. It might have to do with something with the NVRAM battery being weak but I didn’t have the time to explore further. [1] In theory we should be able to get rid of cables, but that is also a messed up standard, I’d rather connect my keyboard that extends to the mouse than switch devices with Bluetooth. Sounds like we need another standard: https://xkcd.com/927/ https://xkcd.com/927/ [1]: https://discussions.apple.com/thread/5676379 https://discussions.apple.com/thread/5676379
- fnord123 6y ago
  >In theory we should be able to get rid of cables In theory, but no thanks. I don't want wireless peripherals.
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    What's the downside of a wireless keyboard and mouse that just work?
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      Wireless is subject to interference and introduces new security concerns. They run on batteries which you then have to replace. They tend to cost more. That's a lot of trouble to avoid a two foot USB cable.
      - Dylan16807 6y ago
        "In theory" all of those problems can be solved, though. I want to know why someone doesn't want wireless even in theory.
        AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        In theory there is no difference between theory and practice but in practice there is.
        Dylan16807 6y ago
        But we're not talking about practice. The difference between theory and practice is not a reason to dislike the theory version!
        AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        The theory version doesn't actually exist.
        fragmede 6y ago
        It is! In engineering, as discrete from science, the point of theory is to know what is going to happen in practice. If theory can't tell you, then it's useless for practical purposes. If the theory is ignoring important aspects of reality that make it useless, then what's the point of theory? Eg In theory we can move faster than light, we just need a source of infinite energy. In practice, "infinite" is an impossibly large amount of energy, so any theories that allow for faster than light travel are only interesting for entertainment/theoretical purposes. For wireless connections, the gulf between theory and practice is just too large, so theory remains theoretical.
- ksec 6y ago
  Just wondering, by Apple Keyboard, is that the same as old Scissors Keyboard ? And by Magic Keyboard, you are referring to the new Keyboard on MacBook Pro 16"?
  - harha 6y ago
    I think so. From the page on apple keyboards [1] I’m referring to A1243 and A1843. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Keyboard https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Keyboard
fmajid 6y ago
It’s been 6 years since the 2015 single-USB-C MacBook came out. Patience is wearing thin. Also I don’t recall the original USB having widespread problems with non compliant cables that can fry your device or burn down your house. And of course there still aren’t any true USB-C hubs available. All this would be even worse without the tireless efforts of Benson Leung and his merry band of USB-C avengers.
- ksec 6y ago
  Yes, and unlikely to change unless USB4 spec mandate anything. And so far this doesn't seems to be happening. i.e There is no real solution insight. And USB-C will remain the same for the next 3 - 5 years. And yet proponents are still defending it. It baffles me. Why cant we just admit mistakes and walk back to simple solution?
ulfw 6y ago
There was only a very short time with hardware issues on USB. What really plagued it in the beginning was that Play and Play (the big selling point for USB 1.0) was really mostly Plug and Pray.
- smiley1437 6y ago
  In tech support we called it Plug and Die Thankfully it more or less sorted itself out, but I still secretly curse 'driver first' installations, so counterintuitive for users

zantana 6y ago

It always seems that the drivers or something could say what the cable did or if it was detecting a signal or something. I had a ton of octopus cable swag and took a bunch without testing on a trip and found out none of them charged my iphone! Frustrating to say the least!

ip26 6y ago

Clear branding would help with a lot of it. E.g. mark dumb cables that only do charging as USB-PWR while full feature cables are USB 50 or USB 100, for example, depending on data rate.

StillBored 6y ago
Which only covers a couple of the dozen different use cases, now covered by USB. Which is why thunderbolt and the like would require yet another marking. All this nullifies the point of having a single port+cable. If your going to mark it, why not just modify the cable to have different keys, one for charging, one for higher speed, etc. Then at least you know right away its not going to work. But for that matter, once you have fixed the plug & port compatibility you might have well have just used different ports. Because that is what you have, they just look similar enough to cause confusion. The whole thing, is just a false set of choices brought on in large part by the same industry (mobile phones) which couldn't be bothered to actually make their parts compatible with actual standards. Its doubtful you will ever see any of those manufactures actually build a fully compliant USB part either, since they have regularly proven to be unable to do it even with the simpler standards. This despite charging top dollar for parts that are built with the cheapest design/etc.
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  Sorting by speed, plus an icon for higher power cables, covers almost all real world uses. It would not have to be complex, and would not nullify the point of a single port/cable. Even just marking speed would mean a cable never unexpectedly fails to do its job.
  - close04 6y ago
    Worth mentioning that USB Type C is the plug and it is indeed universal. The protocols are a whole different matter and finding a good cable is a challenge.
    - StillBored 6y ago

londons_explore 6y ago

The solution to this is a "self test" every time a device is plugged in. Each device should run a full test suite of the cable and the device at the other end, and if any fail, it should refuse to work. Part of the test suite should be checking that the device at the other end of the cable is also running the test suite. Everything should be tested - for example if USB can transmit video over certain pins, the test suite should involve sending a frame of video, even if your device is a usb stick and doesn't need video. That way nobody can leave out bits of the spec. USB is insanely fast, so thousands of tests should be doable in under a second, and in fact if the other device can't pass the tests quick enough that should be reason for failure.

bobbiechen 6y ago
Who would buy, e.g., a laptop that refuses to work with most existing cables / devices? What do you gain from having a flash drive fail to work because you can't send video over it? I can see the value of having this test suite for you to run personally, when you want to test. Or having someone certify capabilities and publish the test results for a particular piece of hardware. But I can't imagine anyone (especially a non-tech-savvy person) using it by default and without an escape hatch - it should "just work".
- pentae 6y ago
  Looked at the other way, who would buy a faulty cable that doesn't meet this self-test specification? That would be a feature imo. Cable makers will need to all start meeting the specification very quickly or nobody will buy their cable.
- kelnos 6y ago
  I think the point is that if every device did this from the start, there wouldn't be a market for anything but cables that work for everything (because a cable that doesn't work for everything then works for nothing), so all cables would just work, for everything. That sounds pretty unrealistic to me, though.