Hacker News Reader

Comment by gumby | Hacker News Reader

In classic USB committee style, they try to do the right thing and still bungle the naming/marketing.

Just like the absurd “hi-speed/super speed” debacle, they fail to mention what people really want to know:

“Will this drive my monitor?” — bandwidth tells me most of what I need to know but to the average user it makes no sense.

“Is this a fast cable for my external drive”? “Is this really expensive cable overkill for my external drive?” Sorry, most people will have to guess, and will get the more expensive one “just in case”

“Will this work with my YYY” (i.e. “Does this have the alternative mode I need” — who knows?

“Will this charge my XXX?” - this is mostly right TBF: if device wants Y watts, choose a charger and cable with that number or larger. The knowledgeable user may be able to “trickle charge” their device in a pinch but not everyone needs to know this,

View on HN

Isn't charging also complicated by some fast-charge protocols? I know the phone accessory companies are always saying things like "Supports Qualcomm Quick Charge 23.45 with Sprinkles" in addition to "18 watts". I think the cables might more or less be the same, but it's still a complex ecosystem question.

I have two devices with USB-C chargers. I can make a reasonable guess that the bullion-cube sized charger provided with the phone isn't gonna be able to supply a thirsty 15" laptop, but will the 65-watt laptop brick be capable of the right wiggle-dance to convince the phone to quick charge, or will I plug it in overnight and find it saying "62% - charging slowly" when I check in the morning? I end up carrying both when I travel, eliminating the convenience that USB-C promised.

I'm also going to go out there and say that USB-C laptop charging is stupid when most devices are limited on their USB-C ports. On my laptop, I can apparently use a USB-C to DisplayPort cable to get 4k/60 output (while the HDMI is limited to 4k/30). But now I've got no way to charge it.

I wonder if PoE could be delivered through a docking station as an alternative means of charging a laptop.

>On my laptop, I can apparently use a USB-C to DisplayPort cable to get 4k/60 output (while the HDMI is limited to 4k/30). But now I've got no way to charge it.

On my old-ish XPS I've mitigated this limitation with this 18 Euro cable that unifies display-port and USB-C power delivery:

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005001632109069.html

Works like a charm.

>I'm also going to go out there and say that USB-C laptop charging is stupid when most devices are limited on their USB-C ports.

USB-C charging isn't stupid, it's actually super convenient; what's stupid is laptop manufacturers who cheap out on ports and display outputs to save $10. The 4K@30Hz HDMI 1.4 ports are a killer when I still see them in 2021. But hey, manufacturers do this crap since the technology clueless bean-counters in megacorps fall for the cheap laptops with crippled ports scam if they see a saving of $10 per machine on the 10K unit fleet. For the same reason they still sold you 720p TN displays on some laptops until recently. And I think some still do in developing countries if you ask for them. Crazy, I know.

> On my laptop, I can apparently use a USB-C to DisplayPort cable to get 4k/60 output (while the HDMI is limited to 4k/30). But now I've got no way to charge it.

I don’t know what laptop you have. DisplayPort is native to USB C cabling and the Type C connector is the modern DisplayPort connector.

I have my Mac plugged into a Thunderbolt display that uses DisplayPort to display the image and also powers the computer. This has been the original vision going back the the lightpeak days.

Your Mac has the more expensive Thunderbolt; Thunderbolt capablities go beyond USB-C.

For computers with USB-C only the situation is more complicated.

Thunderbolt == USB 4 they are now different brand names for the same thing.

While Thunderbolt 3 could be the same as USB 4[*], USB 4 is not the same thing as USB-C.

And then there's also Thunderbolt 4.

* - it is really not. While USB4 is based on TB3, it made some TB3 parts optional. For example, USB4 is required to support 20 Gbps at minimum, while TB3 does 40 Gbps for all implementations.

I have a Lenovo E585. The monitors I have don't have Type-C, they have the "Rectangle with one corner cut off" connector, so you use that type of cable. I don't believe that setup is designed for charging at all.

If they haven't done it yet, I expect to someone see a monitor with a built-in hub AND Type-C connectivity. They will be returned by the hundreds as people plug their keyboards and flash drives into the video socket and wonder why nothing comes up.

> Isn't charging also complicated by some fast-charge protocols? I know the phone accessory companies are always saying things like "Supports Qualcomm Quick Charge 23.45 with Sprinkles" in addition to "18 watts". I think the cables might more or less be the same, but it's still a complex ecosystem question.

Those weirdo proprietary protocols were intended to get around limitations of USB 3 charging capabilities over Tupe A connectors. Any phone with a Type C connector should support power delivery; if you charge it via a legacy A-C cable well yes, you’ll need the same charger you used to have.

I hope all that proprietary crap goes away soon — it also creates needless consumer confusion.

I don't think my Oneplus 3 with USB-C supports USB-PD. At least I can't find it in the specs.

It really is confusing...

You can get cheap $20 "hubs" that will do HDMI 60Hz at 4k, along with USB and power delivery on a single cable.

