For slow to medium data, USB 2.0 is baked in to so many chips that it's hard to imagine wanting anything else.
For fast data, maybe you want a new port in some situations, but does that also have to be your only charging port?
Have you ever looked at the horror that is USB-PD? The reason you've never seen v1 devices in the real world is because the spec was impossible to implement so they had to fix it in a v2.
"Tiny" probably isn't the best word but it's straightforward enough. It can be put into tiny chips.
Compare with PCIe, which is actually sane.
Nowadays only one brand is against interoperability.
This is because they wanted you to be able to connect a computer to a camera, but also to be able to connect that camera to a printer.
IMHO it really is. For the first releases of power delivery, the IF decided to _not_ go with Apple's existing system that they developed to negotiate charging levels for iPods, iPhones and iPads. Instead they standardized another new, incompatible mechanism.
If you ever wondered why so many Apple devices and cables don't have USB logos, it is because they were left with little way to be compliant with PD 1.0 and still support literally a billion previously shipped devices and chargers at the time.
This caused a market with incompatibilities between Android and iDevice charging ecosystems, which (again IMHO) was what caused the last round of EU mandates in the first place. Qualcomm and others capitalized on various gaps with their own proprietary charging protocols, which then created a need for their chips in chargers as well.
Things really didn't even start to get fixed until rather recently, with Power Delivery 3.0 and PPS.
What if someone comes up with something just better, and doesn't want to deal with the cruft and backward compatibility requirements of USB?