There has got to be a more simple naming scheme that's easier to follow...

It's almost as if it was designed by a committee.

Alas, I suspect there are many conflicting desires here, and marketing may have something to do with it — the ability to convince customers into buying new hardware by confusing them may have something to do with it.

> If the USB-IF had its way, products using its new open standard will be described as "USB 80Gbps."

Despite the ongoing chaos of USB-IF's technical nomenclature, it sounds like they are well aware of the problem, and the consumer-facing solution they recommend doesn’t sound bad at all.

Look at that article:

> The USB-IF still recommends vendors label USB 2.0, which can take the form of USB-C, USB-A, USB-B, and more, as "Hi-Speed USB" with no performance indicator. > > "Hi-Speed USB has been around for over 20 years and is well established in the marketplace"

They are seriously under the delusion that anyone except USB nerds has even heard of "hi-speed USB".

To developers, the difference between USB 3.1 2x2 and USB 4 is material, and they need two different names.

To end users, they're identical, and different names are confusing.

Changing the labelling of USB 2.0 would be a cure worse than the disease. Approximately nobody is introducing new USB2 products, so having <1% of USB2 products use new nomenclature would only increase confusion rather than decrease it.

They're not though are they? For example USB4 supports Thunderbolt 3 and PCIe tunnelling but USB 3.2 2x2 does not.

WTF?