USB naming just got WORSE

USB 4 2.0? Nice.
Watch the full WAN Show: • I've never been so ang...
► GET MERCH: lttstore.com
► AFFILIATES, SPONSORS & REFERRALS: lmg.gg/lcsponsors
► PODCAST GEAR: lmg.gg/podcast...
► SUPPORT US ON FLOATPLANE: www.floatplane...
FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL
---------------------------------------------------
Twitter: / linustech
Facebook: / linustech
Instagram: / linustech
TikTok: / linustech
Twitch: / linustech

[@KayJay01]

The actual topic of the video starts at 2:07.

[@danielongm]

Just what I was looking for, thank you.

[@LMGClips]

How did I not realize I didn't cut the intro 😅

[@kepler656]

2 minuites in?!? That's like 40 tiktoks, fuck this.

[@leongao5120]

@@LMGClips he forgor

[@luiz00estilo]

@@leongao5120 💀

[@mackal]

When 3.1 came out and renamed 3.0 in terms of 3.1 and when 3.2 came out and they renamed into terms of 3.2, the only reason to do this, is for someone to just slap 3.2 on their device to confuse consumers when they were only getting a 3.0 device. This was done to allow products to con consumers. There is no other reason.

[@steakikan]

Just like recent revision on HDMI naming scheme.

[@luna010]

It’s a protocol specification. These decisions are made by devs, not marketers. USB 3.1 specifies a set of features. Not every product makes use of every feature. A USB 3.1 compliant device may or may not use the newly added options. Forcing all usb 3.1 devices to use newly added features would be akin to removing old words from the dictionary every year. USB’s marketing literally does not want people to use 3.0,3.1,etc. apart from devs and manufacturers. Specification version is not an indicator of speed. Stuff like “SS 10Gbit/s” or “USB4 40Gbit/s” is how they want devices to be described to consumers.

[@russelldoty2743]

@@luna010 I think that ship has long since sailed.

[@awillingham]

@@luna010 I don’t understand that logic. If you have a device (phone?) that has a 3.2 port and uses some specific 3.2 features, then you would need a 3.2 compatible cord and a 3.2 compatible port on the other end (assuming these are features that need 3.2 compliance on all connections for whatever reason), right? If so, companies would need to label their devices and cables as 3.2 compliant and not just “SS 10GB/s” so consumers don’t get products that are useless.

[@The_Benjamins]

Here is the funny thing, these are not the names. the 3.1 etc is the revision nomenclature, the names are High Speed USB (2.0); Super Speed USB 5/10/20Gbps (USB3.0/3.1/3.2); USB4 20/40/80Gbps (USB4). The fact people prefer to use the revision number and not the name is beyond me. The revision of USB 3.2 as a example is backwards compatible which means it supports all 3 speeds, if it wasnt a USB 3.2 20Gbps device wouldn't work work in a USB 3.1 10 Gbps port.

[@kazzar831]

I had never even heard of USB 4 being a thing until this, and there's already a "version 2".

[@tkt546]

I'm right there with you. I never knew USB 4 existed before. I thought we were still on USB C and USB 3.2.

[@killersberg1]

@@tkt546 Usb C is just the connector. USB 4 is very new and not on current motherboards so it is not surprising you've never heard of it. The important thing ist that usb4 requires USB C. Very confusing and silly.

[@ShadowriverUB]

USB4 enforces use of USB-C so it really tied to addaptation of USB-C which is a lot harder then updating electrical signal in existing connectors

[@quantuminfinity4260]

Some products have had it since about 2020

[@luna010]

There isn’t a version 2. ‘2.0’ refers to the document itself. USB4 is still called USB4.

[@samuelrodriguez6684]

They really took the "Never let them know your next move" sentence to heart

[@zantar04]

I'm calling this USB 420. Because someone was buzzing when they came up with this name.

[@OmerShemi]

Like when you put THC pods in a Juul?

[@user-bc7cb8uu7e]

If they started always writing USB (version) (speed), it'd actually be very nice. USB 4 80 Gpbs is very nice and clear. The real problem is the consumer facing companies intentionally using the confusing specification numbering (which probably make more sense if you think of them as versions of the document rather than versions of the product)

[@jfolz]

Exactly. USB IF defined branding that's actually perfectly reasonable. We should complain to device makers to actually follow them, even if it means putting "ugly writing" on devices and cables.

[@skifree0]

@@jfolz Part of the problem lies in that the actual branding has been historically terrible, which led to device manufactures putting the spec as branding in the first place. Sure it seems in hindsight marketing the spec may have been seen as avoiding ugly writing. But living through the branding and figuring out what the branding means led to exact opposite opinion of "just give me the damn spec on the box" 10 years ago. Here try it for yourself: Just reading "High Speed USB | Super Speed USB | Full Speed USB"... Please tell me how an average consumer relates to 12Mbit | 480 Mbit | 5Gbps capabilities without looking it up. It was SO MUCH more convenient for manufactures to just say "we have 3.0 ports now" because the USB-IF SUCKS AT BRANDING. This is coming from a person who bought a literal motherboard called the GA-P55-USB3 on it.

[@jfolz]

@@skifree0 historically bad branding is no reason to dismiss the current, very reasonable branding scheme. Quite a few people here actually proposed names that are pretty much exactly what is recommended already. IMO the ball is now firmly in the manufacturer's court to actually label things sensibly.

[@skifree0]

@@jfolz Which I 100% agree. Just saying there was nuance...Manufactures decided against using the branding not because of "ugly writing" but because it was objectively terrible and users demanded the spec number instead.

