They seem to have either no names or too many names where it's unclear what is intended for the consumer.
Just giving the cable a clear name (in words, not icons), so you could know what you were buying, and a device could say "you need this kind of cable", and a person could write a blog saying "to support DP-Alt-Mode you need X kind of cable" and all use the terminology... would seem to go a long way.
It seems odd that the USB people have not figured this out.
We can't even figure out what the CALL em all consistently.
Exactly! We can call the one for small peripherals "USB", the one for monitors "VGA", the one for networking "ethernet", the one for power "AC"... I suspect most users can figure out how to manage that.
Snark aside, I actually agree with you. The market powers that be completely messed this up. Basically, phones have limited port space. And for their benefit, and only their benefit, we've tried to cram together the entirety of device I/O into one multi-pronged standard that was clearly never going to work.
And those phones? Their fancy USB-C ports are almost exclusively idle. A median high end phone never does anything with that port it couldn't have gotten with a single barrel connector with ~10V DC.
I'll take 10 minutes extra effort every few years to order the correct cable in exchange for that...
Wrong kind of names. For these cables, all you should need to know is a speed rating. And they almost work that way, but the ball got dropped in a few places and the cables are badly labeled, so it turns into a nightmare.
> And for their benefit, and only their benefit, we've tried to cram together the entirety of device I/O into one multi-pronged standard that was clearly never going to work.
I can't agree at all with that. The needs of phones were already satisfied by USB micro, long before any of this cramming started. USB-C's complication is not because of phones.
And even though the data connection is rarely used, it sucks to not have it available for file transfers and backups and tethering. And barrel plugs are terrible for charging on the go. You have far fewer outlets than USB, and there are too many different sizes.
Before the legislation, most phone chargers had the wire fixed to the transformer, and were unique to each manufacturer. The law reduced the e-waste from obsolete chargers, but didn't care so much for the wire.
Der Micro-USB-Standard bezeichnet eine Regelung auf Basis des USB-Standards, nach der ab 2011 die Steckverbinder für die Stromversorgung von Mobiltelefonen und anderen elektronischen Geräten in Europa vereinheitlicht wurden (Norm EN 62684:2011). [...] Das Kabel kann entweder fest oder durch einen Stecker mit dem Ladegerät verbunden sein. Bei einem steckbaren Kabel ist ein Standard-USB-Stecker (Typ A) zur Verbindung mit dem Ladegerät zu nutzen.
The Micro-USB standard is a regulation on the basis of the USB standard, according to which the plug for charging mobile phones and other electronic devices has been unified since 2011 (European Norm EN 62684:2011). [...] The cable can either be fixed to the charger or connected with a plug. In the latter case a USB-A plug is to be used.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_external_power_supply#R...
The whole catchy idea behind USB-C (unfortunately perpetuated here by people who should know better) is that there is ONE SOCKET, ONE PLUG and ONE CABLE. Oh, the dream of using a single connector.
Unfortunately, this is far from reality and the result is a complete mess, which is why I'm not a big fan of the whole USB-C thing. Especially given that I'm a hostage, because a certain computer company whose computers generally suck the least, decided to show courage by moving to USB-C even though the ecosystem is nowhere near mature — let's put pressure on the manufacturers by getting hostages (oops, "users") on board.
I wish USB-C mandated some sort of connector marking: color strips, or whatever, that would let me figure out what would work.
There's nothing benefiting customers from this cable mess. It only enables dishonest businesses, as customers can't tell cables apart until they plug them in and try to use them.
I mean cable with all the features is damn expensive if you compare it to the usual(shitty quality) USB2.0 cables. Most folks would buy cheaper one because difference in prices between USB2.0 and USB-C with all features would be too high. It would feel like a rip-off to them.
The whole idea of "one connector that does everything" is flawed, unless you standardize what "everything" means and give users visual clues. Such as, oh, a different type of connector, like we used to have.
I get precisely ZERO benefit from using a USB-C connector for my monitor, I only get a large amount of pain.
The line I'm trying to stride here is, on the one hand, avoiding what USB-C ended up being, but on the other hand not returning back to the days of feature phones, where you had as many physically and electrically distinct charger and data ports as there were phone models. There must be a sane state somewhere in the middle.
I still remember when the iMac came out with two USB ports, a CD drive, and nothing else. It was a couple of years too early, or did it prove that you could make a successful computer without vital things like a parallel port and a floppy drive?
Since when was USB-C such a major issue on Thinkpads?
The whole thing makes a mockery of the core reason for USB to exist, which was so we wouldn't need a unique cable for each device. And so here we are...
I have been told those names were not intended for the consumer. (And indeed "USB 3.1 gen 2" vs "USB3.1 gen 1", seriously?).
I think there is another set of names, also inconsistent and unparallel with each other or the first set of names, intended for the consumer, that nobody can seem to figure out.
More precisely: "Why don't they give them _reasonable_ usable names, and only one set so everyone uses the same one?"
This still seems to be an obvious part of the design of the product to me.
And the latter two would be "USB 3.3", "USB 3.4", problem solved :)
Initially, there was USB 3.0 at 5Gbps, USB 2.0 at 480Mbps, and USB 1.1 at 12 Mbps.
