Jump to content

Talk:USB-C

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:USB Type-C)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 September 2021 and 11 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rpj33.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Connector pinouts and cable wiring - B5

[edit]

So is B5 "Configuration Channel 2" or "Vconn"? The two charts don't agree. 2.121.6.25 (talk) 02:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the cable, the A5 connector is connected to the Blue CC wire and the B5 connector to the yellow VCONN wire (this is the "Cable Wiring chart"). On the receptacle, A5 is defined as CC1 and B5 as CC2 (this is the "connector pinouts" charts). Whichever one of the two gets connected to the A5 from the cable is used as Configuration channel, the other side gets used as VCONN. "Connector pinouts" should probably be renamed to "Receptacle Pin Assignments" as per the specification, table 3-4 msam 12:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marsam84 (talk • contribs)

'Receptacle'?

[edit]

What does this mean?: 'adaptors/cables with a Type-C receptacle are not allowed'. Would that be 'socket' in real life? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.11.54 (talk) 16:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The receptacle is the "socket" or the "female". This is defined in the USB page. USB Type-C does not allow cables with receptacles/female/sockets (so type-C plug/male to type-C receptacle/female extension cables are forbidden by the specification). msam 12:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marsam84 (talk • contribs)
A socket is built into the casing of a device, therefore spacially fixed, while a receptacle is at the end of a cable, therefore mobile, that's the difference. Both are the counterpart to a (male) plug. 2001:A61:BBE:2F01:D411:D42E:6879:BC94 (talk) 08:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pedantically speaking, the plug should be described as female and the receptacle as male, as the centre-most concentric part is concave on the plug. Nobody adheres to this, of course. Brianetta Brian Ronald, UK. Talk here 19:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Software Compatibility?

[edit]

USB Type C is a physical conector. Operating Systems don't see physical connectors. There are devices out there having a Type C connector but only supporting USB 2.0. So the way I see it this OS compatibility section doesn't make any sense at all in an article about what is basically just a pin layout. 95.90.209.127 (talk) 11:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In order for the receptacles to work a driver (mostly provided by the OS) is needed to control the appropriate electrical signals. The cable is allowed to have missing connectors, thus practically having a USB 2 connection in USB Type-C physical form, but the receptacle must have all connectors. msam 12:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marsam84 (talk • contribs)
As far as I understand, the type-c receptacle has the same electrical features as any other type-a or type-b receptacle suporting USB 2/3/3.1. Only the shape of it and the postion of the contacts are different. Type-c represents a purely physical change to USB and therefore should not need special software, meaning seperate support through a new driver. Shouldn't the software compatibility section therfore be moved to the USB 3.1 article? 95.90.209.23 (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Type-C is actually more than a physical change to USB. Electrically, it adds the addition of another set of SuperSpeed pairs, additional pins SBU1, SBU2, CC, and Vconn. Especially CC and Vconn, these require support in the operating system or in firmware. Special routing is necessary for SuperSpeed pins based on the position of the CC pin in the connector (to handle orientation flip), so it's incorrect to say that nothing new is needed to be added to the operating system. Furthermore, USB Type-C + USB PD + Alternate mode support almost certainly requires software support for things like power and data role-swap, display out alternate modes, and support for using the USB port as a power source.LaughingMan11 (talk) 03:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. I did not know that. This, however, still leaves us with the fact that a USB Type-C connector does not necessarrily provide all these features. Or does the standard demand for all the mentioned features to be available at a type-c port? There are mobile phones on the market which have usb type-c receptecales but only support USB 2.0 and nothing else, they propably don't have a seperate type-c ready driver, right? --139.18.242.26 (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The other part of SuperSpeed pairs are part of USB 3.2, not of USB-C. You can have a USB C type connector running USB 2.0, 3.0, 3.1 (now labelled 3.2 Gen 1), 3.2 (now labelled 3.2 Gen 2) and 3.2 Gen 2x2. Thus the plug still needs NO operating system support, but the various USB standards do. 2001:A61:BBE:2F01:D411:D42E:6879:BC94 (talk) 08:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the example you give, for a phone with support for USB 2.0, the phone can still charge from the Type-C port, and therefore needs a driver for the Type-C port controller. The Nexus 5X, for example, uses this driver to detect when chargers can support 1.5A or 3.0A as advertised using Type-C methods and increase the current limit for the charger. Here is the Nexus 5X's USB Type-C Controller driver. https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/msm/+/android-msm-bullhead-3.10-marshmallow-dr/drivers/usb/misc/fusb301.cLaughingMan11 (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Its not just a physical connector, its chipped! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.144.29 (talk) 15:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are refering to the chips on the cables. These are emarkers which allow the cables to specify their capabilities and are required by the USB Type-C specification for all cables that support more than USB 2.0 and 3A. The communcation with these cables is part of the USB Power Delivery specification, and not part of the USB Type-C connector specification. Techietommy (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Qualcomm Quick Charge 2.0 ?