[@jfolz]

@@skifree0 branding was updated in 2020 for both USB 3.2 and USB4, but it still hasn't been broadly adopted. "Ugly writing" was mostly a dig at Apple, who will *never* put any additional logos or writing on their devices, and the industry as a whole that mimics everything they do. As a USB IF board member I suspect it was mostly Apple's fault that branding is still not mandatory.

[@marufbepary100]

USB 1.0 USB 2.0 USB 3.0, 3.1, 3.2 USB 4.0, USB 4.1 Was this that difficult? Literally took 5 seconds and is way more sensible than whatever the f**k they came up with.

[@The_Benjamins]

ya but no one uses the real names High Speed USB Super Speed(SS) USB 5/10/20Gbps USB4 20/40/80Gbps

[@TheHammerGuy94]

they don't want get into legal issues to the dude who sees a pattern. We saw this with PS5 in india. there was a store that sells counterfeit PS4 accessories that sony got in trouble with. so they couldn't release the PS5 in india. this is why microsoft never has a consistent naming scheme for their XBoxes

[@MXCN_El1011]

what? You can def buy a ps5 in India rn

[@FlameRat_YehLon]

@@TheHammerGuy94 I don't think PS4 or PS5 would be considered valid trademark anyway. There's too little letters to make it distinct, and the number part basically can't be part of the trademark.

[@Max24871]

you forgot the low/full speed distinction, as well as usb 1.1

[@klikkolee]

i am a software developer. this is not good naming for developers of any kind. Developers are accustomed to x.y.z style naming. anything else is annoying. consumers are plenty capable of understanding x.y.z version naming. it's been shown time and time again for software and there's no reason they'd suddenly trip up seeing that applied to hardware. If these are drafts of an in-progress standard, naming like USB4 draft 2 is appropriate. most people wrote essays in school and know what a draft is. the draft number goes away when a standard is set to go to market, and anything new after that is USB 4.1 or USB5.

[@tf_d]

Agree

[@wumwum42]

3.2.1 is better than 3.1.6 I dont think anyone struggles to understand this.

[@PyPylia]

I agree. Semantic Versioning is always easier and clearer than any other system imaginable.

[@SwordandKeyboard29]

Ok, apparently this has to be said... if there is a chart explaining your naming scheme then it isnt good. There is no chart explaining the android version numbers because a higher whole number means a new version. Yes, they have names, but they are basically meaningless nicknames of sweets to make for cute marketing, and there is no android marshmallow gen 4.2 followed by android marshmallow 2.0 gen 5 because that would be nonsense

[@yumri4]

I think Linus's point is it went from being a standard to being a brand with little meaning. When you can get away with having some but not all it isn't a standard unless you say it is the same. Now having names for how much is supported of it would fix the issue.

[@jfolz]

So you want all devices to needlessly have ports capable of 80 Gbps and power delivery? Parts of the spec are optional, because they're simply not necessary or impractical in a lot of use cases.

[@schwig44]

where were you... when USB became Energy-Star

[@yumri4]

@@jfolz No i am saying it isn't a standard if you can just pick and choose what parts to include. If you want to pick and choose than have a naming scheme that reflects it.

[@steakikan]

​@@jfolz Yes it is called Universal so a USB4 peripheral should works on USB4 host. How would I know the USB4 has all the optional feature or not just by looking at the port itself? In fact how would we know a port is 3.2, 4 or just USB2 with Type C connector.

[@jfolz]

@@steakikan the spec defines logos for ports and cables that clearly state the capabilities. It's the manufacturers' fault for not labeling their shit, because it's ugly or whatever.

[@dragonling748]

Engineering Idiom: KISS - Keep It Simple S... USB (letter for connector type) - (Version Number).(Iteration) Example: USB C - 4.1 USB C - 4.2 And it gets better the higher the number. Optional internal bits? Cool add the letter at the end Example: USB C - 4.1 - A (this one is the active version) USB C - 4.1 - AT (Active with thunderbolt) USB C - 4.1 - AT8K (Active with thunderbolt and 8k display capable) Etc.

[@lperkins2]

Could include the link speed too, since that's what they seem to think is the most important, but I like explicitly listing the optional features. Could also do something for supported power protocols.

[@dragonling748]

​@@lperkins2 These are similarly easy to add if I understand you right. The spec then becomes: USB (letter for connector type) - (Version Number).(Iteration) (Link Speed) (Power Protocol) Take the last example I used, it becomes: USB C - 4.1 - AT8K 420GB/s 10A (Active with thunderbolt and 8k display capable capable of 420 gigabytes per second link speed and 10 Amp power)

[@lperkins2]

@@dragonling748 Usually it's voltage limited rather than current limited, but yeah something like USB C 4.1 AT8K 80gb/s PPS. or 80gb/s 48v.

[@GameCyborgCh]

perfectly comprehensible naming scheme and you came up with it in like what? 5 minutes?

[@dragonling748]

​@@lperkins2 Simple, understandable and at a glance tells both the consumer and the developer, everything they need to know.

[@dstinnettmusic]

Ubuntu does this perfectly. First number is a year, the year the OS launched. The second number is the month the OS launched. The third number is a patch number. It tells you everything about the software version.

[@SegNode]

Didn't know that, thanks! That's actually somewhat useful.

[@litarea]

I would argue that's a terrible versioning scheme, especially if used with a hardware specification. Not once has knowing the specific year or month a piece of software was released ever been useful (over just incrementing on update.) No communication of patch severity, compatibility, anything actually useful like that. Hardware specifications are designed to be set once (in a perfect world) and everyone conforms to it. What useful information can I get out of a cable named USB 22.04? As terrible as the actual names are for USB, at least each piece of it is a direct representation (however obtuse!) of a specific upgraded capability of it.

