4 ms·

> it's still only available in USB-A That's because it is still the most common type of port out there and it doesn't require a huge bandwidth that USB-C provi

> it's still only available in USB-A That's because it is still the most common type of port out there and it doesn't require a huge bandwidth that USB-C provides. If anything it would be overkill and over priced for what you get. I think logitech is waiting for USB-C to become more prevalent and the cost to manufacture to drop.

crote 6y ago
The interesting thing is that for small-bandwidth applications, USB C isn't that difficult to add. Compared to USB A, it's literally a different connector and two additional resistors on the CC pins. The power / data pins of USB C are completely compatible with USB 2.0.
- pantalaimon 6y ago
  Most computers only have 1-2 USB-C ports, but plenty USB-A ones. You would not want to 'waste' a high-speed port for a webcam.
  - crote 6y ago
    Yeah, it's a chicken-and-egg problem. As long as most devices are A, most ports will be A as well. And until C ports are more common, it's no use making C devices. That's made even worse because adapters for C female to A male are explicitly forbidden by the specs, so there's no cheap way to support both. A manufacturer could put a female C port on the device and ship both C-to-C and C-to-A cables, but that's expensive.
crazygringo 6y ago
So after more than 5 years, USB-C is still too expensive and "overkill"? That might be true, but then it's a massive failure. The entire point of USB-C is for the whole computing ecosystem to migrate. If that's prohibitively expensive for a common webcam, then it's an utter design failure. But I have a hard time believig it actually is true, since I can also find a bunch of cheap USB-C stuff on Amazon as well. So I hope it's not true, at least.
- dspillett 6y ago
  > So after more than 5 years, USB-C is still too expensive and "overkill"? Yes, if you already have a working design that uses USB-A and you don't want to mess around with the manufacturing process. Also three are a log of people out there with no USB-C ports on their machine or existing USB-C chargers so you end up needing to provide at least an A->C adaptor (OK, these aren't expensive, but it costs >$0 to include one) or if your device charges too slowly off non-PD ports then you need to provide a wall-wart where you otherwise might get away with being cheap and not. Furthermore, I know some people who are actively avoiding USB-C (seems odd, but true) as they already have a pile of devices/wallwarts/batteries/cables that are based on the older connectors.

crote 6y ago

The interesting thing is that for small-bandwidth applications, USB C isn't that difficult to add. Compared to USB A, it's literally a different connector and two additional resistors on the CC pins. The power / data pins of USB C are completely compatible with USB 2.0.

pantalaimon 6y ago
Most computers only have 1-2 USB-C ports, but plenty USB-A ones. You would not want to 'waste' a high-speed port for a webcam.
- crote 6y ago
  Yeah, it's a chicken-and-egg problem. As long as most devices are A, most ports will be A as well. And until C ports are more common, it's no use making C devices. That's made even worse because adapters for C female to A male are explicitly forbidden by the specs, so there's no cheap way to support both. A manufacturer could put a female C port on the device and ship both C-to-C and C-to-A cables, but that's expensive.

crazygringo 6y ago

So after more than 5 years, USB-C is still too expensive and "overkill"? That might be true, but then it's a massive failure. The entire point of USB-C is for the whole computing ecosystem to migrate. If that's prohibitively expensive for a common webcam, then it's an utter design failure. But I have a hard time believig it actually is true, since I can also find a bunch of cheap USB-C stuff on Amazon as well. So I hope it's not true, at least.

dspillett 6y ago
> So after more than 5 years, USB-C is still too expensive and "overkill"? Yes, if you already have a working design that uses USB-A and you don't want to mess around with the manufacturing process. Also three are a log of people out there with no USB-C ports on their machine or existing USB-C chargers so you end up needing to provide at least an A->C adaptor (OK, these aren't expensive, but it costs >$0 to include one) or if your device charges too slowly off non-PD ports then you need to provide a wall-wart where you otherwise might get away with being cheap and not. Furthermore, I know some people who are actively avoiding USB-C (seems odd, but true) as they already have a pile of devices/wallwarts/batteries/cables that are based on the older connectors.