[edit]

This article *needs* some reference to Qualcomm Quick Charge 2.0, as in whether the higher voltages and power delivery follows or does not follow that spec, whether it is incorporated or not, etc. --Treekids (talk) 19:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This plug is chipped!

[edit]

Just like the Apple lightning plug the type C is chipped. This means its proprietary and is a licensed product. This is not acceptable. There are enough USB plugs available (B, miniB, microB, microAB and 3microB) and there is no need for another one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.144.29 (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely incorrect. E-markers (chips in cables) are optional for most USB-C cables, and are only required for Full-Featured USB 3.1 cables or for cables that can carry more than 3A of current just for identification purposes that the cable can support 5A. Furthermore, you are incorrect that this is proprietary and is a licensed product. The USB Type-C and USB PD specifications are available in the open, with no cost : http://www.usb.org/developers/docs/usb_31_052016.zip There is no licensing cost involved in implementing Type-C, or the emarker. The specification tells you exactly what to do if you are building a new cable with an emarker from scratch, or building a product that wants to read an emarker. With the specification and some technical know how, you can build products that can read the emarker, implement an emarker, or just ignore the emarker completely without the sign off from the USB-IF.LaughingMan11 (talk) 04:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is HDCP enabled though, isn't it? It transfers obfuscated data to the HDCP chip which gets translated internally to an analogue-ish signal internally sent-off to the monitor. Nothing to do with the cord or connector, but it's universal nature allows it to support DMR or, I guess a better question would be, is there direct implementation-required pins dedicated for prioritizing dmr authentications and/or transfers? This question certainly has enough notability of concern for it to be researched at least through secondary sources and included as it's own section or at least sub-section in the article. 12.168.201.132 (talk) 01:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any indication that an USB-C cable themselves needs to unencrypt HDCP communications, therefore it shouldn't need any DMR support. The chip itself actually would only need to read/write to the control channels and through it might control what it passes through on power channels. There's no need for extra pins for DRM since the bit can be included in other data. On USB-C to HDCP adaptors and the USB-C part ends where HDCP part starts so DRM is not an USB-C issue. Cables that discriminate against DRM data might be possible, but probably difficult to implement and most likely unpopular. 193.64.212.72 (talk) 13:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"This means its proprietary and is a licensed product. This is not acceptable." The ENTIRE USB is a licensed product (without a license from the USB implementers' forum you are not even allowed to call it USB), so if you decide licensing to be "inacceptable", then there is no 'acceptable' high speed interface. They are ALL licensed products. 2001:A61:BBE:2F01:D411:D42E:6879:BC94 (talk) 09:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Connector dimensions

[edit]

The dimensions given for a USB Type-C "port" are inaccurate. Version 1.2 of the Type-C spec figure 3.1 shows receptacle interface dimensions as 2.56 mm x 8.34 mm (measured at the inside of the shell) with a minimum depth of 6.20mm. A Type-C plug spec has nominal dimensions of 2.40 mm x 8.25 mm by 6.0 mm deep (figure 3.3.) Burt Harris (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hardware support

[edit]

