[HN Gopher] USB-C cable with the bandwidth and USB type imprinte...
___________________________________________________________________
USB-C cable with the bandwidth and USB type imprinted on the
connector
Author : alphabettsy
Score : 233 points
Date : 2023-11-06 14:15 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theverge.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theverge.com)
| coldtea wrote:
| What we actually needed was the USB standards body to mandate
| this information on the USB cable for it to be labelled and sold
| as USB.
| lazide wrote:
| Random amazon/alibaba sellers ain't got time for that!
| Tagbert wrote:
| then we can avoid buying from them. A super cheap price may
| not be worth the trouble.
| coldtea wrote:
| Most expensive sellers from known brands seem to not have
| time for that either...
| vel0city wrote:
| The solution is to stop shopping Amazon/Alibaba. They make
| trash because people buy the trash. Quit buying the trash.
| lazide wrote:
| Good luck trying to shame buyers into not buying cheap
| junk! If that worked, our economy would look _very_
| different.
| Ajedi32 wrote:
| It's not mandated, but they do have specific logos available
| for cables that pass compliance testing:
| https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/usb-if_usb_type-c_ca...
|
| If consumers would stop buying cables that don't have these
| logos, that would (mostly) solve the problem.
| StillBored wrote:
| And where is the list of cables that have passed the
| compliance test and use the cable logo?
|
| I can't say I've ever seen one of the package logo's, and yes
| I've been aware of them for a while now.
|
| This is obviously a case of "mistakes were made" but I think
| the fact that they haven't mandated the logos as part of the
| license to use the USB specifications says a lot about the
| companies that run the organization. (or maybe their
| products).
|
| Edit: There is this, but no actual type-c -> type-c cables,
| https://www.usb.org/products. Oh maybe they are under "retail
| -> cable assembly" but I still can't find one with a logo,
| which is the same problem. Once I buy it, how do I know what
| it can do in a year or two when I pull it out of a pile of
| cables.
| benj111 wrote:
| Or just remember what the U is USB actually stands for.
|
| We've been through the mutually incompatible plug standards.
| USB was introduced to solve that. Now we're back to mutually
| incompatible cable standards.
| izacus wrote:
| We are not.
| emmet wrote:
| What we really need is to stop the USB-IF's reign of terror
| meepmorp wrote:
| Reign of unforced errors. There's no reason it needed to be the
| clusterfuck it currently is.
| Ajay-p wrote:
| Related to this, a group did fascinating work using a "CT scanner
| to uncover the hidden engineering differences between" Lightning
| cables.
|
| https://www.lumafield.com/article/usb-c-cable-charger-head-t...
| Sakos wrote:
| Wow, that's really interesting. I'd love to see comparisons
| between Apple and more well-known third party manufacturers
| like Anker, CSL or UGREEN.
| izacus wrote:
| They'd be the same because they've been scanning cables with
| eMarkers vs. cables without.
| crote wrote:
| Not eMarkers but retimers / redrivers. Basically, once you
| go beyond a certain length you need the cable to "boost"
| the signal. The tested cable is longer than that, so it
| needs active electronics.
| adra wrote:
| I just watched a puff piece on Adam tested comparing apple
| thunderbolt $150 cables to introductory $5-10 usb cables. They
| seemed more in love with the tech to visualize the cables than
| actuallu giving meaningful information and like for like
| comparisons.
| dist-epoch wrote:
| A lot of USB-C cables only support USB 2.0 speeds (480 Mbps = 60
| MB/s). I found out this while searching for a USB-C cable for a
| HDD enclosure. There are a ton of "charging" cables, but very few
| "fast data" cables, at least in the $10-15 range. I'm sure for
| $100 you can find a cable with everything in.
| minimaxir wrote:
| And some of those charging cables are capped at 60W too.
| lxgr wrote:
| You can definitely find decent 5 Gbps and even some 10 Gbps
| cables under $20.
|
| $100 is firmly in the "premium" cable range; you can find
| decent active 40 Gbps cables by reputable brands for around $50
| these days.
| izacus wrote:
| Yes, but that's because manufacturing faster cables costs more.
| If all cables would have to carry USB 3+ speeds, you just
| wouldn't have 10$ charging cables.
| gosub100 wrote:
| I've wondered why consumers don't usurp the naming conventions
| for USB? For whatever reason, the USB consortium completely
| screwed up with all the variants which led to headaches and money
| wasted on cables. Why not just self-organize online and apply
| meaningful names to devices.
|
| So, for instance, a 10gb USB3 with oval plug and power delivery
| could be called "USB3P", 40gb could be called "USB4P", and so on,
| regardless of what advertisers or the organization calls it
| (don't get hung up on my example name, the community could
| collaborate and vote on the best nomenclature).
|
| Tech reviewers could publish lab results of each cable SKU (and
| laptop model number) and provide lookup tables. Then sell cheap
| stickers or bands so you can label your own cables. Just
| completely bypass the standard and put the power in the hands of
| the people.
| dist-epoch wrote:
| > Tech reviewers could publish lab results of each cable SKU
|
| What are you talking about? Nobody reviews USB cables, there
| are thousands of them and too few people care to make it worth
| the reviewer time.
| martyvis wrote:
| I guess one is more than nobody.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benson_Leung
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| Has he done any in the last five years? There have been
| important spec updates, and available brands and models
| change over time.
| bborud wrote:
| > which led to headaches and money wasted on cables
|
| or as the members of the consortium would say: hey, extra
| revenue!
| jon-wood wrote:
| [Insert "now there's n+1 standards" XKCD here]
| throw932490 wrote:
| There was a backlash when Apple tried to put microchips and DRM
| into USB-C cables. I hate Apple, but I would fully support them
| on this.
|
| USB-C cable problem is 10 years old. In 2013 Google introduced
| Pixel laptop, and some guy from Google bought all USBC cables on
| Amazon, only to test them and write reviews!
| hiatus wrote:
| It's a shame, I think the posts were all on google plus and
| hard to find now.
| black3r wrote:
| Microchips in cables are already a semi-optional part of the
| USB-C standard, mandatory for charging with more than 3A... The
| backlash was against rumors that Apple was planning an
| additional paid certification program which would mean only
| cables whose manufacturers paid for Apple certification would
| be able to achieve higher speeds...
| lxgr wrote:
| Markers are also mandatory for all speeds above USB 2.
|
| This part of the spec is actually quite well thought out.
|
| It's a shame that no device I know just displays the marker
| data (e.g. a message like "this connection might be limited
| by your cable", assuming it's also possible to figure out the
| other end's highest theoretical speed, or simply the cable
| capabilities in some system menu).
