At least WiFi figured out how to improve.
Would love to see "USB 4" .
No ".0" afterwards, just the simpler numeral.
And if you need a bigger connector, then buy the "USB 4 XL connector" cable.
Would love to see "USB 4" .
No ".0" afterwards, just the simpler numeral.
And if you need a bigger connector, then buy the "USB 4 XL connector" cable.
I'd rather go for a (possibly faster) Ethernet with a redesigned smaller connector supporting POE. Smaller devices such as mice and keyboards could talk at PHY level while smarter ones with beefier microcontrollers could employ more and more layers of the network stack so that routing/tunneling data over the network when needed would become trivial. Security wise, there would be no physical difference between an external local disk and a NAS, but software could be used to filter devices from the network. The upside is that there would be a single stack for everything: from storage to security cameras, audio systems, data acquisition gear, sensors and actuators etc. All ports would be electrically insulated, the stack is already open and wonderfully documented, the hardware is already near realtime and there are no royalties to be paid to use that.
> My hope is that in the future — distant future perhaps — your computer will only need one wired communication technology. It will provide power on the connector like USB and FireWire, so it can power small peripheral devices. It will use IP packets like Ethernet, so it provides your wide-area communications for things like email and Web browsing, but it will also use Zeroconf IP so that connecting local devices is as easy as USB or FireWire is today. People ask me if I'm seriously suggesting that your keyboard and mouse should use the same connector as your Internet connection, and I am. There's no fundamental reason why a 10Mb/s Ethernet chip costs more than a USB chip. The problem is not cost, it is lack of power on the Ethernet connector, and (until now) lack of autoconfiguration to make it work. I would much rather have a computer with a row of identical universal IP communications ports, where I can connect anything I want to any port, instead of today's situation where the computer has a row of different sockets, each dedicated to its own specialized function.
[1]: http://www.stuartcheshire.org/TheIdeaBasket.html
Sadly, instead of using existing successful networking systems and automating the configuration, we've created a new union-of-all-possible-protocols with a new connector (or 5) and made understanding the compatibility matrix a nightmare.
That's what we need more of, a coherent vision to guide design and development. Early Apple had that, it feels like, then lost the coherence in the 2010's. The phrase "design by committee" is often used to characterize what not to do, so it seems design by a small focused group or individual tends to go in the right direction. But there must be real-world examples of successful "design committees" or "standards bodies", who avoided the gravity/entropy towards producing monsters of complexity and compromise..
Here's an idea to push for this technology. I have no way to develop this, neither the technical knowledge nor the money required, but comments welcome anyway. Essentially I would:
1- design a smaller connector that could host all Ethernet pairs plus power supply, 2- for testing purposes, build a small bridge board (a matchbox sized black box) between the socket and the
original Ethernet plug and a nearby USB port for power alone. Ethernet pairs would pass untouched (or possibly
replicated through a switch chipset+magnetics) while the bridge board would contain any necessary circuit to power 3- Now we have some cheap hardware which is easy to replicate to use on every platform, including SBCs where the Some proof of concept would be needed to demonstrate that, so here's my question: how hard would be to satisfy point [1] and build some hardware (mice, keyboards, audio etc) that can use the new network standard to show its benefits to the industry?
In this spirit I think that 'USB 4' really needs to be 'USB 4G'. Then you can have phones and the connectors use the same number. My former workmate would understand it. A '4G' cable for a '4G' mobile phone signal, that would be simple and the least techie people could understand it whilst people on HN faceplant in perpetuity.
USB '5G' would be along with '5G' phones. Everyone could be happy and cables could be fairly random, just try a selection until you get one that works, the clue being that cheaper ones for power adaptors don't let you connect your '5G port' on your computer to your screen or move data to your phone, much like mini USB now. Who reads labels anyway?
This seems like a very bad idea, the two technologies don't move at the same speed and are totally unrelated. I think it would be even more confusing for consumers.
Ethernet at least had 10Mb, 100Mb 1000Mb/Gig, etc.
> USB-IF’s recommended nomenclature for consumers is “SuperSpeed USB” for 5Gbps products, “SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps” for 10Gbps products and “SuperSpeed USB 20Gbps” for 20Gbps products