Undiscussed deletion


Impossible to keep up to date and Wikipedia isn't a list of things. That list is already missing many pieces of hardware that are USB-C and with dozens of new devices on the market all over the world every day that are USB-C it's not possible, or the place of Wikipedia, to have this data. Please explain why you think Wikipedia should contain this data, you've brought it to the talk page but provided nothing on why it should be here. Canterbury Tail talk 22:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 January 2017

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved  — Amakuru (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


USB Type-C → USB-C – WP:COMMONNAME, target redirects to current title. Google count shows 8 million USB Type-C and 15 million USB-C. 85.181.154.125 (talk) 20:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with renaming this page purely based on the number of hits on a search engine. Please see the USB-IF's official Language guidelines. It says, "When referencing the specification in any material, always use the word mark USB Type-C."[1] The specification is not named "USB-C" it is named "USB Type-C Cable and Connector Specification." The shorter "USB-C" may be used "as viable terminology to minimize word count or for other marketing purposes", but it is not the name of the specification, and therefore should not be the title of the Wikipedia entry.LaughingMan11 (talk) 05:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONNAME is the rule to follow. The article isn't only about a spec named "USB Type-C Cable and Connector Specification." - which by the way does not exist under that name on the USB-IF site. Also the language guidelines do mention "USB Type-C" and "USB-C" in that order but on equal standing several times. But the spec is irrelevant for the naming of the article, what matters is WP:COMMONNAME. The statement "but it is not the name of the specification, and therefore should not be the title of the Wikipedia entry" is not based on English Wikipedia policies. Please read WP:Article title. The article about the "Commonwealth of Massachusetts" is at Massachussetts. 77.180.145.55 (talk) 11:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the page isn't just about the spec, then why does the first line of the wikipedia page start with "USB Type-C is a USB specification for..."? If the page were changed to USB-C, the very first line would have to be changed, and make clear that when referring to the specification, the full mark "USB Type-C" is used. I agree that there is a disparity between the number of Google hits between "USB-C" to "USB Type-C" however.LaughingMan11 (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The USB site does have that name listed for the name of the specification. See #9 on this link: http://www.usb.org/developers/docs/ For what it's worth, the USB.org site refers to "USB Type-C" over "USB-C" on its sidebar, because again, the language guidelines recommends that "USB Type-C" be used in at least the first mention in many materials. The language guidelines make clear it's not exactly on equal standing.LaughingMan11 (talk) 16:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CONCISE : "The official name of Rhode Island, used in various state publications, is State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. Both titles are precise and unambiguous, but Rhode Island is the most concise title to fully identify the subject." 77.180.145.55 (talk) 11:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support: it is very usual for the title to be the best known name, and for the more-precise name to be what the lede opens with. ciphergoth (talk) 16:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:COMMONNAME. I also support changing the lead from a description of the specification. People are looking for information about the connector, not about a PDF published by some working group. Laurdecl talk 23:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

It should be noted that a lot of the Google hits for "USB-C" (including many of the top ones) are either for pages listed as "USB Type-C" or for the United States Bowling Congress. 76.70.92.122 (talk) 06:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Power delivery Specs

[edit]

Despite the fact that "If a product implements USB-C, it does not necessarily support USB 3.1 or USB Power Delivery"

it seems like some discussion of USB Power Delivery" should be included in this article due to the widely expanded use of USB power delivery under the USB-C spect for laptop charging etc.

It seems like this article should have a subsection dealing with the ability (under the USB power delivery spec) do negotiate higher voltages and currents, with a reference to the complete article at USB Power Delivery

-- Jazzlw (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of items having USB-C connector in Wikidata

[edit]

https://query.wikidata.org/#SELECT%20%3Fitem%20%3FitemLabel%20%3FsubclassLabel%20%3FmanufacturerLabel%20WHERE%20%7B%0A%20%20SERVICE%20wikibase%3Alabel%20%7B%20bd%3AserviceParam%20wikibase%3Alanguage%20%22%5BAUTO_LANGUAGE%5D%2Cen%22.%20%7D%0A%20%20%20%3Fitem%20wdt%3AP2935%20wd%3AQ20026619%0A%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20OPTIONAL%20%7B%3Fitem%20wdt%3AP279%20%3Fsubclass%20%7D%0A%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20OPTIONAL%20%7B%3Fitem%20wdt%3AP176%20%3Fmanufacturer%20%7D%0A%7D%0ALIMIT%20100 78.55.103.136 (talk) 14:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting information

