USB4 Specification v2.0

Re:USB4 Specification v2.0 by bryanlarsen on Tuesday October 18, 2022 @08:50PM (#33256060)

that name is the spec name, the marketing names have been cleaned up and are much more sane: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/09/usb-if-says-goodbye-...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:USB4 Specification v2.0 by mortenjorck on Tuesday October 18, 2022 @08:57PM (#33256101)

> When those products come out, though, the USB-IF hopes they aren't introduced to consumers as "USB4 Version 2.0" or even some type of "SuperSpeed USB." After 12 years, the USB-IF no longer recommends that vendors use terms like "SuperSpeed USB 20Gbps" (for the spec called USB 3.2 Gen 2x2, for example) and instead opt for names like "USB 20Gbps."

> 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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:USB4 Specification v2.0 by tuatoru on Tuesday October 18, 2022 @10:50PM (#33256934)

Are they going to allow color-coding and icons to indicate what a cable or connector is capable of?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:USB4 Specification v2.0 by wmf on Wednesday October 19, 2022 @12:44AM (#33257782)

The new branding just has Gbps and Watts. The problem is that 99% of USB cables seem to be unlabeled knockoffs; no branding system can solve that problem.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:USB4 Specification v2.0 by guiambros on Tuesday October 18, 2022 @09:47PM (#33256423)

More sane indeed; glad they realized it was completely non-sense. Thanks for sharing; the post you linked is actually much better than OP's link USB4 specs.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:USB4 Specification v2.0 by IshKebab on Wednesday October 19, 2022 @08:15AM (#33260995)

I don't think that's a great excuse. It's find for companies to have internal and external (marketing) names for the same thing, but these are both public! They have two public names for the same thing which is arguably even more confusing.

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".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:USB4 Specification v2.0 by bryanlarsen on Wednesday October 19, 2022 @09:45AM (#33262049)

You're asking for the impossible.

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:USB4 Specification v2.0 by IshKebab on Wednesday October 19, 2022 @02:51PM (#33266336)

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

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

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:USB4 Specification v2.0 by bryanlarsen on Wednesday October 19, 2022 @08:29PM (#33269506)

Those are optional features in USB4 so you might as well treat them as not existing.

[ Parent | on HN ]