The caveat is USB will be restricted to USB2 speeds as they are typically using display port 1.2 which takes up all 4 high speed lanes.

Its a bit of a crapshoot buying them:

https://www.reddit.com/r/UsbCHardware/comments/pama8f/awaiti...

> most people will have to guess, and will get the more expensive one “just in case”

Good. The more full-features and the less underfeatured USB cables are bought and found around - the better for everyone. I don't buy/grab a USB cable "for the drive" I expect it to do the job every time I happen to need a USB cable.

In fact I'd like a single ultimate USB-n-All logo to exist which would mean the cable is fully and reliably capable of all (including extensions like Thunderbolt) the possible USB cable usages which existed at the moment the specific generation of USB was released or became relevant.

Having the same connector for everything is not a value worth the hassle. Having the same cable for everything is.

But there are crappy expensive cables, expensive cables that aren't better than cheap ones, and great cheap ones.

What I'd like is a mark for servicable USB-C cables so everyone can just compete on price on that.

These logos kind of solve that, but personally I'd like the threshold only being the combined certification.

But at least most people can just filter on one logo and compare on that, even if they don't understand exactly what each logo entails.

> But at least most people can just filter on one logo

I doubt many people ever look at the logo. For ordinary people it's just USB and "this is a shitty cabble" if it doesn't work as they expect, geeks will look for a specs table on the page/box.

The intention is obviously good and sort of addresses the problem but nowadays (even with Micro-B, not just C) I don't feel like I can trust any logo really. I have to read the specs, the comments, consider the brand reputation and buy the best cable I can find (which is a game of luck anyway) to minimize the chance it will surprise me unpleasantly.

A 2m cable with 100W charging (the highest currently, but not for long) and video using Thunderbolt 3 is £70 inc sales tax, it's also stiffer and heavier than other cables. How many of those do you plan to just have lying around for convenience?

My XPS 15 already takes more power than that so has its own charger with a physical USB C connector (but also accepts standard USB C chargers with lower wattage). The next version will probably use the new USB C charging standard that the current cables don't support. Time to throw out all those cables I guess.

I can find cables claiming the same spec (100W, TB3, 2m) for 20-30 EUR. Less if you drop the length requirement -- 2m seems quite long, especially if you're using TB3 to connect a laptop to a display. I agree that there's a place for lower-spec cables that are cheaper and thinner.

They’re almost certainly 20gbps TB3 cables if they have sufficient signal integrity to be in spec.

Anyway, the 2m 40gbps cables I have are actually thinner, lighter, and more flexible than either of the 2m 5-10 gbps USB-C cables I have, or even some of the really short and cheap 5gbps cables that come bundles with SSDs. Active cables might be expensive, but at least they allow using higher gauge and/or less shielding for signal wires.

I use a 12 foot USB-C cable(~3.5 meters) for my VR headset as it has to be long enough to allow me to flail about while streaming PCVR.

> A 2m cable with 100W charging (the highest currently, but not for long) and video using Thunderbolt 3 is £70 inc sales tax, it's also stiffer and heavier than other cables. How many of those do you plan to just have lying around for convenience?

I would get 5 if I could be sure they really will work reliably with every device in every case possible and the standard won't change in a couple of months. I almost feel like buying an insurance against this bullshit.

And I don't think they can be so heavy to the point it would be relevant. I'd rather buy the hardest I can find as mass positively correlates with reliability in electronics.

That's one option, but not everyone has £350 to spend on cables. (Especially when next year they'll all no longer be the full-featured-est around, there will be some newer thing only newer cables do).

G-d knows I would hate to spend this much on cables and this is not a negligible amount of money for me either but I would bear this if they wouldn't change the standard every year. USB 3 persisted for long enough, I really hope this hassle with USB-C will end and the things will stabilize for some years.

> including extensions like Thunderbolt

Thunderbolt isn’t an extension, it’s USB4.

(Of course like all things USB that’s a correct but inadequate answer as straight USB4 isn’t required to support the full TB 4 bandwidth).

Not to defend this committee mess, but what else could they out except the speed? It could then be for device manufacturers to add the required speed.

With bandwidth, the monitor packaging/manual can at least simply say that you need a port and cable that both say at least 10 on it.

That's much better than the previous mess at least.

The alternative would be one new logo and a requirement that all the cables have to meet all the criteria, which would in theory "only" make cables more expensive, and in practice lead to many fake/mislabeled cables that work sometimes.

I don't know much about altmodes. What does the cable need to do to make displayport work right?

It needs the USB3 diff pairs. It is perfectly possible to have a USB2-only cable with USB-C plugs. You never know with fly by night brands where they've skimped on production costs.

I see. I think that anything with these certifications / logos would be USB3 (or 4).

I have USB cables that just work with charging, some give me USB 2.0 data and one very expensive that lets me extend my USB hub/dongle. The latter works with video and power delivery. I tried cheaper cables before and something always went wrong.

So even cables are "smart" now.

There is a specification for updating charging cable firmware.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com