[edit]

Under the header "Related USB-IF specifications", the article states "if a product implements USB-C, it does not necessarily implement USB 3.1 or USB Power Delivery". However, the "Alternate Mode protocol support matrix for USB-C cables and adapters" states that "USB 2.0 and USB Power Delivery are available at all times in a Type-C cable" in the first footnote. Which is correct? ChlorideCull (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All USB Type-C cables are required to have CC pins (used in PD communications) and USB 2.0 D+/- pins, but not necessarily the Enhanced SuperSpeed SDPs. Note that while this means all C to C cables support both USB PD and USB 2.0, USB C to A or C to B cables would not support USB PD communications as they do not have CC pins on the A/B end. From and host/device point of view, all devices must support minimally USB 2.0 if they have a USB-C port (at least a USB billboard for alternate mode adapters), but they do not necessarily have to support PD communications over the CC lines. So both statements are correct. Techietommy (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About digital audio / USB audio class

[edit]

Please do not add content related only to digital audio / USB audio class to the page as it is not USB-C specific. Many mobile devices with a micro-B port supports USB audio class devices through OTG.

There's nothing special in USB-C headsets in terms of digital audio. They are also USB audio class devices.

Whether they can actually be used depends on whether the operating system has proper driver for the class and whether its audio subsystem switches audio routing properly (these varies heavily among different Android builds, for example), but not the type of the port.

223.104.65.93 (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not true that there is nothing special about USB Type-C in terms of digital audio. Per release 1.3 of the USB Type-C specification, "A USB host that implements support for USB Type-C Analog Audio Adapter Accessory mode shall also support USB Type-C Digital Audio (TCDA)." This release also specifies that all headsets which support USB-C audio must support digital audio. While the audio protocol is still the USB Audio Device Class, what's new is that it is required for all USB-C audio devices. Techietommy (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cable length

[edit]

The article has basic info on this: basically, gen. 1 (2m max), gen. 2 (1m max). But surely there are other ways of extending this limit, in a similar manner to previous versions? I'm not knowledgeable to add myself, especially because AFAIU there seems to be limited or conflicting information online about doing so for USB-C. Some points that should be explained further below...

  • Can length be extended on either USB-C generation by use of intermediary docks, and/or USB-over-Ethernet connections?
  • Will use of these extension types lower the data throughput?
  • Will use of these extension types still have a maximum limitation in power or suchlike, &/or can this limitation be removed by using powered intermediary devices?

Can someone add this, as most people seem to have no idea even in the technical community. Thanks in advance. Jimthing (talk) 23:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cable length can be extended by the used of an intermediate hub, as these are required by the spec. to feature repeaters. The same is not true for all docks if they don't feature an internal hub. I'm not sure if something like USB over ethernet could be used for just SuperSpeed data, but it certainly would not support alternate modes or power delivery. Using a repeater to extend the signal should not affect data throughput. As far as power, PD contracts and alternate modes do not traverse the USB hub topology. This means that contracts would need to be independently negotiated on a point to point basis. It is possible that a device could implement essentially a passthrough of power, but it is also possible that a hub could limit the power in the connection (for example if it does not support 5A). While not part of the current release of the spec., there was an ECN released late 2017 which introduces active cables. The 1m limit for gen. 2 is only for passive cables. With active cables which feature internal repeaters, the limit is increased to 5m, and work is underway to support longer cables as well as optically isolated cables. Techietommy (talk) 22:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

USB 1.1 vs. Low-Speed and Full-Speed

[edit]

