One thing is that, another thing is centralisation around a rigid and, sometimes, even badly aged standard just because of “you shouldn’t create any more standards!”.
New standards should absolutely be created because that means that there are more options for different profiles, and also that there will be more chances for the issues on existing standards to be addressed.
That’s not on USB C mate. Shitty products will always exist. Like some can only be powered/charged from USB A to C, not C to C, since they didn’t add a resistor to the CC line. A microscopic sub 1 cent part.
As a condensed half true and a bit hyperbole summary:
Usb-c is first and foremost just a connector definition. So getting a usb-c cable is basically saying you will have a cable with this plug and a specific wire configuration. But you can omit wires if you don’t need them and still have a USB c cable. So from the phyisical definition this means your cable can have a plug that connects into a socket and is not wired internally at all. You can still call this a USB cable. That is why apple usb-c cables are often unable to transfer data, for example. This is done for downward compatibility with the USB standard.
The USB standard defines the functional properties of a USB cable. Depending on which version, which can be any number between 1.0 and 3.2 or thunderbolt, you have different lower and upper bounds that are possible. Except with USB 1.0 to 3.0 you don’t have lower bounds, you can omit parts of the specification completely and you can still call it a USB 2 or whatever cable. This means just because you have a USB c cable it does not give you any information about it’s capabilities. Except if it is thunderbolt or USB 3.2 because these have minimum requirements.
Because the functional and constructional definition is so wide ranged the standard does not give you any meaningful information. Which means it’s basically useless.
I am guessing that they are referring to the situation, that while all usb-c can be connected to each other you can have very different ones. Fast data transfer and slow. 10 watt and 100 watt and so on
See you have to be careful because with that approach you can get a USB c situation
One thing is that, another thing is centralisation around a rigid and, sometimes, even badly aged standard just because of “you shouldn’t create any more standards!”.
New standards should absolutely be created because that means that there are more options for different profiles, and also that there will be more chances for the issues on existing standards to be addressed.
ONE PLUG FOR EVERYTHING.
just hope the plug has the right pinout, and the cable the right capacity.
that explains my fucking headlight what is refusing to charge about 25%. slapped a better cable on there and it’s getting up to 50% now.
i just want it to last 60 miles dammit.
That’s not on USB C mate. Shitty products will always exist. Like some can only be powered/charged from USB A to C, not C to C, since they didn’t add a resistor to the CC line. A microscopic sub 1 cent part.
I like how i feel about you using “mate” and “cent” in the same post. Nou, I hate it.
:o
it’s on that usb c. piece of shit wire can’t even boof it
Consider me ignorant but whats the USB-C situation ?
Well … Sigh in short because it is meaningless.
As a condensed half true and a bit hyperbole summary: Usb-c is first and foremost just a connector definition. So getting a usb-c cable is basically saying you will have a cable with this plug and a specific wire configuration. But you can omit wires if you don’t need them and still have a USB c cable. So from the phyisical definition this means your cable can have a plug that connects into a socket and is not wired internally at all. You can still call this a USB cable. That is why apple usb-c cables are often unable to transfer data, for example. This is done for downward compatibility with the USB standard.
The USB standard defines the functional properties of a USB cable. Depending on which version, which can be any number between 1.0 and 3.2 or thunderbolt, you have different lower and upper bounds that are possible. Except with USB 1.0 to 3.0 you don’t have lower bounds, you can omit parts of the specification completely and you can still call it a USB 2 or whatever cable. This means just because you have a USB c cable it does not give you any information about it’s capabilities. Except if it is thunderbolt or USB 3.2 because these have minimum requirements.
Because the functional and constructional definition is so wide ranged the standard does not give you any meaningful information. Which means it’s basically useless.
deleted by creator
I am guessing that they are referring to the situation, that while all usb-c can be connected to each other you can have very different ones. Fast data transfer and slow. 10 watt and 100 watt and so on
Fair enough, but isnt most of that circumvented by getting good cables ?
Tbh USB-C was a godsend I bought in early but I prefer having to grapple wether my cables are up to par than if I have a fitting one at all :D
I find the current situation much better than having 33 usb standards and a cable for each and 99 adapters…
So yes it is better. Every usbc cable will work (also I think there are less “power only” cables now)
Yes, the current situation with a baseline is definitely better than what it was before.