Quote:
Originally Posted by PB PM
It was easier for consumers to know what they were getting with TB1/2, or FW400/FW800 because they all used different connectors. People then proceeded to complain and say, "why don't they all just used USB-C", so that's what manufactures are doing, now people are complaining they all use the same connector.  |
Can't win 'em all.
I understand why people dislike that some USB-C cables do x, others do y, and yet others do both x and y but at speed z. But there isn't really any constructive suggestion. Give cables better labels, show in the OS which features are available, etc.? That becomes complicated and nerdy fast. Make every cable as powerful as it can be? Thunderbolt cables are way too expensive to produce for that to be feasible, and it'd be wasteful, too, when what the vast majority of people really want is just to charge their devices.
(I had this discussion just the other night. We make a device with two USB-C ports. One does data; the other instead has a special mode for antennas. Both charge. Again, you could give the ports better labeling, but even better would probably be to have them have physically different shapes.)