Then, when they added a 10Gbps mode, they called it USB 3.1 Gen 2, and renamed USB 3.0 to USB 3.1 Gen 1.
They already have plans for USB 3.2: 5Gbps will be USB 3.2 Gen 1, 10Gbps will be USB 3.2 Gen 2, and 20 Gbps will be USB 3.2 Gen 2x2. Yup, Gen 2x2 is next.
And there is no more USB 3.0 - presumably no vendor wants to have to sell an older number, so they rename them all so consumers are confused and think they are all the latest 3.x
ref: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/02/usb-3-2-is-going-to-...
As soon as its phones go USB-C, they're going to have to deal with half a million people on the internet complaining that their junk shop cable doesn't work right or do what they thought it would.
This already happens though. I have a dollar store "Lightning" cable that only has a third of the pins and only works one way.
Learning just that one fact made it worth the click. I now know to just always look for SuperSpeed (or the SS marking) on any cable I buy.
If we could just all start calling them SuperSpeed cables, SuperSpeed10 for 10Gbps, and I assume we will eventually have SuperSpeed20, etc... that would be just fine by me! Honestly, better marketing IMO as well.
The time for the "USB" acronym has passed. Especially since the debacle of "USB3" and Gen1 Gen2 nonsense. "SuperSpeed", optionally followed by a number which indicates a data rate would be just lovely.
USB-C cables are supposed to be universal, i.e. have all the features, all the time; and thus, USB-C cables should (in 2019) be very expensive. Any USB-C cable that isn't very expensive (in 2019) isn't following the standard.
And even if you wanted to be Maximum Compatibility even with Thunderbolt 3 you may not have that option as TB3 tops out at a cable length of 2 meters, and at that length you're dealing with half-rate bandwidth (just 20Gbps instead of the full 40Gpbs - which you only get up to 0.5m)
It may be better to say that Thunderbolt 3 is a 'superset' of USB: TB is its own protocol, which allows for the carrying of USB over it (as well as PCIe and DisplayPort).
This is just plain wrong.
The USB standard explicitly allows cables that have a USB-C connector and don't support any USB features above USB 2.0.
At the other end of the spectrum, there don't seem to be any cables that support both thunderbolt 3 and USB 3 at 2 meters, no matter how much you're willing to spend.
I may be wrong here, but from what I understand this doesn't seem to be the case (DP, Thunderbolt, etc. are all "optional"). It would also mean that all cables would be limited to 50cm.
The USB-IF is composed of manufacturers that wanted to be able to cheap out on cables; so of course they made all the expensive features optional, at the expense of anything USB-C was designed to accomplish.
In an alternate world where USB-IF was headed by a benevolent-dictator-for-life, USB-C wouldn't have any optional features. (It'd also be in nearly nothing, because no manufacturer would want to pay the BOM costs of supporting it.)
It'd be everywhere if manufacturers had no other choice. Mass production would keep the price low.
In that reality, Apple would be actually courageous for switching to USB-C and forcing everyone's hand. The EU could jump in to, and tell phone manufacturers that if they want to switch away from plain old USB, they can switch over to USB-C, but no going back to proprietary connectors bullshit. This would be a much nicer world indeed.
Last time Apple was courageous ─ the headphone jack got killed. The word 'courage' was used to onboard Airpods and move the general trend towards sealing off most ingress points on a device; contemporaneously selling an adapter for a pretty penny.
Whilst I agree that some manufacturers followed the above-mentioned trend. They were not pushed, but rather jumped willingly, as it made financial and commercial sense by applying the maxim - where Apple leads, others must usually follow. There were also unsubstantiated rumours of Apple abandoning their role in development of USB-C implementation, perhaps due to the lack of a moat[0]. Nevertheless, I don't expect them to be altruistic in their motives and fully expect them to monetise the USB-C standard via a plethora of cables and dongles, possibly under the umbrella of MFi program, especially targeting the lack of certification and/or the vacuum/ambiguity created by USB-IF, leaving the rest of the field to carry on dealing with the existing issues.
Also, I would much rather put up with the current botched up state of affairs, than have EU involved in meddling with it and make things even worse.
Hence my use of the word "actually" - the headphone jack situation is IMO anticonsumer, not courageous.
As for EU involvement, it seems to have worked out for the best with forcing phone manufacturers to use USB for charging - I still remember the days of feature phones, where we were all drowning in phone chargers and (separate) data cables, as each brand and each model generation within the brand used different ports and voltages. It was ridiculous levels of plastic and electronics waste for the sake of business shenanigans.
You are romanticising the notion of Apple and EU being the standard rod-bearers. Despite using electrical waste and dubious business practices as a reason for EU involvement, it would seem that you are unaware of the saga of the 'common charger' and the villainous role played by Apple.
A key take-away:
The EU's failure to regulate, in essence, provides Apple with an argument to keep their own solution.
For Apple, the common charger is a success story – of regulation avoided.
More expensive doesn’t necessarily mean more support ... thunderbolt is not usb-c even tho they have the same connector on the end ...