[@FlashMustache]

Well, perfectly is a bit of a stretch. You encode nothing regarding the size of the change and its compatibility. For example, going from Python3.9 to 3.10 is a minor bump, but going from 2.7.1 to 3.1.3 is a major change. The last two were released on the same day so with Ubuntu numbering would have the same version.

[@GeneralZimmer]

I can kinda get behind this. At least we know how old the release of the software is and, if the year is used as a major, I would definitely see this being a better versioning scheme than semantic versioning.

[@Cinkodacs]

@@FlashMustache Python2 22.04 and Python3 22.04. Major version is there and the date too to make it easy to know when was it released.

[@autarchprinceps]

Ah yes, from the guys who brought us USB 3.2 Gen 2 x2. They should have the USB standard taken away from them, they are screwing it up.

[@sierra5065]

Copying this here. Screw the official names, heres the logical version with the transfer speed USB 3, 5Gbps USB 3.1, 10Gbps USB 3.2, 20Gbps USB 4, 40Gbps (and thunderbolt compatability) USB 4.1, 80Gbps

[@twanlange2827]

So… how is it so hard for a company to just do exactly this lmao

[@soulsilver6799]

they just want to make fun of consumers

[@jfolz]

Instead of complaining you could actually check what the official branding is. It might surprise you that it makes more sense than what you came up with: SuperSpeed USB 5Gbps SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps SuperSpeed USB 20Gbps USB4 20Gbps USB4 40Gbps USB4 80Gbps So it's mainly how fast the port can go, which is what most people will care about. Power delivery is signaled by a battery symbol. "SuperSpeed" to distinguish between USB 3.2 and USB4 isn't ideal, but I can't come up with anything better either.

[@nezothgarone2319]

@@jfolz the issue is, when you buy equipment and you look at the specs on the back before buying 90% of the time that "official branding" is ignored and they use the manufacture term meanwhile other tech usually uses the same name for both developers and branding, USB for some stupid reason thinks they need to have a name for developers and another for consumers knowing full well the developer name will leak first and that will be the name everyone on internet will be using regardless of "em ackkktually the branding name is this" NOBODY CARES the first name is what sticks the most no matter what they do and they should know that

[@jfolz]

@@nezothgarone2319 you honestly think *ANYONE* but a couple of turbo-nerds actually hear and care about what the USB IF does? It speaks volumes that said turbo-nerds that shat all over the USB IF for years for "deceiving customers" with their USB 3.x naming scheme now go on to complain when they actually introduce simpler names that normal people have a hope of understanding.

[@monkeywithocd]

I mean, this is a lot less asinine than their previous naming schemes. At least this *kind of* makes sense, but I'm going to go ahead and say: why the fuck would the developers need a different naming scheme? The way I see it, that's *only* going to cause confusion if you have two completely separate names for the same technology. Also, what reason could there possibly be to have optional parts of the spec, other than allowing hardware manufacturers to scam buyers? Anything with different capabilities should have its own unique name, whether it be a revision name like USB 3.1, or some sort of qualifier or symbol or *something*.

[@jfolz]

Because engineers need precision. The actual name of the most current USB4 spec is "Universal Serial Bus 4 Specification Version 1.0 with Errata and ECN through May 19, 2021". Obviously you will never find that mouthful on a product. Instead it'll be USB4 20/40/80 Gbps. Very simple and explains everything you need to know. Nobody cares which version of the spec a USB4 20Gbps port follows as long as it transmits 20Gbps.

[@niter43]

Proper document versioning. It would be bad if writers could just go out and silently make even minor changes (clarifications, typos, etc) in specification whenever they feel like. Thus we have versioning and they would bump it to something like v1.1. You as consumer shouldn't care about that. What was last time you cared what revision of 802.3 spec engineer designing 1Gbps Ethernet controller in your computer did read? Was it 802.3-1999, -2008, or -2012? Or some other? No you just know its gigabit ethernet (802.3ab at best) and that's it.

[@randombrit13]

@@niter43 I think the last time I cared about it to that level was last week, when I had WiFi issues.

[@homestar99]

Just went through all of this with trying to find out the speeds of my case ports, vs my mobo ports, vs the cables I had, vs the devices I was trying to connect, and trying to figure out their various speeds over different generation numbers and stuff. Not impossible to look up, but also dumb I had to look it up. Just tedious. I feel bad for less techy people.

[@DuyNguyen-yx2vd]

I guess we should be glad it's just one connector *knock on wood* Trying to explain USB C is not necessarily USB 3.x, or that USB Micro had a USB 3.x connector, was... not easy.

[@Linkedblade]

USB had 6 conncectors. A, B, mini-a, mini-b, micro-a, and micro-b. USB Super Speed had A SS, B SS, micro-a SS, and micro-b SS. The cool thing about the SS ports was they were backwards compatible. There were also ports mini-ab and micro-ab that could accept both a and b of their size. B SS, micro-a SS, and micro-b SS, were all hideous. A SS was the only one that didn't add a tumor to the original connector. So, in total 10 wire ends and 12 ports.

[@natskar]

That's what I'm saying. Ditch the previously outdated speed with the new connector. For example, no more 2.0, 3.0, etc speeds on a new USB C device. May as well just keep the mini USB cables if I'm getting 2.0, at least I would know exactly what I have smh

[@stealthdragonknightX]

so since all these USB-C cables floating around are all different specs/speeds/options now with no coloring system like USB-A, when are they going to try to make all the cable makers actually identify which type of USB cable you have ON the cable so we dont have to guess when digging through a drawer of all the different types needed around the house?

[@nefariou5]

This is already my issue. I have no many USB c cables already and it's a nightmare remembering which is which in terms of speed and features. Hell, even prior to USB C it's already always been a pain just remembering which cable is a data cable vs charge cable.

