167
USB-C head-to-head teardown - Lumafield
(www.lumafield.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2023
167 points (88.1% liked)
Technology
34899 readers
1081 users here now
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
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.