Some things deserve to be standardized. Electrical plugs being a great example. Removing choice is a feature. WiFi standards are another example. It's tough to understand exactly where to draw the line, but making computer cables all standard seems like a worthy goal. I can see a future when any device from displays to external drives to your phone can all use the same cable. That would be a nice feature where removing choice would be the better outcome.
Out of curiosity, what's horrible about the USB-C standard?
I don't need to see the specific cord - Lightning only carries USB 2.0 and compressed video streams through a weird proprietary protocol. The base spec for USB-C cables is USB 2 and low-speed charging - i.e. equivalent to Lightning for everything but video out.
The main complaint about USB-C that people have is that there's no consistent labeling for the cheap-o base-spec cables versus the ones that actually have high-speed data lanes in them. This doesn't matter for the USB-C vs. Lightning debate, since charging and data will be the same or better and video requires a special cable or adapter in either case.
As others have pointed out, you're wrong about USB-C's minimum standards.
But more important, markets work best when consumers have good information about what they're buying.
Lightning always works as expected. Give me a Lightning cable and a Lightning port and I know what they'll do. Comparison shopping for a Lightning cable is easy.
But making an educated decision about which USB-C cable to buy requires understanding an increasingly complex matrix. You cannot just look at a USB-C cable or port and know what it is; you've got to parse each device or cable's spec sheet (if you can find one). https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/09/breaking-down-how-us...
The possibility of lock-in to a proprietary system is one piece of information, but consumers aren't getting screwed by lock in to Lightning connectors. It's easy to find a cheap Lightning cable that performs as expected; it's easy to comparison shop for them on price.
Consumers are, however, wasting a lot of money on USB C cables that don't do what they expect because the USB-C "standards" make it extremely difficult for ordinary consumers to know what they're buying.
When I first started traveling for work with my MacBook Pro in 2021 and my portable USB C monitor, I would often have the wrong USB C cable and I didn’t know the vagaries of USB C.
I was at one of my company’s sites (I work remotely) and even the IT department didn’t have a “standard” USB C cable that could do 100W power and video over USB.
I ended up ordering one from Amazon - and having it shipped to my company’s office. I work at Amazon (AWS).
My JBL speaker will only charge with a USBA -> USBC cable, but not with USBC->USBC.
I've a couple of cables that will charge headphones or other devices, but won't show data devices (like an external SSD, webcam, etc).
I've some cables that won't charge my laptop, however, other cables on the same charger do charge that same laptop.
Maybe some of these devices and cables are non-compliant, but they're what we see in the real world, regardless of what the spec says. USB-C is a mess. I still need distinct USBC cables, and need to remember which ones can charge which devices.
2. Not all USB C cables support data some or power only.
3. But USB C is suppose to be a “standard”. I can’t just assume any USB C cable is going to work with either my portable USB monitor or an iPad Pro that has a USB port
Industry bodies vary in quality; USB-IF is notoriously bad at UX. They focus on providing opportunities to participate in their newest standard. That's why you end up with monstrosities like renaming USB 3.0 to USB 3.1 Gen 1 and adding USB4 2.0 instead of simply calling it USB5, like it should.
Cables and docks, once again to give opportunities to participate to as many players as possible, only have to implement few elements of the standard to be branded.
Apple and Intel basically used the Thunderbolt standard to get rid of this mess. Thunderbolt 3 and 4 are forcing implementation of all the optional elements of USB to be branded. So if you want to have a sane experience with USB-C, stick to TB ports, docks and cables.
But anyway, the point isn’t whether lightning is better than USB-C. It’s about whether USB-C is good enough that we want to accept being locked to it for all time. If Apple wants to invent a better connector, they can’t, assuming this European regulation goes through.
So they have to wait on a consensus. Wait for all vendors to agree. Wait for a government body to approve the new standard and then they can implement the new “standard” and still have it be as convoluted and half ass like USB C?
You are right, but the current topic is standardising on USB-C for power delivery. So in that case only the first question applies. And funnily enough that question is the same for every power cable and plug. Even simple wall plugs and extension cords can burn out if a device draws too much power.
How is the “current topic” only about power delivery. What happens when I plug my hypothetical iPhone with USB-C using a “standard” USB-C cable into my computer to transfer my 4K video?
What happens today if I pick up any random “standard” USB-C cable and try to charge an iPad Pro 12 inch or any other iPad that has a USB-C port, try to connect it to a video source that a USB source or connect it any USB-C device?
Not all USB-C cords support data and those that do support data support data at different speeds. Some USB-C cords support data but don’t support video over USB-C. I travel a lot and soon will be doing the “digital nomad” thing.
