4 ms·

I can certainly see (1) happening, especially with cables that come with the device they are expected to plug into. It already widely happens with fallback to s

I can certainly see (1) happening, especially with cables that come with the device they are expected to plug into. It already widely happens with fallback to slower bit rate or lower power charging. But (2) seems very unlikely. Most consumers just won't even consider that it has an orientation, and after it fails a few times chuck it in the bin or send it back. If it comes with a device (i.e. printer or monitor comes with a non-reversible cable) they're likely to send the whole device back. That would be a ridiculous false economy for the manufacturer.

gpderetta 3y ago
I had a USB-C Xiaomi phone that at some point only allowed being plugged in in one orientation. I guess one side failed, but then again, that wasn't the only failing of that phone, nor even close to the most annoying.
- lesuorac 3y ago
  That might not have been a symmetry problem per-say. It could be that the phone correct determined the orientation but a pin was dirty/broken so it couldn't be used. When flipping the cable around the pin in use changes to one that isn't dirty/broken and so it works fine. USB-C may have a ton of pins but that doesn't mean all of them are needed to charge so flipping it can move a broken pin into the unused pins.
  - gpderetta 3y ago
    oh, yes, very likely it was a broken or dirty pin (that's what I mean with "failed"). I wouldn't be surprised if it was somehow a software problem as well (apparently for simplicity) some cheap USB-C port setups are wired as two ports.
usrusr 3y ago
(1) as in Video only, as in they won't work to top up the battery in random Bluetooth gadgets and the like? Amongst compliant cables, you might occasionally find some that are rated 40 Gbps but do not identify as high voltage capable. But I suspect that once manufacturers stomach the wire cost of those fat 40+ cables (display!), skimping out on PD capability just won't make enough of a difference to abandon efficiencies of scale. PD cables that are no/low bandwidth? Sure, those will be with us forever. But "display only" will be a rarity.
- quietbritishjim 3y ago
  I didn't take it that literally.
  - usrusr 3y ago
    What would be the alternative? An entirely new physical connector every time manufacturers feel the desire to make this year's model slightly more capable than last year's? Some form of "physical semver" where "not all new features are possible with all old cables" mandates a new plug shape? If we were still limited to domain specific connectors (one for storage, one for networking, one for audio, one for video, one for each type of user input) we'd still run into the same (non)issues: unless every revision of, say, displayport came with it's own unique connector, without digging a little deeper (checking some version/capability symbols) you don't know wether a given cable supports the latest feature set or not. The universal in USB is not the problem.

gpderetta 3y ago

I had a USB-C Xiaomi phone that at some point only allowed being plugged in in one orientation. I guess one side failed, but then again, that wasn't the only failing of that phone, nor even close to the most annoying.

lesuorac 3y ago
That might not have been a symmetry problem per-say. It could be that the phone correct determined the orientation but a pin was dirty/broken so it couldn't be used. When flipping the cable around the pin in use changes to one that isn't dirty/broken and so it works fine. USB-C may have a ton of pins but that doesn't mean all of them are needed to charge so flipping it can move a broken pin into the unused pins.
- gpderetta 3y ago
  oh, yes, very likely it was a broken or dirty pin (that's what I mean with "failed"). I wouldn't be surprised if it was somehow a software problem as well (apparently for simplicity) some cheap USB-C port setups are wired as two ports.

usrusr 3y ago

(1) as in Video only, as in they won't work to top up the battery in random Bluetooth gadgets and the like? Amongst compliant cables, you might occasionally find some that are rated 40 Gbps but do not identify as high voltage capable. But I suspect that once manufacturers stomach the wire cost of those fat 40+ cables (display!), skimping out on PD capability just won't make enough of a difference to abandon efficiencies of scale. PD cables that are no/low bandwidth? Sure, those will be with us forever. But "display only" will be a rarity.

quietbritishjim 3y ago
I didn't take it that literally.
- usrusr 3y ago
  What would be the alternative? An entirely new physical connector every time manufacturers feel the desire to make this year's model slightly more capable than last year's? Some form of "physical semver" where "not all new features are possible with all old cables" mandates a new plug shape? If we were still limited to domain specific connectors (one for storage, one for networking, one for audio, one for video, one for each type of user input) we'd still run into the same (non)issues: unless every revision of, say, displayport came with it's own unique connector, without digging a little deeper (checking some version/capability symbols) you don't know wether a given cable supports the latest feature set or not. The universal in USB is not the problem.