[@SapioiT]

Now we need the LTT naming scheme / certification. That way, people can write on their prodcuts' boxes things like USB LTT 3.2, USB LTT 4.5, USB LTT 5, and so on and so forth.

[@luna010]

oh god please no

[@Nightykk]

Someone, please let the USB guys know that numbers past 3 and 4 exists. Once they hit 99 they're allowed to start over, it's okay. We'll be fine with that. Thanks.

[@FlameRat_YehLon]

Or they should basically slap a whole bunch of logos describing which set of features is available just like how CD does

[@ChefGoreb]

Haha the passive aggression u delivered ur 2nd line with made my day

[@r.g7261]

Well it's not everyday you get to see the WAN show intro on LMG clips xD

[@Neoxon619]

Of course USB screws up the naming scheme again. That aside, the data transfer speeds are impressive. Hopefully the next MacBook Pro can capitalize on this. With that said, it really feels like at the end of an era for USB-A.

[@MihkelKukk]

I mean USB-A will probably stick around for a while still, mostly for peripherals that don't need high speed connectivity like mice and keyboards.... But things like webcams and maybe even printers will probably switch to USB-C, and I think that's a good thing! USB-A is probably a more durable connection for smth that would just permanently be plugged into your PC, but USB-C also has a ton of advantages, and is still a very durable connector (especially compared to micro USB), and as long as the peripherals that use it also allow for switching out the cable (which should be the standard imo), I'm cool.

[@ltcuddles685]

I mean, yes and no for the end of an era. USB-A is definitely not going anywhere anytime soon, still. We'll see a couple more devices go full USB-C, but desktops, usb hubs and such are still going to be mostly dominated by A for years to come. Other than phone related things I do not own a single USB-C device and I can't think of anyone I know that does either. In fact the only USB-C port on my PC just plugs into a hub of A ports lol.

[@benmol_]

I'm not sure the USB-A (or even the B) connector is going to disappear soon. We still use VGA, DVI and even DB9 rs232 sometimes... The vast majority of new motherboards still have PS2

[@schwig44]

is it even a scheme at this point? It's just versions with different names, like macs with their cat themed OS names

[@pilsplease7561]

@@benmol_ my monitor is so old that it uses a DVI to like HDMI adapter to be able to use it with newer pc's. its like 15 years old and still the best monitor I ever owned. And reliable as hell.

[@feyntmistral1110]

Developer here: I absolutely hate the gen 2 tack on. Consistency across all media. It's USB 4.1. If USB 4 hasn't come out yet for consumer use, then it's USB 4 still. Companies are designing for USB 4 when you change the spec (which is likely and probably the cause for gen 2), tough, because the company will have to redo their spec to match the new one or ship it as is and consumers will get 4.0 and then 4.0 gen 2 because YOU FUCKING NAMED IT THAT INSTEAD OF 4.1!

[@luizansounds]

They should have kept the original naming, scheme, it was working wonders. 1.1 was its own thing and evolved to 2.0, and then 3.0, the 3.1 and 3.2 should have been its own thing without renaming the older 3.0 and 3.1 standards, now 4.0 is a thing and they should name it 4.1 but well the gen 2 tag they are using will make it even harder to distinguish if they ever release a usb 4.1 because a 4.0 gen 2 sounds like a bigger leap... You are absolutely correct in all your points in my opinion

[@yocobicus]

USB needs to look at this. Dell is a prime example of how to do it well "How to identify a Dell PowerEdge server generation" R### 3-digit oh it's an intel. The first digit is a 6, great it's a 1u server. 7, great it's a 2u server. R#### 4-digit oh it's an amd. So, looking up parts or doing general searches are easy. Dell R710. I did not even have to add PowerEdge or server! The name is a standard like the parts inside, I cannot just add a m&m barcode to skittles and say this is now the m&m barcode and there may or may not be peanuts in the m&m's. We do not think it's important to add that to the products packaging. No, No their method is like here is the: Dell PowerEdge R 11th gen Datacenter Performance 2u ready node server, possibly an intel.

[@frankhuurman3955]

Since you gave us the tour through all the departments at LTT: Could you do a segment on how you actually work on compositions, lighting and color corrections in all of the LTT videos?

[@eternalkun]

USB 4.0 + 1.0 You can (not) connect

[@Eledore]

USB4 documentation started at some place and ended with it's final revision to be released at V1.0 . now that documentation has been expanded heck its revision might be up to v1.28. But they are now releasing a new specification for USB4 and that is documented in release V2.0. Like the asshat on twitter said, it is a technical documentation version numbering. tldr, it isn't a release name, just document version numbering. And no i to, do believe the USB forum needs to have it's head replaced with a incremental number generator.

[@schwig44]

What I want to know is, how was there no section detailing the editing of the standard and laying out the document numbering system within the original 1.1 version of the standard, that is simply not subject to revision? The problem isn't necessarily the 2.0, that's fine and makes sense from a documentation perspective, the problem is the lack of consistency in naming between standards. That and folks not realizing the different "versions" are entirely separate standards with their own versioning.

[@schwig44]

@@SpartanArmy117 the connector is a tiny specification of the overall standards. The issue you mention has been a thing since usb 2.0 came out, which still used type A and B connectors.

