Hacker News Reader

It's still universal, that's why you can get a USB A to USB C cable that doesn't need any kind of chip in it.

You're crazy if you think that 4-conductor rectangular non-reversible connector was going to be the end-all be-all for USB forever. We had to upgrade eventually. Be thankful that this change is being relatively swift and reasonably future-proof. USB C should be good for quite a few more years.

View on HN

If it's an upgrade, why are people still calling it "USB"? This isn't semver; people don't ask what version of the cable you have. I still don't understand the difference between USB-1 and USB-2 except I shouldn't charge over USB-1. I don't own any USB-3 peripherals, let alone USB-C.

This is going to haunt technical support for literally decades.

I just told you why: it's still universal.

USBC is no less Universal than micro USB.

> why are people still calling it "USB"?

Because you can still run the USB 1.0, 1.1, 2.0, and 3.0 protocols over it

This may be true (and it's an important saving grace), but it's the ports and cables people interact with, NOT the protocol.

I wish they had simply called it "ngSB" or something like that. People understand the need for converters; it's the branding that's terrible.

Counterpoint: People call the USB ports on phones (micro/mini) USB, despite not being compatible with the full sized port.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com