For everything else the protocols are forward and backward compatible, so you just plug in the cable and it works.
My point is - the standards might be back and forward compatible. But the cables and ports definitely aren't - and your average consumer has absolutely no way of knowing. They look absolutely identical on the outside and when they don't work it's for completely non-obvious reasons.
https://www.apple.com/uk/shop/product/MLL82ZM/A/usb-c-charge...
Though, I do agree, having clear information directly on a USB Type-C cable on which features are supported would be much appreciated.
[1] https://www.apple.com/shop/product/MQ4H2AM/A/thunderbolt-3-u...
The USB logo on usb1.0 cable should be printed on the "upper" side. How many times did you inserted it the wrong way?
(I think the question you meant to ask is why the MacBook can't drive an external 4K Thunderbolt display using its included cable, which is more interesting—IIRC, it can do so through an HDMI adapter plugged into the USB-C port, but it cannot do so over a USB-C cable. This still isn't about the cable, though; you can take the MacBook's cable and use it to connect an MBP to a Thunderbolt display just fine. Instead, it's about the MacBook's combined Thunderbolt/USB-C controller not supporting the recent-enough version of Thunderbolt to have the bandwidth over the wire required to feed a 4K@60Hz display. When an HDMI dongle is plugged into the USB-C port, you're taking a direct GPU->controller->HDMI path, which avoids the anemic old-Thunderbolt bottleneck path.)
Less extreme example is how the OnePlus USB-C charger won't charge the Nintendo Switch, even though they are both USB-C certified devices.
Edit: sorry, I just realized that I could have been misunderstood. I forgot that "MacBook" is a device that exists. Obviously(to me) by MacBook I mean the MacBook Pro.
(The monitor should have a compatible cable bundled with it though. There's some major cable length limits and shielding when it comes to the highest speed stuff like monitors and eGPUs with USB-C.)
I should be able to tell by looking at a connector:
* If it's claiming to be a certified cable/device or not.
* The USB standard it conforms to (version)
* The speed of data transfer it supports
* The maximum wattage it supports
* The maximum voltage it supports
* (the connector type, but this is obvious based on shape)Physical connector technology and signaling protocol are entirely different things. I'd be fine with literally everything using the same physical connector, but knowing that I can't and shouldn't plug my 5VDC battery-charger into a 110VAC outlet.
I still have speakers that are connected by stripping a lampcord pair with my teeth, pushing a little button, jamming bare copper strands into a hole, and releasing a little button. I think you're asking for too much. Everything using one reversible connector that almost always guarantees 5VDC in a fallback mode is better than what we have today.
Can you tell by looking at it what speeds it supports? Is it USB-3 or USB-2? How about the power delivery aspect, how much power is it cable of transferring?
You might be able to tell some of those things from modern cables, if they're bragging about a speed factor, but otherwise it isn't clear.
Yes, I can determine what it is used for, because I bought it for a purpose. What you are describing is the same issue with barrel-style AC or DC wall warts, and those powered the world for a few decades just fine.
So yes, I bought a USB-C certified charger, to charge things. What does it do? It charges some things when it wants to, without providing any kind of indication why it doesn't work when it doesn't.
1. the same connector is used for a wide variety of capabilities, and it can get confusing knowing what you can use together.
2. the names of these connectors is confusing.
You're complaining about the first, and that's a very hard problem. There are huge advantages to using the same connector and cables that can support 100W of power, 5K displays and also support peripherals that retail for less than $1 and be backwards compatible with peripherals over 20 years old. The disadvantage is the confusion you mention.
The complaint in the article is about the second, the stupid naming. There's no good excuse for that. It really exacerbates the confusion from the first issue.
But now it's on us and journalists just to not use the stupid naming. They've provide "marketing" names that aren't silly, so everybody should just use them, even if it's awkward. IOW "Superspeed USB 10Gbps", not "USB 3.2 gen 2".
Well In your example the Connector and Cable, specifically cable will have to be an expensive PD 100W Cable for it to correct, if the cable were designed for the $1 peripherals it wouldn't work with the 100W and 5K Display.
The sentence would have been correct without the word cable, but without it the argument wouldn't stand. Because you just can't find a Cable with the same Connector and expect it to work with 5 / 10 / 20 years peripherals because the cable didn't support it.
This, quite honestly, sounds wasteful. I am fairly certain that manufacturing these connectors that are much better is more expensive than either the old, less sophisticated, connectors or simply new lower performance connectors.
In fact, with USB the situation should be better, since all cables except the slowest ones are supposed to have a built-in chip describing how fast they can go. So in the MacBook example, in theory it should be able to detect the issue, switch to a lower resolution, and present an on-screen warning telling you what happened and why.
Apple don't make a "USB-C data" cable - they make a USB-C charge cable, or a TB3 cable, and the TB3 one has the thunderbolt logo on each end.
They also refer to it specifically as "USB-C Charge Cable", everywhere.
IIRC it was a deliberate decision by USB-IF to not enforce any additional labels on USB cables and connectors beyond the USB logo.
Plus the good thing about USB is it just works, you don't have to worry about any tiny subset (well that's the theory anyway).
I've had enough of my monitor, mouse, keyboard and printer all using different connectors thank you very much.
Edit: Making make sense.
Personally, I've had enough with my 1yo laptop, my 3yo desktop, my 5yo peripheral and that funny dongle I need for work all having different USB cables. USB was meant to save us from having multiple connectors but has done the opposite: every year there is a new USB cable/hole design.
I cannot be the only one here who has to inspect every online purchase for high-rez pictures of the USB ports. I really don't care that my laptop has 10+Gb/w potential. I just need to know that my current equipment is physically compatible.
At least with the different connectors and cables I didn't have to worry so much and things generally worked when plugged into the right place.
[0] https://www.cnet.com/how-to/usb-type-c-thunderbolt-3-one-cab...
When USB 2.0 was introduced, it was a huge increase in speed. USB 1.1 is 11 Mbps whereas 2.0 is 480 MBps (theoretical). When this happened some camera manufacturers (Nikon I believe was one of them?) were identified as changing the marketing on their cameras to "USB 2.0". What this actually meant though was "USB 2.0 Full Speed", which is USB 1.1 speeds. USB 2.0 Hi-speed is 480.
Consumers don't need this or want it. Manufacturers just don't want to say "USB <not latest version>".
You see the same thing with AT&T deciding its LTE iPhones are 5G because they want their network to sound more impressive than it is.
It's also why the strength bars on your phone show the strongest signal (2G/3G/4G) that your phone is getting, not the one its actually using.
The truth matters. False advertising matters. Markets only work with a minimum level of trust. All of this legerdemain erodes that trust.
I'm Australian and this is one place where I think the ACCC (equivalent to the FTC/FCC rolled into one) has way more teeth than their US equivalents. The ACCC, for example, ended ISPs advertising "unlimited" ISP plans that weren't truly unlimited (which was basically all of them). This also covered ISPs with hard or soft data caps where throttling would come into play. The ACCC also took ISPs to task on the truth in advertised speeds for services (which matters are lot for xDSL).
A more sensible standard would've been something like:
USB <version><plug>
eg USB 3.1C, USB 3.0A.
Or put the letter first.
But this whole USB 3.2 Gen 1 = USB 3.1 Gen 2 or whatever is just pure nonsense.