USB-C group hopes new logos will solve customer confusion

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 52
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    PSA: Apple's Lightning has 480 Mbps which is over 80 times SLOWER than USB-C at 40 Gbps! And Apple decided to use Lightning on their flagship $1100 iPhone 13 over the vastly faster better and more compatible USB C because innovation.
    Wrong — the first iPad Pros in 2015 had USB 3.0 (5Gbps) speeds on their Lightning ports, when used with compatible hardware. So, that's not a limitation of Lightning (which is a connector, not a data protocol). USB-C is also a connector, not a data protocol, and 40Gbps is a spec of Thunderbolt 3 which is a hardware interface that happens to use USB-C as a connector.. You'd think a "developer" who "turned down a job at Apple" would know these things.
    Nope: "The iPad Pro, released in 2015, features the first Lightning connector supporting USB 3.0 host.[8] The only accessory that supports USB 3.0 is the new camera adapter. Normal USB-A - Lightning cables are still USB 2.0."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_(connector)

    Even if you could somehow get USB 3.0 speed over lightning, that's 5 Gbps vs 40 Gbps for USB C. That's 8 times slower than USB C. Not 8%. 8 TIMES SLOWER.
    There is no excuse that you or anyone else can cobble together for putting an obsolete Lightning port on an iPhone 13 Pro.

    Dust and water resistance is no problem for the millions of other smart phones that have USB C. It is not a problem for the iPads which have it either.
    How many iPhone users transfer data over the cable anyway?  I only use it for power, so the speed of the protocol is pretty meaningless.

    I think Apple should have moved to USB-C a couple years ago, but data transfer speed isn't a factor.
    fastasleepwatto_cobra
  • Reply 42 of 52
    PSA: Apple's Lightning has 480 Mbps which is over 80 times SLOWER than USB-C at 40 Gbps! And Apple decided to use Lightning on their flagship $1100 iPhone 13 over the vastly faster better and more compatible USB C because innovation.
    Wrong — the first iPad Pros in 2015 had USB 3.0 (5Gbps) speeds on their Lightning ports, when used with compatible hardware. So, that's not a limitation of Lightning (which is a connector, not a data protocol). USB-C is also a connector, not a data protocol, and 40Gbps is a spec of Thunderbolt 3 which is a hardware interface that happens to use USB-C as a connector.. You'd think a "developer" who "turned down a job at Apple" would know these things.
    Nope: "The iPad Pro, released in 2015, features the first Lightning connector supporting USB 3.0 host.[8] The only accessory that supports USB 3.0 is the new camera adapter. Normal USB-A - Lightning cables are still USB 2.0."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_(connector)

    Even if you could somehow get USB 3.0 speed over lightning, that's 5 Gbps vs 40 Gbps for USB C. That's 8 times slower than USB C. Not 8%. 8 TIMES SLOWER.
    There is no excuse that you or anyone else can cobble together for putting an obsolete Lightning port on an iPhone 13 Pro.

    Dust and water resistance is no problem for the millions of other smart phones that have USB C. It is not a problem for the iPads which have it either.
    Anyone needing to transfer quickly is using WiFi. The bottle neck in transferring is going to be the phone, not the connection. You’re not going to get 40Gbps out of the phone, even if you have USB-C. I’m not sure you going to get 5Gbps either. 
    fastasleepwatto_cobra
  • Reply 43 of 52
    citpekscitpeks Posts: 246member
    netrox said:
    That's the entire point of having logos. Also, all USB-C cables deliver power at 7.5W minimum but PD has 100W support. There is PD logo on non-Apple cables. Apple apparently did not put that logo which is annoying. 

    There is no PD logo, per se.

    All spec compliant Type-C cables must electrically support 60W (20V/3A) at a minimum, or the high-power 100W (20V/5A) spec and now the new 240W EPR spec (48V/5A) with an e-marker chip.

    That's actually one thing they got mostly right, in so far as there is a baseline minimum spec that is modern and will meet most practical needs, with a limited number of options (low/high), and not something that requires much thought or consideration from the user.

    But, up until this effort, there has been no specific, standardized 100W/240W logo, or marking, which didn't help resolve the basic problem with regard to cable identification.  Nor is it likely to now, as long as Apple and other manufacturers continue to omit markings.

    In general, to a certain extent, the more capable Type-C cables require intelligence circuitry in their connector housings, making them larger physically, but that is far from a reliable or consistent indicator of capability.

