4 ms·

Right, that's what I'd call a mess. The purpose of a standard should be that if a product conforms to it, the consumer can trust that the product will work. Th

Right, that's what I'd call a mess. The purpose of a standard should be that if a product conforms to it, the consumer can trust that the product will work. That isn't the case with USB-C. I've had some "USB-C" cables that can charge but not transmit video, some that can transmit video but not charge, and some that can do both. It shouldn't be possible to sell a cable that can't do both and call it USB-C.

ThisIsTheWay 6y ago
Is USB-C a form factor, a standard, or both?
- qppo 6y ago
  It's a connector that can be used for multiple USB standards and non-standard protocols.
rubatuga 6y ago
You can't have a cable that transmits video and does not charge. Even when using USB-C for video, e.g. displayport, it negotiates through a USB 2.0 connection which guarantees 5V @ 500mA.
- rattray 6y ago
  Sorry, by "charge" I mean, charge my laptop at full speed. The limiting factor to my charge speed should not be a cable that has the same designation as another cable which is not a limiting factor.
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    Yeah, it's annoying if you want a number of watts that's specifically between 60 and 100. The vast majority of cables are limited to 60. But that's a far cry from being unable to charge things!
- avhon1 6y ago
  According to the standard, you can't. There is nothing, however, stopping a manufacturer from making USB-C cables with very fine-gauge power conductors[1]: electrons could flow, and a data connection could be negotiated, but resistive losses at high power consumption would cause the voltage to sag below the minimum of 4.40V. Such a cable would not be standards-compliant, since USB-C cables are required to be able to carry 3 Amperes at 20V. However, for pure data-transfer purposes, the cable would work fine, and be cheaper that fully-compliant cables. [1] After all, a full-featured cable needs to fit 16 (!) conductors, and the shield, into one flexible cable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB-C#Cables_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB-C#Cables_2
  - formerly_proven 6y ago
    > [1] After all, a full-featured cable needs to fit 16 (!) conductors, and the shield, into one flexible cable. I only have two real USB-C cables (that can do DPoUSB-C and PD, all other cables only do power and USB 2.0), both of them a really stiff, even more so than a thin DisplayPort cable.
z3ncyberpunk 6y ago
Much better and cleaner mess than the previous cluster of standards, also with the same cable issues.
takeda 6y ago
Perhaps the only way this could be resolved is some kind of certification and education of consumers that only certified cables/devices should be used. For others they should go after the vendors for not following spec. Yes there are fakes, but companies like Nintendo could be forced to either comply or if they don't want to, use a proprietary port like they usually did.

ThisIsTheWay 6y ago

Is USB-C a form factor, a standard, or both?

qppo 6y ago
It's a connector that can be used for multiple USB standards and non-standard protocols.

rubatuga 6y ago

You can't have a cable that transmits video and does not charge. Even when using USB-C for video, e.g. displayport, it negotiates through a USB 2.0 connection which guarantees 5V @ 500mA.

rattray 6y ago
Sorry, by "charge" I mean, charge my laptop at full speed. The limiting factor to my charge speed should not be a cable that has the same designation as another cable which is not a limiting factor.
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  Yeah, it's annoying if you want a number of watts that's specifically between 60 and 100. The vast majority of cables are limited to 60. But that's a far cry from being unable to charge things!
avhon1 6y ago
According to the standard, you can't. There is nothing, however, stopping a manufacturer from making USB-C cables with very fine-gauge power conductors[1]: electrons could flow, and a data connection could be negotiated, but resistive losses at high power consumption would cause the voltage to sag below the minimum of 4.40V. Such a cable would not be standards-compliant, since USB-C cables are required to be able to carry 3 Amperes at 20V. However, for pure data-transfer purposes, the cable would work fine, and be cheaper that fully-compliant cables. [1] After all, a full-featured cable needs to fit 16 (!) conductors, and the shield, into one flexible cable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB-C#Cables_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB-C#Cables_2
- formerly_proven 6y ago
  > [1] After all, a full-featured cable needs to fit 16 (!) conductors, and the shield, into one flexible cable. I only have two real USB-C cables (that can do DPoUSB-C and PD, all other cables only do power and USB 2.0), both of them a really stiff, even more so than a thin DisplayPort cable.

z3ncyberpunk 6y ago

Much better and cleaner mess than the previous cluster of standards, also with the same cable issues.

takeda 6y ago

Perhaps the only way this could be resolved is some kind of certification and education of consumers that only certified cables/devices should be used. For others they should go after the vendors for not following spec. Yes there are fakes, but companies like Nintendo could be forced to either comply or if they don't want to, use a proprietary port like they usually did.