cross-posted from: https://lemdro.id/post/2469210 (!android@lemdro.id)
So they figured out that a $130 Thunderbolt 4 100W E-marker cable is better designed than a $10 USB 2 60W cable? I think they should have looked at a cheaper high-end cable, like a 240W Thunderbolt 4 cable, to see how a comparable one compares.
This is basically an ad for CT machines, not anything scientific.
This article starts off talking about iPhones and USB C, then proceeds to scan a Thunderbolt cable. The iPhone 15 pro tops out at USB 3, not Thunderbolt.
The connector is not the cable. They should be comparing expensive thunderbolt cables to cheap thunderbolt cables, or expensive USB 3 cables to cheap USB 3 cables.
Interesting find that the cheapest cable is actually not the worst. Too bad the USB-C spec allows such a mess of speeds and charging standards.
I wouldn’t mind the various levels of there were a simple, consistent marking standard for speed and power rating.
Same feeling honestly but don’t forget that it still would take research to buy the right one. Think about SD cards and their various speeds. You still need a chart to make an informed purchase.
Sure. I think they could get a lot of mileage out of color/dashed bands to mark things on the cable like:
- supports display out
- voltage for charging
- high speed data
Each of those has a spectrum of support and could be marked separately. Maybe they put it on the connector, or maybe on the head, IDK, but something on the cable somewhere so you can find it in a box.
Then repeat for your device, either next to the plug or in software. That way you could go look for the markings you need from the device on the packaging of the cable. I’m sure someone can devise an intuitive UX here.
That should be a hard requirement for advertising USB compliance, not an optional thing.
That is part of it, but I kind of feel like PCs and phones need better reporting to the user, if adequate data is accessible to the host.
If I’m being bottlenecked in thoughput by speed or in power by the PD capabilities of a cable, I’d like the host to tell me if it can figure that out.
There are like 5 speed and 5 power levels. The only alternative is all cables are stupidly short and expensive.
As of USB-PD 3.1 there are now nine fixed voltages - 5, 9, 12, 15, 20, 28, 36, and 48V - and two variable-voltage modes; PPS with 3.3 - 21V in 0.02V increments, and AVS with 15 - 48V in 0.1V increments.
Combined with a few different current limits, some of these features being optional, and then doubling down with what your cable does or doesn’t support, amazing anything gets charged at all.
So I’m ignorant here, but what is the spec difference between the supplied iPhone USB-C cable and the one that comes with the newer MacBooks? I never bothered to look, but I did mark the one that came with my MacBook as I assumed it was higher rated than some other cable (although I still just charge with the MagSafe adapter anyway).
I wish they tested some other high quality but not as expensive cables against apple’s instead of the total junk ones. Baseus or something.
I’ll give them props for the scans, those are cool. But c’mon, this fanboi is comparing specs of a thunderbolt 4 pro cable to a USB 2 from 1996. Granted, not much changes except speed and capacity but those two things take up a big part of this op-ed.
The whole point, as I get it, is that those fancy cables are proprietary. The tech and circuitry embedded in the TB4 cables should be in the charger, phone, computer, etc. A cable should just be a cable.
That’s not really possible. With such a wide-ranging standard as USB-C, the cable needs to report what it can support. Without E-marker chips, for example, there would be three possible results: no cable can charge quickly, every cable is thick, short, and expensive, or cables catch on fire frequently. Cheap cables that don’t support all of the extra features are just cables, but the good ones need to let the computer know what they are capable of.