USB Kills Off SuperSpeed Branding as It Tries To Simplify Its Ubiquitous Connector (theverge.com) 41
The SuperSpeed USB branding is no more thanks to a new set of guidelines currently being rolled out by the USB Implementers Forum (USB-IF), the body that manages and maintains the USB standard. From a report: It's part of a rebranding initiative that the organization kicked off last year with the introduction of a new series of packaging, port, and cable logos. But with its latest set of branding and logo guidelines it's going even further, simplifying its legacy branding and signaling the end of the decade-old SuperSpeed branding. If the name doesn't ring any bells, then that's probably because you (like most other people) simply referred to it by its USB 3 version number. Alongside it, the USB-IF is also ditching USB4 as a consumer-facing brand name.
USB-L (Score:1)
--
Are you getting all your fruits and veggies? Suffering from stage 1 malnutrition? If you can answer either of these questions, it's time for Juice PLUS+. [karisenterprises.com]
Re: USB-L (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
You can buy USB-C connectors with a maglock today; just remember to count the rings inside the connector -- somehow 95% of listings are power only, with not a mention in the description.
The round part sticks a bit from the port which is unwieldy on some devices, depending on how you hold them.
wha? (Score:2)
To Simplify Its Ubiquitous Connector
I think I need reading glasses..
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it is a mess [youtu.be]. If they had gone with three wires (ground, power, and optical) a lot of the current problems would have been circumvented.
USB4 it is then (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I think that they should just do like HTML and give up trying to name things.
Just call it "USB", and say it's a "living standard". No version numbers, no releases, just random changes.
If you plug something in, maybe it works, maybe it doesn't. Who knows?
If you run into a problem, just stop worrying about it and find another pastime, preferably something outdoors that doesn't involve electronics. You'll feel better, and have USB to thank for it.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
For USB3 I think a key point was to make it clear which port supported it and which didn't, to the consumer. Ie, my old computer had some on the front panel that were USB3 and some that were USB2. And it was not obvious which were which, until I'd bend down with a flashlight and look for either a marking on the case or to see the blue vs white board. New computer (this week) has SS stamped on them all, and on the back panel (the hard one to see) there are still some USB2 ports (keyboard/mouse) and the ot
Re: (Score:2)
Tell at what glance? You are proposing needing to read an entire novel on the side of ever laptop. Simple logos are needed. There isn't the space nor the will power by manufacturers to write an entire manual on the sides of their devices.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the problem is that there are multiple modes for each USB "version" so calling it 4.2 doesn't explain whether this is the one that's "full speed" or "high speed" (to recall a previous naming debacle.)
How about calling it, "USB, fast as of 2022". If you encounter a cable that says "fast as of 2019", then you know the cable is likely slower. That was the whole reason behind the Windows naming scheme for years, and it generally worked. Meanwhile, I have no idea which edition of Windows 10 I'm running.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, they can acknowledge that having optional features in a "universal" connector is a bad idea, and just roll a single set of features into something called USB5. Which intentionally conflates the connector and the protocol, and which does all the things you'd expect.
Now, people don't have to wonder if they have the right cable (just like they didn't in the USB 2 era). "Is it USB5? Great, it's the right cable."
As it should be.
Hard to stuff it back together now (Score:5, Interesting)
While the 3.decimal era of USB 3 was the beginning I feel like USB's off the rails moment really was when they did the whole split-the-port-and-the-protocol thing around USB-C.
Yes that is officially how it's always been but with the universal nature of the USB-C connector really they should have just called the whole thing 'USB4" or just "USB-C" from a consumer nomenclature perspective and folded USB-PD and everything into that as well as a combined thing for everyday usage as much as possible, like the ubiquitous USB-A port has become. Under the surface for the tech people all the meaningful distinctions are there but with the connector that is the future of the protocol for decades just kinda "reset" the whole system for the people out there.
It's tricky because there are so many elements now with negotioated power details to it and legacy cruft but even as a tech-literate person myself not I have to consider not just the connector but the speed and the supporter wattage of any cable I buy. What was supposed to be a grand simplification has become the most confusing USB era yet. It certainly feels like the USB-IF has a case of letting the engineers do the marketing and they don't know how to communicate with normie non-tech-savvy people. Theres not an easy fix-it-all solution but i definitely feel like it could be way better than this.
Re: (Score:2)
Well whoever it is needs to be fired for sure.
Also I would say browsers have done a fine job because "normal" users don't care about versioning and the browser makers have sidestepped it almost entirely. Chrome, Safari and such are not marketed under their version, just their names. I nver saw a commercial for "Chrome v105" just "Google Chrome".
