Comments by "XSportSeeker" (@XSpImmaLion) on "a rant on USBC charging, part 2" video.

  1. I'd go even further and say that the only reason why microUSB had very rare cases of non-compliance is because of how simple it was... for charging that is. It had to be either USB 2.0 or USB 1.0 and between power standards, so manufacturers had to botch it extremely hard to get it wrong as it was also kinda tolerant to weird behaviors. Mind you, I have seen and owned stuff that despite having a microUSB connector, still needed to use the supplied charger or else it wouldn't work. But it was far more uncommon of a thing to happen. It was still a mess of opaqueness and non-compliance when it came to features like OtG compatibility, MHL, among others. Data transfer was also ok, but that's likely due to the fact that you either had it or didn't... no optional midways there. I think there was one speed for USB 1, and a couple of specs for 2, but all backwards compatible that didn't require any changes in cable or connectors. Then, as this became a multiple options thing for USB-C, data on USB-C is the worst thing to measure for every device that needs it. It's this entire sh*t here that I can't even: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB#Signaling Again, USB-C is just the connector standard, despite being used by marketing and by manufacturers to talk about the protocol... so it means you can have anything between USB 2.0 up to 4 and everything in between with all it's multiple potential combinations and horrible nomenclature. USB 3 alone can have some... I think 4 to 6 different variations on this, with no clear way on how to inform the consumer where it's at. Transparency is poorly enforced and poorly established by the implementers forum anyways. There's a bunch of very obscure and unclear symbols and tags that not even the biggest manufacturers use, and the standard explicitly puts as optional. If not even manufacturers like Samsung, Apple, Dell, HP and whatnot are using tags and properly listing what exactly their USB-C port implementation supports, there is zero expectation that smaller companies will... and that's the failure of USB-C. It opened itself up too much to accommodate every potential requirement, scenario and what electronics manufacturers might want, to the point it might as well be anything. The simple solution would be to reduce optional crap and include labeling in compliance, forcing all manufacturers to put up the information in labels, boxes and in their websites and manuals. You wanna be compliant, those need to be there. Ex: USB-C connector using USB 3.2 gen 1x2 protocol, Power Delivery Rev. 3.0 compatible. It's a word salad that most wouldn't be able to figure out, but at least it's there.
    1