Make 'em get certified, if they' re caught cheating they lose their license to stamp the logo.
As I understand it, one of the reasons earlier iterations of the USB standard were popular with manufacturers was that it was logistically and administratively easy. You didn't have to license a bunch of expensive patents and certification is quite easy.
Going against that might be possible, but it strikes me as perhaps difficult to get implementors to go along with.
Do you really think a Chinese manufacturer of cheap cables cares if they’re displaying various logos with the proper license or not otherwise misleading customers? Look up the whole “CE” vs “China Export” thing...
What's strange is that stuff gets imported and sold in the west. It used to be illegal and you couldn't get pirate products in shops but now Amazon somehow just does it flagrantly. Doesn't customs ever seize a container of cables with the wrong logos on them anymore?
How would customs know? They would need to test them, which seems unpractical.
As if a logo on a cable is important.
Re:USB4 Specification
by TheGoddessInari on Tuesday September 03, 2019 @07:33PM
(#20872465)
For Display Port cables, if they're not certified, you run the risk of strange hardware faults at best, smoking hardware at presumably worst.
USB4 is tremendously more dangerous if the cable does something really wrong.
The problem is that you don't know if the logo is valid. Anyone can just print it on their product. Even buying from Amazon won't save you all the time.
Re:USB4 Specification
by solarkraft on Wednesday September 04, 2019 @04:16AM
(#20875053)
To me it'd have been immensely helpful. If there had been 2 manufacturers with a logo (or a clear spec), I'd certainly have bought from them.
Re:USB4 Specification
by Dylan16807 on Tuesday September 03, 2019 @08:15PM
(#20872721)
When it so blatantly doesn't work, it'll get called out in reviews and possibly delisted. It's really easy to stamp the actual capacity on a cable, and there's not much incentive to lie.
With a mix of capabilities, it may not be as simple as "doesn't work". Imagine a cable that 95% of reviewers say work just fine, but 5% say doesn't work at all. Maintains a 4.7 star rating or whatever.
I'm suggesting that they could mostly do fine with lying blatantly about capabilities in hardware. It would take very close analysis to find that it only had some of the capabilities advertised.
Trusting vendors to be honest in declaring capabilities is not always the best of all possible approaches, historically.