It’s been 33 years since I have actually used a rotary phone (my parents had one, the only phone in the house, actually)...jeez, what a pain in the ass they were. I do not miss them at all.
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.
USB4 Specification Merges Thunderbolt 3 and USB With Transfer Speeds up to 40Gb/s
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It’s been 33 years since I have actually used a rotary phone (my parents had one, the only phone in the house, actually)...jeez, what a pain in the ass they were. I do not miss them at all.
Don’t have any pressing needs to update my current setup. My 2014 retina MacBook Pro is running fine and has ports that I still use like HDMI and the SD card slot not to mention mag safe. I’m also not ready to let my keyboard go just yet. Feel free to send me any of those non USBC Macs you want to get rid of.
LoL I know it is an unpopular opinion, I do remember you were one of the few who stand by the lightning connector. And it is quite tiring when people continue to post misinformation on USB-C.
Reminds me of the original iPhone demo in 2007 when they discussed ditching the idea of the iPod clickwheel on the phone and opted for multitouch instead. Good thing!
Yes, USB-C is just like one of those early pushbutton phones that looked the business but, after you'd punched in the number, used the same old pulse dialling protocol that took forever to dial a 14-digit international number. Oh, and a built-in washing machine because nobody ever needed to make a phone call while the washer was running (stop moaning and get an extension phone!)
I have a dozen or so devices - some quite new - that gain absolutely no advantage whatsoever from using USB-C rather than USB-A or DisplayPort. Even new 10Gbps devices work perfectly well on the type-A 3.1g2 ports often found on PCs - but the vast majority of USB devices don't need that sort of speed anyway. In any case, I have more devices than ports (A or C) and you can count the number of one-to-many USB-C hubs out there on the fingers of both feet - so if I replaced my devices with shiny new USB-C ones, I'd probably need USB-C-to-A dongles to plug those into a USB-A hub.
...wouldn't be so bad if computers were appearing with 6-8 USB-C ports (to make up for the fact that the exiting USB ports now have to double up as power and display connections) but, yay, implementing USB-C ports is more complex (and therefore expensive) than USB-A was, especially if they're going to be full-featured so we get fewer physical holes to plug things into (which is sometimes more important than the theoretical ability to have dual 5k displays and dual RAID SSD arrays hanging off your ultra-lite notebook).
Of course, there's USB 3.2 x2, which will take advantage of the extra bandwidth of USB-C... to deliver half the speed of Thunderbolt 3/USB4. I've yet to hear of a device that uses it, and I can't see what permutation of misconceptions would make peripheral manufacturers start supporting a 20Gbps protocol that no computer supports with 40Gbps Thunderbolt already available and 'forward compatible' with USB4.
...meanwhile, combining multiple protocols with different topologies and electrical properties (USB-C, power, DisplayPort, HDMI, Thunderbolt) on a single connection is just unnecessary complication. Result: superficially identical and interchangeable cables with different functionality, passive display cables replaced with more-to-go-wrong active ones (yup - every current USB-C to HDMI cable is an active DP-to-HDMI converter, and even USB-C to DP cables need some embedded electronics - practical upshot, the cables get hot).
Meanwhile, the one place where combining multiple unrelated functions on a single connector is a necessary evil - mobile phones - is the one place Apple doesn't adopt them.
I'll happily adopt new technology that is better than what it replaces. USB-C is just an overcomplicated way of doing the same thing as before. Even Thunderbolt 3 only adopted the USB-C connector for strategic reasons (to make Intel the go-to supplier of USB-C/USB 3.1 controllers).
The issue comes up in the "drawer of cables" scenario. You have a USB-C accessory, a USB-C laptop/tablet, and you want to exchange data between the two. You open up your drawer where you throw all your cables, and see a bunch of USB-C cables. It is not immediately apparent which one will be best for data transfer. If you happen to pick wrong, because you see the data is moving very slowly, then you cancel, pick again, and try again. That is a bad user experience.
The average person would care. The difference between 480Mpbs and 5Gbps is over 10x. That is a huuuuge and very noticeable difference. If viewing a 4k video recorded on a drone or camera or something, that's the difference between the video loading right away and lots of buffering. That's copying the contents of a 128GB SD card, such as from a security camera or dash camera or gopro or drone or whatever, in 39 minutes versus 4 minutes.
