6 ms·

I see they went to the USB school of standardisation

Roritharr 5y ago
I really wonder what is up with that. These standards become increasingly frustratingly complex even for people who deal with them daily.
- colechristensen 5y ago
  It’s just design by committee and long-standing efforts for backwards compatibility. Also the people writing the standards are far too familiar with them and thus a bit lost when it comes to making practical decisions. Whenever you make changes there will be compromises and someone will have reason to be unhappy.
  - mannykannot 5y ago
    There is no way that eliminating 2.0, in such a way that everything that used to rate as 2.0 now qualifies as conforming to some subset of 2.1, can be justified as backwards compatibility.
- jjoonathan 5y ago
  Cable manufacturers probably realized that the secret to profits lay in resisting commoditization, beat a path to the table, and made it happen.
- zokier 5y ago
  I don't think its particularly odd that the specifications are supersets of old versions; indeed that feels pretty common in the standards world. IETF specs are maybe the odd ones out where you typically have to read like ten different RFCs to get good picture of some standard.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  Free market of fraud is going on, there should be a cost to lying
mavhc 5y ago
USB 2 Full Speed = USB 1 speed This has been going on for 20 years
- _abox 5y ago
  That was already called full speed in the USB 1 days though. There's a mode called low speed too which was 1.5mbit and meant for low throughput devices. Full speed was 12Mbit. This way stuff like keyboards and mice didn't need to include the highest end controller chips. Calling it Full Speed was more a lack of vision than a deliberate attempt to confuse consumers as this HDMI thing seems to me. So then when 2 and 3 came out they were forced to find superlatives. Hi-Speed, Superspeed. The same happened with radio. High Frequency was up to 30Mhz. Then they found they could go higher. Very High Frequency, VHF. Then came more advances and Ultra-High Frequency. Eventually they gave up after XHF and SHF and started using band letters :) Using relative terms for constantly changing technologies is just a bad idea :)
  - dylan604 5y ago
    The same people are the ones that decide to put _final/_latest/_etc in file names
- tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
  The newest version of USB seems to have solved this by labeling ports with the supported speed (5, 10 or 20). Assuming they start doing the same with the cables, at least that part of the problem becomes tractable.
  - brnt 5y ago
    There is a reserved seat in hell for whoever allowed usb-c cables to have a max speed of usb2 (480Mbit/s).
    - mananaysiempre 5y ago
      In theory, the choice of USB-C or -{,mini,micro}A/B is orthogonal to the choice of version: there are USB-A and even USB-B connectors (with additional pins) that support USB 3.0 as well. There is a logic to this. In practice, it is confusing.
errcorrectcode 5y ago
LOL. Why don't you understand superduperspeed USB 3.4.6 2x2x6? It's so eeeasy. And, coming soon to an Amazon app near you: (Pack of 3) USB4 Thunderbolt 4, 98 ft / 30m, 240W charging, gold plated! $19.99! Free Shipping! It's not like anyone is checking products are what they say they are.
- spicybright 5y ago
  You can't legally call your food a hamburger if it's 90% meat glue and 10% cow. Can we not do the same with cables? Whoever is responsible for setting standards must be getting some good kickbacks from all this...
  - colejohnson66 5y ago
    The people writing the standards are also the ones implementing it. That’s the kickback. That’s why every USB 3.whatever device suddenly became USB4 ones.

I really wonder what is up with that. These standards become increasingly frustratingly complex even for people who deal with them daily.

colechristensen 5y ago
It’s just design by committee and long-standing efforts for backwards compatibility. Also the people writing the standards are far too familiar with them and thus a bit lost when it comes to making practical decisions. Whenever you make changes there will be compromises and someone will have reason to be unhappy.
- mannykannot 5y ago
  There is no way that eliminating 2.0, in such a way that everything that used to rate as 2.0 now qualifies as conforming to some subset of 2.1, can be justified as backwards compatibility.
jjoonathan 5y ago
Cable manufacturers probably realized that the secret to profits lay in resisting commoditization, beat a path to the table, and made it happen.
zokier 5y ago
I don't think its particularly odd that the specifications are supersets of old versions; indeed that feels pretty common in the standards world. IETF specs are maybe the odd ones out where you typically have to read like ten different RFCs to get good picture of some standard.
ClumsyPilot 5y ago
Free market of fraud is going on, there should be a cost to lying

mavhc 5y ago

USB 2 Full Speed = USB 1 speed This has been going on for 20 years

_abox 5y ago
That was already called full speed in the USB 1 days though. There's a mode called low speed too which was 1.5mbit and meant for low throughput devices. Full speed was 12Mbit. This way stuff like keyboards and mice didn't need to include the highest end controller chips. Calling it Full Speed was more a lack of vision than a deliberate attempt to confuse consumers as this HDMI thing seems to me. So then when 2 and 3 came out they were forced to find superlatives. Hi-Speed, Superspeed. The same happened with radio. High Frequency was up to 30Mhz. Then they found they could go higher. Very High Frequency, VHF. Then came more advances and Ultra-High Frequency. Eventually they gave up after XHF and SHF and started using band letters :) Using relative terms for constantly changing technologies is just a bad idea :)
- dylan604 5y ago
  The same people are the ones that decide to put _final/_latest/_etc in file names
tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
The newest version of USB seems to have solved this by labeling ports with the supported speed (5, 10 or 20). Assuming they start doing the same with the cables, at least that part of the problem becomes tractable.
- brnt 5y ago
  There is a reserved seat in hell for whoever allowed usb-c cables to have a max speed of usb2 (480Mbit/s).
  - mananaysiempre 5y ago
    In theory, the choice of USB-C or -{,mini,micro}A/B is orthogonal to the choice of version: there are USB-A and even USB-B connectors (with additional pins) that support USB 3.0 as well. There is a logic to this. In practice, it is confusing.

errcorrectcode 5y ago

LOL. Why don't you understand superduperspeed USB 3.4.6 2x2x6? It's so eeeasy. And, coming soon to an Amazon app near you: (Pack of 3) USB4 Thunderbolt 4, 98 ft / 30m, 240W charging, gold plated! $19.99! Free Shipping! It's not like anyone is checking products are what they say they are.

spicybright 5y ago
You can't legally call your food a hamburger if it's 90% meat glue and 10% cow. Can we not do the same with cables? Whoever is responsible for setting standards must be getting some good kickbacks from all this...
- colejohnson66 5y ago
  The people writing the standards are also the ones implementing it. That’s the kickback. That’s why every USB 3.whatever device suddenly became USB4 ones.