In practice, the consumer-facing names of USB standards are dark patterns that allow manufacturers to scam customers without needing to make many (or any) produ

In practice, the consumer-facing names of USB standards are dark patterns that allow manufacturers to scam customers without needing to make many (or any) product improvements. For instance, take the fact that USB 3 and USB 3.1 Gen 1 are functionally equivalent and Gen 2 support (which brings with it the only actual improvements in USB 3.1) is an optional part of the USB 3.1 standard. The functional impact of this arrangement is that manufacturers could take USB 3.0 products, slap a 'USB 3.1' label on them, and market them as New and Improved for only the cost of new markings and marketing material. Nice money if you can get it. USB-C is even worse because every feature that end users actually want is optional and, in some cases (such as DP alternate mode lane support), isn't even listed in the fine print. Customers who don't have the awareness to spend many hours doing detailed research will very easily find themselves stuck in an expensive game of trial and error to buy USB-C devices that will actually work together. Nice money if you can get it. Like most modern tech products, the entire USB ecosystem reeks of the distinct smell of extractive scam.