If you are in the market for an expensive and long thunderbolt cable — caldigit makes one. I just bought it and felt annoyed at paying 50 dollars for a cable — but I’m also glad for the technology needed to make this cable possible to exist so ... maybe I can swallow this as funding the future?
https://www.amazon.com/CalDigit-Intel-Certified-Thunderbolt-...
Here is the answer: if you need DisplayPort 1.0-1.2, a 5 Gbps cable is enough.
If you need DP 1.3-1.4 (where they upped the transfer rate for higher resolution and fps,) you need a 10 Gbps cable.
If you need DP 2.0 (I don't think products are out yet, the standard was finalized last month,) you will need a USB4 20 Gbps cable.
Is it 5Gbit/s per twisted pair? That would make sense as displayport uses 4 pairs so 4 * 5 comfortably gets you the 12.54 with plenty left over for regular data. But then it would matter for the 10gbit/s cables if it's talking about superspeed 1x2 (2x5gbit/s) or 2x1 (1x10gbit/s).
A USB3 cable has 4 differential pairs. When in alt mode, all 4 pairs transmit in the same direction, so a 5 Gbit/s cable can transmit 20 Gbit/s.
* USB 3.1 (Type-C to Type-C) Charge Only * USB 3.1 (Type-C to Type-C) Charge and Data @5Gb * USB 3.1 (Type-C to Type-C) Charge and Data @10Gb * Thunderbolt 3 (Type-C to Type-C) Charge and Data @20Gb * Thunderbolt 3 (Type-C to Type-C) Charge and Data @40Gb
I believe 5/20Gb cables are generally rated at 65W and 10/40Gb cables at 100W. But like you've noted there's no standard labeling. So it's hard to find what you're looking for half the time.
It's just easiest to find Thunderbolt 3 cables since those are backwards compatible and if you buy the 40Gb ones you're going to be safer with regard to plugging both your laptop into a charger and your phone.
Maybe a good indication would be to check your CPU usage before and after using 5Gb/s and 10Gb/s cables. Even then it's not a great indication, many modern processors have dedicated modules on the CPU for video compression/decompression (given how large the use case is, it makes sense).
And then you have other factors that may prevent you getting full speed:
* Connection between the cable and the device on both sides (oxidization, scratches, etc)
* Manufacturing flaws or damage during delivery/use in the cable (un-shielded areas, breakages in the cable, imperfections in metals, etc)
* Temperature - if you're pulling 20W through this cable it's not entirely impossible you might start noticing some heat, especially if it wasn't designed to take the power draw (increased heat due to power pull = greater resistance = worse signal)
My pointy is, as we turn up the requirements of these cables, just making sure they deliver on their promises will become more difficult. Most people won't have an oscilloscope that can even measure these cables anymore and just the act of putting the oscilloscope on the lines increases capacitance and changes how the signal looks.
A while back I had issues with two Ethernet cables (CAT 7 I think), both straight out of the packet, one performed at half speed and the other at full. I was tearing my hair out for a while before I realized why the network was bottle necked.
For future reference, a Thunderbolt 3 cable (which is USB-C connector) will work.
> What is Thunderbolt 3?
> Computer ports with Thunderbolt 3 provide 40Gbps Thunderbolt – double the speed of the previous generation, USB 3.1 10Gbps, and DisplayPort 1.2.
I'm curious: which active cable did you use that didn't support DP?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB-C#Alternate_Mode_partner_s...
What a clusterfuck of a standard.
Regular USB-C monitor is not support, USB 3.1/3.0/2.0 and USB-C is not support https://amazon.com/Thunderbolt-Certified-Nekteck-Compatible-...
USB 2.0 ️[check], USB 3.0 [ ], DisplayPort [ ] https://amazon.com/Belkin-Thunderbolt-Cable-Feet-Meters/dp/B...
Can you point me to any 2-meter thunderbolt@40GHz cable that does support USB 3 and/or DisplayPort? None of the ones in this chart can do it: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vnpEXfo2HCGADdd9G2x9... Only the 1-meter active cable can.
Isn't USB4 = the next Thunderbolt standard?
OT, but what screen did you buy? I'm in the market as well for a USB-C powered travel monitor and was about to head down the what-cable-works rabbit hole.
Now I thought this would be easy, just ask Google what kind of cable I need, right...? Well... no. Not at all. I wasn’t able to find any information whatsoever what kind of USB-C cable is needed for supporting Alt-DP-Mode. I guessed (really guessed, couldn’t find information) a USB 2.0 USB-C cable wouldn’t be good enough. But is a 5Gbps cable enough? Or is a 10Gbps cable needed? Or maybe neither and I need to buy one of those really expensive USB-C Thunderbolt 3 cables...?
In the end I just bought a 2 meter USB-C 3.2 5 Gbps and just hoped for the best. And indeed it works. Yay!
The thing is... I’m a technical person, and even I can’t figure this out. How is a non-technical person supposed to navigate this?
And by the way: one piece of information I did find about USB-C and Alt-DP-Mode is that the current spec for Alt-DP-Mode doesn’t allow use of active cables, so length is limited to 2 meters. That’s another pitfall restriction.