I was SURE they had learned their lesson after the clusterfuck that was 3.1/3.2 but no, right back at the same shit again.
It's hard to see this as anything but purpose-built to make it harder to tell what a cable is capable of (a huge boon to scammers, aka: 90% of cable sellers). If the USB-IF had half a brain between them all (clearly they don't) they would require the data/charging/etc specs to be printed on the cable. Instead they spend their time coming up with confusing standards that are indecipherable to the average person which lead to a shitty world where everyone needs a cable tester to know what a cable is capable of, or they have constant bad experiences with a cable that fits the port but underperforms if it works at all.
I've heard some people say this is because it's all marketing-driven vs engineering-driven, if that's the case the fire the whole department because they suck at marketing. It's gotten to the point the only cables I can trust are from Anker and even those suffer from lack of labeling on them.
It's hard to see this as anything but purpose-built to make it harder to tell what a cable is capable of (a huge boon to scammers, aka: 90% of cable sellers). If the USB-IF had half a brain between them all (clearly they don't) they would require the data/charging/etc specs to be printed on the cable. Instead they spend their time coming up with confusing standards that are indecipherable to the average person which lead to a shitty world where everyone needs a cable tester to know what a cable is capable of, or they have constant bad experiences with a cable that fits the port but underperforms if it works at all.
I've heard some people say this is because it's all marketing-driven vs engineering-driven, if that's the case the fire the whole department because they suck at marketing. It's gotten to the point the only cables I can trust are from Anker and even those suffer from lack of labeling on them.