USB4 Specification Merges Thunderbolt 3 and USB With Transfer Speeds up to 40Gb/s

[ksec]

Well, if it’s not feasible to move from USB 2.0 to 3.1 due to cost or size/power requirements of the host controller interface, and you’re not going to offer display port alt modes, then there’s really no reason to transition from Lightning to USB-C on iPhone. There’s little to be gained.

But Apple could add USB 3.1 controller functionality on the SoC if they choose. The IP is available for license, Cadence for instance offers Fresco Logic’s USB 3.0 and 3.1 xHCI. Instead of a 6mm x 6mm discrete TFBGA package like the iPad Pro has, it would then have a much smaller footprint, who knows maybe 3x3mm. Since the iPhone 8/X, iPhones already have a USB-PD controller.

Which is why I have always said Apple aren't transitioning to USB-C on iPhone. That was before USB4 spec. I will need to read the spec when I have time to see what segmentation they have done to it.

Theoretically, Apple could make / design and Fab their own controller, in the size/ power requirement they want, but current controller are being sold at such a price Apple may never amortised the cost of doing it by themselves. And seriously, apart from a few percentage of users, who needs 5 / 10 Gbps transfer speed on an iPhone? Apple has been counting pennies with their BOM cost, I just don't see that happening. I would love to be wrong though.

Again this is before USB4, hopefully something in the spec provides Apple with the incentive to transition out of Lightning.

 

[oneMadRssn]

This, a million times.

What the USB-IF has done is solved the physical compatibility problem by adopting a single connector, USB-C, but in the process made all other respects much worse, merely shifting the technical complexity to cables and protocols, and potentially confusing even for folks who try to keep up with it.

The lay user stands no chance, nor are they likely to care either, about speeds, watts, wire gauge, length etc.; as long as the plug and socket mate, and a connection is made.

In that respect, USB-C has been a great success, but the rest is a fustercluck, with a marketing scheme developed by and for nerds (first with the Gen nonsense, and then backtracking on it), not consumer marketers.

A classic example of "by committee," and all the negative connotations that carries, if ever there was one.

I actually think it's a bit worse than merely design by committee.

There is absolutely no reason I can think of that in 2014 (when the USB-C spec was published) to have allowed the most basic cable to limited to USB 2.0 speeds (480Mbps). USB 3.0 had been out for half a decade at that point, and in terms of wire gauge, shielding, and such there was not that much difference. USB-IF could have easily required all USB-C cables to support USB 3.0 speeds (5Gbps) as an absolute minimum requirement; and I don't think such cables would have costed any more to the consumers. It would have avoided a lot of this mess. For the average user, the difference between 5Gbps and 20Gpbs is meh, but the difference between 580Mbps and 5Gpbs is huge.

To me, this was totally predictable in 2014. They knew or should have known at the time the confusion it would cause by allowing USB-C cables to be limited like that.

 

[BuffaloTF]

Good editor that knows USB4 doesn’t have a space between B and 4!

I think styling as USB______________4 would be better.

Like the Qat____ar in their World Cup logo.

 

[MiG007]

Of course since it is the USB Implementors Forum you have this:

The USB Implementers Forum has published the USB4 specification, as promised, though with one disappointment: Thunderbolt support is optional, meaning that there may be confusion over which devices can support what protocol.

(from PCWorld)​

This from the people who gave us:

• USB Low-speed
• USB Full Speed
• USB Hi-Speed
• USB 3.0
  • renamed to USB 3.1 Gen 1
  • then renamed to USB 3.2 Gen 1
• USB 3.1 Gen 2
  • renamed to USB 3.2 Gen 2
• USB 3.2 Gen 2x2
• Superspeed USB
  
• SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps
• SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps

Not to mention USB Battery Charging 1.0, 1.1, 1.2 ... USB Power Delivery revision 2..0 (version 1.1)...

 

[PastaPrimav]

True... I will admit that USB-C hasn't quite delivered on the promise of "one cable/port to rule them all"

But I think it's heading in the right direction and it'll (someday) work out in the end.

I can't believe we had DVI, DisplayPort, Mini-DisplayPort, HDMI, Mini-HDMI and Micro-HDMI... and they all performed the same task...

