3 ms·

We should give anyone involved in the USB-IF a test: Here are 10 different cables, you must accurately describe each of their features in detail (USB speeds, c

We should give anyone involved in the USB-IF a test: Here are 10 different cables, you must accurately describe each of their features in detail (USB speeds, charging speeds/power delivery, video out? What version of Display Port does it support?). Make one mistake and you'll be executed. Obviously I don't advocate for that but it's damn annoying you can have one cable do so many different things and not know by looking at it. At least USB 3 was often times blue to offer a distinction. These days I plug in a cable and prey it functions as advertised (sometimes it's 50/50). Awful mess.

jsight 5y ago
> These days I plug in a cable and prey it functions as advertised (sometimes it's 50/50). Are you preying on the folks at USB-IF?
SAI_Peregrinus 5y ago
The issue isn't the number of things supported, it's that there are optionally-supported things. If every cable needed to support everything, and every host port needed to support every valid device type, it'd be fine. But instead you get cables that don't properly work with alternate modes, host ports that don't implement DisplayPort, etc. It's cheaper, but ridiculously frustrating.
- cletus 5y ago
  Sorry but not true. To get full bandwidth really limits how long the cable can be. Like I don't think you'll find 40Gbps cables longer than about 0.5m. This is more expensive too (eg there are generally chips in the plugs at either end to handle attenuation). But there's obviously a use case for cables longer than that. It is true that we have cables that support data but not power and power but not data or data at different bandwidths and so on. It's a mess. But it's not a case of simply choosing not to support optional features.
  - danhor 5y ago
    The Apple Thunderbolt 3 Pro Cable (2 m) is one of the only cables that can support everything usb-c over such a long distance [1]. But that costs 129$, which just wouldn't work for smartphone charging for which cables (usb-c 2.0 & 60w, the least you can do while still being spec-compliant) cost 7$. I think I haven't seen such a clear & easy to grasp demonstration of tradeoffs anywhere else. [1] For the longest time, this was the only cable to do it all. I think more are available now, but they're still very much non-affordable.
  - SAI_Peregrinus 5y ago
    No, it's a matter of expense. It's possible to embed a redriver in the cable every 0.5m, and thus get longer cables at full speed. They're just very, very expensive. There are three alternatives: one cable type that does everything and is easy to use (but gets expensive quickly as it gets longer), multiple cable types that each do somewhat different things but use identical connectors, or multiple cable types that each do somewhat different things and use different connectors. The USB-IF went with the "multiple cable types, identical connectors" option, which is cheap but extremely confusing. The "multiple cable types, multiple connectors" is what USB was created to avoid. So the only remaining option to remove confusion is to have expensive cables.

jsight 5y ago

> These days I plug in a cable and prey it functions as advertised (sometimes it's 50/50). Are you preying on the folks at USB-IF?

SAI_Peregrinus 5y ago

The issue isn't the number of things supported, it's that there are optionally-supported things. If every cable needed to support everything, and every host port needed to support every valid device type, it'd be fine. But instead you get cables that don't properly work with alternate modes, host ports that don't implement DisplayPort, etc. It's cheaper, but ridiculously frustrating.

cletus 5y ago
Sorry but not true. To get full bandwidth really limits how long the cable can be. Like I don't think you'll find 40Gbps cables longer than about 0.5m. This is more expensive too (eg there are generally chips in the plugs at either end to handle attenuation). But there's obviously a use case for cables longer than that. It is true that we have cables that support data but not power and power but not data or data at different bandwidths and so on. It's a mess. But it's not a case of simply choosing not to support optional features.
- danhor 5y ago
  The Apple Thunderbolt 3 Pro Cable (2 m) is one of the only cables that can support everything usb-c over such a long distance [1]. But that costs 129$, which just wouldn't work for smartphone charging for which cables (usb-c 2.0 & 60w, the least you can do while still being spec-compliant) cost 7$. I think I haven't seen such a clear & easy to grasp demonstration of tradeoffs anywhere else. [1] For the longest time, this was the only cable to do it all. I think more are available now, but they're still very much non-affordable.
- SAI_Peregrinus 5y ago
  No, it's a matter of expense. It's possible to embed a redriver in the cable every 0.5m, and thus get longer cables at full speed. They're just very, very expensive. There are three alternatives: one cable type that does everything and is easy to use (but gets expensive quickly as it gets longer), multiple cable types that each do somewhat different things but use identical connectors, or multiple cable types that each do somewhat different things and use different connectors. The USB-IF went with the "multiple cable types, identical connectors" option, which is cheap but extremely confusing. The "multiple cable types, multiple connectors" is what USB was created to avoid. So the only remaining option to remove confusion is to have expensive cables.