Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
USB-IF Confusingly Merges USB 3.0 and USB 3.1 Under New USB 3.2 Branding
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Did I accidentally click on a link to the Onion and not notice?
I equally love and despise USB 3 dot wtf-ever so much.
USB 2.... you knew it just was what it was across all 75 different cable connection ends.
USB 3... you get either 3.0, 3.1 or now 3.1 but they make you think USB-C is fast but USB-C connection end could actually be USB 2 or 3 or 3.1 or 3.2 or even thunderbolt 3.
It's like rolling the dice, "OK, I got a cable with blue in it" "DAMNIT the manufacturer used a SATA 1 controller inside the hard drive so it still doesn't matter!!!"
USB 2.... you knew it just was what it was across all 75 different cable connection ends.
USB 3... you get either 3.0, 3.1 or now 3.1 but they make you think USB-C is fast but USB-C connection end could actually be USB 2 or 3 or 3.1 or 3.2 or even thunderbolt 3.
It's like rolling the dice, "OK, I got a cable with blue in it" "DAMNIT the manufacturer used a SATA 1 controller inside the hard drive so it still doesn't matter!!!"
USB — both in naming convention and spec — has been a hot mess for all of 3.x. Just move onto 4.0 already. They should have never done .x revisions for such a ubiquitous standard; all it does is confuse people.
There’s plenty of numbers above 3, people.
There’s plenty of numbers above 3, people.
USB has always been about cost - that's one of the reasons why it's universal.
Consider that USB 2.0 works with USB 1.1 cables - why didn't USB start with 2.0 speeds? The host controller, cables, and testing all cost money.
USB 3.2 2x2 is a feature used by probably less than 5% of upcoming USB peripherals.
If USB-IF had implemented USB 3.2 2x2 on day one, it would be a war among hardware manufacturers to see who could implement the highest spec just for marketing sake, without regard for cost.
The USB people need to talk to the people who came up with the the WiFi 4/5/6 brand simplification.
I'll never understand how standards bodies can be so tacky and tasteless.
Why not call it USB 3, 4, and 5? Double the speed every couple years and give it a new number. Wifi recently did the same thing although it was so late that it's still confusing to have to go back and retroactively name old products shipped as "ac" or "n".
I'll also never understand how you can call a port "SuperSpeed". Surely you realize that the name will only be relevant for a couple years at best. 100mbps Ethernet is still called "Fast Ethernet" despite not being so fast anymore. If you must then call them USB 10g, 20g, 30g, etc. Numbers are still easiest for consumers to understand though. 4 is better than 3.
[doublepost=1551227827][/doublepost]
Why not call it USB 3, 4, and 5? Double the speed every couple years and give it a new number. Wifi recently did the same thing although it was so late that it's still confusing to have to go back and retroactively name old products shipped as "ac" or "n".
I'll also never understand how you can call a port "SuperSpeed". Surely you realize that the name will only be relevant for a couple years at best. 100mbps Ethernet is still called "Fast Ethernet" despite not being so fast anymore. If you must then call them USB 10g, 20g, 30g, etc. Numbers are still easiest for consumers to understand though. 4 is better than 3.
[doublepost=1551227827][/doublepost]
Thunderbolt 3 doesn't run at 40gbps, at least not for data. It's capped at 22gbps. Thunderbolt is still far superior as it has low latency and allows for more responsive SSDs and external GPUs which USB will never be able to match.
I was going to post that someone here is going to blame Apple for this. Well done, sir. Thanks for not letting us down.
I’m waiting for USB-232. Then we will have come full circle.
Now we know how they got the iPhone XS Max or whatever it’s called.
[doublepost=1551229498][/doublepost]
I wonder if this was the same marketing firm that convinced Marriot to switch to Bonvoy, Nordstrom to switch to Nordy Club and Merrill to drop the Lynch.
The USB Implementers Forum (USB-IF), this week announced a rebranding of the USB 3.0 and USB 3.1 specifications, under the USB 3.2 specification. As outlined by Tom's Hardware, USB 3.0 and USB 3.1 will now be considered previous generations of the USB 3.2 specification.
Going forward, USB 3.1 Gen 1 (transfer speeds up to 5Gb/s), which used to be USB 3.0 prior to a separate rebranding, will be called USB 3.2 Gen 1, while USB 3.1 Gen 2 (transfer speeds up to 10Gb/s) will now be known as USB 3.2 Gen 2.
What used to be considered USB 3.2 will now be USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 because if offers twice the throughput speeds of USB 3.1 Gen 2, now USB 3.2 Gen 2. If that sounds confusing to you, you're not alone. Tom's Hardware made this handy chart that shows the new branding scheme compared to the older branding.
If the swap between USB 3.1 Gen 1 and Gen 2 to USB 3.2 wasn't confusing enough, each of these specifications also has a marketing term. The new USB 3.2 Gen 1 with transfer speeds up to 5Gb/s is SuperSpeed USB, while USB 3.2 Gen 2 with transfer speeds up to 10Gb/s is known as SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps. The USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 specification with transfer speeds up to 20Gb/s is known as SuperSpeed USB 20Gbps.
Introduced in 2017, USB 3.2 (now USB 3.2 Gen 2x2) uses two 10Gb/s channels for a total data transfer rate of 20Gb/s, a feature limited to USB-C cables because USB-C cables support multi-lane operations.
USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 devices aren't out in the wild yet, and it's not yet clear when the first ones will arrive. Apple is often an early adopter of new USB technology and USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 could potentially be supported by the next-generation Macs.
Article Link: USB-IF Confusingly Merges USB 3.0 and USB 3.1 Under New USB 3.2 Branding
I love how every time Apple releases a new interface (lightning, thunderbolt), there's howling all around that they should stop confusing people and just use USB.
Even the WiFi alliance finally got their ducks in a row.
USB should just go to a regular 1 or 2 year update cycle and label their cables with the USB symbol badged with the year of release.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_spectrum
Would not have put "ultra" before "super" before "extreme" if it were up to me, but there it is.
Even the WiFi alliance finally got their ducks in a row.
USB should just go to a regular 1 or 2 year update cycle and label their cables with the USB symbol badged with the year of release.
If they follow the radio guys, the progression goes: Very, Ultra, Super, Extreme, Tremendous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_spectrum
Would not have put "ultra" before "super" before "extreme" if it were up to me, but there it is.
Last edited:
Seems to me they are being consistent with naming confusion they introduced with USB 3.1, where USB 3.0 became USB 3.1 gen 1. The only difference now is that they have 2 legacy standards to rename, but they are using the same naming pattern. With that said, it is, ofc, ridiculous.
Don’t remind me! *Thinks back to 2011 Mac Mini* I spent £100 for a Thunderbolt to USB 3 adapter with a single port.... grrr
Wow.... Was this should be an article from the Onion, rather than an actual rebranding from the USB people.....
It reminds me of this:
It reminds me of this: