I'm just bitter and resentful about being forced to pay thousands of dollars for an artificially scarce number.
I think most cheap devices I've tangled with use the vendor number of whoever made the chipset. (or a random one, because chineseium)
You can beg for one from a chip vendor, but they aren't really permitted to dole them out, and they will help once, but not for production distributions.
You can ignore it, make one up, or just try to take someone else's, but there be dragons that way too.
If you plan to distribute an actual electronic product under a real business name, you must first pay these trolls thousands of dollars.
It's probably a rounding error for companies who make billions of things, but for small market goods?
USB-IF says, "Get rekt nerd! Gimme yer lunch money!
In support of your point, this sentence, "I mean, the USB-C spec is really long, and probably very complicated thanks to the USB-IF committee" makes me think we probably agree more than disagree about the USB-IF.
I was probably reacting more to my own bitter experience with USB-C/3.xyz-it-even-has-electrolytes version(s).
It was relatively trivial to stand up a USB 2.x system.
USB 3.x with Type C connectors? Orders of magnitude more challenging throughout the stack. Even 99% of the Type-C connector hardware is bullshit.
I guess I'm empathizing with the opposite view that your title presents.
I truly don't care about _USB-C conformity_.
That said, I'd be embarrassed if my product that had a USB-C connector did not (at least slow) charge with a standard Type-C cable.
Eh, I don't know...
The author seems to assume the USB-IF is a good thing.
Having gone through the despicable $4,000 shakedown that is required to get a vendor id from the USB-IF, and implemented multiple devices against the outrages that are the specs, I dream about the remote possibility of living in a post-USB world someday.
Yes, I was around in the bad old days before USB...