The USB-C standard came with the premise of defeating its counterparts under the motto of being the only one that could unite the entire industry, being symmetrical and providing greater speed, less physical space and guidelines where from a laptop, a powerbank, smartphone or different devices could be reflected. Years later everything is a disaster, the peripherals hardly include it, the plates go to a minimum proportion against the Type-A and therefore it does not curdle in the industry. Why is it costing you so much?
There are multiple reasons why this is happening in this specific way and in any case they are not easy or quick to explain, and in many cases they would require entering specific markets to see what is happening.
For this reason, we will launch a kind of probe balloon to see the entire industry from above and we will end up focusing on PC, which is what matters to us, but at the same time it is dependent and reactionary on the rest of the sectors.
USB-C, a disaster in general terms of compatibility
If something has precisely this type of USB is that it should have greater compatibility, which is what was originally sought. A symmetrical, smaller, more powerful and faster connector with a higher electrical charge, a ” The One ” that is wreaking havoc on the smartphone market.
The main problem is the so-called property standards, which are too open and leave too much room for companies to roam freely. Why is this a problem? Because so many current and voltage ratings have been generated, so many speeds available, so much compatibility or non-compatibility by companies, that really the only thing in common is the pins and the shape of the connector.
He was very permissive in discerning basic connection and speed standards, which now, for example, a Google Pixel 4 does not charge with a Huawei USB-C charger because it considers that it breaks the official specifications of the original standard.
Something similar happens in laptops. Each manufacturer has a USB-C charger with its respective cable and depending on them, the device takes more or less to fill its battery. The same thing happens on motherboards, since in one model we can find fast charging ports and other normal ones. If we add to this that each mobile phone has a charging criterion at X watts, laptops another at X watts and the rest of devices such as a mouse or keyboard are lower, we have a host of problems and no solution.
In terms of speed there is also no general consensus
USB-C 2X, USB-C 3X, USB 3.2 Gen 1, USB 3.2 Gen 2 and so on, etc., and not to mention the properties in terms of data connection. Without forgetting the new USB 4 of course, which seems to be the only one that will try to put some order to this whole matter.
If this in itself is complicated for the port itself, let’s add the fact that the cables have to meet certain validations for length and speed, where none of these parameters are specified by the official standard either.
The table below reflects the general confusion that a user may experience, where the consortium has complicated the specification at every step it takes.
| Generation | Specification | Optional consumer brand | Data speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| USB 1.x | USB 1.0 | Full speed | 12 Mbps |
| USB 1.0 | Low speed USB | 1.5 Mbps | |
| USB 1.1 | Full speed | 12 Mbps | |
| USB 2.x | USB 2.0 | High speed | 480 Mbps |
| USB 3.x | USB 3.0 | SuperSpeed | 5 Gbps |
| USB 3.1 | USB + super speed | 10 Gbps | |
| USB 3.2 | USB 3.2 Gen 1 | SuperSpeed USB 5Gbps | 5 Gbps |
| USB 3.2 Gen 2 | SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps | 10 Gbps | |
| USB 3.2 Gen 2 2 × 2 | SuperSpeed USB 20Gbps | 20 Gbps | |
| USB 4 | USB 4.0 | 40 Gbps (Thunderbolt 3) |
And that we have not entered to speak of the so-called “alternative modes” another odyssey worthy of a horror movie. And is that these include support for DisplayPort, MHL, HDMI or Ethernet , is that not enough? Well, in audio everything depends on the cable you choose and the device in question.
A smartphone may have Hi-Res support and not be played as such by a worse quality headphone in terms of its cable. If this happens on a laptop, there could be another case, very appropriate in terms of form and form to what was experienced with Thunderbolt: of all the ports, only one may be compatible.
On PC manufacturers don’t help with NOT including USB-C
The market is so complicated that it takes consensus, agreements signed by all parties to facilitate all this, not in the industry in general (really difficult to achieve) but at least on PC.
Manufacturers of motherboards, processors, patch chips, and peripheral manufacturers must join efforts to make the ratio of direct ports to CPUs with USB-C at least 50% of what is offered on the motherboards. But this is somewhat complicated because many peripherals need legacy support for USB 2.0 (that’s why there are specific ports).
This would force certain users to change peripherals on their new platforms, or acquire boards that reward these ports, but this is something like the PS2, they remain a miracle, but there is the user who still needs them after 20 years with the same peripheral, which does not want to change.
In summary, the industry must set limit specifications for all, versions and compatibility, because USB-C can really be the port that one sector like no other has done before, but if this continues it will tend to disappear through another interface that provides simplicity and where a big manufacturer ends up adapting it.
You just have to look at what Bluetooth 5.0 has achieved in audio and how it resists the 3.5-inch mini Jack. USB 4 is not going to fix compatibility issues, it is just a small step to simplify some aspects, so the ball is on the roof of the industry: unite to advance or end with other less productive standards for all and more complicated for the users, which logically generates higher costs.