| izacus wrote:
| "Cable chips" - or as they're actually called "eMarkers" are
| mandatory for all USB-C cables above basic capability.
|
| What Apple wanted was to leech on every single cable sold for
| their own profit with their proprietary licensing.
|
| You already have what you wanted - now you're just demanding
| Apple tax for no reason. Remember, you can always just buy that
| 120$ Apple cable and be a happy camper. Right now. With no
| extra DRM.
| radicality wrote:
| Think I remember that story. And then he got one cable that was
| so badly miswired it fried his laptop I think?
| exabrial wrote:
| ...or just vote with your Dollar
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| >"...or just vote with your Dollar"
|
| What do you mean by this? People can't really vote with their
| dollar when it comes to the USB Implementers Forum and the
| decisions they make.
| mrweasel wrote:
| Isn't the problem that you can't tell in advance what you're
| buying, due to crappy manufacturers and resellers.
| rini17 wrote:
| That does not help with counterfeits. We need an easy way to
| check the cable instead. Best would be if you can plug both ends
| into computer and the controller measures resistance (charging
| capability) and data bandwidth.
|
| Or at least some standalone tester, shouldn't be hard to build ,
| dunno about the bandwidth part.
| iudqnolq wrote:
| Ideally you'd want to measure actual rather than reported
| charging capacity. For about $15 you can get a USB load
| generator and a USB current monitor on AliExpress.
| dist-epoch wrote:
| How do you measure actual without risking fire.
| iudqnolq wrote:
| By being careful? If you were otherwise going to use it
| without testing you're not any worse off plugging it into a
| test setup up to your expected load.
|
| You can step up the load gradually and keep an eye on it.
|
| I would be more worried about the cheap no-brand test gear
| catching fire. I wouldn't plug my 100W charger into it.
| dist-epoch wrote:
| My point was that if you can't test safely with zero user
| intervention, adding this capability to computers will
| just cause fire incidents.
| lazide wrote:
| It wouldn't cause more fire incidents than just using the
| cable without testing, right?
|
| The tests would only run for a tiny period of time. Most
| fires come from too much current through too small
| conductors for too long. It takes time for heat to build
| up to fire causing levels.
|
| The type of time required to actually try to charge
| something.
| rini17 wrote:
| Resistance is all you need to know, actually testing the max
| current is not necessary. Or safe, even.
| iudqnolq wrote:
| You're right, I mixed up USB wall bricks which can have
| issues like the voltage dropping.
| lsaferite wrote:
| Not an EE, but I would hope that testing max current
| _would_ be safe (at least on a legit cable).
| lazide wrote:
| Those aren't the cables one would be hoping to find in
| such a test though, correct?
| lxgr wrote:
| For the newer USB-PD modes, you also need to know the
| maximum safe voltage (and related construction features,
| such as CC pins being a bit shorter to enable a safe/spark-
| free connection teardown), or you risk arcing.
| HPsquared wrote:
| Can't the host and guest measure the voltage on each end
| anyway? They'd just need to communicate it with each other.
| This would give a full end-to-end voltage drop measurement
| (including the plug and socket connections at both ends).
| bentcorner wrote:
| What I want is something similar to this [1] but also can test
| cable speeds.
|
| [1] https://www.amazon.com/Treedix-Cable-Checker-Charging-
| Type-C...
| jrmg wrote:
| I've been impressed with this:
|
| https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BS2ZS813?psc=1&ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_.
| ..
|
| The UI is a little confusing at first, but it seems to work
| well.
| LorenPechtel wrote:
| Thank you. That looks like it would test anything other than
| the 3.0 square plugs--but those you can identify by eyeball.
| archagon wrote:
| USB-C cables are supposed to contain an "e-marker" chip with
| all the relevant spec information.
| thomastjeffery wrote:
| I would rather have a counterfeit cable that is clearly
| labeled. At least then I can trivially explain the fraud that
| was committed.
|
| Without the labeling, every discussion about a counterfeit must
| include redundant clarification. Most fraudsters will take that
| as an opportunity to talk in circles.
| whalesalad wrote:
| We need to fix the version naming first. USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 is such
| a silly name.
| lxgr wrote:
| The USB-IF already recommends a branding scheme other than
| that. For the mode you mention it would be "SuperSpeed USB
| 20Gbps", for example.
| usrusr wrote:
| It's certainly much less bad now than it used to be, but the
| existence of "x1" connections (half lane count and bandwidth
| as its contemporary "x2" sibling) does undermine trust. Is a
| cable advertised with the number "20" really an x2 cable
| accurately described according to "Gen 2" metrics, or is it
| really just an x1 cable, daringly called "20" because that's
| what a gen 3x1 connection could achieve?
|
| Looking at the Wikipedia page I get the impression that the
| new naming simply ignores the x1 links.
|
| That's like an invitation for misleading product
| descriptions. Maybe it would have been helpful to assign
| slightly off but clearly confusion-resistent numbers to the
| x1 siblings? Perhaps taking a page from supermarket pricing,
| "4.99Gbps", "9.99Gbps", "19.99Gbps"?
| lxgr wrote:
| > Looking at the Wikipedia page I get the impression that
| the new naming simply ignores the x1 links.
|
| Yes, and that probably makes some sense: All compliant
| USB-C cables (other than USB 2 only) need to have two high-
| speed lane pairs, i.e. four high-speed lanes in total. (I'm
| not sure why that's the case, i.e. whether the aim was to
| avoid further confusion or if it's required for
| orientation-reversible operation in some ports).
|
| Whether the host/device actually support lane bonding or
| not is arguably not really the cable's choice, so it makes
| some sense to specify whatever the cable would support in
| an optimal configuration (i.e. maximum number of lanes used
| at the maximum supported modulation rate).
| archagon wrote:
| But you also need to know how fast your USB will be if
| you're using DP alt mode in 2 lane mode.
| lxgr wrote:
| Yes, but "USB 10Gbps (except if using 1-2 lanes of DP alt
| mode; then USB 5Gbps)" is probably a bit too much text
| for a USB-C plug.
|
| And with USB 4 and dynamic bandwidth sharing between USB
| and DisplayPort on the same physical bus this would get
| even more complicated.
| archagon wrote:
| In that sense, I think the Gen1x1/1x2 terminology was a
| bit more informative. Though still completely terrible.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| You're a bit mixed up.
|
| All USB-C cables have 4 high speed wire pairs (or 0).
| There's no such thing as a USB-C cable that limits you to
| x1. x1 or x2 is entirely up to the devices attached.
|
| So if a USB-C cable is advertising "20Gbps", you _want_
| them to be talking about x1, because that means it 's a
| _better_ cable.