The whole promise of USB-C was "one cable." If I have to keep track of which cable came with which device, then what's the point of USB-C? Proprietary connectors are better then, so at least I'll know which cable works with which device as its the only cable that fits. No, the point of USB-C is I don't have to keep track of which cable does what, they're all supposed to work when I blindly reach for a USB-C cable regardless of whether I am charging or transfering data.
Also, there are many 2-meter USB-C cables capable of 5Gbps transfer. Monoprice. Amazon Basic. B&H Photo.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Appears to me the cost is drastically higher for a 2 meter USB C cable with USB 3.0 speed over a USB C cable with USB 2.0 speed. That's a big problem, huge problem, for laptop manufacturers (maybe not Apple) who have to live on razor thin profit margins. That would be a hard sell. I think they would just bundle USB 2.0 cables anyway, even if the USB IF decides they're gonna go sue happy (which I doubt they would). Notice that Apple products typically don't have USB logos anyway, and they could literally include the cable but not include USB logos on the cable and there's even less the USB IF could do about it.
Yes, I get everything you're saying, it just doesn't seem to matter. So someone took a cable out of a drawer one time and it wasn't 3.0, so what. So it took longer. The person then could google why their device was slower, oh you need USB 3.0, oh this cable may or may not be 3.0, oh so I should google USB 3.0 USB C and buy the first result on google. Problem solved (or just find the cable the device included in the box!) I know people like my parents would just accept it's slower and not give a f*** it could be faster.
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Please provide a source for your claim, bolded above. Setting aside the cost of the connectors and licensing costs associated with that, the cost of the physical cable capable of USB3 speeds is not that significant. First, I linked above a 6ft USB3 cable that costs just $5. Second, prior to USB-C, USB3 cables were included with most Samsung smartphones and lots of other accessories. If cost was not an issue then, why would it be an issue today?
Also, you don't have to include a USB logo on the device itself. Apple uses the USB mark and the word "USB" all over the place (website, packaging, etc.). There is no doubt that Apple holds the cable out publicly as a "USB" and "USB-C" cable.
Your parents might not care, but some people would. I'm not saying all people would, but if even 10% of users feel they had a bad user experience with using USB-C cables, that is a very bad thing for adoption of the standard.
The process you described: "The person then could google why their device was slower, oh you need USB 3.0, oh this cable may or may not be 3.0, oh so I should google USB 3.0 USB C and buy the first result on google." is exactly the mess I described in my initial post. The cost of having the negative user experience outweighs the incremental increase in cable cost.
In 2019 we can do better than the bare minimum of 20 years ago.
That isn't going to happen until Apple develops and tests support for the USB Type-C Authentication Program. This will allow Apple to authorize only certain USB-C cables for use with the iPhone. This gives them the same type of royalty fee structure as they have with lightning. I expect that to launch with the next iPhone.
I looked at the links you provided, prices were: $12, $16-18 (depending on discount), and $35, compared to $5 or less for a 2.0 cable that's 2 meters. I don't know where you linked a USB C to C cable with USB 3.0 that's 2 meters for $5.
The pre-C cables were fundementally different than the C cables (USB Power Delivery and all that).
Smartphones also get away with shorter charging cables. Laptops seem to include longer charging cables. I'm saying that the need for longer cables might be the singular reason for USB 2.0 to be "allowed", factoring in the double or more cost for 3.0 cable over 2.0.
Apple could decide to brand the charging cable as "not USB" (basically just omit any branding associated with the cable). Just call it a charging cable and be done with it. Doesn't have to use the USB logo at all.
Well I think overall we have what we have. USB IF has a lot of things to consider and so they considered that having 2.0 should be allowed, probably for the reasons I outlined (cost mainly, also the 3.0 USB C to C cables are much thicker). There's also a whole class of devices that don't use USB 3.0 and never will (keyboards and mice) but most new ones aren't USB C anyway. And if you think cost and profit margin isn't a reason here, then I can assure you, many devices still have microUSB purely out of the hit to their margins USB-C connectors make. Even if a USB-C connector costs $1 each, while microUSB costs $.20 each, they still go with microUSB, sadly enough.
First, you said none were available. I showed you some and now you complain about prices? Quit moving the goal posts.
Second, show me a link to a USB-C to USB-C cable, 2 meters, for $5.
I'm not saying there is no cost difference, I'm saying the cost difference of the cable is outweighed by the negative user experience and confusion. I'm not saying all USB cables should be Thunderbolt3, which can cost $50 or more. For only a few dollars more, a 2m cable can have 5x the speed and alleviate a lot of cable-confusion later on. It's worth it and then some.