...deliver digital video. Ones and Zeros.

THAT'S something that shouldn't ever happen again! Multiple plugs that do the same damn thing!

Hopefully the USB-C port will be able to handle EVERY data/audio/video protocol in the future.

And we won't have to worry about the shape of the holes in our devices changing every couple years...

Yeah but I think you misunderstand what is important: users.

Heading in the right direction? No its running as fast as it can in the wrong direction and has been since its inception.

You lament DVI, DisplayPort, Mini-DisplayPort, HDMI, Mini-HDMI and Micro-HDMI all performing "the same task" but only in the broad strokes. They all performed some level of "video out" with the details being much, much stickier. What was good about them was that despite the fact that they were all different, users of one or other had a pretty good idea of what they could do.

If a user saw an HDMI port on a machine they knew, at the very least some of, what could be done with it. The same cannot be said of that oval-shaped connector referred to as USB-type-C. You have absolutely no idea what the port is capable of, and even if you do, you have no idea what the cable in your hand is capable of. That is a usability nightmare. This nightmare hasn't even begun to be a mainstream problem because the mainstream still does not care about USB-C at all...it is something that only exists inside a relatively tiny tech bubble of delusion and denial.

 

[x-evil-x]

people on here will still complain about carrying around dongles. Usb c all the way. I despise standard usb

 

[Michael Scrip]

Yeah but I think you misunderstand what is important: users.

Heading in the right direction? No its running as fast as it can in the wrong direction and has been since its inception.

You lament DVI, DisplayPort, Mini-DisplayPort, HDMI, Mini-HDMI and Micro-HDMI all performing "the same task" but only in the broad strokes. They all performed some level of "video out" with the details being much, much stickier. What was good about them was that despite the fact that they were all different, users of one or other had a pretty good idea of what they could do.

If a user saw an HDMI port on a machine they knew, at the very least some of, what could be done with it. The same cannot be said of that oval-shaped connector referred to as USB-type-C. You have absolutely no idea what the port is capable of, and even if you do, you have no idea what the cable in your hand is capable of. That is a usability nightmare. This nightmare hasn't even begun to be a mainstream problem because the mainstream still does not care about USB-C at all...it is something that only exists inside a relatively tiny tech bubble of delusion and denial.

I was just thinking from the standpoint of having all those different shaped holes for different single tasks.

In your HDMI example... there is a hole in a laptop that is ONLY for video. And then you need other holes for everything else.

But I understand what you're saying. Thanks!

 

[dwaite]

i need TB4 alrdy, losing 10-20% performance on egpu from the get go is not good.

there will never be a Thunderbolt 4

 

[Zdigital2015]

Yeah but I think you misunderstand what is important: users.

Heading in the right direction? No its running as fast as it can in the wrong direction and has been since its inception.

You lament DVI, DisplayPort, Mini-DisplayPort, HDMI, Mini-HDMI and Micro-HDMI all performing "the same task" but only in the broad strokes. They all performed some level of "video out" with the details being much, much stickier. What was good about them was that despite the fact that they were all different, users of one or other had a pretty good idea of what they could do.

If a user saw an HDMI port on a machine they knew, at the very least some of, what could be done with it. The same cannot be said of that oval-shaped connector referred to as USB-type-C. You have absolutely no idea what the port is capable of, and even if you do, you have no idea what the cable in your hand is capable of. That is a usability nightmare. This nightmare hasn't even begun to be a mainstream problem because the mainstream still does not care about USB-C at all...it is something that only exists inside a relatively tiny tech bubble of delusion and denial.

While USB-A, DisplayPort and HDMI still have their place and still have fairly long lives ahead of them, they are no longer cutting edge or state of the art, they’re just connectors. But the rest of the ports (mini DisplayPort, mini- and micro-USB, mini- and micro-HDMI, DVI-I and its ilk) will start dying quick deaths as they become irrelevant, especially in mobile devices, which is where they make the MOST sense.

For example, having a Kindle Fire tablet with just a USB-C port that can output video, use USB peripherals or simply charge with a single USB-C to USB-C cable as more and more other devices move to them will simplify things for Amazon and it’s users (provided they don’t have the EU nagging them about Micro-USB).

