[TomatoCo]

Going by Fabien Sanglard's cheat sheet (who I trust uncritically) https://fabiensanglard.net/usbcheat/index.html it looks like 3.2 actually is a broader term than expected. Maybe there was some awful attempt at backwards compatibility? Or forwards?

[Someone1234]

Great site, thanks for the link. But holy heck, that "Also Known As" column is complete chaos. What the heck is wrong with the USB Consortium, do they have brain damage?

Also, according to that table, "USB4 Gen 2×2" is a downgrade on "USB 3.2 Gen 2x2", since the cable length is 0.8m instead of 1m for the same speeds. Which is uhh unexpected.

[wpm]

Yeah I what I would give to have been a fly on the wall in the room where they decided to roll with such an obviously terrible and stupid naming scheme. Did anyone protest? Did anyone boldly dissent? Or did they all really just sit around and pat themselves on the back?

[numpad0]

It allows manufacturers to clear old stocks of cables by rebranding them as latest products.

USB 1+2/3/4 are basically unrelated standards under the same USB umbrella. USB4 especially is just Thunderbolt/PCIe x4 with features. If Betamax was branded as "VHS 2.0" instead of being a separate standard it would have been felt similar to the USB4 situation.

[BearOso]

The cable length is only for the spec. You can get longer cables that achieve the higher bandwidth, they're just not certified for that.

[Someone1234]

Right, so per spec it is a downgrade.

[mort96]

And? The question stands, why is the USB 4 spec a downgrade?

[BearOso]

Probably because with USB 3.2 2x2 they were reviewing too many longer cables that didn't meet the requirements, so they lowered the length so companies didn't submit them only to fail to get certified. It's worth noting that 1.2m is now in the USB4 spec.

[lpcvoid]

I really, really wish somebody would explain to me what thr USB consortium was smoking, yeah. I cannot explain it.