[minimaul]

> "the regular charging cable"

This is the problem I have with this choice. USB-C isn't one cable. It's a big variety of poorly-labelled possible cables, complying with a ton of different standards.

USB-C can be just USB2.0 capable, 3.1 Gen1, 3.1 Gen2, Thunderbolt 3 capable, etc. Some cables can carry 3A. Some 5A.

When your 'universal' charging cable doesn't provide fast charging, is it because your charger doesn't provide the right voltages/wattage? Is it a broken USB-PD implementation (eg the Nintendo Switch)? is it that the cable is underspecced (and a lot of USB-C cables on the market don't actually meet the spec)?

I think the intention is good but USB-C carries so much complexity that I don't think this helps consumers as much as everyone is making out.

[jacobr1]

USB-A had a similar problem (but on a much smaller scale). There also was heterogeneity in build quality. But over time features and quality converged. I think we should expect something similar here.

[minimaul]

I didn't have to keep separate sets of visually identical cables for USB-A to do different things - that's already a reality with USB-C -> USB-C cables.

I can tell at a glance if a USB-A cable supports USB3.0 for instance.

I can't tell that for a USB-C -> USB-C cable.

[Rebelgecko]

The new labeling requirements will hopefully help with that