Holding onto those old ports will start to make zero sense, even to the diehards. The end of some of those ports cannot come soon enough. Users will adapt and already are...Android phones, the Nintendo Switch, the iPad Pro, all of Apple’s current lineup, et al. The list literally grows every single day.

The fact is that while USB-C is still a minor sh*tshow with regard to cables, it is the future, it is already mainstream and it no longer exists inside a tiny tech bubble. While that may have been true in 2015, it is no longer true and, unfortunately, you’re the one stuck inside an ever smaller bubble of delusion and denial.

 

[jaytv111]

I actually think it's a bit worse than merely design by committee.

There is absolutely no reason I can think of that in 2014 (when the USB-C spec was published) to have allowed the most basic cable to limited to USB 2.0 speeds (480Mbps). USB 3.0 had been out for half a decade at that point, and in terms of wire gauge, shielding, and such there was not that much difference. USB-IF could have easily required all USB-C cables to support USB 3.0 speeds (5Gbps) as an absolute minimum requirement; and I don't think such cables would have costed any more to the consumers. It would have avoided a lot of this mess. For the average user, the difference between 5Gbps and 20Gpbs is meh, but the difference between 580Mbps and 5Gpbs is huge.

To me, this was totally predictable in 2014. They knew or should have known at the time the confusion it would cause by allowing USB-C cables to be limited like that.

A huge amount of it is just the cost of cables would be much much higher if they forced Superspeed support for all C-C cables. Much of the time, a laptop manufacturer would include a USB 2.0 C to C cable and it would be meant primarily for charging and would never see use with a Superspeed device of any kind. It also takes shielding and such to get a Superspeed cable up to 2.0 meters, and most cables meant for charging are aiming to be 2.0 meters. I'm sure a lot of people would complain if laptops started coming up with only <=1.0 meter cables.

 

[ilikewhey]

there will never be a Thunderbolt 4

nooooooooooo

 

[oneMadRssn]

A huge amount of it is just the cost of cables would be much much higher if they forced Superspeed support for all C-C cables. Much of the time, a laptop manufacturer would include a USB 2.0 C to C cable and it would be meant primarily for charging and would never see use with a Superspeed device of any kind. It also takes shielding and such to get a Superspeed cable up to 2.0 meters, and most cables meant for charging are aiming to be 2.0 meters. I'm sure a lot of people would complain if laptops started coming up with only <=1.0 meter cables.

That's baloney. The cost is not that big. Here is a Monoprice USB A male to female extension cable capable of USB3 speeds for $5.10 (different connectors cost a bit more)
https://www.monoprice.com/product?p_id=13749

It's not like I'm saying they should all include a TB3 cable - but I think 5Gbps-capability should be the minimum.

I believe that the negative experience to the lay user of using the included charting USB-C cable for data transfer (regardless of how infrequent) outweighs the cost savings. USB-C is being promoted by USB-IF and all the OEMs as a "one cable for all" solution. To gimp the cable included with each laptop and smartphone - the one cable everyone is most to have on hand - with slow I/O like that is just asking for confused and frustrated users.

 

[sd70mac]

Bring back Magsafe!

/kidding

On the other hand, ThunderMag is a thing: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/thundermag-the-fastest-thunderbolt3-magsafe/x/1982296#/
[doublepost=1567634524][/doublepost]

there will never be a Thunderbolt 4

If anything, they're waiting for PCIe 5.0 chipsets to be developed, since that standard has only recently come out. Thunderbolt also remains an Intel trademark, so they can restrict it to certified products even as other devices become compatible.

 

[Zdigital2015]

nooooooooooo

Maybe once Intel moves to PCIe v4.0, but not under PCIe version 3.0. There simply aren’t enough PCIe lanes on a consumer desktop CPU for Intel to use and until the DMI 3.0 bus gets moved to PCIe v4.0 or some other sort of PCH to CPU interconnect emerges that isn’t the complete dumpster fire that DMI 3.0 currently is, then don’t get your hopes up for Thunderbolt 4 anytime soon. Frankly, by that time, I expect Apple will have transitioned to A-Series Desktop CPUs anyways.
[doublepost=1567637494][/doublepost]

I don’t even have a Mac with USBC yet..