Under the section "Connector pin usage in different modes," the heading for the first subsection is "USB 2.0." To my knowledge, the USB Type-C specification says that Type-C supports USB 2.0 in low-speed, full-speed, or high-speed mode, but makes no mention to USB 1.1. Techietommy (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Low-Speed and Full Speed are USB 1.x, High Speed is 2.0. 2001:A61:BBE:2F01:D411:D42E:6879:BC94 (talk) 09:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Section on active cables needs rewriting

[edit]

The entire content of the section only talks about Thunderbolt, which is completely irrelevant to the subject of USB Type-C active cables. The first sentence states that a certified cable is required for Thunderbolt 3. This is irrelevant to active cables, and I am not even sure it is true. While I do not have access to the Thunderbolt 3 spec, I have found no references that state this, including in the two citations listed. To my knowledge there is no difference between a Thunderbolt 3 cable and a Full-feature type-c cable. Techietommy (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 August 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 19:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

USB-C → USB Type-C – I think it can be a good idea to move this page to USB Type-C because it is the official USB Implementers Forum name. The USB-C name is sometimes used to shorten the name, but, in my opinion, it is not a good idea to shorten names in an encyclopedia. Niridya (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]

Discussion

[edit]
Note: Contrary to what the requester claims, both names are USB-IF names. usb.org : USB Type-C™ and USB-C™ are trademarks of USB Implementers Forum. 80.171.207.9 (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Connector pinouts

[edit]

This is wholly outside my area of expertise, so I don't want to just edit the content. But the connector pinout images seem to labelled incorrectly, based on my reading of the description of "receptacle" and "plug" in the Wikipedia article: Gender of connectors and fasteners Also, the lower diagram labels for B6 and B7 are blank, although these pins are present in the pinout table above. I bring this up so someone with expertise could consider changing the article as appropriate. Dpnorwood (talk) 14:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is serial about usb c ?

[edit]

There are so many connectors on this cable, it is not serial anymore? Also I read somewher parallel cables were on the way out because it was difficult to route the individual signals on the mother boards and keep them in sync with high frequencies involved cuz different paths have different length. Can someone shed some light on these two different but related questions ? Maybe this may be part of the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.91.45.131 (talk) 15:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is still serial, although - just like PCI - you can have more than one serial connection (two at the moment, with the still rare USB 3.2 2x2 interface, hence its name). PCI calls those lanes, but they are all serial, just more than one. Do not be confused by the fact that differential interfaces always use TWO wires to transmit ONE bit. But when you really want to dig deep, then USB is not a bus at all, because USB implements point-to-point connections, whereas a bus would implement point-to-multipoint connections. 2001:A61:BBE:2F01:D411:D42E:6879:BC94 (talk) 09:18, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, parallel interfaces (such as the original conventional PCI) for "long" connections (and at high speeds, 100 mm counts as "long") are now avoided because different paths have different lengths, leading to skew, so it's difficult to send a bunch of bits "in parallel" and keep them in sync.
USB-3.2 (which requires USB-C connectors), like PCI Express, has several independent serial interfaces: each serial interface (each twisted-pair of data wires) is independently synchronized, so it doesn't matter that different pairs (different paths) have different lengths.
Many people use the definition "a parallel channel uses a single, common clock for all signals while each serial (sub)channel has its own clock, usually embedded", as mentioned in the Talk:Parallel_communication talk page -- but, alas, not yet mentioned in the serial communication or parallel communication articles.
For more details, see "How is USB 3.2 still serial when there are so many data cables?". --DavidCary (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles inconsistent

[edit]

The logo's for equimpent running at SuperSpeed 10 Gbit/s on this page and USB 3.0 differ. I started a discussion on that talk page. Please contribute if you know more. Thanks! Digital Brains (talk) 15:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please add a section defining and discussing "Electronically Marked Cable Assembly (EMCA)" to the USB-C article.

[edit]

Please add a section defining and discussing Electronically Marked Cable Assembly (EMCA) to the USB-C article. An article on this sub-topic may qualify for an article of its own but I am not certain.

I am not qualified to author such an article or section.

