USB-C is mostly a mess if you try to get away using the cheapest adapters/cables you can find, that often times won't follow the spec. Most of the issues vanish if you use high-end cables/adapters from reputable manufacturers. This is a departure from the world of Micro USB where most cheap cables worked just as good as "high end" cables.
There are caveats. For example, my Nintendo Switch, a major electronics device from a major company, doesn't fully comply with the full USB-C PD spec. As a result, you can't assume any power adapter will work.
It's these caveats that are the real downfall... for those of us in the technology world, it's easy for us to be aware of them. For everyone else, it's not. There's also the whole Thunderbolt 3 & 4 using USB-C thing. I do feel bad for non-technology people trying to wrap their heads around this one.
In general, I've had good luck with USB-C. I can power my laptop and display to a 4K monitor with a single cable. It's awesome. I've also had plenty of frustrating experiences and weird USB bugs with certain hardware combinations.
Despite some of the issues, I think it's still a net positive.
Right, that's what I'd call a mess. The purpose of a standard should be that if a product conforms to it, the consumer can trust that the product will work.
That isn't the case with USB-C.
I've had some "USB-C" cables that can charge but not transmit video, some that can transmit video but not charge, and some that can do both. It shouldn't be possible to sell a cable that can't do both and call it USB-C.
You can't have a cable that transmits video and does not charge. Even when using USB-C for video, e.g. displayport, it negotiates through a USB 2.0 connection which guarantees 5V @ 500mA.
There is nothing, however, stopping a manufacturer from making USB-C cables with very fine-gauge power conductors[1]: electrons could flow, and a data connection could be negotiated, but resistive losses at high power consumption would cause the voltage to sag below the minimum of 4.40V.
Such a cable would not be standards-compliant, since USB-C cables are required to be able to carry 3 Amperes at 20V. However, for pure data-transfer purposes, the cable would work fine, and be cheaper that fully-compliant cables.
[1] After all, a full-featured cable needs to fit 16 (!) conductors, and the shield, into one flexible cable.
> [1] After all, a full-featured cable needs to fit 16 (!) conductors, and the shield, into one flexible cable.
I only have two real USB-C cables (that can do DPoUSB-C and PD, all other cables only do power and USB 2.0), both of them a really stiff, even more so than a thin DisplayPort cable.
Yeah, it's annoying if you want a number of watts that's specifically between 60 and 100. The vast majority of cables are limited to 60. But that's a far cry from being unable to charge things!
Perhaps the only way this could be resolved is some kind of certification and education of consumers that only certified cables/devices should be used.
For others they should go after the vendors for not following spec. Yes there are fakes, but companies like Nintendo could be forced to either comply or if they don't want to, use a proprietary port like they usually did.
And how exactly does one know they have received a "high end" cable or charger? Because it cost enough? Because a website claimed it was "Offishial Ankker CABLE"?
I'm with you; as an educated techie I'm confident I can find a setup that works for my devices, but I'm far from the common denominator here. Frankly I'm a little concerned when HN thinks, "Nah this isn't a problem, USB-C is working just fine for me. None of my devices have blown up yet" says anything about whether it's a good standard.
It's also absurd to respond to a real-world problem like this by saying "well actually if everyone knew what they were doing and behaved perfectly, this wouldn't be an issue". Of course that's the case, but that sort of utopianism is unhelpful in the real world, away from the informed masses of HN.
> And how exactly does one know they have received a "high end" cable or charger? Because it cost enough? Because a website claimed it was "Offishial Ankker CABLE"?
Ensure that whatever peripherals you buy that need high speed connectivity _come_ with the USB-C cables they need. Since the cable is part of the product the manufacturer will ensure they will bundle the cheapest cable that still works for that product as advertised. This works naturally for devices like USB-C docks, USB-C monitors and hubs.
The problem with USB-C is that many people look at it as a connector _and_ transmission standard but it is not, it's only a connector standard. The transmission standards are specified separately and they are many. Depending on your application (what do you use the USB-C for) certain cables may work or not. You'd have to do the research to determine which signal do you need to transport over that USB-C cable: is it PD power (up to what wattage/amperage), is it USB2 (how many devices), is it DisplayPort or is it Thunderbolt3. Then buy a cable that advertises support for the signal you need.
Alternatively, buy a cable that advertises support for the highest bitrate of all those transmission types, essentially buy a cable that advertises Thunderbolt3 support, but in that case don't be surprised why almost all TB3 cables are very short, it's not easy to transport 40Gbit/sec reliably. There are longer, but active and a lot more expensive, TB3 cables.
> You'd have to do the research to determine which signal do you need to transport over that USB-C cable: is it PD power (up to what wattage/amperage), is it USB2 (how many devices), is it DisplayPort or is it Thunderbolt3.
This is the whole point. Why do we now expect a layperson to "do the research" before they can charge their headphones?
> Alternatively, buy a cable that advertises support for the highest bitrate of all those transmission types, essentially buy a cable that advertises Thunderbolt3 support
God, I wish.
But half the thunderbolt cables don't support USB!
Crossing my fingers for that godawful decision to be fixed with USB4.
Another caveat is that many monitors have USB-C ports, but many (most?) cables do not support video. Even my cable from a luxury brand in Cupertino doesn't support it, so it's not just about sticking to famous brands.
I'm not sure how a regular consumer is supposed to understand this. In the past, it wasn't possible to plug a VGA cable into a PS/2 port. Now, you just have to know these hidden properties of each cable.
I think we need a better way to differentiate between the capabilities of the cable and port type. I like having a unified port, and I think it's ok that not all cables will do everything as a way to save cost, but it needs to be apparent to the consumer in easily identifiable manor.
A simple pictorial system for showing these capabilities should have been part of the spec, like how USB-A connectors must have the USB logo on the top. Most manufacturers complied with that.
By any passive thunderbolt 3 cable from apple (longest is up to 0.8m) and you are guaranteed to have displayport and thunderbolt 3 support, in addition to USB3.
Perhaps you're right, but when your £500 phone with brand new USB-C port doesn't support the so-called "killer app" you bought it for, its a bit of a pain. Luckily mine was refurbished and a few versions behind the current edition at the time, so I only paid £130 for a phone with no HDMI out.
Ironically, if you used the fancier cables with the Pi4 instead of cheap ones, it won't power on. Which supports the "mess" argument, and another example of manufacturers are the culprit.
> mostly a mess if you try to get away using the cheapest adapters/cables you can find
Which, these days, is more or less everything you're likely to pull up on an Amazon search.
Cheap Chinese manufacturing has been amazing for providing the hobbyist with low cost electronics components but a nightmare for consumers that can often end up with something sub-par.
> It's these caveats that are the real downfall... for those of us in the technology world, it's easy for us to be aware of them. For everyone else, it's not.
I have the contrary impression: understanding the "caveat" implies strong distrust for the experts who know that "maybe it works" means "assume it doesn't work", while a blissfully unaware consumer could get lucky and never know that USB-C is actually fragmented and difficult to use.
There are caveats. For example, my Nintendo Switch, a major electronics device from a major company, doesn't fully comply with the full USB-C PD spec. As a result, you can't assume any power adapter will work.
It's these caveats that are the real downfall... for those of us in the technology world, it's easy for us to be aware of them. For everyone else, it's not. There's also the whole Thunderbolt 3 & 4 using USB-C thing. I do feel bad for non-technology people trying to wrap their heads around this one.
In general, I've had good luck with USB-C. I can power my laptop and display to a 4K monitor with a single cable. It's awesome. I've also had plenty of frustrating experiences and weird USB bugs with certain hardware combinations.
Despite some of the issues, I think it's still a net positive.