While I, on the other hand, am trying to whittle down my collection of Macs to only those that have USB-C (and other ports, if they came with them). Po-Tay-Toe, Po-Tah-Toe...

 

[PickUrPoison]

Which is why I have always said Apple aren't transitioning to USB-C on iPhone. That was before USB4 spec. I will need to read the spec when I have time to see what segmentation they have done to it.

Theoretically, Apple could make / design and Fab their own controller, in the size/ power requirement they want, but current controller are being sold at such a price Apple may never amortised the cost of doing it by themselves. And seriously, apart from a few percentage of users, who needs 5 / 10 Gbps transfer speed on an iPhone? Apple has been counting pennies with their BOM cost, I just don't see that happening. I would love to be wrong though.

Again this is before USB4, hopefully something in the spec provides Apple with the incentive to transition out of Lightning.

Agree that iPhone will never get USB-C, but it’s an unpopular opinion around here and I usually get crap when I post that lol. There’s really no reason for USB-C on iPhone, as you say. They could always do USB 3.1 gen 1 over Lightning if they wanted, but they don’t.

Some want to think the connector’s appearance on iPad Pro is indicative of an overall transition... no, it makes sense on iPad Pro but hell the iPad Air 2019 didn’t even get it.

 

[Altherekho]

Time to bring forth Thunderbolt 4!

Yes

 

[jaytv111]

That's baloney. The cost is not that big. Here is a Monoprice USB A male to female extension cable capable of USB3 speeds for $5.10 (different connectors cost a bit more)
https://www.monoprice.com/product?p_id=13749

It's not like I'm saying they should all include a TB3 cable - but I think 5Gbps-capability should be the minimum.

I believe that the negative experience to the lay user of using the included charting USB-C cable for data transfer (regardless of how infrequent) outweighs the cost savings. USB-C is being promoted by USB-IF and all the OEMs as a "one cable for all" solution. To gimp the cable included with each laptop and smartphone - the one cable everyone is most to have on hand - with slow I/O like that is just asking for confused and frustrated users.

I guess then my question would be, what stops a company from making a USB 2.0 C to C cable? Unless they wanted to DRM the hell out of it, pretty much nothing. You just put the USB 2.0 wires from host to peripheral. USB 3.0 uses separate lanes from 2.0. What, if you hook a cable that could have been USB 3.0 is it supposed to throw a fit or something?

 

[oneMadRssn]

I guess then my question would be, what stops a company from making a USB 2.0 C to C cable? Unless they wanted to DRM the hell out of it, pretty much nothing. You just put the USB 2.0 wires from host to peripheral. USB 3.0 uses separate lanes from 2.0. What, if you hook a cable that could have been USB 3.0 is it supposed to throw a fit or something?

What stops a company from intentionally not complying with any part of a mandatory spec?

The same way all other specs are enforced - USB-IF would threaten legal action for using the "USB" and "USB-C" marks without complying with the spec. Additionally, the market would punish a vendor selling non-compliant cables with bad reviews. Marketplaces (such as Amazon) may pull listings, etc.

 

[TheIntruder]

I actually think it's a bit worse than merely design by committee.

There is absolutely no reason I can think of that in 2014 (when the USB-C spec was published) to have allowed the most basic cable to limited to USB 2.0 speeds (480Mbps). USB 3.0 had been out for half a decade at that point, and in terms of wire gauge, shielding, and such there was not that much difference. USB-IF could have easily required all USB-C cables to support USB 3.0 speeds (5Gbps) as an absolute minimum requirement; and I don't think such cables would have costed any more to the consumers. It would have avoided a lot of this mess. For the average user, the difference between 5Gbps and 20Gpbs is meh, but the difference between 580Mbps and 5Gpbs is huge.

To me, this was totally predictable in 2014. They knew or should have known at the time the confusion it would cause by allowing USB-C cables to be limited like that.

Logically, from a design standpoint, that would have been the wise thing to do.

But, I suspect someone in the room either raised a question, or objected based on the incremental cost difference, which given the volumes (and margins for some), can add up and be of concern.

