[nullfield]

Then last part, I think, is the question. They could certainly … use a port with the same form-factor and eMarkers to indicate capability, submitting their new technology to the USB-IF as a proposition for standard/enhancement.

We already have, though, a glut of the pre-made components you talk about that cut every corner as close as they can-hopefully not so far as to start a fire, because you can’t sell to dead customers, but up to then? Go for it.

The number of implementations of PD has been a mess, with various chunks of a particular profile unavailable, inconsistently, along with no meaningful distinction between various versions of PD on most devices. Cables are often trash, and there is no certification for them required at all, until you get up to the point that Intel will smack you with a folder of lawyers if you try to call something a Thunderbolt cable without getting it certified. So we can all go out and buy just Thunderbolt cables and be sure it’ll work with everything else, and it’s all well and good until our wallet notices the hit.

Surely it can’t be that hard to just … check that stuff meets the standard, as in cGMP-style adapted to electronics (to the extent it isn’t already). Right?

[zamnos]

Thunderbolt cables are extra thick to support the signaling that thunderbolt requires, so unless you're actually using that cable for data, it's more cumbersome. And shorter - max of 10ft. Which may be fine for you, but no thanks. And also, optical Thunderbolt cables can't carry power, so there's no guarantee that a thunderbolt cable will even do power delivery. If it's longer than 10 ft, then it won't.