Then what's the point of USB-C? This seems to be the antithesis of USB-C. Might as well go back to Magsafe, Firewire, Ethernet, and all that. If we're using it just for charging and who cares about data, then there are much better charging standards and data standards.
As my original point said, USB-C is not the panacea everyone makes it out to be. And USB-IF has a long history of being dysfunctional.
Remember when they used to release a new mobile connector every year (or so it seemed)? Micro-USB A, Micro-USB B, Micro-USB AB, Micro-USB B Superspeed, Mini-USB A, Mini-USB B 5-pin, Mini-USB b 4-pin, and there are probably a half-dozen others I forgot about. And suddenly people believe this same organization is going to standardize everyone around one mega-format in USB-C?
Hell no, USB-C is just as much of a mess as USB was before, if not worse. They could have truly made a "one cable to rule them all," but they didn't. Some say intentionally, but I think it's through incompetence.
I swear I'm not trying to move goalposts, if I said they're not available then fine I was wrong. What I am saying is, they're not commonly available. I've looked at Best Buy and Staples and Walmart before and found basically no 2 meter, USB-C to C 3.0 cables in stores. They seem to be available online. Seems like the problem is the demand just isn't there (probably because USB 3.0 devices are rare it seems).
AmazonBasics one seems to be $7.50, so it's about half the cost or so compared to the one you posted.
And I'm saying it doesn't appear to me that it is outweighed by the negative experience. Neither of us are right or wrong, it's just a value judgement. I think the USB-IF just tends to allow more versatility and that's how they operate. You want more restrictions, even to the extent of using the legal system to try to get what you want, which may or may not accomplish your goals, you just aren't thinking like the USB-IF seems to think.
That is all about the cables and not separate standards. The cables meant for charging don't have to have any branding of USB whatsoever. Then if there's no branding there's not much legal action that could conceivably hit manufacturers for trademark infringements. The most viable method for your goal would be straight DRM and encryption which wouldn't be ideal either (much higher cost to implement a true certification program).
Well I 100% agree it's not a panacea and I 100% agree that it would be nice to have 1 standard that works but I also think the problem here is we don't have a practical method to force USB 3.0 on every cable maker in the world without DRMing it to hell.
If I recall, other USB-A variants never got off the ground, just regular USB-A. The USB-B variants sucked (made a lot of cameras annoying to have a different cable for one and the other). USB 3.0 then screwed around and made things worse. That's just the cost of legacy. They kept USB 2.0 side by side with USB 3.0 because they (rightly) identified many devices would simply never use 5 Gbps (like keyboards). They then figured your 3.0 devices that use a cable could just include the cable you need so you don't have to care about micro-B 3.0 versus micro-B 2.0. Then C came along and unified everything in one port, but with different standards.
It sucks. But I just don't see what you can do about it. DRMing it is basically the last resort, suing companies that don't comply won't stop companies in China from doing it (US legal system won't touch them). Then people will still find cheapass cables on Amazon and buy them. What did you accomplish then when everyone has USB 2.0 C to C cables anyway?
This specific issue seems to be intentional, to keep potential costs lower for manufacturers, who could raise a big stink about a double cost cable for a niche use case.
I don't think DRM is necessarily the only way to enforce it. They could have just not supported 2.0 at all in a USB-C to USB-C cable. If you use a cable not capable of USB3, it wouldn't work period.
Why aren't there any USB 1.1 12Mbps USB-C cables? Because the spec simply doesn't support such a cable. But you can still plug in a legacy USB 1.1 device into a USB-A to USB-C adapter and it will work.
The same could have been done to phase out 2.0, not support such cables but provide for such legacy devices.
I mean, I’m mostly joking and more curious than anything. But please tell me how else to plug in the Mini-DV tape deck to get the ****** 640x480 videos I shot in college from them.
true that, i have a awful lot of DV home movies on gasp- TAPES
Yeah... I've got a few MiniDV tapes too...
Can I still buy a FireWire card for my PC?
Didn't work for any of my old FW HDs going two dongles into an current ipad pro.
I would guess the iPad doesn't have drivers for the Firewire adapter. Even though Firewire was Apple's, iPads don't necessarily support the same devices Macs do.
Until recently I had a FireWire 800 to Thunderbolt 2, plugged into a Thunderbolt 2 to Thunderbolt 3 adaptor and then into my iMac to run my old Drobo and it worked fine.
While it not working on iPad is slightly discouraging for the future of connectivity, I really wouldn't have expected an iPad to be able to talk to a FireWire device through any means.