Or! We could go one step further, and change the connector to make sure that people use them correctly. Wouldn't that be clever!?
In particular, if my Thunderbolt ports didn't support bog-standard USB, that would suck. I would need special ports which weren't as powerful, or even more dongles, or both.
As it stands, things are.. fine, actually. I have one TB cable that works on everything, and a small handful of USB-C cables which work on most things. and a USB-C-or-Thunderbolt-and-I-don't-know-or-care to DisplayPort which stays plugged into my monitor. and a USB-C-or-Thunderbolt-etc to microHDMI for my camera.
You'd need a cross product of different cable shapes for all the different available features, since the cable could support any number of them.
On top of that, the connector has mechanical constraints to handle, and some of these connector shapes will be suboptimal and undertested
"I thought I needed a USB cable"?
Also it's a huge waste if say an HDMI 2.1 cable cannot be used on an HDMI 2.0/1.4 device. People would complain about that too.
At least the nature of the problem is immediately apparent to such people the moment they attempt to plug the cable in. If the cable won't fit, they know there is nothing wrong with their computer; they didn't misconfigure anything or click the wrong button. The problem is unambiguous.
Some USB-C cables not working with some USB-C sockets leaves users feeling gaslit.
You'll get people complaining about the cable not working with their new device, and then people complaining it didn't work with their old device.
Eventually USB-C will be so capable and ubiquitous, this will be a non-factor. I don't miss the days of trying to track down the right barrel connector, micro-HDMI cable or proprietary and fragile network dongle adapter. Those weren't easier days.
At a certain point on the usability continuum, user error becomes so severe that only dementia can explain it. But USB-C incompatibilities are so far from that point that arguing otherwise seems like bad faith. These USB-C incompatibilities can bite technically inclined people with sound, sober and healthy minds.
How does it help when someone inevitably buys the USB-C cable with shape y when they need USB-C cable with shape x? It physically doesn't fit, great, but they still have the wrong cable and their device still doesn't work, not even in a degraded fashion. They still have to take it back to the store.
Typically these issues bite people who bought cheap junky cables that weren't USB-IF certified off Amazon by sorting for lowest price. If it's not working, check that your cable is certified for what your intended use case is. This applies to everything, not just USB-C.
> How does it help when someone inevitably buys the USB-C cable with shape y when they need USB-C cable with shape x? [...] They still have to take it back to the store.
It helps because they know they have to go back to the store, and aren't left wondering if the problem is actually with themselves somehow using their computer wrong. As I mentioned earlier: "Some USB-C cables not working with some USB-C sockets leaves users feeling gaslit."
People will also ignore the color coding even if it existed. Counterfeiters would add the color to add legitimacy to their incompatible products. Color coding would not physically prevent you from plugging the cable in.
The people who feel gaslit over a USB-C cable not working would probably also feel gaslit over buying the "wrong USB C cable", because they bought a "USB C cable" and "USB C should just work, why do I have to remember which of 12 different connectors my computer uses, I thought the point of USB C was a unified connector".
They might feel deceived or mislead by the packaging, but they won't have to wonder if they are somehow using their computer wrong. Particularly for people who lack confidence with computers, this means a lot.
Power: 18W, 30W, 45W, 60W, 100W, 240W
Data: No Data, 480Mbps, 5Gbps, 10Gbps, 20Gbps, 40Gbps
You also have a potential variety of modes that could influence your ability to achieve those speeds with certain devices.
Also there are no power ratings below 60W, and I don't think "no data" is a valid cable.
There are definitely "charge-only" cables being marketed.
Two markings with each having multiple variations. You will have a dozen plus combinations, that will only get more complex.
Every voltage below 20 maxes out at 3 amps. As far as cables go, 60 is the minimum watts supported.
> There are definitely "charge-only" cables being marketed.
Are they valid though?
> Two markings with each having multiple variations. You will have a dozen plus combinations, that will only get more complex.
I don't really care how many combos there are. I won't need most of them. Most of the time I just want speed or power, sometimes I want both, and it's always a minimum requirement rather than anything specific.
Perhaps for PD 2.0/3.0 but there is also legacy USB PD 1.0 and USB-C BC. During that era I believe 1.5A was minimum.
>Are they valid though?
Probably not, looks like USB 2.0 data is minimum required.
>I don't really care how many combos there are. I won't need most of them.
Just because you don't need specific combinations, doesn't mean you won't have to wade through all possible combinations to find the cable you're looking for.
Maybe non-standard connectors are actually a feature, not a bug, because everything having the same connector but not the same functionality will lead to confusion as described above.
You can find all sorts of different connectors on a cable to connect two devices together, but you still only knew that devices are/are not compatible by trying to plug them in
At least with the current setup, you are unlikely to burn out the devices by trying a cable.