Dgl9020 (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notes below the table or not

[edit]

An IP user and I have different opinions on putting the notes for table entries directly below the table or at the bottom of the article. I think it's much more pleasant to read when the notes are directly under the table. They write:

Quite frankly, it's confusing to have notes not used in tables listed below the tables; Just use the popups that appear after hovering over the footnotes

Well, two things:

  • There are no notes outside of the tables currently. If this problem appears in the future, it is a matter of selecting a different {{efn}} style, and you can separate them. Use {{efn}} for notes that are not at the bottom of the list, but are in the running text, and use {{efn-lr}} and put the footnote list at the bottom with {{notelist-lr}} for instance. Just like the first person to add a footnote needs to add a footnote section at the bottom, now the first person to add a non-local footnote needs to pick a style that doesn't clash with the existing local footnotes and the existing references, and add the footnote section at the bottom. You only need two styles, local and global. Local is periodically flushed to a {{notelist}} and the other is not, simple as that.
  • The popups that appear after hovering don't work for everybody. They depend on the browser and the settings. Users of tablets and other touchscreen devices will not easily "hover over the footnotes". And there are even properly printed Wikipedia articles on paper. I suspect that a screen reader for a visually impaired version actually doesn't care where the footnote list is, so it would probably work correctly for them, thankfully. Personally, even though I have my pointer at my fingers, I rather move just my eyes a few lines down to read the footnote, and not bother with positioning my pointer over the superscript note markers.

Now, if the Manual of Style or some such document has decided that we as a community decided against footnotes under tables, then I'm definitely convinced. But the arguments brought forth by the IP user did not sway me. I did like the other changes done by the IP user, thanks for those improvements! Digital Brains (talk) 11:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm fine with having the notes displayed immediately after the tables, but not in the way they were displayed originally, because the end-of-table notes included not only the notes used in that table, but also all other notes used/defined anywhere in the article up to that point (AFAICT). Having a whole bunch of unrelated notes listed after the tables is more confusing than helpful to the readers. Thus, if you can find a good way to show only the notes actually used in each of the tables in the end-of-table notes, I'll be happy.
By the way, it's true that there are no notes outside of the tables, but not all tables displayed the notes after their last row, so it's also more consistent to have no notes displayed that way. Again, if you can find a good way to display only the relevant notes below each table, I'll be happy. -- 31.223.130.62 (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! That is really odd, because for me it works as it should: below every table are only the notes that are in that table. Every use of {{notelist}} should flush the list of notes so only new notes that are in the text after the previous {{notelist}} should be in a {{notelist}}. Could you look closely at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USB-C&oldid=1039544201 and see if you really have notes appearing for things that are not in the table immediately before it? I see three tables with notes; the first has a single note, the second has four notes and the last also has four notes. All of these come from the respective table. The total number of notes is nine, and they are distributed correctly. I did check before publishing the changes :-). The second table has notes in the coloured column and that isn't really coming out very well, but that is a separate issue. Digital Brains (talk) 16:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I went again through the previous version of the article and the end-of-table notes, and this time it all looked fine. Either something weird happened the first time I looked at that, or I missed something. :) With all that in mind, I've restored the version of the article that keeps the notes below the tables. -- 31.223.130.62 (talk) 17:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thanks! Digital Brains (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for bringing it to the talk page. :) -- 31.223.130.62 (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

European Union wants to make USB-C standard

[edit]

The European Commission plans to make USB-C standard for all mobiles, tablets and headphones sold in the European Union, with a transition period of two years. Apple, which does not use USB-C, is reported to be resisting. Errantius (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apple does use USB-C in tablets and in Macbooks. Morover it already used 140 W Power Delivery rev. 3.1! 109.252.90.67 (talk) 22:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

gender of plugs/sockets

[edit]

If we disregard the shielding (as is convention per Gender of connectors and fasteners), wouldn't the USB-C plug be female and the socket be male? The contacts of the socket mate with the inside of the plug. 2A02:908:106A:20C0:C17:29F5:C045:440D (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is size the size of the plug?

