But those are useless to me as my MacBook doesn’t have any USB-A ports anymore and since the PC world usually follows a few years later they will basically disappear in the near future.

Anything that wants to be USB-C on both ends should be fully compatible with a marked spec, not indistinguishable from a 5V junk wire or freely cherry picking what they feel like paying for.

But there is no single spec, there are lots of optional parts. Options that also come with limitations. Anything above the bare minimum needs an identification chip in the connector so the computer can determine it’s capabilities. That adds cost. A 240W cable is necessary thicker and thus less flexible than a 7.5W cable. A passive cable that supports thunderbolt 3 or 4 cannot be longer than 2 meters, above that it needs to be an active cable which is a lot more expensive.

So if you want to make it mandatory for all cables to support all features, that means that if you want a 5 meter charging cable so you can use your phone on the couch while it charges you have to spend over €400 for a cable. Or, you could not make it mandatory and have 5m cables that do not support 20gbit for €10.

[–] PassingThrough@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

I’ll take a compromise where “3.1” is etched in each head end, and I can trust that “3.1” means something, and start with that.

The real crux of the issue is that there is no way to identify the ability of a port or cable without trying it, and even if labeled there is/was too much freedom to simply deviate and escape spec.

I grabbed a cable from my box to use with my docking station. Short length, hefty girth, firm head ends, certainly felt like a featured video/data/Dock cable…it did not work. I did work with my numpad/USB-A port bus thing though, so it had some data ability(did not test if it was 2.0 or 3.0). The cable that DID work with my docking station was actually a much thinner, weaker feeling one from a portable monitor I also had. So you can’t even judge by wiring density.

And now we have companies using the port to deviate from spec completely, like the Raspberry Pi 5 technically using USB-C, but at a power level unsupported by spec. Or my video glasses that use USB-C connections all over, with a proprietary design that ensures only their products work together.

Universal appearance, non-universal function, universal confusion.

I hate it. At least with HDMI, RCA, 3.5mm, Micro-USB…I could readily identify what a port and plug was good for, and 99/100 the unknown origin random wires I had in a box worked just fine.

[–] marcos@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I can trust that “3.1” means something

This is also a problem. That 3.1 is the same as 2.X for some X that I don't remember, that is the same as some number in the original standard.

It would certainly be better than not marking, but no, that 3.1 doesn't have a clear meaning.