[@schwig44]

@@SpartanArmy117 and my point was that was basically always the case with USB. Idk you might be too young to remember the days of usb 2.0 devices just straight up not working in a 1.0 port because driver compatibility wasn't really a thing yet. Things eventually got ironed out so 2.0 devices would run slower in a 1.0 port, but I would say that was also far from a universal outcome. I'm simply taking issue with saying "I think the big issue is that USB has always been a "simple connector," you have a USB port? Cool plug this in and it will work" That is just not true. It became true for a bit, but it certainly wasn't "always" like that

[@xalzor740]

I think they are doing this on purpose to confuse customers. Viewing it from a marketing angle, imagine someone buys the wrong USB cable, adapter etc. just because he thought thats the fastest because of the deceptive naming scheme, then he has to buy another cable, adapter etc. again. I think there are very low chances people will return a cheap cable or adapter and instead just buy another one and be done with it but end of the day the companies still made profit from it. Like what else could be the reason that until the release of 3.0 they named them sensibly and normally??

[@thedominator87]

so now none of our usb periphrials will no longer be useful cuz we will never know which usb cable to ever frickin buy🤣

[@GameCyborgCh]

i've never even seen a peripheral which does USB 3.1 (10Gbps), maybe external SSDs?

[@Snickarz]

So you don't want the new USB4.2a V2.93 Class Y 69.420 Ultra-Speed cable? (FYI - Doesn't do TV signal.)

[@GeneralNickles]

You know what a better topic of conversation is? How they could've cut the first 2:07 of this video, and had the exact same clip.

[@izzyhope58]

2:21 I love the twitch chat message "usb 4 2.0 and knuckles" that amazing

[@Sakar0Z]

Soon, we will have USB 4 3.0 and Knuckles

[@Nextempus]

You don't need spec details in the name! Just use the numbers to refer to the spec table that you would need to do anyway

[@natskar]

It's also worth noting that the USB type absolutely should correlate to the version. There is absolutely zero reason someone should get a USB C device that's 2.0. it needs to be standardized so everyone actually knows what they are getting

[@bosstowndynamics5488]

There's plenty of utility to USB 2.0 data through a USB type C connector though - most non storage USB peripherals designed to connect to a phone, tablet or lightweight laptop would be more convenient to use with a type C connector but have no need of the higher data rates of 3.0 and up (and higher complexity even over USB 2.0 in type C).

[@SpudMackenzie]

It's for developers really explains why the USB 3.0 spec got renamed with increasingly confusing names twice. I'm sure that was great for developers. Truly sensible.

[@mikealpha6717]

I think what they’re trying to say is that the written guidelines are the ones having a version change rather than the USB technologies that it is referring to. In which case, yea it would make sense. It’s like having an updated manual for the same product.

[@mme725]

Yeah, that Twitter guy explained it best.

[@bluegizmo1983]

I don't mind semantic versioning when it's for something that doesn't get updated very often. But when it's something that updates a lot, I don't like it, because you end up with versions like V67.1584.67432 and it just becomes too much trouble.

[@aonodensetsu]

SEMVER is **absolutely** marketable, it is understandable as opposed to 3 -> 3.1 (3.2 Gen 1) -> (3.2 Gen 2) -> 3.2 (3.2 Gen 2x2)

[@joseabraham777]

I agree but the worst thing about usb is not the name of each standard, the worse are the cables, I never know what I am really buying

[@MelkisgoedvoorJan]

Minecraft always did it perfect. Going form 1.8 to 1.9 but to indicate small updates they had the 1.8.2 (for example) updates in between. If there would ever be a completely redesigned java minecraft it could be named 2.0

[@FlameRat_YehLon]

And... That's kinda a bit too programmer oriented. It's just not easy to convince people that 1.7.10 is newer than 1.7.2 because decimal point usually doesn't work like that, and there are indeed softwares that doesn't use the major.minor.revision format

[@MelkisgoedvoorJan]

@@FlameRat_YehLon But that’s the point right. The for the developer name. I think the usb 4 80(?)mhz is a fine name

[@nroman1977]

I gave up a long time ago paying attention with USB. The USB standard is the most anti-customer standard I can think of. USB 3.0 started the poop show and it was all down hill from there. If they wanted to fix things they should have renamed all of the 3 series more clearly and just called this USB 4 and USB 4.1 with the next update 4.2 etc. It's nicer when things go in order. Most consumers don't understand A-B-Mini-Micro-C let alone all this other nonsense. They REALLY need to remove the "edibles" bar over there are the USB Standards office.

[@JasonHorkles]

Working in IT I can confirm the USB versioning is one of the worst things to deal with

[@randomlyentertaining8287]

Best naming scheme right here. Left side is what it should be called, right is what they use (judging from tripplite chart). USB 1.0 = USB 1.0 USB 1.1 = USB 1.1 USB 2.0 = USB 2.0 USB 3.0 = USB 3.2 Gen 1 USB 3.1 = USB 3.2 Gen 2 USB 3.2 = USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 USB 4.0 = USB 4 Gen 2x2 USB 4.1 = USB 4 Gen 3x2 See, nice and simple. No renaming of old products so if you're looking at pages for two things, they don't say different things because one was updated more recently.

[@jfolz]

Actual branding as of 2020: USB 2.0 = USB USB 3.0 = SuperSpeed 5Gbps USB 3.1 = SuperSpeed 10Gbps USB 3.2 = SuperSpeed 20Gbps USB4 1.0 = USB4 20Gbps, USB4 40Gbps USB4 2.0 = same as 1.0 + USB4 80Gbps Makes sense and tells you how fast the port is, no? They kept SuperSpeed for consistency.

[@sasjadevries]

My first reaction reading this title: _"I KNEW IT!!!"_ HDMI will probably also do a lot of stupid stuff in its next generations.