|
| (And if it's not USB-C on both ends, then it's always x1.
| It's never ambiguous.)
| lxgr wrote:
| Agreed on most points, but
|
| > So if a USB-C cable is advertising "20Gbps", you want
| them to be talking about x1, because that means it's a
| better cable.
|
| is not what the USB-IF recommends - to them, a 20 Gbps
| cable is one capable of 2x2.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| Right, I mean "want" in the pleasant surprise way, not in
| the being correct way.
| InsomniacL wrote:
| The names are ridiculous:
|
| - Low-Speed & Full-Speed
|
| - High-Speed
|
| - SuperSpeed USB 5Gbps (renamed), original: SuperSpeed (Gen 1)
|
| - SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps (renamed), original: SuperSpeed+ (Gen
| 2)
|
| - SuperSpeed USB 20Gbps (USB 3.2 Gen 2x2)
|
| - USB4 40Gbps (USB4 Gen 3x2)
|
| - USB4 80Gbps (USB4 Gen 4)
|
| Not to mention
|
| - USB 1.0
|
| - USB 2.0
|
| - USB 3.0
|
| then it changes:
|
| - USB 3.1 Gen 1
|
| - USB 3.1 Gen 2
|
| Then it changes again:
|
| - USB4
|
| Then it changes again:
|
| - USB4 Gen 2
|
| - USB4 Gen 2x2
|
| - USB4 Gen 3
|
| - USB4 Gen 3x2
| lxgr wrote:
| I don't know, is this really much more ridiculous than e.g.
| the various Ethernet standards (I can never remember which
| one the "normal" Gigabit Ethernet is), mobile data protocols
| (remember HSDPA, CDMA, 1xRTT and all that?) etc.?
|
| And to the USB-IFs credit, they did eventually come around
| with the much saner bandwidth-focused names. As far as I
| know, even "SuperSpeed" and "USB 4" are now gone as speed
| designators; now it's just "USB xGbps", e.g. USB 5GBps for
| the case of what used to be "USB 3.2 Gen 1x1".
| thomastjeffery wrote:
| The good thing here is that they seem to be converging on
| names that contain the speed itself in plain text. "USB4
| 40Gbps" is as helpful as a name can get.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| If it were mandated, I guarantee that every damn cable would have
| "10GB/3.1" on them, except, maybe the big manufacturers, with
| large US presence.
|
| I wouldn't mind a good tester, but the ones that can test for
| that kind of thing are _quite_ pricey.
| HPsquared wrote:
| Need to trademark the symbols.
| nrp wrote:
| They did! I've posted this comment before:
|
| To use any of the USB-IF logos (including the official ones
| that clarify power and signal compatibility) a product has to
| go through the certification process:
| https://www.usb.org/logo-license
|
| USB-IF also maintains a list of products that are certified:
| https://www.usb.org/products The question then is, "Why is
| this still confusing?". The answer is probably that the
| popular retail and e-commerce channels are flooded with
| products that aren't certified, and consumers don't realize
| that a certification process even exists.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| This is true, but it's been my experience, that scammers
| don't pay any attention to stuff like that.
|
| It's really up to the distributors and promoters, to vet
| the products they push, but we all know how well that's
| going...
| thomastjeffery wrote:
| The problem is that you can flood the market with 2
| categories of product:
|
| 1. A cheap version that didn't bother to get certified (to
| save cost).
|
| 2. A fraudulent version that relies on the existence of a
| poorly regulated market (like Amazon) that allows
| "mistakes" in advertising details. That market is already
| flooded with cheap uncertified cables that _do_ work,
| making it trivially easy to falsely advertise cables that
| don 't work.
|
| What needs to happen is for USB-IF to _minimize_ #1 by
| making their standardization process as accessible (and
| affordable) as possible. Otherwise, the bulk of cables that
| customers are willing to buy will be uncertified.
| eschneider wrote:
| This seems like a business opportunity. It should be
| straightforward (not _easy_, but straightforward) to
| manufacture high quality, reasonably priced cables and
| sell them direct. Establish a rep for consistent quality
| & fast shipping and carve out the 'customers who give a
| shit' market.
|
| Once you've got a good rep, scale up.
| thomastjeffery wrote:
| The problem is your interface with those customers.
|
| The customers we are talking about both care about cost
| and are willing to put more effort into their search to
| find an affordable quality product.
|
| From that customer's perspective, the best method is to
| look through Amazon, Ebay, Alibaba, etc. listings to find
| every product that _claims_ their desired spec under a
| reasonable price ceiling. After that, the customer need
| only filter _out_ sketchy listings. This is most reliably
| done by checking reviews. It 's also done somewhat by
| checking the coherency of listing details: self-
| contradicting details are a common method for fraudulent
| sellers to filter for unscrupulous victims - the same
| process our scrupulous customer is performing here,
| played in reverse.
|
| So what can you do as a seller to reach this customer?
| Make detailed listings, and _get reviews_. Any more work
| than that is, unfortunately, a wasted effort.
| AprilArcus wrote:
| Cable has a nice little "3.0" logo embossed, but don't those
| fools at Elgato know that it's called USB "3.2 Gen 1x1" now?
| lxgr wrote:
| No, the consumer-facing name is "SuperSpeed USB 5Gbps".
|
| Gen 1x2 has been deprecated as far as I understand, so there is
| no more ambiguity when just referring to modes by their maximum
| data rate.
|
| USB 4 would make this even more complicated, but they
| fortunately have decided that 3x1 (20 Gbps just like 2x2) also
| does not get a marketing designation, so there's also no more
| ambiguity there.
| aaron465 wrote:
| HDMI cables too!
|
| As a techie who understands that there are many different types
| of USB-C and HDMI cables depending on what you need to use it
| for, it's an incredible amount of effort to find the right thing
| to buy.
|
| When you consider that most brick and mortar stores (I'm looking
| at you, Currys PC World) massively rip you off with PS100+ gold
| plated HDMI cables, and the search results on Amazon are filled
| with knock-off Nigel rubbish (or worse, listings that out-right
| lie to you)... it's a total minefield!
|
| Imagine what it's like for the average consumer! A complete
| disaster!
| lxgr wrote:
| This would be difficult with HDMI cables - unlike USB-C,
| they're not electronically marked.
|
| Only HDMI 2.1 introduced link training (before that it was just
| the source picking a resolution that the sink supports and
| hoping for the best!), but even that is an end-to-end thing;
| the cable is not part of the conversation, so you wouldn't know
| if the cable is bad or the socket/internal wiring beyond the
| cable on either side.
