3 ms·
> I don't see why "What about innovation?" is taken seriously as an argument anyway. because the USB-IF historically has struggled to reach enough consensus fr
by paulmd 4y ago
> I don't see why "What about innovation?" is taken seriously as an argument anyway.
because the USB-IF historically has struggled to reach enough consensus from its stakeholders to allow innovation to take place. The entire reason that lightning exists in the first place is because USB-IF couldn't agree on a replacement for micro-B (which everyone agreed clearly needed improvement!) and one of the members just had to shrug and go do it themselves. Once one of the members had gone there and proven the concept, it lit a fire under the asses of the rest of the consortium.
Same for why thunderbolt exists as a standard and not as USB 4 in the first place... not enough consensus to go there as an official standard rather than an extension. It took what, 10 years after Thunderbolt was standardized before we finally pulled ourselves out of the fecal lagoon of USB 3.x standards?
And then you layer in the dysfunction from the members that are primarily interested in creating consumer confusion with the USB 3.0, USB3.1 Type-1, USB 3.1 Type-2, USB 3.2 Type-1, USB 3.2 Type-2, USB 3.2 Type-2x2 nonsense so that they can deceptively and maliciously sell yesterday's hardware with tomorrow's standard on the box... many of the members of USB-IF are interested in actively stalling progress if it means they save 30 cents on their BOM.
This is not an organization with consumer interests at heart. They are a bad choice to be the legal guardian (more like, conservator) of all innovation.
- kanetw 4y agoAbsolutely. On top of that, I feel like USB-C is deliberately engineered to sell more ICs. Which wouldn't be that huge of an issue except as a result, all relevant ICs are sold out (or unsuitable). CC/PD use a custom transmission standard so you can't implement it without a PHY, which basically means at least one dedicated IC.
- Evidlo 4y agoWell you can still do USB2.0 over USB-C for all your low-speed, low-power gadgets.
- kanetw 4y agoYeah, that's about the only thing you can do without ICs. 500mA max, high-speed lanes unused.
- gbraad 4y agoMarker chips are 'optional' for USB-C, but essential for Lightning You can also directly feed the needed voltage without the negotiation. So this is only partially true.
- kanetw 4y agoA compliant USB-C source will not provide more than 5V/3A without PD negotiation period, and is only guaranteed to provide default USB power. So if you can potentially draw more, you need to check whether it's allowed.
- Dylan16807 4y agoYou need a chip in the power supply for that, but you already have a chip in the power supply because switching supplies are massively cheaper. You don't need a marker chip in the cable unless you intend to go over 20V/3A.
- kanetw 4y agoI'm just talking about end devices here (source/sink).
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- SergeAx 4y agoThe entire reason for Lightning exists is increasing Apple revenues from selling cables and licences to OEMs.