You can plug it into a computer and get video and power with one USB C cable. But you have to have the “right” USB C cable. Video over USB-C is “standardized”. But not all cables support the standard.
Ironically, you can have the same issue today. Some cheap third party Lightning cables don’t support data and they don’t work if I plug up my monitor to my Mac for a third monitor using Duet (I can’t use the Mac built in capability because of an incompatibility with corporate mandated malware).
The iPad Pro should also work with my monitor. But still, you have to have the right “standard” USB C cable. You would have the same problem
With a hypothetical future USB C iPhone.
I’m assuming you didn’t know about how some USB C cables don’t support all of the standards. If you didn’t know - someone who posts to HN and I assume knows more about technology than the average person - what chance does the average consumer have or the people making laws to force USB C to be the standard?
That is not meant to be an insult. I thought all USB C cables were the same until two years ago when I got my first modern MacBook for work.
I’m not saying Lightning is better than having a USB C port on the iPhone that supports the maximum power possible on the iPhone, with higher speed data rates and video over USB C. Apple agrees and that’s why almost all iPads now have USB C ports.
But that doesn’t mean that you will just be able to pick up a random USB C cable and it just works.
What happens today if I pick up any random USB-C and try to charge my non-Apple phone is that it charges, in some cases fast, in others slow. I don't have to carry around a special cable. I would expect the same from Apple, once they implement it.
As for the data stuff, I'm sure they will manage somehow.
Try your definition of “slow” on a iPhone 12 Pro Max using a cord that only delivers power over 5W. Better yet, try charging an iPad 12” Pro (that does have a USB C port) with a USB C cable that can only do 5W. Now try to use that same “standard USB C” cable to charge a 16 inch MacBook Pro.
Of course that standard cable is not guaranteed to support data at all.
> How is the “current topic” only about power delivery.
Because that's what the law covers. All phone *chargers* must be USB-C compatible. And they must all interoperate. You must be able to buy a phone without the charger, so you can re-use your old one.
How does that help reduce ewaste if you still don’t force standardization on the type of USB C cable being sold - ie a cable that supports 100W PD, video over USB C, and data? What are the chances that the $100 Android phone is going to come with a cable that supports the “standard”? What are the chances that your random convenience store is going to be selling cords that support “the standard”?
And your quoting the law showing that the government also didn’t know enough to consider all of those questions proves how incompetent the government is at writing laws concerning technology.
I wouldn’t go that far. While I don’t agree with the EU forcing the USB-C “standard”[sic] on private companies, it’s time for Lightning to die. Apple is already moving to USB C on iPads with only the low end iPad still being Lightning.
Okay, still the same thought experiment. Pick up a random USB C cable. Now tell me:
How much power can it deliver?
Does it support data and at what speed?
Does it support video over USB C?
If I bought a cheap USB power only 5W cable and got the hypothetical iPhone 15 Pro Max with USB C support that could charge faster with a 20W cable, do 10Gps data transfer and video over USB C, wouldn’t I still end up throwing away the USB C cable I got with the $100 Android phone contributing to eWaste? Isn’t that the entire argument about forcing Apple to support USB C?
What happens when I buy a cheap USB C cord from the convenience store? Will it support “standard USB C”.
If that USB-C cable only supported 5W, then it does not meet the spec and must not carry USB-IF branding. At a minimum, USB-C cables must support 20V/3A and optionally support 20V/5A.
I get you on the rest of the issues, because the simplified USB-IF branding (Hi-Speed, SuperSpeed, SuperSpeed+, etc) crucially isn't printed on the cable itself. Moreover, the constant renumbering of the standard means manufacturers often forgo the consumer-facing branding and market devices/cables with the latest standard, which means nothing regarding what capabilities a device/cable supports.
USB-IF needs to be better at enforcement, for sure. In the meantime, I just just Thunderbolt cables for everything that needs advanced capabilities and pack-ins for everything else.
Yeah this all is a mess, but if we restrict ourselves to considering only conformant cables then the problem is at least tractable.
All Type-C to Type-C support 60 W power delivery (3A at up to 20V), some support 100 W (5A at up to 20V) but those can no longer be certified, and the new 240W cables must have a certain logo on them that includes 240W clearly visible (and this means these cables can only be conformant if certified). And how much power a Type-C to Type-C cable can handle is completely orthogonal to the data it can transmit.