[edit]

Please put the dimensions of the plug and connection point in millimetres. I looked on here as a non-expert and that basic info would help. Thanks. 2A02:C7F:1F03:B500:A15D:C8F3:D13C:D490 (talk) 07:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

D’oh. Found it. Pauline is not my real name (talk) 07:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing?

[edit]

This article mentions nothing about the Licensing or other IP restrictions around USB-C plugs. Can anyone make them or do manufactures have to pay a license fee like they do for HDMI? The article should mention this even it is only to say that the standard is open with no fees required. I've been unable to find the answer w/ sources, but I think it would improve this article. ADNewsom (talk) 13:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on 9to5Google as a source

[edit]

There is an RfC at WP:RSN on reliability of 9to5Google as a source.[4] Only 3 opinions have been given in about 19 days. More would be appreciated. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:31, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

USB Type-C Connector System Software Interface (UCSI)

[edit]

USB Type-C Connector System Software Interface (UCSI) is an extension developed by intel to allow devices to inject drivers into microsoft windows. It is badly documented and completely missing from the main wikipedia article on USB C. Leaving this note here so we at least document this gap for now. I plan to add something to be included in the article as a comment on this topic later this month. 38.42.43.235 (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What was the first smartphone with USB-C connector?

[edit]

Please add some "firsts" to this article.

1) What was the first smartphone with USB-C connector?

  • It possibly was the "LeTV One Max" in 2015?

2) What was the first laptop computer with USB-C connector?

3) What was the first desktop computer with USB-C connector?

98.164.31.103 (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i too was just wondering this.
earliest device i had with a usb-c shaped connector was a Motorola Z.. The end was constructed differently than it is now. It had more of that typical toothed notch pattern where the connector was fit together (similair to usb A ) that isnt seen anymore. Motorola referred to this as Turbo Power, trademarked probably. The wire wasnt detachable from the power supply end either, like most tend to be now.
Worth noting that with the Turbo Power cable it did not withold any of the power pins inside the connectors, unlike some brands might have done. Often missing several of the middle pins or various other combinations. Reduced charging capacity was the result of less pins usually. Some devices didnt find it necessary to include the entire set of twenty something pins. 73.193.30.21 (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Power throughput

[edit]

Is power throughput on the page at all? Up to 240 watts now for 2.1[1] --Wikideas1 (talk) 08:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2021/5/25/22453936/usb-c-power-delivery-extended-power-range-epr

Apple's involvement in USB-C development

[edit]

The following paragraph cites a somewhat contradictory source in reference to Apple's non-involvement in the design of the USB-C connect;

'The design for the USB-C connector was initially developed in 2012 by Intel, Texas Instruments and the USB Implementers Forum, without Apple Inc., despite some urban legends. The type-C Specification 1.0 was published by the USB Implementers Forum (USB-IF) on August 11, 2014. In July 2016, it was adopted by the IEC as "IEC 62680-1-3".'

There are some issues here. 1) The source cited (2; https://9to5mac.com/2015/03/14/apple-invent-usb-type-c/) indicates cites a source that the USB Implementer's Forum did indeed use Apple engineers;

"All told, Apple contributed 18 of 79 named engineers listed on the connector certification project or under 23%."

and it puts for the following conclusion;

"So while it might be impossible to find definitive evidence that Apple didn’t submit the initial USB Type-C proposal, it at very best had an incredible amount of help from the rest of the industry getting the standard into production."

2) The quality of the source is pretty low. The piece is short, mostly uninformative and speculates about Apple's involvement.