[@jonathancowling393]

Why USB4 has its naming scheme, and what the ultimate naming scheme looks like I think a major point of confusion is what constitutes a major USB version. To most people when we talk about USB1, USB2, USB3, USB4 we think of that number as the major version, it sounds to me like USB devs see them as separate technologies entirely rather than just as one evolving technology. If we consider them as separate technologies then the USB4 v2.0 makes sense (no one would expect the next ipad version to follow on from the current iPhone version since they're totally different), as an evolution of the older USB4 v1.0 standard. Rather than USB1, USB2, USB3, USB4 imagine totally unrelated names like USB RED, USB YELLOW, USB GREEN, USB BLUE, there's no evolution between the different technologies, they're completely separate now we've went from USB BLUE v1.0 to USB BLUE v2.0 which makes sense for a major step forward with the tech. I'm not saying that the naming is good (to be clear it's awful), but this time there's logic unlike the 3.0 -> 3.1 -> 3.2 rebranding. Semantic versioning could be used here which consists of MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH but first we'd need to decide if USB is one evolving technology or multiple and to answer that question I'd look toward use case - USB is a serial connection each version/technology fulfills the same use case you could consider going from USB3 to USB4 an upgrade so it should be a version (you wouldn't upgrade your iPhone to an ipad since they fulfill different use cases). So USB4 should be USB v4 Now we have the major version now onto the minor version the difference between USB v4.0 and USB v4.1 should be a backwards compatible upgrade e.g. speed, or active cable support. Note that the features of USB v4.1 should be mandatory not opt-in. Patch version is easy, it's mainly for bugs: maybe on an exotic machine USB v4.1.0 doesn't work, then if we fix it but change nothing else we have USB v4.1.1 (for the average consumer the patch version isn't important). A small detail to clean up: when using less specific versions USB v4 vs USB v4.1.0 there's ambiguity as to the exact version I mean, usually this is fine and I can say a more specific version if I want. This kind of naming works fine for USB but not for CPUs or anything with different tiers or feature sets. Semver could be used on a CPU generation but this is usually not necessary (but handy if say Intel had another FPU bug and needed to fix it on the current generation). But now we have the generation what about tier? Here we could use their names or numbers but we should be conscious of how consumers will use them for comparison. Intel do this well with i3, i5, i7, etc. it's immediately clear what's the better one. Now just the features left intel almost do this right, if they were more consistent / better communicating of the letters (and just accepted you can't rely on a fixed sized list of letters and just had one for each feature, e.g. G = integrated graphics, L = low power, U = unlocked, T = integrated tensor processing. Some letters might not be necessary but they should still be included to help those less familiar with the available feature sets (e.g. LG will always be together since all low power chips have integrated graphics, but keeping both in means someone could tick off a list of features they need by looking at the letters). The other option for features is to have a single letter/label per feature set but this makes it harder to compare products if you're not familiar with every set (e.g. If you know LAPTOP feature set but see a CPU with the ENTHUSIAST feature set on discount does it have integrated graphics? TPU? What additional features does it have/lack compared to another set). We now end up with a name like: Intel v8.1 i5 GLU for a CPU Okay but what about featured with an associated value e.g. DDR version? Simple we just include the value in the feature set label so Intel v8.1 i5 GLUD4 and Intel v8.1 i5 GLUD5 are the DDR versions 4 and 5 of that chip. The feature set labels can be verbose so I wouldn't include it in a title or advertisement, but definitely in the full product details so a customer knows exactly what's included. And this should go without saying but apparently not, I wouldn't change the name of an existing product since the old name will float around forever (rebranding all USB3 accessories and devices to 3.2 doesn't change the box for the cable I bought from the store a couple years ago), as Mackal mentioned the only reason I'd have to do this is to confuse (scam) customers.

[@R3_dacted0]

The problem is that this isn't versioning at this point. It's just alternate naming that people just have to memorize if they want to know what the differences are.

[@inachu]

This just means one thing. More devices just might get fried. Either too much power or or something. Similar results when people plugged in USB-C HP monitors into their Dell computers. I also wonder if we will still need to plug in that USB 4 device first on USB1.0 so the computer can see it then plug and play then you can plug the USB device into the USB 4.0 slot so it will work lol

[@JakXLT]

Someone there wanted USB to be a certain number and wasn't willing to wait another 416 iterations of USB.

[@Nadox97]

It’s a good thing that USB is very inter- compatible. Otherwise we would never be able to plug anything in at this point.

[@danwat1234]

10:50 The fly on the wall was having none of that

[@ftab]

Speaking as a developer of USB things, screw this versioning scheme and all the names they've attached to USB. It's become meaningless noise.

[@Polite_Cat]

Even forgetting the naming schemes, why is it that tons of devices not only still come with micro-usb ports but also are only USB 3.2 Gen 1 (5 Gbps) speeds? It came out in 2013 and yet the PC I bought in 2018 didn't have newer USB on it, and I think its only recently that I've started seeing USB 3.2 Gen 2 ports on motherboards, and even then its only 1 or 2 ports max. Why the hell are they putting PCIe 5.0 and whatnot on motherboards when the stuff EVERYONE actually uses is still stuck in 2013? It makes no sense.

[@mikenelson6630]

I think the only way we as an industry and as consumers, is to REJECT the B.S. naming scheme that these so-called professionals have developed, and use our own logical naming scheme based on the 'major number' and USB speed. Based on the chart shown, that would be as follows - USB1 12Mbps, USB2 480Mbps, USB3 5Gbps, USB3 10Gbps, USB3 20Gbps, USB4 20Gbps, USB4 40Gbps. Even the logos would work with this, and almost make sense to a consumer, if they notice them at all. We can NOT let this Nonsense continue - let's let them know that we won't stand for it ANY MORE!

[@jfolz]

Congrats, you almost described USB IF recommended branding. "USB4 20Gbps" etc. is what it's supposed to be called. This is the convention they want to use going forward. For USB 3.x they kept the legacy "SuperSpeed" nomenclature for consistency, so "SuperSpeed USB 5Gbps" and so on. No "USB 3.2 Gen 2x2" to be found anywhere.

