3 ms·

The problem is that the version of the standard is conflated with the version of the port. Here is a better system: 1) The standard has a version number. I wou

The problem is that the version of the standard is conflated with the version of the port. Here is a better system: 1) The standard has a version number. I would have suggested semver, except that USB will always be backwards compatible within the same physical port, so there's no need for separate major/minor versions. We can just use an incrementing number 1,2,3 etc. 2) The standard gives each physical port layout a name, eg. A, B, C. Port layouts can be added/removed in new versions of the standard. 3) The standard specifies and names various transfer rates, eg. T1, T2, etc with new names being added in new versions of the standard. (eg. version 1 defines speed T1, version 2 defines speeds T1, T2. etc.) 4) Manufacturers are not allowed to use the version of the USB specification in their marketing material at all. A port is not "USB 3.1", it's "USB C T2". The version of the spec only serves to confuse customers because the whole point is that versions are backwards compatible. The only thing the customer cares about is the physical port layout and what features/transfer rate are supported over that port. So the marketing names would be: USB A T1, USB A T2 USB C T1, USB C T2, USB C T3 As a customer, I can easily see that I can't plug a "USB A T1" into a "USB C T1" because they are different physical ports. I can also see that "USB C T2" is faster than "USB C T1". Admittedly thing are slightly more complicated because the transfer rate is not the only "feature", we also have to consider what kinds of data can be transferred. We can extend the full marketing name to: USB C T1 (audio) USB C T1 (audio,video) etc. Obviously this is too long to have on the port itself, so we can stick with just the port type and transfer speed (eg. USB C T2) as the short name.

WorldMaker 5y ago
I think you just recreated what the USB Forum is already doing? The standard as a whole has a version number that increments with the entire standard document. Port layouts are named A, B, C (and deprecated Micro-A, Micro-B, and Mini-A). The transfer rates are now named: Gen 1, Gen 2, Gen 1x2, and Gen 2x2. (These names are stupid, but they are names. Gen 1 is all the transport capabilities from USB 1.0 to USB 3.0 {including the now "classic" "superspeed"} and Gen 2 is new starting with USB 3.1 and the even worse named Gen 1x2 and Gen 2x2 are new starting with USB 3.2). > Obviously this is too long to have on the port itself, so we can stick with just the port type and transfer speed (eg. USB C T2) as the short name. Marking the port type is redundant because USB has been good about giving every port type a very different physical silhouette. USB A ports look nothing like USB B ports look nothing like USB C ports. (Arguably there are legitimate complaints that USB Micro-A and USB Mini-A had some visual at a glance issues in practice, but you couldn't insert the wrong cable into the wrong port.) So yeah, that just leaves finding a better way to mark the ports (and cables!) with the transfer speed. "Gen 1", "Gen 2", "Gen 1x1", and "Gen 1x2" all take up a lot of space and maybe aren't the friendliest names to mark on/near ports/cables, but are in theory potentially the only bit of information that ports need to be marked that cannot be assumed by physical port shape. (ETA: Which the USB-IF Marketing names like SuperSpeed 40 and logos like an arc around the number 40 next to the USB symbol are designed to do, though the fact that people don't recognize them and they don't seem common enough in practice that people know they exist is a marketing failure more than a technical failure of the standards.)
- Diggsey 5y ago
  > I think you just recreated what the USB Forum is already doing? If they were doing this then there wouldn't be any ports described as "USB 3.1" (see point 4). The version of the standard is not just irrelevant but actively misleading to use in marketing material. > Marking the port type is redundant because USB has been good about giving every port type a very different physical silhouette. On the port itself, sure, but if I'm buying a laptop online then it's pretty important what type of port it has, so saying "USB C T2" is a lot more useful than just "USB T2". How would I even know what silhuette the port has? The two most important pieces of information are the type of port and the transfer speed. There are only a small number of possibilities for each, and the latter is a purely numeric value, so a letter/number pair is sufficient.
  - WorldMaker 5y ago
    > If they were doing this then there wouldn't be any ports described as "USB 3.1" (see point 4). The version of the standard is not just irrelevant but actively misleading to use in marketing material. That gets to the edit I made at the end. The USB-IF Marketing group has never suggested marketing ports/cables as "USB 3.1". They've always preferred the "SuperSpeed {Bandwidth}" branding over "USB {SpecNumber}". There's a chart here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB4#USB_3.x_.E2.80.93_4.x_data_transfer_modes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB4#USB_3.x_.E2.80.93_4.x_dat... (Admittedly, they are mixing messages by using "USB4 SuperSpeed {Bandwidth}" as marketing names for "SuperSpeed 20" and "SuperSpeed 40".) But the fact that just about no one uses the USB-IF Marketing Names and instead reverts to easily confused "USB {SpecNumber}" branding is an interesting marketing failure by USB. (Not necessarily a technical failure of their specs.) > On the port itself, sure, but if I'm buying a laptop online then it's pretty important what type of port it has, so saying "USB C T2" is a lot more useful than just "USB T2". How would I even know what silhuette the port has? That's a slight goal post move from your previous comment about what to mark Ports/Cables. Sure, if you need to mark online materials you need to include port types. But it's still redundant on a physical port or cable to mark the port type when you are staring right at the port type.