| notyourwork wrote:
| Most (all? But I'd have to double check) of my hdmi cables
| have the version printed on the cable jacket. Seems entirely
| sensible to do.
| falcolas wrote:
| All but one of mine. The one has a plastic braid
| "protecting" the cable, which hides any potentially useful
| markings.
|
| I just had to go through the "do I have any good HDMI
| cables" dance, and the answer was effectively no.
| lxgr wrote:
| Oh, sorry, I thought this was in the sub thread about "why
| not mark cables in software"!
|
| Fully agreed - the maximum supported data rate would be
| even more important to be printed on the cable for HDMI.
|
| One reason I could see why manufacturers would be hesitant
| to do this is that some future improvements might not have
| higher requirements for cabling, so the printed data rate
| might be underselling actual capabilities.
| vel0city wrote:
| As a consumer I'd much rather have a cable rated for one
| level and end up actually supporting more than not having
| any information at all.
| cogman10 wrote:
| Monoprice is where it's at for cables. I've never went wrong
| with them and always get what I want.
| jd3 wrote:
| I personally prefer the aesthetics of the white Amazon Basics
| [0] and/or Infinite Cables [1] hdmi 2.1b [2] 48gbps cables,
| but as long as they're certified and pass the totalphase
| cable test I guess it doesn't really matter
|
| [0]: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08BS181P2
|
| [1]: https://us.infinitecables.com/products/ultra-high-speed-
| hdmi...
|
| [2]: https://www.hdmi.org/spec21sub/ultrahighspeedcable
| moduspol wrote:
| Especially tedious on Amazon when you have a seller list the
| same cable in various lengths. The reviews are all commingled,
| so you'll get plenty of valid five star reviews for the short
| cables while the long ones don't support the bandwidth.
|
| And who knows how many reviews are from non-techies who are
| just getting a picture on the screen and leave a five star
| review without knowing / caring if they actually got HDR or
| not.
| david422 wrote:
| I hooked up a new monitor and had the hardest time trying to
| figure out why things weren't working. Finally swapped the HDMI
| cable and it worked perfectly. Gah.
| blueflow wrote:
| Idea: Lets give them different plugs so they don't fit if they
| don't match.
|
| [current variant of "suggest previous status quo as improvement"]
| gedy wrote:
| But see there's _no room_ (when we bevel the laptop edges up to
| give a false impression of thinness)
| marcosdumay wrote:
| They have the same plug so we can choose anyone we want to use.
| It's way better than the previous "oh, no, my computer only has
| 1 parallel port, we can't connect this one".
| jon-wood wrote:
| Annoyingly while that's true on Apple devices there's a
| plethora of cheap laptops where only one of the USB-C ports
| is capable of DisplayPort, and a different one can do USB-PD.
| Good luck working out which is which.
| izacus wrote:
| And there's many more laptops where all of them work. And
| on all of them the ports are clearly marked and will always
| support at least USB3 speeds.
| fassssst wrote:
| Terrible idea. Most of the time I just want to charge stuff,
| which any old USB-C mostly works fine for up to like 60 watts.
| And very few peripherals actually need more than like USB 2.0
| speeds.
| jack_h wrote:
| All of this talk about testing and labeling doesn't make sense
| to me or likely any layperson. I don't want to have to know
| what capabilities a cable needs and then compare it to a label
| and I _really_ don 't want to have to test a cable to see if it
| will work for my intended use case.
|
| I want to be able to grab any USB cable and have it work
| regardless of my intended use. If that is impossible because
| the standard is so complex then we really should have different
| connectors. The entire point of it being universal is that
| regardless of circumstance it will work. Somehow that has
| morphed into the connector being universal while the actual
| utility of each cable is not; the latter of which is the only
| thing people really care about.
| izacus wrote:
| Not being able to plug a mouse or a keyboard into a 40GBps
| USB4.0 laptop connector just because those devices only need
| the USB2.0 protocol is a dumbarse idea.
|
| Just like having to pay for a 40GBps USB4 controller in a
| mouse which needs USB 1 speeds.
|
| Despite all the whining here from "hackers", the current
| situation is undoubtedly better.
| thomastjeffery wrote:
| So long as the port itself is full-featured, it's good to keep
| the plugs the same.
|
| The real issue here is with our marketplaces. Amazon in
| particular is notorious for allowing counterfeits with very
| little recourse available to the end customer. This has heavily
| incentivized uncertified products, because there is not enough
| value in accurate advertising to pay for certification in the
| first place. Shoppers who care know to trust reviews instead of
| listings. Shoppers who do get a fraudulent cable will just get
| a refund; and the seller will just keep selling bullshit.
|
| The marketplaces that care about accuracy _love_ this
| situation. They get to take a larger cut from heavily
| overpriced cables, because they can brag about certification.
| Why would Best Buy ever try to get more competition? That would
| only hurt their margins.
| spaceywilly wrote:
| What a mess... couldn't this be done in software instead? As in,
| if you try to charge your phone with a cable that doesn't support
| fast charging, the phone could detect it and pop up an alert. I'm
| not sure the average consumer would know what to make of these
| labels, and that's assuming the cable manufacturers would comply
| and put accurate labels in the first place.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| That's way too slow and way too late. It doesn't help finding
| the cable in a drawer, and it certainly doesn't give you any
| assurance it's a power-only cable before plugging in some
| unknown power supply.
|
| But yeah, let that happen too. It's also useful.
|
| > assuming the cable manufacturers would comply and put
| accurate labels in the first place
|
| Putting the wrong label on the cable is plain simple fraud. You
| can easily get some civil recourse, and if you are feeling
| revengeful, you can make a criminal complaint against the
| seller. Compare that with our current situation.
| lazide wrote:
| Good luck perusing that course of action with a random Amazon
| or Alibaba seller.
|
| A well known brand? Sure. But those are not generally the
| source of the problems because of that.
| lxgr wrote:
| That's how it's already done. I don't know why no device
| actually exposes that information, but the e-marker in every
| USB-C 3.0 (or beyond) cable tells the device exactly that: The
| highest supported physical data rate and charging speed.
| spaceywilly wrote:
| There you go. Seems like software could display this in a
| much more useful way than these labels ever could. Even the
| example in the article isn't complete, it lists the data rate
| but doesn't say anything about the amperage support for
| charging.
|
| Just a simple information window that lists the max charging
| Wattage and data transfer speed of the current
| cable/charger/device configuration would suffice.
| city41 wrote:
| My Pixel warns me when it is "charging slowly".
| SAI_Peregrinus wrote:
| But it doesn't warn "charging slowly because the cable
| you're using doesn't support fast charging" vs "charging
| slowly because the charger you're using doesn't support
| fast charging". It tells you there's a problem, but not
| what the cause is even when it can determine the cause.