[@clowntrooper1]

I'm the creator of the usb c subreddit and have been talking with the guys involved, they have an internal reason for the change that makes wayyyyy more sense but they haven't sent it to the public, lmg should reach out so they can get the explanation out into the world.

[@birchtree5884]

I think the train has already left the station in terms of public perception. It doesn't matter how much it may make sense internally, consumers have already seen the inconsistency and confusing naming schemes and get frustrated.

[@Accuaro]

10:43 There is a fly or spider climbing the acoustic panels

[@jarek0737]

here is an idea for USB naming or designation... USB 4.0_80_2.0 The middle number is the transfer rate in GB.. Yes that number can go up! With the small changes or you could even as a cost saving and use of all your materials much like binning processors, go down. The key point is that you wouldn't confuse people if you came out with a clear labeling of the specs. I remember a few years ago, okay like 13 years ago.. That micro-usb cables and them having claimed transfer rates, much like SSDs and NVMEs.. People look at me confused when I try and talk about it.. Nothing is built with a uniform spec from what I have seen.. Literally getting different transfer rates on say an external drive, even with the included cable, not dropping companies names here. I will say the vast majority of people, have used there products at one point or another..

[@peachierose3356]

naw it's too confusing for the average consumer

[@he8535]

USB trying to combine different specs under the same name even though there genuinely a double in speed

[@AdamHaas]

6:41 "We had our printers, we had our scanners. Combine them? Black magic. Not until later." LOL! I almost spit out my coffee

[@theauraparadox9586]

10:50 i tought the bug on the wall was on my pc screen

[@haloharry97]

In my eye there will only be usb 1 Usb 2 Usb 3 Anything beyond 3 I have given up. Trying to figure out the speed.

[@corbinpope5061]

I will hence forth call it usb 420 *gamer horn*

[@TechnocratiK]

"But if it's the same USB 4 technologies, then why the actual living f**k is it not just USB 4.1?" ... "Yup." ... "Yup."

[@FARBerserker]

Call it USB420 @Luke: GOOD MAN THAT!

[@ryans413]

It’s like no one can count all you gotta do is number it and if there’s a mid generation update all you gotta do is put a .1 or .2 after the number. So example USB , USB 2 , USB 2.1 , USB 2.2 , USB 3 , USB 3.1 like it’s simple how hard is that and if the product changes to say USB C then continue with the numbers USB C 1 , USB C 2 , USB C 2.1 , then you can go USB 4 , USB 4.1 and so on

[@_LOGA_]

Oh amazon will be flooded with 4 Packs of USB 2.0 cables that will have USB 4 2.0 in the title

[@Doughboi_Snowboi]

The USB naming scheme makes me want to through mustard in their eyes

[@BichaelStevens]

Throw what means?

[@Mic_Glow]

It seems there is someone at USB standard who made it their mission to introduce as much confusion into version naming as possible. Also what's the point of releasing 3 different sub-versions within 2 years... 99.99% people won't have matching gear to make use of new, higher speed, and all they care about is if the connector fits. This is not software where you can have 10 version changes in a year and it's not a big deal, it's hardware... Just have a new version every couple years and be done with it.

[@MarioMastr]

Somebody in Twitch chat typed “USB 4 2.0 and Knuckles”

[@WigWoo1]

So what color are USB 4 ports going to be?

[@dd_de]

Purple? Maybe or orange

[@gettingmitches1323]

Has pink been used before?

[@dd_de]

@@gettingmitches1323 i think only white black and Blue

[@GameCyborgCh]

a blue tone which is somewhere in between the one for the 3.0 and 3.1 just to confuse people even further

[@gettingmitches1323]

@@dd_de I have seen red, green, yellow, and orange but I don't think I have seen pink.

[@thetalesofdaneandco]

So the first 2:07 doesn't concern the topic. Use the timestamp to jump to actual discussion.

[@heroclix0rz]

The AKA column on that table reminds me of the shitty terms for resolution standards. HD, HD+, FHD, QHD, UHD 4k, UHD 5k, 5k, etc.

[@BatBeardGames]

What's wrong with two digit naming schemes, its like they're doing everything in their power to be confusing. I don't need decimals and super hyper speed descriptors just name them 1-20. Its time usb renames the whole list in single to double digits. Port styles are already letters and that works for the most part.

[@robotredkitten817]

They shoud take notes from the street fighter. usb4 super ultra gold edition.

[@gaegesmith235]

Minecraft did the major.minor.patch scheme since 2009, tech companies should look at them for naming scheme examples

[@trickvro]

The next version will be USB 4 2.0 Part 2: Electric Boogaloo.

[@crescentfresh8001]

"USB 5 1.9.-3/86:1|^3 Dream Drop Distance" is going to be fantastic.

[@MarisaClardy]

Just look at HDMI and DisplayPort if you want good numbering schemes. Those make sense (mostly, more than USB at least)

[@Breigner01]

The "classic" versioning, using X.Y.Z where X is bumped on major updates (big changes on the app, like maybe a complete new face), Y is bumped when you add new features (so like adding a stats page for example could get in there), and the Z is bumped when you apply bug fixes (like there was a weird error happening that's been fixed). All that is really good and easy to use for everyone both devs and users

[@MZachary21]

The typical definition of semantic versioning is that major updates (X in your example) break backwards compatibility. So 2.0.0 won't work with 1.0.0 Minor updates (Y) add new features but don't break backwards compatibility. So 2.1.0 adds something that 2.0.0 doesn't have, but it won't break my 2.0.0 stuff. Patch fixes (Z) are just small bug fixes So the main addition to what you said is just that major changes break backwards compatibility

[@Breigner01]

@@MZachary21 yup my bad I forgot to say it.

