[Holkin]

USB-IF has no plans to include magnetic retention in the spec for USB. The onus is on manufacturers to implement this on their devices and cables if they wish for this to become a recurring feature on the market. There might be a more detailed reason as to why and if you want, I can seek an official response from the USB-IF team and their association management company, VTM Group.

[pininja]

Thank you for the offer. It would be interesting to hear their response. It’s seems there are a lot of people who like magnetic retention. I miss MagSafe :)

[exikyut]

That would be awesome. If I were to say anything, it would be to emphasize that given a) the overwhelming consensus of interest from technical niches for magnetic attachment AND b) Apple's apparent acceptance of the current general status quo, it will not be long before general customer demand for magnetic coupling reaches a tipping point - while completely un-standardized.

One only needs to glance at USB 3.0, 3.1 and 3.2, the rise of 4.0, ThunderBolt, the current cable disaster, etc, to appreciate why adequate standardization would be a net positive for the market (less friction, better adoption - benefiting consumers _and_ vendors), and provide for smoother industry adoption going forward.

I understand that USB-IF standardized all the plug formats. This was critical to get right in 1999, otherwise nothing would have interconnected properly and USB would never have caught on. If we are in a similar situation today, standardization of magnetic coupling is no less critical.

Beyond the technical factors, standardizing magnetic attachment critically prevents vendor lock-in by eliminating the value proposition for introducing unique and deliberately incompatible designs. Without standardization, there is currently unlimited potential behind establishing vertically integrations (walled gardens) around custom designs. A great example of where this can benefit vendors while fragmenting the market and creating terrible user experience is the charger industry, which the EU recently began to enforce stronger restrictions on to try to eliminate e-waste (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22204174). USB-IF is likely familiar with this case.

Given the huge convenience factor and the practically infinite ways magnetic coupling attachments could be designed, it's plausible that USB might end up in a world of standardized plug-based connectors next to some n>1 quanity of vendor-specific approaches to magnetic attachment. (This is already happening, albeit as USB-IF ratified plugs next to arbitrarily-designed magnetic adapters built into cables.)

While I'm not especially familar with the technical details, I get the impression the market may carefully be circling Apple and their use of the MagSafe connector, and perhaps also related patents that may not yet have expired. I wonder if it's possible nobody wants to be the first to ask the question, for fear the answer capitalizes on the situation in a way that does not unilaterally benefit all. The only solution may be careful timing - waiting for successful market penetration, then quickly working to standardize before vendors get orientated.

(Clearance: feel free to quote and/or use for parts if/as you wish)

[CivBase]

Please do. Putting the onus on manufacturers basically ensures the connector will not be "Universal", which is the most important feature of USB.

[pdimitar]

Please, do ask them. Also remind them that giving this much freedom to the market inevitably leads to attempted vendor lock-in.

Standardise as much as possible.