USB does allow conforming passive cables that only have USB 2.0 lines, which can support any of the voltages. These can often be differentiated from the cables that support USB 3.x/USB4 by way of the cable being surprising thin, but this becomes harder if it supports more than the minimum 60W.
Passive cables that support USB 3.x can vary in the maximum speed they support, which will also impact some alternate modes. If you want to ensure video support on a passive cable, your best option would be looking for a 0.8m or shorter passive cable that says 40Gbps, as those will all support the maximum currently allowed display-port bandwidth over type-c. [1] But all passive cables that include the USB 3.0 wires should support the lower Displayport 1.x alternative modes.
However, to reduce confusion in the future, USB-IF have recently revamped the rules for certified Type-C to Type-C cables. Cables must be marked with a logo that indicates 60W or 240W. If the cable supports 3.x or newer, it will also marked the max supported speed in Gbps as part of that logo. Failure to use the right logo for what your cable supports will result in failed certification.
Users are expected to assume that that any cable that does not specify wattage only supports 60W (since all USB C-to-C cables support that, except the optically isolated ones, which cannot be mistaken for a normal cable). Users are expected to assume passive cables do not support USB 3.0 data at all unless marked with: 1) a speed in Gbps, 2) a bare SuperSpeed logo (implies a max of 10 Gbps [2]) or 3) marked as Thunderbolt 3 (20 Gbps [3] unless a speed is otherwise shown).
Users are presumably expected to assume that active cables only support 5Gbps unless otherwise marked, and won't support any alternative modes (unless otherwise marked) if not marked as 40 Gbps, in which case DP2.0 alternate mode should work (but I'm not sure that display port 1.x modes are guaranteed to work).
Active cables are also where many problems lie especially as they don't always look different from passive cables. Active cables can mostly only support alternate modes that they were explicitly designed to support which for some is none at all. For example Active gen1 or Gen2 cables don't support USB4 at all. Active Thunderbolt 3 gen3 cables can be used for USB4 by some USB4 devices but this is an optional feature, so not all USB devices and hosts will support this.
Footnotes:
[1] In theory, such cables should be able to handle DP 2.0 at UHBR 20 (80 Gbps) transfers, since they can reverse the 40Gbps return communication lanes, going from 40Gbps bidirectional to 80Gbps monodirectional. However VESA has not yet standardized that as an option.
[2] Since these would probably be gen1 with 5Gbps per lane, and all typeC cables have two lanes in each direction.
[3] Thunderbolt 3 implies gen 2, which as 10Gbps per lane, times two lanes in C-to-C cables.
The physical form factor of the “type C” connector is great but that a good example of how broken things are is that anyone can stick that type of connector on pretty much anything - might be usb 1, might just be power delivery, might be usb 3.2, might be real thunderbolt, might be thunderbolt-esque paie framed over usb 3.2 messages, this is before even getting into the wild world of hdmi 1.4 and display port over usb 3. This mess is assuming that the vendor implemented things correctly or is using a compliant controller chip, reality just gets even worse.
A simplistic interpretation:
Because the consortium wanted to get everyone on board, they allow pretty much any part of the spec to not be complied with. In theory there are various profiles the should be adopted but in practice that hasn’t happened.
What happens when I plug in a c-type plug? You just can’t say… and I mean you REALLY just can’t say. Will high power delivery and hdmi work (I’m looking at you broken Nintendo switch usb-c implementation), will you get thunderbolt packets wrapped over usb 3.2? Will you even get high speed? Is the cable active or passive? Will this cable give me high speed data? Will this >3ft cable give me high speed charging or just silently stay at 5v and ~1amp because the resistance on the middle pin is too high on that particular cable.
To placate many vendors who wanted to because to produce cheap crap and flood online stores, many parts of the spec do this all without active protocol handshaking and simply fail silently.
>The physical form factor of the “type C” connector is great
At least for phone charging, I find it worse than lightning. It's way too loose (whereas lightning is snug), and I'm always worried about the plastic bit sticking out on the female side is going to break.
Before I standardized on the cables below, I had USB-C cables in my laptop bag that:
- were power only up to 100W. But couldn’t do data.
- could do power up to 60W and data at USB2 speeds. But they couldn’t do video over USB-C. I have a USB-C powered portable display that can do power and video directly from my laptop.
- a USB-C cable that can do power, video, and data. But I’m still not sure how much data and power it can deliver.
- a few smaller USB-C cables that came with my Beats headphones and my Anker battery. I don’t know what they can do.
I finally threw away all of my cables besides my MagSafe cable and standardized on these for mobile devices (cheaper and not as thick).
Out of curiosity, what's horrible about the USB-C standard?