[@luigigaminglp]

If the Name is meant for Developers only, call it USBeta 4.2.0 and noone could mistake this for just USB

[@sanguinesomnambulist]

My rage goes all the way back to when Firefox copied Chrome's ridiculous version numbering so it became impossible to keep track of when a significant release was actually coming out. And like, ACTUAL new features or UI changes were taking place.

[@williebrort]

Imagine all the scammers that will be selling USB 3 3.1 gen 1 cables as USB 4 cables?

[@Spartan322]

We need a libre serial standard, a Libre Serial Bus you could say, which just eliminates the idiotic corporate monopoly interests in trying to deceive consumers. Unfortunately it would be years before it be picked up and further time before it would be used wide enough to be relevant, and unless it fits the shape and general capability of at least USB 2.x its likely to die early, and that's very possible to become a legal infringement.

[@TheGuy6020665]

USB versioning is lining up to fight Final Fantasy numbering

[@Snottco]

USB 4 2.0.... USB 420.... they are fucking around now

[@Italiandogs]

What if LTT just implemented their own naming standard for USB? If enough of the viewers adopted that, technically that would become the new standard, driving USB Promotor Group would lose support. Especially if LTT's naming actually made sense for everyone

[@jfolz]

You think they can do better than USB4 20/40/80Gbps? Because that's the actual, consumer-facing branding.

[@lperkins2]

@@jfolz Well, it would be hard to do *worse* ... USB4.2 4.4 and 4.8 would convey the same information, without being such a mouthful to say, and without confusing people who say things like "gigathingies". And no, it is not immediately obvious that USB4 80gbps is better than 40gbps, since the 40gbps link might support PPS or video-over-USB and the 80gbps link might not (or might support different voltage levels, or any other optional part of the spec). Just "spitballing" here, but something like USB-4x8-A where the first number is the spec level, the second is the number of 10gbps channels, and the letter signifies number of optional included (A being *all*, D being all data, C being all quick-charge, or whatever). Is it more for customers to need to know? Kinda, but that's because it actually presents all the information they might need in a readable (and speakable) format. And for the "normies", you can just tell them "get a (cable, charger, hub, whatever) with the first 2 numbers maxed out and an A letter." and they'll get something that *works*.

[@jfolz]

@@lperkins2 PD is represented by a battery symbol. Like with Thunderbolt a USB4 port will probably do video if the device produces a video signal. "USB-4x8-A" is absolutely awful.

[@lperkins2]

@@jfolz And how do you read "battery symbol" That's not a name. Have you ever tried helping non technical people understand things enough to take educated decisions? "Look for a battery symbol in the device's picture" is not a winning strategy.

[@jfolz]

@@lperkins2 it's a stylized drawing of a battery, aka a battery symbol. Look it up if it's not clear what that means. "Plug the cable into the slot with the battery symbol next to it" seems like a perfectly easy way to describe how to charge a device...

[@sciez22]

Bruh, I thought KZbin was recommending a clip from years ago when they renamed usb 3.0 to usb 3.2 gen whatever they called it, because surely it was as bad as it could get. I stand corrected.

[@jackquick8362]

I really hope some dudes just wanted to slip 420 in there. No other reason. Two dudes tasked with names... They knew just plain version 4.20 was too obvious. BUT...Put the word version in the middle of the freaking numbers and it's invisible.

[@timseguine2]

There's nothing like a good version numbering system to help make it clear for consumers what they are actually buying. And this is nothing like a good version numbering system.

[@deltoid77-nick]

2:48 no need to thank me

[@misterjeffa2128]

that bits of a standard can be optional should also not be a thing. using usb 4 should mean you support everything that usb can do. HDMi 2.1 or whatever also has this problem.

[@MrBroady02]

Major Minor Patch. Major has breaking changes, and will not be fully compatible with older versions. Minor has new fully compatible features. Patch is is purely bug fixes security updates etc.

[@MrBroady02]

I have no idea what my own computer is capable of via USB C. charging? maybe. Extra displays? Perhaps. Do I use it? no of course not, a hub is like $40 or $300 for a full dock, I'm happy using a $2 hub to attach my peripherals.

[@SupertoastGT]

Call it USB Apple Cinnamon Monkey Toaster. Embrace the meme nature of USB naming.

[@warmowed]

Most people can't count more than two so this makes sense that they are having a hard time versioning USB. I think they should be taught that if they can at least count to two then the drag autofill on excel will count up for them ;)

[@ZachYoung626]

could we get an LTT video talking about active cables for the different connection standards like HDMI and USB and what use cases actually need it?

[@giga-chicken]

Why not rebrand the whole line again, no reason not to. 1.1 and 2.0 are combined into a single name called "legacy" 3.2 gen 1 gets forgotten in the shuffle 3.2 gen 2 becomes "1.0 v2" 3.2x2 becomes "super-speed 1" usb4 becomes "C1" usb4 2.0 becomes "C1 v2" It's perfect.

[@tofu_golem]

Engineers should never name things. It could be worse. They could let physicists name these things. Then, instead of "USB 3.1 gen 2" or "USB 4 2.0," we would have "strawberry" and "dance farts."

[@Metruzanca]

Someone please show USB developers: SEMVER

[@LumenPsycho]

Confusing names are intentionally chosen by the companies so that people buy the wrong stuff multiple times which increases their revenue. If they named everything plain & simple, people would be buying mostly the newest version. Newer version production can be more costly while the older ones are cheaper. Spend less to earn more.

[@Yaco_Taco]

This is like name changes that happen when a company gets acquired 12 times except this is just people being bad at naming stuff