| rtkwe wrote:
| That's not true for PD charging cables though right? They are
| generally USB2 speeds if they have data pins beyond what's
| required for PD charging at all but they're just direct
| electrical cables without any chips as far as I know.
|
| https://www.lumafield.com/article/usb-c-cable-charger-
| head-t...
| lazide wrote:
| Devices could (and usability wise I wish they would!) show
| low data speed only warnings. No OS's I know of currently
| do.
|
| The device definitely knows, all the information is
| accessible in the USB info if you know the special tools to
| run to dump it.
| lxgr wrote:
| At least Windows used to do this for USB 3 (before USB-C
| was a thing) devices plugged into an USB 2 port when the
| computer also had USB 3 ports available: https://superuse
| r.com/questions/1022542/windows-10-display-a...
|
| It would seem that with e-markers in USB-C cable (and
| assuming that USB 3/4 still expose device information
| like that to the host), an extended version of this
| should be possible: "Your computer and this device
| support x Gbps, but your cable caps out at y Gbps; use a
| better cable to make this connection faster".
| lazide wrote:
| They can do the opposite direction too, detecting a
| USB2.0 cable when a higher speed one is needed. It still
| boggles my mind that no corresponding warning pops up.
|
| Even without an e-marker, there has to be some way to
| know that the client device can support a higher speed
| and warn the user - it seems like USB device capabilities
| supports that?
|
| [https://developer.apple.com/documentation/iokit/1425036-
| usb_...]
| lxgr wrote:
| Per the specifications, the absence of an actual chip
| serves as a one-bit marker indicating "this cable supports
| 3A and USB 2 speeds" :)
|
| 5A already needs a marker, even at USB 2 speeds!
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| At least the label on the cable is useful for those of us that
| understand and doesn't intrude on those that don't
|
| A popup we all have to suffer wether we want to see it or not
| or if we understand it or not. Oh guess I could disable it
| right? Yeah another task for me to do on every device I own, no
| thanks.
|
| This is an excellent design solution, my only comment would be
| the type layout could be nicer.
| hiddencost wrote:
| Having the wrong USB cable has been the hardest part of my hobby
| electronics projects.
|
| Maybe I should try harder projects.
| JohnBooty wrote:
| This is very cool.
|
| I've resorted to physically labeling them with a Brother label
| printer.
|
| For MacOS, here's a terminal snippet to determine the current
| charging capacity of a cable.
| /usr/sbin/system_profiler SPPowerDataType | grep Wattage
|
| This will tell you the charging capacity of your current
| cable+charger combo. In other words, a 100W charger + 100w cable
| will return "Wattage (W): 100". A 100W charger + 15W cable will
| return "Wattage (W): 15". A 15W charger + 100W cable will return
| "Wattage (W): 15".
|
| So, you kinda need a charger that meets or exceeds the power
| delivery of the cable you're testing. And I believe this relies
| on the cable's self-identified capacity via the e-chip or
| whatever, so it could be fraudulent if you have some dodgy cable
| from an unknown manufacturer? But it's better than nothing.
|
| There is a lot of info in `/usr/sbin/system_profile`, not sure if
| there's other bits related to identifying USB-C cable capacity.
| I'm sure there has to be _something._
| lxgr wrote:
| I've also tried to get that information on macOS before, but
| annoyingly all promising (i.e. related to the SOP protocol
| which is how the computer talks to the chip in the cable) log
| lines seem to be redacted.
|
| This is doubly frustrating in that it shows that it's clearly
| available to the OS (and not handled by a lower layer
| controller), but also leaves the faint hope that Apple might
| implement just such a feature in the future.
| bartvk wrote:
| My suspicion is that this is security related. I'm on the
| lookout for a brand-name quality Thunderbolt-capable cable
| with an LCD showing current power.
| lxgr wrote:
| Who's security? Is Apple trying to protect me from the
| information that my $20 USB 4 cable is just as good as
| their own $69 version?
| MagerValp wrote:
| The system logs are redacted by default as they were a
| common source of information leakage. You can enable
| unredacted logs with a configuration profile:
| https://superuser.com/questions/1532031/how-to-show-
| private-...
| csdvrx wrote:
| > So, you kinda need a charger that meets or exceeds the power
| delivery of the cable you're testing. And I believe this relies
| on the cable's self-identified capacity via the e-chip or
| whatever, so it could be fraudulent? But it's better than
| nothing.
|
| Get a cable with a watt meter display included. I use that on
| my Fold: https://csdvrx.github.io/ section 0.4 :
| https://csdvrx.github.io/X1_Fold_(20RL_20RK)_Optimization/pa...
|
| Such cables cost about $10 on amazon, or $2 on aliexpress.
| Amazon link for the reference: https://www.amazon.com/Charging-
| Display-Braided-Compatible-G...
| lxgr wrote:
| These can be useful, but ultimately a watt meter tells you
| what the device is actually using at the moment, which is not
| only limited by the cable and source capabilities, but also
| by the power sink device's current needs.
| criddell wrote:
| Mcdodo isn't a member of the USB IF group and their products
| aren't certified. I wouldn't have much faith that the number
| in the display is correct.
| chx wrote:
| Linux has a very nice and super informative way to do this too:
| https://github.com/Rajaram-Regupathy/libtypec/wiki/lstypec-:...
|
| It relies /sys/class/typec:
| https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-c...
| which does not always exist
| https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=274618
| https://community.frame.work/t/tracking-controlling-power-di...
| https://www.reddit.com/r/UsbCHardware/comments/z92jgf/when_d...
| etc.
| Feathercrown wrote:
| > Linux has a very nice way to do this [...] which does not
| always exist
|
| Some things never change haha
| Hamcha wrote:
| I've also started doing this, with USB-C to C cables you might
| want to get something like the C2C caberQU cable tester as a
| lot of cheap type c cables don't actually wire all the
| conductors.
|
| Also I like to note the cable length on the label, measured by
| myself since manufacturers always count the connectors on the
| total cable length and on some of them that can add up to
| almost 10cm
| izacus wrote:
| That tells you wattage but not transfer speed - e.g. most 100W
| power USB-C cables are USB2.0 (yes, Apple ones too).
|
| To you have a matrix - charging speed and capability.
| michael1999 wrote:
| Thanks. Now I'm a bit freaked out to realize that tiny CalDigit
| PD cable is rated to 100W. Yikes. The future is wild.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| For a cable 1-2 meters long, a conductor 1mm across is more
| than enough to carry 5 amps.
