Comments by "XSportSeeker" (@XSpImmaLion) on "USB-C charging is not as universal as you think" video.

  1. It gets 1000x worse than that... xD Truly, I think the only things that got really better in comparison to microUSB are - physical connector robustness, and the fact that if the manufacturer followed the spec correctly, you are less likely to burn your device to a crisp. It can still happen, which would signal the manufacturer did not follow the spec correctly. :P Which is something that really happened early on when a whole ton of cable manufacturers didn't follow spec and released a bunch of generic USB-C cables on Amazon that were frying people's device to the point a Google engineer had to interfere and create lists of cables that followed spec properly, until things started being corrected a few years along the line. Louis knows all of that, I'm just writing a general comment here. But back to spec, setting aside the horrible naming conventions and confusing nomenclature of the whole thing, which is a huge rant apart that I don't even have the energy to go after anymore.... the thing is that for every single new feature and new thing that USB-C, USB 3 and a above introduced to the thing... the USB-IF made everything optional. Which was the major issue with USB 2 anyways, now amplified because there is so much more you can do with USB-C. So, here we go. Your USB-C device and cables can allow for power to go through anywhere between USB 2.0 levels all the way up to charging full laptops per spec. Remember that USB-C is the connector standard alone, it doesn't preclude you from using USB 2.0 devices with it, which is another sh*t thing that is happening... a few of even Google's own phones have USB-C connectors to pass USB 2.0 power and data levels, so you can imagine the hellish landscape that this is for generic non branded devices, or that of smaller companies with products that aren't even computer related much. When you have huge companies like Google or Nintendo using the standard out of spec or in a way to purposely fool their costumers, how can you not expect smaller companies to abuse the opaqueness of it? It could or could not support - video connectivity and/or pass through, data, x number of USB 2.0 or 3.0 extra devices (x being variable), a number of other peripherals and accessories such as ethernet connection and audio devices, HDMI connectivity of different versions and different resolutions+fps, and then we're getting into whole entire universe of things that power+data speed affects which I won't even get much into to prevent an aneurysm. HDMI, external monitors, external docks, drives, graphics... because you can have any combination of power going through and data speed, unless you buy something that has been tested and tried to work perfectly with the thing you are trying to connect it with, you are mostly SoL. This tied to a practice of manufacturers, stores and the entire production chain not putting out detailed information on what the specifics are in how the standard was implemented, leads to the ridiculous need for reviewers to keep buying and testing every possible combination of devices, cables and peripherals to see what really works or not for the specific functions that someone might need. Which is exactly the sort of thing standards were created to avoid. Back when USB-C was being announced and introduced to the world, I didn't even care about the connector being reversible or being able to handle more power, couldn't give two sh*ts about that... the main promise and main thing I cared about is on making the standard a fixed standard. Requiring manufacturers to include all sorts of functionalities inside the device so that consumers are better informed about what you can do with it, and eliminate the huge mess and confusion that we already had with microUSB and USB 2.0 with stuff like OtG, MHL, and support for all sorts of other stuff. And the ads and marketing material for USB-C promised just that. And then USB-IF backtracked on all of that, taking further steps to make the whole thing even more confusing with bad nomenclature and optional adoption of everything the standard has in it. It's because of this sort of sh*t that I think we need to start over, or just stick with proprietary stuff and avoid the hassle... and this includes other standards like Bluetooth. If supposedly universal standards will always keep opening up and accommodating for cr*p practices to be included opaquely to their definitions, at the cost of product clarity and being an anti-consumer thing obviously, for the sake of that sweet licensing money, what's the point anyways? It's a standard in name only.
    2