USB Type C, the promise not delivered

Can we talk about cables in our lives?

I'll start by saying this: I have a circa-2020 iPhone, which has a Lightning port for charging. My monitor, laptop, and e-reader all have USB-C ports, the connector that looks like a pill; my car has USB-A, an older rectangular design that's somehow always upside down. My fancy webcam uses something called micro HDMI, which is different from mini HDMI or standard HDMI, and to make it work with my computer, I have to plug its cable into a pair of daisy-chain adapters. I have two sets of wireless headphones, and they use different cables, too. If I upgraded to the latest iPhone with USB-C, I'd be better off, but what about my family and all their devices with different ports? I want them to eat the cables.

This mess was supposed to end, and USB-C was going to be our savior. The European Union even passed a law requiring the port to be the charging standard by the end of this year. I don’t live in Europe, and you probably don’t either, but the requirement has pushed Apple, which has long insisted on using its own proprietary plug, to get on board. As part of that shift, Apple just put USB-C connectors in its wireless mice and keyboards, having previously used Lightning. (Incredibly, its mice still charge by flipping over like a dead cockroach.)

People think the shape of the plug is the only thing that matters in a cable. And it does matter: If you can’t plug it in, it’s useless. But simply connecting the end of a cable to its matching socket is a threshold challenge that leads to other headaches. In fact, a bunch of cables that look the same—with matching plugs that fit into the same-sized holes—may have different functions. This is the second level of our cable hell: My USB-C may not be the same as yours. The USB-C you bought two years ago may not be the same as the one you buy today. Which means it may not do what you think it does now.

Unfortunately, I'm old enough to remember when the first form of USB was announced and rolled out. The problem it was meant to solve is the same problem today: "a tangle of wires, cables, and cords," as the New York Times described it in 1998. Individual devices required specific plugs: serial, parallel, PS/2, SCSI, ADB, and so on.

USB was eager to standardize and simplify things—and for a while it did.

But then it kept going: USB 1.1, USB 2.0, USB 3.0, USB4, and then, unreasonably, USB4 2.0. Some of these cables and their corresponding ports look the same but have different abilities to transfer data and power devices. I can only point out how ridiculous this is, lest I bore you or drive you into despair.

For example, Apple's popular Thunderbolt standard (now updated to fifth generation) looks just like USB-C. But to take full advantage of its capabilities, you need to connect it to a Thunderbolt-compatible port, which looks the same as any other port that accepts a USB-C connector.

Meanwhile, today's Thunderbolt cables might charge your Android phone, but older cables might not be effective at powering your current laptop or future devices. As one manufacturer explains, "For charging most devices, including laptops, Thunderbolt 3 will provide nearly identical speeds to USB-C. However, Thunderbolt 4 requires the PC to have charging on at least one port, and USB-C charging is optional." What does that mean? It means Thunderbolt is a kind of USB-C, but it's also not USB-C.

Charging confusion isn't unique to Thunderbolt. If you've ever plugged a perfectly good USB cable into a matching USB power brick and found that your device won't charge or takes a long time to charge, it's because the amount of current the power brick is providing may not be supported by the USB cable and its corresponding underlying USB standard, or it may be weaker than your device requires. These details are usually printed on the power brick in very small print that no one can read - but even if you could, you still have to know what it means, like some kind of USB expert.

The situation is exacerbated by the fact that many manufacturers now don't provide charging plugs. Some manufacturers (such as Apple) say they do this for ecological reasons. But more cost-conscious manufacturers do this to save money and also because ditching the charging plug allows them to avoid the certification associated with AC power plugs, which vary around the world.

Lack of standardization isn’t the problem. The industry has designed, named, and rolled out a host of standards related to USB and its ilk. Some of these standards exist within others. For example, USB 3.2 Gen 1 is also called USB 3.0, even though it’s numbered 3.2. (What? Yes.) Both standards may apply to cables with USB-A connectors, USB-B, USB-Micro B, or (why not?) USB-C. The changes keep stretching to the horizon.

There’s always the hope that one day we’ll finally be able to escape this hellhole—and that, with enough standardization, regulatory intervention, and consumer demand, a winner will emerge from the war of plugs. But the dream of a universal cable will never be realized because cables, like humans, are subject to the curse of time, the cruelest of standards. At any given moment, people are using devices they bought last week with devices they’ve had for years; they’re using old plugs in rental cars or seats in airport gate lounges; they’re buying new products with more powerful features that require new, different (even if visually similar) cables. Even if Apple and other manufacturers put USB-C ports in every new device, that doesn’t mean they’ll be able to do everything you expect a cable to do in the future. Inevitably, you’ll find yourself needing a new cable.

Back in 1998, Time magazine told me, "If you switch to USB now, you can bet your new device will have a plug-in port." I was ready! I'm still ready. But alas, one plug-in port is never enough.

END

Focus on the trends and developments of the global semiconductor industry