| michael1999 wrote:
| The whole cable is smaller than 5mm diameter. Less rubber
| jacket, and shield, it might just be 3mm inside. And there
| are ~18 lines in there? I expect the power lines are larger
| than the differential signalling lines, but I'm just
| realizing how much I'm trusting this vendor.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| That's much more than big enough. 1mm diameter was the
| overkill number, and 3mm diameter is nine times as big
| while you only need two of them. Even accounting for
| insulation and the smaller data wires, that's plenty.
| david422 wrote:
| I've been using a nice Brother labeler for years to label all
| my power plugs. eg this power plug goes to this router etc.
| since a lot of them are subtly different.
|
| I once mixed up two different netgear router power plugs - a
| new version and an older version. I had the newer netgear
| router hooked up to the old plug - which gave slightly less
| amperage - and everything worked fine until it would randomly
| die. It took me a long time to figure out that it was dying
| when it was under load and trying to pull more power than was
| available.
| shrikant wrote:
| You can get this information from the "System Information" app
| in macOS as well. (At least, that's what it's called in
| Ventura...)
|
| It should be under Hardware -> Power, in the section titled "AC
| Charger Information".
|
| You _should_ also be able to see connected USB-C cable capacity
| under Hardware - > USB. For example, mine says the following:
| USB 3.1 Bus: Host Controller Driver:
| AppleT8112USBXHCI USB3.0 Hub: Product
| ID: 0x0813 Vendor ID: 0x2109 (VIA Labs, Inc.)
| Version: 90.11 Speed: Up to 5 Gb/s
| Manufacturer: VIA Labs, Inc. Location ID: 0x01200000 /
| 2 Current Available (mA): 900 Current Required
| (mA): 0 Extra Operating Current (mA): 0
| USB2.0 Hub: Product ID: 0x2813 Vendor ID:
| 0x2109 (VIA Labs, Inc.) Version: 90.11 Speed:
| Up to 480 Mb/s Manufacturer: VIA Labs, Inc.
| Location ID: 0x01100000 / 1 Current Available (mA): 500
| Current Required (mA): 0 Extra Operating Current (mA):
| 0
| ender341341 wrote:
| Any way to do similar for DP/HDMI? I've thrown away multiple
| cables cause I couldn't tell if the cable was just old and
| didn't support what I needed vs somehow broken. Looking at
| system report I only see `Graphics/Displays` which show's
| monitor capabilities but not cable. (I'm not actually sure if
| DP/HDMI advertise their capabilities in the same manner as
| USB 3).
|
| Much like GP I've taken to labeling newly bought cables with
| a label maker to avoid wasting them in the future due to
| being unknown.
| greggsy wrote:
| There's an okay video from LTT where they hire or buy an
| expensive tester for HDMI cables. Seemed to be a a bit of a
| dark art.
| ender341341 wrote:
| yeah I've seen that, would be awesome to have access to
| it but not worth the cost to me, was less interested in
| stress testing does this 100% meet spec and more
| interested in "this labels itself as HDMI v{X} with
| optional features {y}, {z}".
|
| I mostly care as my current monitor requires HDMI
| 2.1/Display Port 1.4 and going through my random cables
| drawer was extremely tedious. As I had way to many
| cables.
| archagon wrote:
| Apparently, USB-C cables are supposed to contain an "e-marker"
| chip that can tell you its bandwidth, wattage, and other specs.
| It would be nice if this information showed up somewhere when
| you plugged in an empty cable into your Mac.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| There should be no such thing as a 15 watt cable, by the way.
|
| Every cable is a 60 watt cable by default. 20 volts, 3 amps.
|
| Cables designed for 5 amps have a marker chip in them. If they
| follow the old spec they support 20 volts, and if they follow
| the new spec they support 48 volts. There's not much incentive
| to fake these because you still have to put a chip into it and
| 60 watts is fine most of the time.
| emgeee wrote:
| Anecdotally I was able to get this command to return 8 watts
| by using a usb-A -> usb-C cable meant for charging a mouse.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| That sounds like you're hitting the limit from non-charging
| ports. Normal A to C should allow much more. But either way
| that's a special case here, because the limits are entirely
| on the USB A end. That's not a proper C cable.
| lxgr wrote:
| An A-to-C cable is limited by what an USB-A host can
| supply, since that's the limit which a compliant C-device
| sensing an A-to-C cable or adapter would observe.
|
| Depending on the combination of host and device, that
| would be 4.5W for standard USB 3, 2.5W for USB 2, up to
| 7.5W for USB Battery Charging (BC), or possibly more for
| non-USB-C PD (highly unlikely, since it would require
| legacy PD signalling on the voltage pins, which almost no
| USB-C devices support as far as I know).
|
| I strongly suspect it's USB BC, rounded up to 8W by
| Apple.
|
| As an aside: Apple's USB power controllers used in their
| laptops are surprisingly flexible based on my
| observations: In addition to the obvious USB-PD, they
| support at least USB BC and Apple's proprietary USB-A
| resistor-based protocol. I was able to successfully
| charge a MacBook Pro at 12W and even 5W supplied by an
| old iPad/iPhone charger and the appropriate combination
| of adapters once.
| greggsy wrote:
| This is incredibly helpful, thank you
| alberth wrote:
| Wasn't this solved last year?
|
| Official new logos below:
|
| https://tidbits.com/2022/09/29/usb-simplifies-branding/
| Arnavion wrote:
| Yes, see the "Cable logo" column in
| https://www.enablingusb.org/certification , though it's still
| the manufacturer's option whether to put the packaging logo on
| the packaging or the cable logo on the cable or both.
| ajmurmann wrote:
| If I read this correctly, those logos are for "packaging and
| marketing". Unless they are on the cable itself, as Elgato
| does, this is gonna be of little help when I'm looking for a
| cable in my cable box even six months later. Or if you have
| shared cables in a household.
| nottorp wrote:
| And now, dear usb consortium: why isn't this mandatory in the
| -ing standard?
|
| Oh I know, because you allowed usb 2.0 normal speed and super
| speed. Were you bribed at least or did you do it for free?
| aerophilic wrote:
| It occurs to me some sort of labeling system really should be
| part of the standard.
|
| I was thinking it could be as simple as colored bands (with maybe
| dots/dashes for those color blind folks).
|
| If such a standard could be adopted, it would make all our lives
| less of a headache....
| cornedor wrote:
| This has been done for years on HDMI/Cat cables, but instead of
| on the connector on the cable itself. Why make the connector
| larger to print very little detail on it, if you have literally a
| whole meter to write complete sentences.
|
| This is roughly the same solution, but in my opinion more poorly
| implemented. So please make more USB cables like HDMI or Cat
| cables, print all the relevant info on the cable.
