3 ms·
Sure, it's misleading. That's why the next sentence reads... > Not all of them are strictly necessary for parity with USB-A, but you could cut that number in h
by chaorace 6y ago
Sure, it's misleading. That's why the next sentence reads...
> Not all of them are strictly necessary for parity with USB-A, but you could cut that number in half quite easily if the plug were not reversible
Is 4 not half of 8?
- Kuinox 6y agoYou imply that the USB-C could have only 12 cables. Only the USB2.0 pins are duplicated, there is 4GND and 4PWR cables for power need, and the rest of the connector are not duplicated. If it was not reversible, USB-C would be 22 connectors, not 12. Plus USB-A is the only one with 4 cables, what was used on most phones was USB-B micro which has 5 cables.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- chaorace 6y agoWhat are you trying to argue here? All pins on the connector are rotationally symmetric. They may not be useless, because they still increase overall bandwidth, but they are indeed doubled. A non-reversible connector would not use this design and there would be fewer pins as a result (as much as half). Also: USB-B micro connectors might have 5 pins, but the cable itself has 4 wires. The OTG pin is grounded in the connector. This is actually why I said "4(ish)" in my original post.
- Kuinox 6y agoThe rotating pair can send independant signals. Thats why USB-C have more or less the same speeds than HDMI, while the HDMI have 22 connectors. Compare what is comparable, you can't use your USB-A to display 4K-60Hz video, but you can with your USB-C, or HDMI.