• towerful@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    USB-C is also ridiculously future proof and flexible, because it’s just a connector.
    We are already doing 200w power and 40gbps data transfer rates, using various standards.

    Now, standardising on a standard would be neat. But that isn’t going to happen

    • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Indeed. USB-C is already a lot more feature-rich now than it was when initially designed, yet it hasn’t necessitated moving to a different port or broken protocol compatibility with older USB versions.

      I’m just pointing out that even if we decide to move beyond USB-C, the law already allows for that.

      I truly don’t understand why some are against the law pushing for a standard here. Would these people like it if different branded lightbulbs used different sockets? Or their TV, toaster, washing machine, playstation etc all used different plug sockets? Or only Volkswagen garages had fuel nozzles that fit into Volkswagen cars? Standards are a good thing.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      This is the downside of USB-C: a single connector used by many different capability ports and cables. On another thread I was complaining that laptops/computers still have too few USB-C ports and too many USB-A that I want to migrate away from. Why shouldn’t I be able to have all small, symmetrical connectors, like I have for the last decade with Lightning?

      Some of the answers were that you can’t support the power and bandwidth for that many and there is no easy way to distinguish either ports or cables that do from those that don’t. That’s a pretty bad excuse when standardized marking could take care of that so easily. Even with USB-A there is a convention with color of the port - it would be trivial to do the same