5 ms·

It's very strange to read this comment on article about USB, which has been developed by committee from the beginning. To me it seems quite innovative, and argu

by notJim 4y ago

It's very strange to read this comment on article about USB, which has been developed by committee from the beginning. To me it seems quite innovative, and arguably disruptive to have a single standard for all these things. Maybe USB doesn't clear your personal bar, but then why worry about this at all?

dfox 4y ago
From time to time Intel's marketing tries to sell the idea that USB was invented by this one Intel engineer. Somewhat obviously that is not true. On the other hand if you compare USB 1.0 to 1.1 it is quite obvious that real implementation experience and throwing out artifacts of the design by committee was quite important for the success.
- warning26 4y ago
  > On the other hand if you compare USB 1.0 to 1.1 it is quite obvious that real implementation experience and throwing out artifacts of the design by committee was quite important for the success. This sounds like it has some interesting history there; do you have any recommended sources to read about the transition between USB 1.0 and 1.1?
- ghaff 4y ago
  I was going to disagree as I used to know one the standards people at Intel quite well (who always regretted that USB was orientation specific)--and I didn't remember anything like that. But you're right. Intel was pushing Ajay Bhatt was one of the people Intel highlighted as a face behind Intel's technology. (Although the campaign wasn't specific to USB.) https://www.oregonlive.com/business/2009/05/intel_ad_campaign_remakes_rese.html https://www.oregonlive.com/business/2009/05/intel_ad_campaig...
- bsder 4y ago
  > Somewhat obviously that is not true. Especially since I know that several people at Digital Equipment Corporation had to do the signal integrity analysis for Intel for the original USB standard.
hwbehrens 4y ago
I can't be sure, but my interpretation of the parent's comment is that the USB-IF would never have thought to work on USB-C at all until Lightning's release two years earlier. The whole forehead-slapping moment of cables that didn't need to be flipped was a pretty big divergence from the USB-A, -B, mini B, micro B, etc. that has prevailed previously. The kernel of the argument being, Apple's "innovation" by rejecting the status quo is what allowed for the (eventual) development of the USB-C standard. This is actually fairly common in Apple-land, now that I look: - ADB (1986) to PS2 (1987) to USB-A (1996) for HID - Firewire (1995) to USB 2.0 (2000) to Firewire 800 (2002) to USB 3.0 (2008) for data transfer - VGA (1987) to ADC (1998) to DVI (1999) for video A lot of the connectors they proposed are now lost to the mists of time, but I can at least understand the argument that some of these changes were plausibly driven by Apple's rejection of the then-standard in favor of some new benefit (faster speeds, better UX), which lasted only until a new standard was developed to incorporate that benefit, and the process repeats again.
- paulmd 4y ago
  > my interpretation of the parent's comment is that the USB-IF would never have thought to work on USB-C at all until Lightning's release two years earlier it's actually worse than that, there was extensive discussion of what to do next since micro-B was still obviously flawed, they just couldn't reach a consensus to take any action even after years of debate. the thing to remember is that USB-IF isn't a benevolent organization of technology companies working together to set a direction for the future - many of them are primarily interested in reducing their own costs, which is why we got the "USB 3.x Gen 2x2 Wave 2: USB Harder" crap. Many of the players at USB-IF are specifically interested in stalling progress as long as it saves them 30 cents on their BOM.
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  > The whole forehead-slapping moment of cables that didn't need to be flipped was a pretty big divergence from the USB-A, -B, mini B, micro B, etc. that has prevailed previously. It's weird; cable orientation was (and still is) a big problem with USB-A, but not because having to deal with orientation is a problem that needs to be solved. Orientation is not a problem, at all, with USB-B, mini-B, or micro-B. The own goal in USB-A was delivering a connnector that is sensitive to orientation at the same time that it's visually symmetrical. There was no need to make the connector insensitive to orientation. It would have made at least as much sense to make the asymmetry visible, the way every other connector does.

by notJim 4y ago

dfox 4y ago

From time to time Intel's marketing tries to sell the idea that USB was invented by this one Intel engineer. Somewhat obviously that is not true. On the other hand if you compare USB 1.0 to 1.1 it is quite obvious that real implementation experience and throwing out artifacts of the design by committee was quite important for the success.

warning26 4y ago
> On the other hand if you compare USB 1.0 to 1.1 it is quite obvious that real implementation experience and throwing out artifacts of the design by committee was quite important for the success. This sounds like it has some interesting history there; do you have any recommended sources to read about the transition between USB 1.0 and 1.1?
ghaff 4y ago
I was going to disagree as I used to know one the standards people at Intel quite well (who always regretted that USB was orientation specific)--and I didn't remember anything like that. But you're right. Intel was pushing Ajay Bhatt was one of the people Intel highlighted as a face behind Intel's technology. (Although the campaign wasn't specific to USB.) https://www.oregonlive.com/business/2009/05/intel_ad_campaign_remakes_rese.html https://www.oregonlive.com/business/2009/05/intel_ad_campaig...
bsder 4y ago
> Somewhat obviously that is not true. Especially since I know that several people at Digital Equipment Corporation had to do the signal integrity analysis for Intel for the original USB standard.

hwbehrens 4y ago

I can't be sure, but my interpretation of the parent's comment is that the USB-IF would never have thought to work on USB-C at all until Lightning's release two years earlier. The whole forehead-slapping moment of cables that didn't need to be flipped was a pretty big divergence from the USB-A, -B, mini B, micro B, etc. that has prevailed previously. The kernel of the argument being, Apple's "innovation" by rejecting the status quo is what allowed for the (eventual) development of the USB-C standard. This is actually fairly common in Apple-land, now that I look: - ADB (1986) to PS2 (1987) to USB-A (1996) for HID - Firewire (1995) to USB 2.0 (2000) to Firewire 800 (2002) to USB 3.0 (2008) for data transfer - VGA (1987) to ADC (1998) to DVI (1999) for video A lot of the connectors they proposed are now lost to the mists of time, but I can at least understand the argument that some of these changes were plausibly driven by Apple's rejection of the then-standard in favor of some new benefit (faster speeds, better UX), which lasted only until a new standard was developed to incorporate that benefit, and the process repeats again.

paulmd 4y ago
> my interpretation of the parent's comment is that the USB-IF would never have thought to work on USB-C at all until Lightning's release two years earlier it's actually worse than that, there was extensive discussion of what to do next since micro-B was still obviously flawed, they just couldn't reach a consensus to take any action even after years of debate. the thing to remember is that USB-IF isn't a benevolent organization of technology companies working together to set a direction for the future - many of them are primarily interested in reducing their own costs, which is why we got the "USB 3.x Gen 2x2 Wave 2: USB Harder" crap. Many of the players at USB-IF are specifically interested in stalling progress as long as it saves them 30 cents on their BOM.
thaumasiotes 4y ago
> The whole forehead-slapping moment of cables that didn't need to be flipped was a pretty big divergence from the USB-A, -B, mini B, micro B, etc. that has prevailed previously. It's weird; cable orientation was (and still is) a big problem with USB-A, but not because having to deal with orientation is a problem that needs to be solved. Orientation is not a problem, at all, with USB-B, mini-B, or micro-B. The own goal in USB-A was delivering a connnector that is sensitive to orientation at the same time that it's visually symmetrical. There was no need to make the connector insensitive to orientation. It would have made at least as much sense to make the asymmetry visible, the way every other connector does.