I'm assuming here that your post was a response to mine. So I agree with your point when the identically looking cables (many of which have ICs or other electronics/intelligence at each end) have inherently different capabilities. However, if the universal cable is just "dumb" with effectively infinite bandwidth and a fixed DC power transmission capability then you can use that to connect systems together e.g. a computer to your TV or external hard drive. The electronics driving the cable at each end could conceivably handshake and figure out lowest common denominator protocols etc., but people wouldn't be loading up landfills with obsolete cables anymore. People generally know the capabilities of the hardware they're trying to interconnect and a generic cable would always appear to work well in such cases. A generic looking cable with different capabilities is another (frustrating) story altogether.
MY post wasn't specifically a response to yours. There's no shortage of complaints of one sort or other in this thread.
The notion of a universal, dumb cable???? Ain't no such thing. "Infinite bandwidth" is expensive, and the definition of "adequate bandwidth" for computing has increased with every passing decade. Do you feel competent to define how much bandwidth will be required 10 or 20 years from now? And just how much DC power transmission capability do you need? Should a smartphone or wireless earbud charger cable come equipped to carry as much power as a desktop computer or display requires? For all those concerned about wasting resources... Those over-built "universal" cables would use a whole lot more copper and plastic, too.
I have a long history in pro audio, video, and computing, with a bit of household electrical work on my days off. Fabricating cables of one sort or other has been a big part of it all. For the most part, higher data speeds demand more expensive cable fabrication techniques, such as twisted pairs with a high number of twists per foot of running length. The difference in construction and cost between a traditional Cat 5 Ethernet cable (10/100 mbps) and a Cat 8 (25/40 gbps) is substantial. For higher data rates the individual twisted pairs are themselves twisted together in carefully-engineered manners. Will pairs be individually shielded to reduce cross-talk? The higher the data rate the more likely that will be necessary, but shielding not only adds bulk but capacitance, which tends to reduce the maximum practical length of the cable. For power you need large current-carrying capacity, which is bulky (typically done with larger-guage conductors, but in the USB-C power cables it's a multiplicity of light-guage wires). Fabrication of these many-paired-and-conductored cables is not cheap, so manufacturers prefer to use simpler, cheaper cables for less-demanding applications (lower data rates, non-power delivery, etc.)... and consumers prefer to pay lower prices, too. Building to the
highest common denominator generally fails all economics tests.
You want a dumb cable? Classic example is basic, Thomas Edison-style 110 VAC mains power delivery. Even there, manufacturers are much happier when they can use two-wire cables (hot and neutral) rather than three-wire (hot, neutral, ground). They're also not going to use the 12-guage conductors used in a 20-amp circuit to connect a lamp with a single, 125-watt-rated incandescent lamp socket (18-guage).
One size fits all is a pipe dream.
www.anandtech.com
