The USB-C mandate is good, but the actual USB-C spec is not, with how confusing it became because now the USB-C connector doesn't tell you whether the cable is charge-only, USB 2.0, USB 3.1, USB 3.2 or USB 4.0. So everytime I grab a cable I need to test it and label it accordingly.
With USB-A and B, you knew at a glance at least which speeds it supported.
There's no such thing as a charge-only USB-C cable that's compliant with USB standards. So if it's got a USB logo, and isn't a counterfeit, then it's not charge-only. Of course there are plenty of counterfeits.
Otherwise entirely correct, the marking requirements for USB-C are terrible. And the ports don't have any good way to show which alternate functions they support. You can have 40Gib/s USB-4.0 without the DisplayPort alternate mode supported, for example.
The fact that they don't meet a standard doesn't negate the fact that they exist, are for sale, and that most people do not understand the very technical specifications, or even what the USB logo represents.
SAI_Peregrinus|1 year ago
Otherwise entirely correct, the marking requirements for USB-C are terrible. And the ports don't have any good way to show which alternate functions they support. You can have 40Gib/s USB-4.0 without the DisplayPort alternate mode supported, for example.
dghlsakjg|1 year ago