I don't know if the IF's decision making requires unanimity, but all it takes is for one member of a jury to disagree, and mess things up.

 

[arkmannj]

Bring back Magsafe!

/kidding

You were kidding. But in all seriousness the loss of MagSafe has been a (smallish yet real) consideration for not upgrading some of our machines. We tend to have some power supplies at common places so people can just hook up. Those power supplies are MagSafe and turns out to be a convenient feature that people like. Moving to a power adaptor that plugs into a port has already been voted that we won't put power supplies around because it might become a more common issue of breakage.

 

[konqerror]

What stops a company from intentionally not complying with any part of a mandatory spec?

The same way all other specs are enforced - USB-IF would threaten legal action for using the "USB" and "USB-C" marks without complying with the spec. Additionally, the market would punish a vendor selling non-compliant cables with bad reviews. Marketplaces (such as Amazon) may pull listings, etc.

Yeah good luck suing the hundreds of no name sellers who buy junk from China. Remember when Amazon was actively selling USB-C cables that fried devices? It took an engineer from Google with all the qualification test equipment to stop that mess. And if you were unlucky to buy one, your device was fried with no recourse. (See the recent case of somebody who was blinded by a dog leash sold by a third-party Amazon seller)

On top of that, the profit margins on hardware are slim. A $5 cable represents about half the manufacturer's profit on a $100 monitor. Pennies count.

The problem too is that the tiny USB-C connector is a lot more parts and labor intensive to manufacture than traditional USB. They have to solder the connector and cable to a tiny intermediate PCB. Not only that, 5 A PD, and 10 Gbps cables require an e-marker, which means several active components on that PCB.

The approach is basically "harm reduction". If people and vendors won't pay more than $2.50 for a charging or sync cable, then make it possible to manufacture a good cable for $2.50.

 

[jaytv111]

What stops a company from intentionally not complying with any part of a mandatory spec?

The same way all other specs are enforced - USB-IF would threaten legal action for using the "USB" and "USB-C" marks without complying with the spec. Additionally, the market would punish a vendor selling non-compliant cables with bad reviews. Marketplaces (such as Amazon) may pull listings, etc.

I just don’t get it. I have a MacBook Pro with USB-C/Thunderbolt 3. The power cable is C to C with USB 2.0. If I hook up my iPad with USB C with the charging cable, it still connects and works perfectly fine, just slower. The 3.0 C to C cables are never 2 meters for some reason, and they’re thicker. Would an average person ever care they don’t have 3.0 speeds on maybe one device, I doubt it. In addition, every device includes cables appropriate for their device, for instance buy any hard drive with type C and it includes 2 cables, C to C and C to A, both 3.0 speeds. If someone buys a hard drive then uses their charging cable instead of the cable that came with the hard drive, that’s on them. Just my take on it.

 

[JimmyHook]

The faster we can stop people from complaining about their antiquated USB-A the better. Same people probably still complain about the lack of rotary phones...

 

[Zdigital2015]

Agree that iPhone will never get USB-C, but it’s an unpopular opinion around here and I usually get crap when I post that lol. There’s really no reason for USB-C on iPhone, as you say. They could always do USB 3.1 gen 1 over Lightning if they wanted, but they don’t.

Some want to think the connector’s appearance on iPad Pro is indicative of an overall transition... no, it makes sense on iPad Pro but hell the iPad Air 2019 didn’t even get it.

Considering how my wife uses her iPhone, I would be ecstatic if they put USB-C on the iPhone. She has a 2nd Gen 12.9” iPad Pro that she rarely uses, despite this being her main “computer”. I think it would be more convenient to simply hook up her iPhone to an external monitor a la Windows Phone Continuum. The biggest obstacle beyond USB-C would be the mouse, as the keyboard is not a problem.

Alas, I fear you are right...but Lightning makes more sense for the iPhone for water resistance and a stronger, less fragile, simpler connector.

Hopefully, iPadOS will be just the ticket for her once a “stable” version ships. She’s not fond of betas, and after this particular cycle, neither am I.

 

[itsamacthing]

Hope these cables become more stable once plugged in. They loose connection way to easily