USB4 Branding Is Reportedly Downright Bad

The USB-IF has apparently decided to extend the already-confusing naming scheme it used for USB 3.X in new and exciting ways. To briefly recap: Up to USB 3.0, USB branding was sane. With the introduction of USB 3.1, the USB-IF decided to create a new naming convention. USB 3.1 capability would be known as “USB 3.1 Gen 2,” while USB 3.0 would be rebranded as “USB 3.1 Gen 1.”

This was confusing enough. Then, earlier this year, the USB-IF made it worse. When it introduced USB 3.2, it rebranded every previous product generation again. Now we had three standards: USB 3.2 Gen 1 (aka, USB 3.0), USB 3.2 Gen 2 (aka, USB 3.1 Gen 2), and USB 3.2 Gen 2×2. The new product matrix looked like this:

An engineer familiar with the USB-IF’s plans has shared details surrounding the upcoming USB4 standard. The new brand is apparently “USB4” not “USB 4.0,” which makes some sense — people often drop the space between “USB” and “3.” But according to the source, USB4 will also be marketed according to the number of lanes that it offers.

Once the specifications are released, there will be a new round of confusion,” the source told TechRepublic. “It’s going to be USB4, but you have to qualify what USB4 means, because there are different grades. USB4, by definition, has to be [at least] Gen 2×2, so it will give you 10 Gbps by 2, that’s 20 Gbps. There’s going to be USB4 Gen 3×2, which is 20 Gbps per lane. 20 by 2 will give you 40 Gbps.

We Have Obviously Made a Terrible Mistake

The problem appears to have begun, as all problems do, with XKCD.

When USB-C was unveiled, it was touted as the “everything” cable. USB-C can deliver power. USB-C can deliver Thunderbolt. USB-C can deliver DisplayPort. USB-C is, to its credit, an extremely flexible standard. The problem is, companies want to sell that standard in a huge range of configurations, and they don’t want to pay for features or cable capability they don’t require.

This has created real problems with USB-C cable qualification and capability. The days of being able to automatically assume that every micro USB cable was just like every other micro USB cable are over. Using a USB-C cable that isn’t built to the specs your device requires results in issues that range from annoying (not being able to use a cable for video output) to highly destructive (literally bricking hardware).

I sympathize with the USB-IF, which is attempting to roll out a comprehensive standard time when that standard has to cover a huge variety of products. But there simply must be a better way to balance a comprehensive standard with a comprehensible standard. One place to start would be to drop the linkages out of the product name and simply use the provided bandwidth. USB4 40Gbps. USB4 60Gbps. And even if those simple ideas are unworkable, there has to be a better way to communicate the relationship between standard and bandwidth than asking people to compare the relative merits of “USB 3.2 Gen 2×2” versus “USB4 Gen 3×2.” Branding is supposed to make it easier for a company to communicate product advantages and features to the public, not confuse them.

We’re still assuming that USB 3.2 and 3.1 will not be redefined as “USB4” parts in some future update. If those products are also respun again, the USB-IF might actually win a competition against the iBeat Blaxx for one of the worst consumer product names ever. (Those of you with your own memories of worthy “worst product name ever,” contenders are invited to drop them below).

Continue reading

Scientists Testify in Holmes Trial: Theranos Tech Was Downright Bad

According to Theranos laboratory managers called to testify, Holmes should have known Edison was a dud.