WorldMaker 5y ago

I think you just recreated what the USB Forum is already doing? The standard as a whole has a version number that increments with the entire standard document. Port layouts are named A, B, C (and deprecated Micro-A, Micro-B, and Mini-A). The transfer rates are now named: Gen 1, Gen 2, Gen 1x2, and Gen 2x2. (These names are stupid, but they are names. Gen 1 is all the transport capabilities from USB 1.0 to USB 3.0 {including the now "classic" "superspeed"} and Gen 2 is new starting with USB 3.1 and the even worse named Gen 1x2 and Gen 2x2 are new starting with USB 3.2). > Obviously this is too long to have on the port itself, so we can stick with just the port type and transfer speed (eg. USB C T2) as the short name. Marking the port type is redundant because USB has been good about giving every port type a very different physical silhouette. USB A ports look nothing like USB B ports look nothing like USB C ports. (Arguably there are legitimate complaints that USB Micro-A and USB Mini-A had some visual at a glance issues in practice, but you couldn't insert the wrong cable into the wrong port.) So yeah, that just leaves finding a better way to mark the ports (and cables!) with the transfer speed. "Gen 1", "Gen 2", "Gen 1x1", and "Gen 1x2" all take up a lot of space and maybe aren't the friendliest names to mark on/near ports/cables, but are in theory potentially the only bit of information that ports need to be marked that cannot be assumed by physical port shape. (ETA: Which the USB-IF Marketing names like SuperSpeed 40 and logos like an arc around the number 40 next to the USB symbol are designed to do, though the fact that people don't recognize them and they don't seem common enough in practice that people know they exist is a marketing failure more than a technical failure of the standards.)

Diggsey 5y ago
> I think you just recreated what the USB Forum is already doing? If they were doing this then there wouldn't be any ports described as "USB 3.1" (see point 4). The version of the standard is not just irrelevant but actively misleading to use in marketing material. > Marking the port type is redundant because USB has been good about giving every port type a very different physical silhouette. On the port itself, sure, but if I'm buying a laptop online then it's pretty important what type of port it has, so saying "USB C T2" is a lot more useful than just "USB T2". How would I even know what silhuette the port has? The two most important pieces of information are the type of port and the transfer speed. There are only a small number of possibilities for each, and the latter is a purely numeric value, so a letter/number pair is sufficient.
- WorldMaker 5y ago
  > If they were doing this then there wouldn't be any ports described as "USB 3.1" (see point 4). The version of the standard is not just irrelevant but actively misleading to use in marketing material. That gets to the edit I made at the end. The USB-IF Marketing group has never suggested marketing ports/cables as "USB 3.1". They've always preferred the "SuperSpeed {Bandwidth}" branding over "USB {SpecNumber}". There's a chart here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB4#USB_3.x_.E2.80.93_4.x_data_transfer_modes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB4#USB_3.x_.E2.80.93_4.x_dat... (Admittedly, they are mixing messages by using "USB4 SuperSpeed {Bandwidth}" as marketing names for "SuperSpeed 20" and "SuperSpeed 40".) But the fact that just about no one uses the USB-IF Marketing Names and instead reverts to easily confused "USB {SpecNumber}" branding is an interesting marketing failure by USB. (Not necessarily a technical failure of their specs.) > On the port itself, sure, but if I'm buying a laptop online then it's pretty important what type of port it has, so saying "USB C T2" is a lot more useful than just "USB T2". How would I even know what silhuette the port has? That's a slight goal post move from your previous comment about what to mark Ports/Cables. Sure, if you need to mark online materials you need to include port types. But it's still redundant on a physical port or cable to mark the port type when you are staring right at the port type.