USB-IF has to be doing this to deliberately confuse end users, right? I get that it's a specification number, not a product name, but they have to know that this will only cause problems for customers trying to find the appropriate cable.
> USB-IF emphasizes the importance and value of consistent messaging on USB product packaging, marketing materials, and advertising. Inconsistent use of terminology creates confusion in the marketplace, can be misleading to consumers and potentially diminishes USB-IF’s trademark rights.
I simply don't understand USB-IF's motivation to make this so confusing for everyone. Their board consists of Apple, HP, Intel, Microsoft, TI, Renesas, and STMicroelectronics, so it isn't like it's controlled by low end trashy cable manufacturers trying to make a quick buck from confused customers.
If I were being cynical, I'd say their motivation is to get people to throw up their hands and say "I don't understand USB any more! Just give me the latest version of Thunderbolt. I know it supports the highest speeds and highest power, including displays and eGPUs, and all USB devices, and works on any new Mac."
It allows manufacturers (yes, many of the same ones on the USB-IF board) to "upgrade" their products by printing another label. USB-IF doing this repeatedly while being fully aware of the consequences can't have any other explanation.
This is just like the 4G-5G-5Ge debacle. Both being motivated solely by financial gain.
The motivation is the same for re-branding 4G-LTE as 5G (or 6G). Sell the same thing with a new name so customers are tricked into thinking you're selling something newer and better based on the spec sheet without context.
So is there going to be a generation of young people who grow up thinking that all peripherals are USB, and that the naming system is so complicated/nonsensical that it isn’t even worth trying to figure it out?
When I was growing up, we had USB, FireWire, and a couple size/speed variations. It was easy to understand and you could tell what a cable was by looking at it.
For people who grew up in this era, the current situation is super annoying. Perhaps the young people of today will view peripheral standards as some sort of super-obscure language that isn’t intended to be decipherable by laymen?
You kids had it so good. In my day, we had about 15 different peripheral busses that all ran over RS-232C or DB9 cables. You could fry a $10000 printer by plugging in a cable that fit perfectly on both ends.
So far all of their moves in regards to USB 3+ and type-c seem to have been to cater to various consumer companies.
If we put it in that context, then this new re-branding has to be done for the same reason - so that the same companies can claim to support a "newer" USB standard (and thus a reason for you to upgrade to the new devices), even though nothing has changed.
They seem to go out of their way to find perverse naming. Apart from 3.0/3.1/3.2 there’s the highspeed/superspeed nonsense. I can never keep any of it straight.
Unfortunately, HN is so bad at publicizing and making this easy. I spent years assuming others knew some magical tool I didn't, before realizing people just do everything manually and stick to the same unwritten style guide.
It’s even better to also italicize (using asterisks), e.g.:
> USB-IF emphasizes the importance and value of consistent messaging on USB product packaging, marketing materials, and advertising. Inconsistent use of terminology creates confusion in the marketplace, can be misleading to consumers and potentially diminishes USB-IF’s trademark rights.
Then at a glance there is a distinction between the comment itself vs. quotations.
> USB-IF emphasizes the importance and value of consistent messaging on USB product packaging, marketing materials, and advertising. Inconsistent use of terminology creates confusion in the marketplace, can be misleading to consumers and potentially diminishes USB-IF’s trademark rights.
Incredibly, their language usage specifications doc https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/usb_3_2_language_pro... begins with this:
> USB-IF emphasizes the importance and value of consistent messaging on USB product packaging, marketing materials, and advertising. Inconsistent use of terminology creates confusion in the marketplace, can be misleading to consumers and potentially diminishes USB-IF’s trademark rights.
I simply don't understand USB-IF's motivation to make this so confusing for everyone. Their board consists of Apple, HP, Intel, Microsoft, TI, Renesas, and STMicroelectronics, so it isn't like it's controlled by low end trashy cable manufacturers trying to make a quick buck from confused customers.