    Another common misconception is that Type-C necessarily means that the PD protocol is implemented.  The spec does have provisions for supplying power using the older, simpler and less-intelligent signalling methods, albeit fixed at 5V, and at lower maximum wattage.  This was probably done for backward compatibility, and allows for solutions where the higher power capacity and intelligent signalling required by PD isn't necessary or cost-effective.
    edited October 2021 MplsPwatto_cobra
  • Reply 44 of 52
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,408member
    spheric said:
    ilarynx said:
    So... USB-Cs (plural) are supposed to reduce the number of charging cables and related waste... how?
    By providing common cables/connectivity that are interchangeable between numerous data protocols as well as charging? Are you serious?
    But the cables aren't common or interchangeable — that's precisely the clusterfuck situation here: does a given cable support power delivery? at which wattage? Does it support USB 2.0 speeds? 3.1? 3.1 gen 2? With power delivery? Which generation of DisplayPort? 

    At least we can (usually) tell if it supports Thunderbolt from the TB logo on the connector, but beyond that… 
    I agree that's a problem, but largely with cable manufacturers. My point was that given correct cables for given tasks it does lead to a reduction in number of charging cables and related waste as more devices support it. Whether there's a disparity in badly or un-labeled cables is kind of besides the point, but yes it is an issue.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 45 of 52
    BeatsBeats Posts: 3,073member
    netrox said:
    spheric said:
    ilarynx said:
    So... USB-Cs (plural) are supposed to reduce the number of charging cables and related waste... how?
    By providing common cables/connectivity that are interchangeable between numerous data protocols as well as charging? Are you serious?
    But the cables aren't common or interchangeable — that's precisely the clusterfuck situation here: does a given cable support power delivery? at which wattage? Does it support USB 2.0 speeds? 3.1? 3.1 gen 2? With power delivery? Which generation of DisplayPort? 

    At least we can (usually) tell if it supports Thunderbolt from the TB logo on the connector, but beyond that… 
    That's the entire point of having logos. Also, all USB-C cables deliver power at 7.5W minimum but PD has 100W support. There is PD logo on non-Apple cables. Apple apparently did not put that logo which is annoying. 

    Do the logos help when you buy a cable at a yard sale or 2nd hand?
  • Reply 46 of 52
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,408member
    PSA: Apple's Lightning has 480 Mbps which is over 80 times SLOWER than USB-C at 40 Gbps! And Apple decided to use Lightning on their flagship $1100 iPhone 13 over the vastly faster better and more compatible USB C because innovation.
    Wrong — the first iPad Pros in 2015 had USB 3.0 (5Gbps) speeds on their Lightning ports, when used with compatible hardware. So, that's not a limitation of Lightning (which is a connector, not a data protocol). USB-C is also a connector, not a data protocol, and 40Gbps is a spec of Thunderbolt 3 which is a hardware interface that happens to use USB-C as a connector.. You'd think a "developer" who "turned down a job at Apple" would know these things.
    Nope: "The iPad Pro, released in 2015, features the first Lightning connector supporting USB 3.0 host.[8] The only accessory that supports USB 3.0 is the new camera adapter. Normal USB-A - Lightning cables are still USB 2.0."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_(connector)

    Even if you could somehow get USB 3.0 speed over lightning, that's 5 Gbps vs 40 Gbps for USB C. That's 8 times slower than USB C. Not 8%. 8 TIMES SLOWER.
    There is no excuse that you or anyone else can cobble together for putting an obsolete Lightning port on an iPhone 13 Pro.

    Dust and water resistance is no problem for the millions of other smart phones that have USB C. It is not a problem for the iPads which have it either.
    The point was that Lightning is not limited to USB 2.0 speeds. Just because Apple doesn't make 5Gbps cables for it doesn't make it limited to 480Mbps. Clearly the cable on the iPad Pro camera adapter tells you that.

    Again, with USB-C you're conflating a connector with data protocols. *Thunderbolt 3* is 40Gbps, not USB-C. You can literally have a USB-C cable that only supports USB 2.0 speeds. Most USB-C ports that are not Thunderbolt 3 support USB 3.x at 5 or 10Gbps, not 40Gbps.

    Here's an exercise for you: I have an Apple USB-C to Lightning cable right in front of me. What speeds does it support

    Here's another: You have an iPad Pro with a USB 3.0 capable Lightning port. You also have an iPhone with a Lightning port that only supports USB 2.0. How fast is Lightning?

    Why Apple hasn't used 5Gbps USB 3 capable Lightning ports on iPhones since the iPad Pros had them is beyond me — I'm sure there are reasons — but that wasn't the point. 
    edited October 2021 Fidonet127muthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobra
  • Reply 47 of 52
    netroxnetrox Posts: 1,415member
    citpeks said:
     

    All spec compliant Type-C cables must electrically support 60W (20V/3A) at a minimum, or the high-power 100W (20V/5A) spec and now the new 240W EPR spec (48V/5A) with an e-marker chip.
     