Same for Windows. Nobody really cares about Window 10.0.19.044.2066, it's either "7, 8, 10, 11". Same with Apple who went a smart step fruther and uses their "de
Re: (Score:3)
I'm pretty mad about some of the stupid naming decisions too, and they should just do USB4/5/6/etc, but I'm afraid we're fundamentally stuck with some ambiguity and confusion. If we want one standard connector which "just works" most of the time, it's inevitable.
We can't make every device support everything, my phone's tiny charger isn't going to provide 120W for my laptop, my phone won't be able to output 8k@120hz, I can't "dock" my camera to a Thunderbolt hub, etc. So in the end unless we go back to diffe
Re: Hard to stuff it back together now (Score:2)
My wife's laptop charger will charge my phone at high speed (12v), but apparently doesn't support 5v delivery because my wife's phone won't charge from it at all. I have one 3a 5v USBC charger that will charge hers at max rate, but gives my phone 800ma. Another supports a Qualcomm protocol, supposedly 3a@5v and 2a@12v, and will give my phone 1.5a@5v and hers 800ma@5v. It's a mess.
Re: (Score:2)
They tried the same around USB-MicroB. The problem is that they want to make their Universal Bus also a Universal Connector but they can't envision what we need 'tomorrow'.
Then when someone else does something popular, they need to invent something that is just like it but still ends up inferior (whether it was matching FireWire speeds, smaller or reversible connectors or matching ThunderBolt features, or doing DisplayPort over USB).
Re: (Score:2)
Yes that is officially how it's always been but with the universal nature of the USB-C connector really they should have just called the whole thing 'USB4" or just "USB-C"
That would have been stupid. The generation of USB has never defined the port itself. Your proposal would have locked the USB world into a corner. Calling everything USB-C, C at what speed, with what capability, how many lanes?
Your proposal doesn't fix the problems you are complaining.
Re: (Score:1)
While the 3.decimal era of USB 3 was the beginning I feel like USB's off the rails moment really was when they did the whole split-the-port-and-the-protocol thing around USB-C.
The port and protocol was always "split", it just wasn't widely recognized as such until the split went two ways. USB from the days of 1.1 allowed for the protocol on non-USB connectors, this is how we got those tiny music players that would connect to a computer USB port by the same 1/8" phone jack used for the headphones. When USB allowed for the reverse, a USB port or jack to carry something other than USB protocols, is when it got to come off the rails as you point out. Had it stayed where a USB port
USB is a mess... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with USB is that there never seemed to be a roadmap of where they wanted to go.
Roadmaps are a great way to lock yourself in on one path and lock yourself out of the flexibility of making USB Universal. The roadmap is simple: better. Better connectors more suitable for the devices B - MiniB - MicroB - C. Better signaling: USB1.1 - USB2 - USB3. Better speeds USB Gen2x1 - Gen2x2 - Gen3x1. Better compatibility, PD, Alt Modes etc.
Confusing to consumers, yes. But if you were to build a roadmap you can safely bet your vital organs USB wouldn't be as fast, as capable or as ubiquitous as it is
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Intel should have just renamed Parallel and RS232 to USB-p and USB-2.32 and DVI could get an upgrade and named USB-d2.
You've got all these USB ports that either physically do not connect or they do and don't function as well as expected.
Tell me when you are done (Score:2)
Until then 480MBit/s should be enough for everybody
Seriously, 480 was MORE than enough! (Score:2)
USB was supposed to be 1 guy's universal serial port that intel took and screwed it up in industry fashion. Simple devices with low speed and low power requirements like keyboards where a simple parallel or RS232 was just fine and they never should have kernel level drivers! The only change should have been to a better plug with a less messy and higher power DC power component; to become the DC low power standard with just enough "smarts" to keep it cheap, reliable, and free of software! (for power uses)
Re: (Score:2)
Just checked (Score:5, Funny)
I just checked my old USB 3.0 cables that used to say SS on them, and sure enough, they don't say that any more.
usb specs are an absolute nightmare and disaster (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh it's not that hard to understand. [youtu.be]
Long overdue (Score:1)
The poor naming conventions out of USB has been a complaint since USB 2.0 and only now they decide to make changes?
One big part of the problem is from deciding that each new version was a superset of the old versions. Someone can claim to have a USB4 device when it has no feature that was not available when USB 1.1 came out. The branding of "USB 2.0" was a huge mistake because the standards documents would have "USB 2.0 version 1.0" on them. The "2.0" wasn't a version but part of the name. They could ha