| skinner927 wrote:
| Because then how will you wrap it in pretty textiles?
| unethical_ban wrote:
| You jest, but flexibility and endurance is important for
| consumer cables, and except for LAN parties, Ethernet doesn't
| get moved much (and is much cheaper to replace).
| TheRealPomax wrote:
| But what's your solution for braided cables? Because I'll pick
| braided over "just plastic" any day of the week, and there is
| no way you're going to cleanly print information on the braid.
| vel0city wrote:
| I've got many graphic tshirts with text on fabric. I don't
| see why it's impossible on braided cables.
|
| Even a quick laser etch could be done after the braid. It
| doesn't need to be super high resolution.
| thomastjeffery wrote:
| I would be happy with either or both.
| bgm1975 wrote:
| Considering the number of features and capabilities that can be
| given to a usb-c cable, I think a better alternative would be to
| take cue from the humble resistor and use color coded bands
| around each of the ends. Text can only really cover 1-2
| capabilities and it'd be nice to have a way to know exactly what
| a given cable can do, even if it requires a decoder ring.
| patmorgan23 wrote:
| Might not always require a recorder ring! You could label ports
| with the same color if it's a capability like displayport.
| skinner927 wrote:
| This is also an international solution
| reidjs wrote:
| But not accessible. It's generally better to use colors AND
| designs (dashed, dotted, etc) over color to prevent color-
| blind issues, what I see as red may differ from what you see
| as red.
| Tempest1981 wrote:
| Decoder ring made me think QR code
| andix wrote:
| If I understand it correctly most parameters can be negotiated
| by the usb controller of a device. It should be possible to
| plug it into a device and see the specs of the cable and the
| charger somehow.
| LorenPechtel wrote:
| Yeah. A lot of IT people would pay for a box that you plug a
| USB cable into and it tells you what the cable can and can't
| do. Simply reading out the specs, not actually testing
| whether it can perform to spec. (Although a simple test of
| the latter should be possible. Baby computer, it sends data
| at all supposedly supported speeds and sees if it gets the
| results. That would catch the ones that couldn't but could
| miss a flaky one.)
| java-man wrote:
| Always been a problem to differentiate one gray from all other
| gray colors...
| danbulant wrote:
| It'a weird that this isn't normal. I bought an "AlzaPower" cable,
| which is just a rebrand of some chinese manufacturer by a local
| reseller ("czech amazon"), and they have their wattage as well as
| speed on them (100W/5Gbps). Then also a samsung usb c cable,
| which was pure white, has nothing on it and doesn't seem to
| support any fast charging or higher speeds..
| usrusr wrote:
| 5Gbps is conveniently unambiguous, but 10 and 20 exist in
| variations that use four lanes and in variations that use two
| lanes. According to Wikipedia, the symbols with a number are
| only specified for the four lanes version, but there's little
| doubt that half-width cables will also be be advertised with
| whatever bandwidth latest devices could funnel through.
| brotchie wrote:
| At this point I'd probably pay ~$100 / year for a subscription
| service that annually sends me 4-5 cables of the "max rating." I
| don't want to waste my life keeping on top of the every-changing
| spec, but would 100% just turn-over my cables once a year to
| ensure highest performance.
|
| Perhaps change their color every year (red -> green -> blue ->
| purple) to keep track of which are the latest cables.
|
| I have dozens of almost identical black USB-C cables :|
| AdamN wrote:
| Just get certified Thunderbolt 4 and be done with it then.
| Cheaper is TB3. If you stick with the legit ones you're done
| and it will basically support everything.
| technofiend wrote:
| That's my solution: I just buy Caldigit TB4 cables and I know
| they will do everything required.
|
| There's also the Dockcase Smart USB-C Hub 10-in-1 Explorer
| which exposes what's actually happening across your various
| connections including USB-C. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to
| support video passthrough over USB-C, so it isn't perfect.
| CYR1X wrote:
| Oh man I think this is a great idea too. Would be a great way
| to support some independent maker. Somebody like a level1techs.
| pomian wrote:
| Exactly what I was thinking yesterday. Why not continue with
| different colors on the USB plugs, as they sort of did with
| blue for usb c or was it USB 3? Or. Ah. Can't keep up.3.1?
| (Some motherboards tried, but there weren't cables in same
| color.)
| GloriousKoji wrote:
| You mean USB 3.2 Gen 2x1 aka USB 3.1 Gen 1 aka USB 3.0 aka
| Super Speed USB?
|
| Or do you mean Thunderbolt 3 which supports USB 3.2 Gen 2x1
| aka USB 3.1 Gen 2 which was called SuperSpeed+ USB but is now
| SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps?
|
| Or the newest USB4 Gen 4, USB4 Gen 3x2, USB4 Gen 3x1, USB4
| Gen 2x2 and USB4 Gen 2x1 which supports Thunderbolt 3?
|
| Maybe they could start with the upcoming Thunderbolt 5 which
| follows the USB4 2.0 spec, not to be confused with USB4 Gen
| 2(x1/x2).
|
| I'm not sure we have enough colors to enumerate the different
| type of USBs. Going by the naming schemes it seems like
| there's already not enough numbers. /s
| dwaite wrote:
| Most of those are market noise because of manufacturers
| wanting to sell things which aren't under conformance.
|
| Thunderbolt 4 and 5 are external conformance marks, because
| the USB-IF can't be motivated to stop the abuse their own
| members are causing.
|
| For USB-C to C cabling, there is only bandwidth and power
| capacity. The operational modes supported by the devices
| you are connecting with that cable is out of your control
| (except purchasing replacement hardware).
| quietbritishjim wrote:
| > Most of those are market noise because of manufacturers
| wanting to sell things which aren't under conformance.
|
| No, most of them are from the USB consortium who gave a
| new name to all the old standards with each new standard.
| crote wrote:
| All the "Gen" bullshit was explicitly considered to be an
| _internal_ designation. You can blame tech journalism for
| bringing that out into the world, because the USB IF never
| promoted that as a marketing term.
| jquery wrote:
| Alongside this amazing subscription service, I would love a
| service that provides a list of tech brands that never do any
| kind of false advertising, so that I know I can buy from them
| with confidence. Recently had a bad experience with a spate of
| SSD external enclosures that all were under-spec, and worked
| with Ex-Fat but not APFS+ (which requires 100% USB spec
| compliance to work properly). Ended up finding a brand called
| "Cable Matters" which was a bit more expensive but was up to
| spec and well worth the extra cost.
| andix wrote:
| Is there any simple way to check the capabilities of a cable,
| without using specialized equipment?
