News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on USB inventor explains why the connector was not designed to be reversible. Parent comment

Re:USB inventor explains why the connector was not designed ... by alanbernstein on Monday October 09, 2023 @03:44PM (#37824541)
I own a usb-c male to usb-c female extension cable that I connect to a yubikey. The yubikey only works in one orientation. I don't have any other bits to test hypotheses with, but I believe the cable was made with the symmetry problem described above.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:USB inventor explains why the connector was not designed ... by Ajedi32 on Monday October 09, 2023 @03:50PM (#37824634)
AFAIK there's no such thing as a standards compliant USB-C male to USB-C female extension cable. The very concept goes against the spec[1].

You have a point though; I'm sure there are abominations out there that abuse the USB spec in all sorts of interesting ways, they just haven't been something I've encountered in my years of using USB-C for everything.

[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/UsbCHardware/comments/10xj74r/why_d...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:USB inventor explains why the connector was not designed ... by kccqzy on Monday October 09, 2023 @04:01PM (#37824770)
You can make a USB-C hub that has only a USB-C port.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:USB inventor explains why the connector was not designed ... by skinner927 on Tuesday October 10, 2023 @12:19AM (#37828470)
Why buys a $5 cable when you can buy a $20 cable?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:USB inventor explains why the connector was not designed ... by kccqzy on Tuesday October 10, 2023 @12:59AM (#37828648)
What makes you think a USB hub shaped like a cable must necessarily be more expensive than a regular cable?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:USB inventor explains why the connector was not designed ... by crote on Tuesday October 10, 2023 @06:53AM (#37830538)
The need for active electronics.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:USB inventor explains why the connector was not designed ... by alanbernstein on Monday October 09, 2023 @04:00PM (#37824757)
Ah, good to know. I'm tempted to respond that this means the spec has failed to address an important use case. But I'm certainly not going to learn enough of the spec to back up that claim.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:USB inventor explains why the connector was not designed ... by Ajedi32 on Monday October 09, 2023 @04:16PM (#37824959)
You're not wrong; it's an unfortunate limitation, even though there are solid technical reasons for it. As a sibling commenter pointed out, a standards-compliant alternative would basically just be a USB hub with a single USB-C port.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:USB inventor explains why the connector was not designed ... by ianburrell on Monday October 09, 2023 @03:58PM (#37824731)
Then throw it away, it is broken. There is no way to prevent junk from not implementing the standard. The solution is not buying junk.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:USB inventor explains why the connector was not designed ... by alanbernstein on Tuesday October 10, 2023 @03:32PM (#37836434)
It is not broken. It is the best solution to a problem, even if it is imperfect.

It seems that the committee behind the spec was somehow unable to learn from decades of experience, and did not predict that people would want extension cables, and that companies would make them. That's not an actual problem for me. Not being able to reach my yubikey when I'm using my laptop at my desk, is a problem.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:USB inventor explains why the connector was not designed ... by mlyle on Monday October 09, 2023 @03:48PM (#37824606)
Usb-c to usb-c extensions are currently explicitly prohibited by standard, both because of issues like this and ways that they defeat safety mechanisms with charging.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:USB inventor explains why the connector was not designed ... by keep_reading on Monday October 09, 2023 @08:51PM (#37827365)
I have a cable like this for a device and experience the same
[ Parent | on HN ]