    Oh I goofed on minimum watt. Thank you. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 48 of 52
    I would just do away with the whole USB 3 shenanigan altogether and go with transfer speeds & max wattage only:

    • USB 5 Gbps/5Gbps 100W
    • USB 10 Gbps/10Gbps 100W
    • USB 20 Gbps
    • USB 20 Gbps 100W
    • USB 20 Gbps 240W
    • USB 40 Gbps 100W
    • USB 40 Gbps 240W

    Maybe the branding can be simplified even further: 5G/10G/20G/40G with additional badging for wattages.
    edited October 2021 watto_cobra
  • Reply 49 of 52
    netroxnetrox Posts: 1,415member
    Results45 said:
    I would just do away with the whole USB 3 shenanigan altogether and go with transfer speeds & max wattage only:

    • USB 5 Gbps/5Gbps 100W
    • USB 10 Gbps/10Gbps 100W
    • USB 20 Gbps
    • USB 20 Gbps 100W
    • USB 20 Gbps 240W
    • USB 40 Gbps 100W
    • USB 40 Gbps 240W

    Maybe the branding can be simplified even further: 5G/10G/20G/40G with additional badging for wattages.
    why not just USB-C 20G/100W?

    Literally all data speed is measured in bits per second for communication so there's no reason to use "bps" but we can specify the bandwidth with G or M or T or P (in future). 



    Results45watto_cobra
  • Reply 50 of 52
    netrox said:
    Results45 said:
    I would just do away with the whole USB 3 shenanigan altogether and go with transfer speeds & max wattage only:

    • USB 5 Gbps/5Gbps 100W
    • USB 10 Gbps/10Gbps 100W
    • USB 20 Gbps
    • USB 20 Gbps 100W
    • USB 20 Gbps 240W
    • USB 40 Gbps 100W
    • USB 40 Gbps 240W

    Maybe the branding can be simplified even further: 5G/10G/20G/40G with additional badging for wattages.
    why not just USB-C 20G/100W?

    Literally all data speed is measured in bits per second for communication so there's no reason to use "bps" but we can specify the bandwidth with G or M or T or P (in future). 




    True.

    Or USB 20G-100W since new and upcoming standard will primarily use USB-C anyway .......whatever informs consumers best without being a technical tongue twister.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 51 of 52
    sphericspheric Posts: 2,544member
    Beats said:
    netrox said:
    spheric said:
    ilarynx said:
    So... USB-Cs (plural) are supposed to reduce the number of charging cables and related waste... how?
    By providing common cables/connectivity that are interchangeable between numerous data protocols as well as charging? Are you serious?
    But the cables aren't common or interchangeable — that's precisely the clusterfuck situation here: does a given cable support power delivery? at which wattage? Does it support USB 2.0 speeds? 3.1? 3.1 gen 2? With power delivery? Which generation of DisplayPort? 

    At least we can (usually) tell if it supports Thunderbolt from the TB logo on the connector, but beyond that… 
    That's the entire point of having logos. Also, all USB-C cables deliver power at 7.5W minimum but PD has 100W support. There is PD logo on non-Apple cables. Apple apparently did not put that logo which is annoying. 

    Do the logos help when you buy a cable at a yard sale or 2nd hand?
    Or simply pull one from your drawer of cables? 

    The horror of grabbing a cable and an extra backup for a gig, only to find that neither cable will properly charge your MacBook under load…

    I suppose I should add tags to each and every one of my cables. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 52 of 52
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    spheric said:
    Beats said:
    netrox said:
    spheric said:
    ilarynx said:
    So... USB-Cs (plural) are supposed to reduce the number of charging cables and related waste... how?
    By providing common cables/connectivity that are interchangeable between numerous data protocols as well as charging? Are you serious?
    But the cables aren't common or interchangeable — that's precisely the clusterfuck situation here: does a given cable support power delivery? at which wattage? Does it support USB 2.0 speeds? 3.1? 3.1 gen 2? With power delivery? Which generation of DisplayPort? 

    At least we can (usually) tell if it supports Thunderbolt from the TB logo on the connector, but beyond that… 
    That's the entire point of having logos. Also, all USB-C cables deliver power at 7.5W minimum but PD has 100W support. There is PD logo on non-Apple cables. Apple apparently did not put that logo which is annoying. 

    Do the logos help when you buy a cable at a yard sale or 2nd hand?
    Or simply pull one from your drawer of cables? 

    The horror of grabbing a cable and an extra backup for a gig, only to find that neither cable will properly charge your MacBook under load…

    I suppose I should add tags to each and every one of my cables. 
    You could.  Or you could not buy any low power cables?  Manage your own needs.
Sign In or Register to comment.