Perfect example of why USB C alt mode is both an interesting capability and at the same time horrible from an end user perspective. Here you've got one alt mode implementation and it already has two basically identical looking USB C to HDMI cables but they will work in different situations with the MHL passive cable having requirements that need to be met on both ends. Quite easy to plug two devices into each other with that cable and still not have anything work.
At the very least, it's a much improved design over micro USB 2.0 and especially over micro USB 3.0. Although it's rated for the same number of insertions as micro 2.0, I have a feeling it'll be at least a fair bit more robust in practice.
i'd rather have one cable i can use to connect any two out of ten devices, but with certain combinations not working/doing nothing. than having 5 cables that can only connect the subset combinations that actually work...
this is getting confusing, even for technophile. How the hell is the general public going to understand this. This is why connecting a wire from a phone/tablet/laptop to a display is dead territory, imho people would rather cast wirelessly to roku/chromecast/fire stick and get lower resolution, than deal with this pain to get 4k output from my phone.
They are spending too much time on this arena of wired tech. We already have HDMI 2.0 and Displayport which is confusing enough.
Eh. Like most things, initially it'll be hit or miss. Eventually everything will support the most common interfaces/features and then people won't need to understand anything more than "I can connect my phone to the TV." Trying to understand and keep up with it all allows a person to be on the bleeding edge. Definitely confusing, but it'll work out. Or it won't.
Agreed, the USB consortium's One Cable To Bind Them All is bringing us back to the situation we had in the 80s/90s where there was a huge mess of devices that connected with RS232 cables; but except when they were designed to do so were incapable of communicating when you hooked a cable between them.
Seems to me the scenario you're describing was already a possibility with good old micro USB + different MHL cables, so its really MHL that you're complaining about here... They should've figured out how to go with passive cables from the start without requiring an MHL implementation on the TV's end, Slimport did it after all.
My Nexus devices can output regular HD over Slimport without an AC adapter plugged in, course they'll discharge more rapidly... Ultimately MHL is the more elegant solution in the long run since it eventually allows charging and output with a single cable, it just took a while to gain adoption and most consumers couldn't care less by now.
I do agree that in general all the Type C implementations will be awfully confusing for the average user tho, but the average user probably won't take advantage of most anyway. They need some very clear iconography and monikers to start labeling cables ASAP tho.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
8 Comments
Back to Article
kpb321 - Monday, August 3, 2015 - link
Perfect example of why USB C alt mode is both an interesting capability and at the same time horrible from an end user perspective. Here you've got one alt mode implementation and it already has two basically identical looking USB C to HDMI cables but they will work in different situations with the MHL passive cable having requirements that need to be met on both ends. Quite easy to plug two devices into each other with that cable and still not have anything work.III-V - Monday, August 3, 2015 - link
At the very least, it's a much improved design over micro USB 2.0 and especially over micro USB 3.0. Although it's rated for the same number of insertions as micro 2.0, I have a feeling it'll be at least a fair bit more robust in practice.bernstein - Monday, August 3, 2015 - link
i'd rather have one cable i can use to connect any two out of ten devices, but with certain combinations not working/doing nothing.than having 5 cables that can only connect the subset combinations that actually work...
edlee - Monday, August 3, 2015 - link
this is getting confusing, even for technophile.How the hell is the general public going to understand this.
This is why connecting a wire from a phone/tablet/laptop to a display is dead territory, imho people would rather cast wirelessly to roku/chromecast/fire stick and get lower resolution, than deal with this pain to get 4k output from my phone.
They are spending too much time on this arena of wired tech. We already have HDMI 2.0 and Displayport which is confusing enough.
Jorsher - Friday, August 7, 2015 - link
Eh. Like most things, initially it'll be hit or miss. Eventually everything will support the most common interfaces/features and then people won't need to understand anything more than "I can connect my phone to the TV." Trying to understand and keep up with it all allows a person to be on the bleeding edge. Definitely confusing, but it'll work out. Or it won't.DanNeely - Monday, August 3, 2015 - link
Agreed, the USB consortium's One Cable To Bind Them All is bringing us back to the situation we had in the 80s/90s where there was a huge mess of devices that connected with RS232 cables; but except when they were designed to do so were incapable of communicating when you hooked a cable between them.Impulses - Monday, August 3, 2015 - link
Seems to me the scenario you're describing was already a possibility with good old micro USB + different MHL cables, so its really MHL that you're complaining about here... They should've figured out how to go with passive cables from the start without requiring an MHL implementation on the TV's end, Slimport did it after all.My Nexus devices can output regular HD over Slimport without an AC adapter plugged in, course they'll discharge more rapidly... Ultimately MHL is the more elegant solution in the long run since it eventually allows charging and output with a single cable, it just took a while to gain adoption and most consumers couldn't care less by now.
I do agree that in general all the Type C implementations will be awfully confusing for the average user tho, but the average user probably won't take advantage of most anyway. They need some very clear iconography and monikers to start labeling cables ASAP tho.
iamkyle - Monday, August 3, 2015 - link
Good to see new developments from the Mational Hockey League!