6 ms·

Just curious, what happens when USB C gets outdated and needs to be replaced?

by MisterSandman 4y ago

jagger27 4y ago
120Gbps ought to be enough for anyone.
olliej 4y ago
It doesn't. Just ask South Korea how their IE law went :-/
- robin_reala 4y ago
  That’s a different situation. They didn’t have an IE law: they had a specific requirement for secure transactions. At the time the US was banning export of anything over 40-bit, so they had to come up with their own standard: SEED. They produced IE and NN4 plug-ins, but NN4 died off and then inertia kept every site in the country on the national encryption standard that no other browsers supported. (Firefox does attempt to support it, but websites tend to assume IE and ActiveX regardless.) In this case the EU has aligned with an existing industry standard, and has said that they expect the standard to develop over time.
Dylan16807 4y ago
Do you think that's going to happen in the next 20 years?
- jonas21 4y ago
  USB-Mini and Micro were both obsolete within 20 years.
  - jagger27 4y ago
    Type-A isn’t though.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    While true, that is not an answer to my question. C has a lot more going for it on the longevity front.
  - arcticbull 4y ago
    On the other hand USB-A has been going strong since 1996, just shy of 27 years now.
  - diebeforei485 4y ago
    In practice plenty of things are being sold with Micro or in some cases even Mini. Bicycle headlights are an example. You could be spending $150+ and still have very few options for a USB-C headlight.
EMIRELADERO 4y ago
This law does not carve the USB-C into stone. There is a review mechanism and a mechanism for monitoring the market and approving another port in the future when it's time to do so. This is done through the USB Implementers Forum. All this law really, truly does is force manufacturers to sit around a table and work out a single solution for the whole electronics market. EU doesn't really care about USB-C or USB-D or USB-Whatever, they just require industry to set aside pettiness and work out a solution.
- diebeforei485 4y ago
  That's a bit strange. The USB Implementers Forum people are partly why we're in this mess. What if someone comes up with something just better, and doesn't want to deal with the cruft and backward compatibility requirements of USB?
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    For charging, the spec is tiny. For slow to medium data, USB 2.0 is baked in to so many chips that it's hard to imagine wanting anything else. For fast data, maybe you want a new port in some situations, but does that also have to be your only charging port?
    - MrBuddyCasino 4y ago
      > For charging, the spec is tiny. Have you ever looked at the horror that is USB-PD? The reason you've never seen v1 devices in the real world is because the spec was impossible to implement so they had to fix it in a v2.
      - Dylan16807 4y ago
        I'm aware it vastly changed between 1 and 2, but I'm talking about using the current version, the fixed one. "Tiny" probably isn't the best word but it's straightforward enough. It can be put into tiny chips.
Hamuko 4y ago
Probably won't happen that quickly with phones. People don't really need that much data transfer speed with their phones, and we already have the technology to push 80 Gb/s via USB-C. Apple has gotten by by selling sub-0.5 Gb/s for a decade. And I'd expect us to hit a couple more speed records still before we actually outgrow the physical USB-C connector. We're also pushing up to 240 watts through the USB-C connector, so the charging side (the one that people care much more about) also seems fine for the USB-C connector.

Just curious, what happens when USB C gets outdated and needs to be replaced?

jagger27 4y ago

120Gbps ought to be enough for anyone.

olliej 4y ago

It doesn't. Just ask South Korea how their IE law went :-/

robin_reala 4y ago
That’s a different situation. They didn’t have an IE law: they had a specific requirement for secure transactions. At the time the US was banning export of anything over 40-bit, so they had to come up with their own standard: SEED. They produced IE and NN4 plug-ins, but NN4 died off and then inertia kept every site in the country on the national encryption standard that no other browsers supported. (Firefox does attempt to support it, but websites tend to assume IE and ActiveX regardless.) In this case the EU has aligned with an existing industry standard, and has said that they expect the standard to develop over time.

Dylan16807 4y ago

Do you think that's going to happen in the next 20 years?

jonas21 4y ago
USB-Mini and Micro were both obsolete within 20 years.
- jagger27 4y ago
  Type-A isn’t though.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  While true, that is not an answer to my question. C has a lot more going for it on the longevity front.
- arcticbull 4y ago
  On the other hand USB-A has been going strong since 1996, just shy of 27 years now.
- diebeforei485 4y ago
  In practice plenty of things are being sold with Micro or in some cases even Mini. Bicycle headlights are an example. You could be spending $150+ and still have very few options for a USB-C headlight.

EMIRELADERO 4y ago

This law does not carve the USB-C into stone. There is a review mechanism and a mechanism for monitoring the market and approving another port in the future when it's time to do so. This is done through the USB Implementers Forum. All this law really, truly does is force manufacturers to sit around a table and work out a single solution for the whole electronics market. EU doesn't really care about USB-C or USB-D or USB-Whatever, they just require industry to set aside pettiness and work out a solution.

diebeforei485 4y ago
That's a bit strange. The USB Implementers Forum people are partly why we're in this mess. What if someone comes up with something just better, and doesn't want to deal with the cruft and backward compatibility requirements of USB?
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  For charging, the spec is tiny. For slow to medium data, USB 2.0 is baked in to so many chips that it's hard to imagine wanting anything else. For fast data, maybe you want a new port in some situations, but does that also have to be your only charging port?
  - MrBuddyCasino 4y ago
    > For charging, the spec is tiny. Have you ever looked at the horror that is USB-PD? The reason you've never seen v1 devices in the real world is because the spec was impossible to implement so they had to fix it in a v2.
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      I'm aware it vastly changed between 1 and 2, but I'm talking about using the current version, the fixed one. "Tiny" probably isn't the best word but it's straightforward enough. It can be put into tiny chips.

Hamuko 4y ago

Probably won't happen that quickly with phones. People don't really need that much data transfer speed with their phones, and we already have the technology to push 80 Gb/s via USB-C. Apple has gotten by by selling sub-0.5 Gb/s for a decade. And I'd expect us to hit a couple more speed records still before we actually outgrow the physical USB-C connector. We're also pushing up to 240 watts through the USB-C connector, so the charging side (the one that people care much more about) also seems fine for the USB-C connector.