3) The phraseology "The design for the USB-C connector was initially developed in 2012 by Intel, Texas Instruments and the USB Implementers Forum, without Apple Inc., despite some urban legends." seems inappropriate. The wording suggest that the belief that Apple Inc was involved qualifies as an urban legend. It also seems that "...without Apple Inc., despite some urban legends." is completely unnecessary as it doesn't improve the article and seems out of touch with the section it is in. If there is any controversy about the participation of Apple or any other entities in the forming of the USB-C standard, that should be contained in a separate section. 69.162.230.42 (talk) 21:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I edited this to remove just the phrase "...without Apple Inc., despite some urban legends.", but then I did some more digging and found that the edit that added this was editing out the attribution to Apple and cited the same low quality source. I think that in it's current form this formulation more neutral and accurate than either of the previous edits. Also it benefits from being more succinct. 69.162.230.42 (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also editing out the source. 69.162.230.42 (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of USB-C for Touch

[edit]

I've searched the Wiki, but I can't find anything to do with USB-C's ability to transfer touch information? Should this be included? 82.46.223.150 (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

different power levels for valid USB-C cables

[edit]

@RayWiki519 How do you explain this 140W cable DeLock 88136 ? Angerdan (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really cannot. Delock would need to explain that one. Or somebody with tools to dump its eMarker.
The question is, if Delock just sells it as such, because it will fry the watt meter if you use it with peripherals that would do more than 28V. Or if they just did not test with more than 140W, because of lack of devices that use it or if they somehow messed with the eMarker data.
According the Type-C standard, like I referenced, there are only 60W, 100W and 240W USB-C cables. Only those are certifieable. And 100W is even deprecated. Because 240W cables are basically not different / more work to produce. So if we are talking "USB-IF compliant cables", only those exist and this Delock 140W cable is no Type-C compliant cable. Just as extension cables are not allowed.
It seems the eMarker data could actually allow to define support for voltages in-between 20V and 50V:
PD 3.2 p187:
Maximum Voltage (one of): 20V, 30V (deprecated, no longer allowed), 40V (deprecated, no longer allowed), 50V.
I do not know when those voltage levels where allowed in the past. Maybe there was a version that allowed that, before USB started using it itself? Not sure.
In PD 2.0 those same bits still indicate sth. completely different bits did not exist. PD 3.1 already outlawed the intermediate voltages. But 3.1 according to our sister page USB was the first to add EPR support in the first place.
But the EPR bit in that same data structure makes it a requirement to use more than 100W over a cable mandates that 50V and 5A are supported.
Type-C spec 2.3 p39
"USB Type-C cable assemblies designed for USB PD Extended Power Range (EPR) operation are required to have an electronic marking indicating EPR compatibility. These cables are required to be electronically marked for 5 A and 50 V and include the EPR Mode Capable bit set."
So technically, maybe there was an older PD version that allowed for the existence of cables that signal 30V and 5A for a maximum wattage of 150W. But any valid USB-C/PD device would only use that as 100W USB-C cable as I understand it, because it would not be EPR capable. And cables that are EPR capable are always capable of the full 240W.
Since the table in the article was intended to list the cable types the USB-C standard allows, I think it should match only those.
You may add separate sections or sth. about non-standard things and cables. But unless there are parts in the spec that explain how a cable that is actually limited to 140W, not just advertised for only that, can exist and actually work, I am against mentioning this as if it was allowed or supported by the USB-C specs.
And there were definitely never any intermediate steps between 3A and 5A support or voltages less than 20V for cables. Cables cannot even signal this via eMarker. The wattages you added below 60W are 100% incorrect and do not apply to cables. That would at most be common wattages for power supplies or devices. But not cables. RayWiki519 (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. PD 3.0 added the ability for cables to define voltages higher than 20V. EPR did not exist back then. PD 3.1, which Delock claims, outlawed everything between 20V and 50V and defined how to actually use > 20V for PD. So anything Delock writes is untrustworthy from the start.
So Delock is either by definition admitting that their cable breaks the PD 3.1 spec and pulling an arbitrary wattage number out of their behind. Or they are lying and its only PD 3.0. And will not support any EPR operation.
The spec also says for any PD 3.1 or newer devices to ignore voltage levels of 30V 40V declared by a PD 3.0 cable. So either this cable is only a 100W cable and basically all valid and safe USB devices would only use it for up to 100W/20V. Or the cable will declare itself as actually 240W and the builtin electronics may or may not fry if you connect the cable to such devices.... RayWiki519 (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:USB-C&oldid=1244196706"