POST A COMMENT

24 Comments

Back to Article

  • thomas-hrb - Wednesday, April 02, 2014 - link

    Looks good. IMHO the tongue is susceptible to damage; especially during the normal wear and tear of plugging in the cable on a mobile device. Is there any mention on how much power this connector will be able to transport? 100W would be a good start no? Reply
  • Folterknecht - Wednesday, April 02, 2014 - link

    http://www.computerbase.de/2014-04/usb-3.1-type-c-...

    up to 100W with special cables/connectors
    Reply
  • thomas-hrb - Wednesday, April 02, 2014 - link

    Thanks @Folterknecht. I would hope that supporting 100W is part of the requirement for all cables not just for special cables and connectors. Reply
  • DanNeely - Wednesday, April 02, 2014 - link

    It's not clear from the Intel slide deck if the higher power options will need different cables, but I think the connector may be standard but that the cable will need to be more robust to support the higher voltage/current levels.

    http://www.computerbase.de/bildstrecke/56518/5/
    http://www.computerbase.de/bildstrecke/56518/6/
    Reply
  • markus_b - Thursday, April 03, 2014 - link

    No, 100W is an illusion for such a small connector. It may be able to bear 2Amps (10W@5V). The high power USB spec allows for 12V, which gives more headroom.

    I find it a pity, that the high power USB spec limits itself to 12V. I would like to see up to 48V for more power while retaining small/thin cables.
    Reply
  • Xajel - Thursday, April 03, 2014 - link

    Why Illusion ? there was talks about supporting 100W on regular USB cables by using higher voltages instead of high amperage, considering current quality USB cables can handle 2.1A, then working with 48-50V is enough to have 100W... this will work well for a lot of applications including laptops, tablets, external displays, external storage... the specifications require the device to negotiate first and request how much wattage is required so the power will be delivered :)

    The only requirement I see will be improved insulation for the higher voltage, though it will be easier as it will be DC and not AC
    Reply
  • DanNeely - Thursday, April 03, 2014 - link

    The 100W version is the power spec is 5A @ 20W Reply
  • DIYEyal - Friday, April 04, 2014 - link

    20V* Reply
  • CZroe - Thursday, April 03, 2014 - link

    That's why I'd prefer that the easily replaceable cable have the tongue instead of the device. Reply
  • phoenix_rizzen - Thursday, April 03, 2014 - link

    Or get rid of the tongue completely. The contacts should be on the outside of the cable plug and the walls of the socket.

    I've broken the tongue off phones and desktops. But I've never broken a headphone jack or plug.

    Tongues and pins are stupid. Say what you will about apple, they've at least figured this out.
    Reply
  • tilandal - Monday, April 14, 2014 - link

    That's a great idea. The only problem is exposed power pins are a big UL no no. There is an easy solution though, to protect the pins you could just put a shield around it. Oh wait that's exactly what a tongue is. Reply
  • Peeping Tom - Wednesday, April 02, 2014 - link

    Replacing the standard A connector? Good luck. All current PCs and laptops use Type A and by the time they could phase it out in favor of Type C, a faster cable type or standard will have arrived. Reply
  • twotwotwo - Wednesday, April 02, 2014 - link

    Hrm, is a little confusing that the image doesn't show an A<=>C cable and calls it "USB 3.1." Sure hope existing laptops, etc. will be able to work with Type C gadgets, and laptops will Type C ports can use them to talk to A/B gadgets. Reply
  • ivan256 - Wednesday, April 02, 2014 - link

    Hopefully the physical connector will last several generations as USB-A connectors did.

    Too bad they didn't come up with something more physically robust than current USB cables though.
    Reply
  • asuglax - Wednesday, April 02, 2014 - link

    I would really like to see most devices going forward ship with Type-C connectors and include small Type-C to female Type-A connectors in the short term. Not only does this enable future compatibility with other Type-C devices, but it also opens up design space with the smaller ports. Also, if I'm not mistaken (somebody please correct me if I'm wrong here), the Type-C spec includes functionality to auto-negotiate which device is the host, eliminating the need for USB On-the-Go (OTG). Reply
  • solipsism - Wednesday, April 02, 2014 - link

    What's your reasoning? The Type-A connector has been around for a very long time and there is no reason that Type-A and the proposed Type-C can't live side-by-side on the same devices for many years before the Type-A connector becomes outmoded. Reply
  • ivan256 - Wednesday, April 02, 2014 - link

    Really? Tongue in the socket again? Is this just a stubborn refusal to admit Apple did something well, or are they trying to produce a low cost/low rent connector at the expense of reliability?

    USB1/2/3 ports can have the tongue easily ripped out by people tripping on the cords and pulling to the side, as any PC tech will tell you. It's a design that is easily improved, and if they're going to break physical compatibility anyway, there is really no excuse. The connector should either be Lighting style, or Thunderbolt/Mini-DP style (but reversible).
    Reply
  • iwod - Wednesday, April 02, 2014 - link

    Yes, I would rather Apple somehow works with USB-IF to bring Lightning Port Design as the new Type C Standard. Reply
  • A5 - Thursday, April 03, 2014 - link

    Hahahahahahahaha Reply
  • WARPEDXYKEE - Friday, April 18, 2014 - link

    You don't realize that Apple is running this standards committee. The "lightning" connector did not have enough pins and was in need of an upgrade, Apple took over and dominated the "C" connector definition. Reply
  • supgk - Thursday, April 03, 2014 - link

    Please oh please someone get the USB-IF off this crazy idea of putting a tongue.. users have suffered enough with the fragile piece of junk that is microUSB. I've even stopped putting it in my designs and have gone back to mini USB which at least is more robust.

    The way microUSB connectors so easily break off somedays I wonder if this is all a plot by tech companies to make more money on device replacements. Now given full design liberty and even a competing Apple's Lightning they still go an add a little plastic tongue? Well that confirms it.
    Reply
  • speculatrix - Thursday, April 03, 2014 - link

    I am sure I have seen connectors where there is no male/female end as such, each is essentially half male half female. The side with pins is the "receiving" side, the holes the transmitting.

    Using these would mean that all connectors are the same, devices could plug directly into the PC or use a cable, cables have the same connector on both ends and are the same as devices.

    A bit of googling comes up with this:
    https://www.digikey.com/us/en/ph/te/Hermaphroditic...
    but it's not quite what I would envisage in a robust connector to replace the menagerie of USB connectors.
    Reply
  • speculatrix - Thursday, April 03, 2014 - link

    ah, here's a good example, a half-circle hermaphroditic connector:
    http://www.lemo.com/en/rugged-connector/h-connecto...
    Reply
  • benzosaurus - Monday, April 14, 2014 - link

    If only Lemo connectors didn't cost 20-50$ each. And they still have a "right side up" which was always the ridiculous annoyance with USB 1-3. But at least Lemo connectors are super high quality, and the right orientation would be immediately obvious. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now