|
| For me it's always a gamble, with my devices I actually can
| barely even see how fast they are charging on a specific
| cable/charger combo. Only by measuring charge time and then
| trying to calculate how many watts they delivered.
| Night_Thastus wrote:
| Personally, no. Testing equipment is the best way if you want
| to be sure.
|
| If you buy directly from a reputable brand, you _may_ be able
| to trust what they 've said a given product can do. If you buy
| from a reseller like Amazon, that all goes out the window and
| you should assume nothing.
| andix wrote:
| I would be so happy if I could find a manufacturer that sells
| all common USB-C cables (to USB-C, lightning, micro-usb,
| mini-usb, ...) in good quality, with reliable specs, all
| common lengths and common color variations. A plus would be
| to even have the option to get one or both ends 90 degrees
| angled.
|
| Personally I prefer my charging cables to be red, really
| helps people not to trip over them. In other places the color
| preferably matches the environment.
| callalex wrote:
| Monoprice mostly fits your description.
| andix wrote:
| I need to check if their cables are available outside of
| the US. A quick search didn't look promising.
| Night_Thastus wrote:
| Anker is one I've had decent success with.
| Ajedi32 wrote:
| Worth noting the testing equipment for this isn't that
| expensive these days. You can pick up an FNB58 USB tester for
| $60.
|
| You really shouldn't have to though. At the very least every
| phone on the market ought to be able to just read the
| e-marker chip and tell you what each cable supports. Very
| annoying that they don't because the information is there and
| they have a way to read it, it's just not exposed to the
| user.
| dotancohen wrote:
| What testing equipment is practical for the home user - $10
| tops?
| Night_Thastus wrote:
| If you want a good, reliable tester, I think $10 is a bit
| limiting personally. You don't need to spend $100 but $10
| is stretching it really thin. GIGO.
| onewheeltom wrote:
| I have a gadget that maps all the wires that is helpful
| eviks wrote:
| Except no consumer should be expose to this bit nonsense, the
| units should be the ones they actually use
| micw wrote:
| Haha, there are so many parameters for USB-cables, they'd need to
| put a booklet on the connector...
| make3 wrote:
| Charging capacity too please
| Am4TIfIsER0ppos wrote:
| lol you do realize manufacturers will just lie, don't you?
|
| They'll print the usb logo or whatever they like regardless of
| licensing restrictions. Did you always check for the official
| logo on CDs and was it always standard conforming if present?
| donatj wrote:
| I have so many USB-C cables that are only capable of either USB 2
| speeds or just power that I've taken to just throwing them away
| when finding them.
|
| USB-C really made the problem worse and not better when it comes
| to incompatible connectors.
| joecool1029 wrote:
| It ultimately won't tell me if the cables are actually connected
| inside but I have two USB testers that can read and print the
| information on each emark (if it's present) in the cable, which
| is a pretty useful thing to have when grabbing a mystery usb-c
| cable. I have the avhzy ct-2 and ct-3 testers, there's a bunch of
| other distributors of the same thing as well. The FNB48 looks
| like same board, different programming.
|
| I used to be able to recommend the avhzy ones but during the chip
| shortage they started using some clone chips inside which don't
| appear to be as accurate.
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| FYI for _HDMI_ the licensing group actually forbids doing this,
| iirc. Go figure.
| tonymet wrote:
| Let's just review all the various configurations of a "standard"
| USB-C cable (usb-c is really just the connector pinout).
|
| Data channel: yes / no
|
| PD support: yes / no
|
| USB version: 2.0, 3.0, 3.1, 3.2
|
| Amperage: 3 amp, 5 amp, 6+ amp
|
| 48+ possible varieties of "standard" USB-C cable and no practical
| way to determine what you have without plugging it in.
|
| What a great "standard"!
| archagon wrote:
| Don't forget alt mode support of various kinds!
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > Data channel: yes / no
|
| "no" is violating the standard.
|
| > PD support: yes / no
|
| "no" is violating the standard.
|
| > USB version: 2.0, 3.0, 3.1, 3.2
|
| Yes, there are a handful of speeds.
|
| But I don't see a good way of avoiding that problem while
| having backwards compatibility.
|
| > Amperage: 3 amp, 5 amp, 6+ amp
|
| 6+ amp does not exist. There _are_ two 5 amp specs, but the new
| one obsoletes the old one.
| LorenPechtel wrote:
| Data channel: no is a charging-only cable, *preferred* for
| dealing with untrusted sources of power. While it might
| violate spec it has a very valid use case.
| tonymet wrote:
| you are right, i have many "primitive" usb-c devices that
| only work with a charge-only cable.
| tonymet wrote:
| thanks for the corrections which actually reinforce my point:
| it's impossible for consumers to know what cable they have.
|
| Can you remind me how 120watts is achieved? is it 24v x 5
| amps? I forget.
|
| Most cables that ship with devices are not standard. There's
| no way to know it -- and that's the USB-IF's job!
|
| USB-C is a terrible consumer experience.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > Can you remind me how 120watts is achieved? is it 24v x 5
| amps? I forget.
|
| It doesn't matter to the consumer. You either have a 240
| watt cable or you don't. But yes that's how it does it.
|
| > Most cables that ship with devices are not standard.
|
| What? That's not true at all.
| onewheeltom wrote:
| At least the connector is better.
| tonymet wrote:
| better than microUSB that's fair, but far worse than
| lightning. Engagement is terrible, it collects debris and
| it's inconsistent (often too tight or too lose).
| Johnny555 wrote:
| That's cool and very useful, should have been in the USB specs
| ("connectors shall have supported version and speed imprinted").
|
| But realistically, I can't remember the last time I cared about
| the data speed of a USB cable, I use USB cables almost 100% for
| charging. I have a few memory sticks I plug in from time to time,
| but those get plugged in direct without a cable.
| crote wrote:
| It's already part of it - see
| https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/usb-if_usb_type-c_ca...
| .
| dukoid wrote:
| I think it's pretty common to have "Cat X" printed on ethernet
| cables... Perhaps the same advanced technology could be applied
| for HDMI and USB :)
| smsm42 wrote:
| It's so refreshing to encounter a manufacturer that gives a hoot
| about users. And then I feel sadness for realizing that this
| situation should be normal and routine, and it is so much not
| that it deserves an HN frontpage when somebody finally does the
| right thing.
| dwaite wrote:
| The difference is that the USB-IF logos to indicate
| bandwidth/charging capacity on packaging and plugs require
| certification, while numbers written arbitrarily on the plug
| don't require testing and don't have to be true.
| onewheeltom wrote:
| Devices come with compatible cables. Everything else is an
| unknown.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-11-06 21:01 UTC)