USB Promoter Group Announces USB4® Version 2.0

[Quackers101]

usb 4 2.0 gen 2

or usb 4 2.0 x 2

or usb 4 2x2, 3x2, 3x3, 4x4 wheeldrive.

[pythonmegapixel]

25 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Are you seriously telling engineers to stop labelling their specifications because you use them incorrectly and get confused?

Holy shit the entitlement of some people. Stop using the incorrect terms and maybe you won't be so confused in the future.

Stop using the internal working names of the specifications when talking about a particular implementation of the specs.

If I buy a flash drive, the USB version is listed using the specification numbers. If I go to the Kingston website, for example, there is little to no mention of the "SuperSpeed" names:

 

 

This applies even if I go onto the actual product page and look at the specs: (click for screenshot)

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

Kingston is not a cherry-picked example, they are the first flash drive company that came into my head. Other manufacturers do the same.

 

So whether or not they are meant to be public-facing names, they are certainly being used as such.

[05032-Mendicant-Bias]

USB does two things. it moves data, and it moves power.

 

I think ports and cables should be labled as such:

USB 5Gb/s 20W

USB 80Gb/s 240W

USB 100W (charging only)

 

Let alone understanding what a port in a device can do without opening hwinfo, finding a compliant cable is a nightmare.

[LAwLz]

2 hours ago, Senzelian said:

Your double standards are showing. Suggestion: Calm down and get your facts right. Maybe ask before accusing someone. Can be quite useful.  

Except I am correct. I am just pointing out that your posts are nonsense and that you don't understand the subject you are discussing. You are saying a lot of things that are straight up not true.

 

1 hour ago, pythonmegapixel said:

If I buy a flash drive, the USB version is listed using the specification numbers. If I go to the Kingston website, for example, there is little to no mention of the "SuperSpeed" names:

 

<snip>

 

So whether or not they are meant to be public-facing names, they are certainly being used as such.

Yes, and that is where the issue lies.

The issue is that manufacturers are not using the correct terminology. We consumers should ask them to use the appropriate names, and preferably the USB-IF will become more strict with this as well.

Consumers should never see USB X.X mentioned on a product, because those are meant as internal names for the specifications. 

 

My argument is that we should not be mad at the USB-IF for making "confusing names" when those names are only meant for internal use and the real, consumer facing names, are very clear. The problem is that manufacturers like Kingston and Asus for some reason don't use the consumer facing names. They use the internal, engineering names.

 

We should not complain to the USB-IF because they are not to blame. Manufacturers are. 

[porina]

IMO USB org messed the "xxx speed" designation right at the early days with their marketing sounding "full speed" and "high speed" designations. 

 

Today, since I don't care about high speed USB they're all the same to me as long as they're 3.x it is good enough, and keyboard/mice can fill any 2.0 ones left around.

[tikker]

3 hours ago, Senzelian said:

Not at first.

Before Gen 1 and Gen 2 were a thing, the 10Gbps standard was simply called USB 3.1 and USB 3.0 was still named the same it always has been. Everyone was fine with that. They changed the name of USB 5Gbps and 10Gbps two more times after that!

 

They went from

• USB 3.0 (5)
• USB 3.1 (10)

to

• USB 3.1 Gen 1 (5)
• USB 3.1 Gen 2 (10)

to

• USB 3.2 Gen 1 (5)
• USB 3.2 Gen 2 (10)
• USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 (20)

The big problem that USB has to work around is that it must be backwards compatible with the previous 3.X and 2.0 specifications. All hell would probably break loose if it didn't as then none of your fancy new "USB 3.0" sticks would work on the "USB 2" ports and no "USB 3.1" sticks would work with "USB 3.0" or "USB 2.0" ports. That results in more complicated technical naming.

 

When 3.0 was around, the SuperSpeed USB page mentioned only 3.0 (naturally) and the branding was SuperSpeed USB which offered a speed of 5 Gbps: https://web.archive.org/web/20130430022659/http://www.usb.org/developers/ssusb

When 3.1 was around, the SuperSpeed USB page doesn't seem to mention 3.0 other than being the new spec being compatible with old devices and the branding was still SuperSpeed USB for 5 Gbps and SuperSpeed USB 10 Gbps for 10 Gbps: https://web.archive.org/web/20180226134011/http://www.usb.org/developers/ssusb

Now it has been expanded to include SuperSpeed USB 20 Gbps, but the slower speeds are still called SuperSpeed USB and SuperSpeed USB 10 Gbps and have not been renamed.

 

Newer versions always seem to have replaced the previous versions, so it looks unlikely to me there were two actually different USB 3.0 and 3.1 standards and instead just people (unknowingly) using them to refer to separate things that actually had little to do with those version numbers. Additionally, people thought that Gen 1 and Gen 2 indicated new standards again, which they did not.

 

USB-IF referred to them as transfer rates in their 3.2 update as well: https://overclock3d.net/news/input_devices/usb_3_2_will_absorb_the_usb_3_0_and_3_1_standards/1

Their conference slides tell the audience only use the speficiation terms when talking to a technical audience and not to use the internal naming for products: https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/D1T2-1 - USB Branding Session.pdf

Their product guidelines tell you not to use the internal naming: https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/usb_3_2_language_product_and_packaging_guidelines_final.pdf

 

And they said during an interview: https://nl.hardware.info/nieuws/63663/usb-if-reageert-op-vragen-over-nieuwe-naamgeving-usb-standaard

Quote

The USB specifications target product developers, not end users or consumers. USB 3.x is a series of technical specifications that originally defined and extends SuperSpeed USB technology over a sequence of three performance steps: the original USB 3.0 specification introduced SuperSpeed USB @ 5 Gbps, the USB 3.1 specification added SuperSpeed USB @ 10 Gbps, and the USB 3.2 specification added SuperSpeed USB @ 20 Gbps.
 

From a compliance and logo perspective, ‘SuperSpeed USB’ is intended as the recognizable consumer name for the technology and as performance increased over time, we augmented that naming to include speed, i.e. SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps and SuperSpeed USB 20Gbps. For consumers, this is the only distinction that should be needed to address USB speed at the product port/connector and over a cable. Any of the internal details of the technical specification aren’t intended to be used with consumers, nor do we intend that the specification version numbering (3.0, 3.1, etc.) be used for this purpose. That said, many product vendors do choose to use version numbering even if it is not our recommendation that they do so.

As they say, the specification got updated to add a new transfer mode. A USB device remained a USB device and the specification version went up.

3 hours ago, Senzelian said:

No one cares who's fault it is. Everyone just want it fixed and the clear answer is: Don't rename it in the first place.

And the worst thing is that USB 3.1 (10Gbps) was the official marketing name for it. Why do you think companies, especially motherboard manufacturers jumped onto the bandwaggon in the first place?

A lot of people seem to care that USB-IF devised an allegedly stupid naming scheme even when the developers say it's not for them.

 

The official terms for 3.X stuff according to USB-IF have alwas been SuperSpeed USB[10/20Gbps]. USB 3.1 has never been the official marketing name per the USB-IF marketing guidelines to my knowledge: https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/usb_3_1_language_product_and_packaging_guidelines_final_0.pdf

Quote

It is important that vendors clearly communicate the performance signaling that a product
delivers in the product’s packaging, advertising content, and any other marketing materials.

• USB 3.1 Gen 1
o Product capability: product signals at 5Gbps
o Marketing name: SuperSpeed USB
o NOTE: USB 3.1 Gen 1 and USB 3.0 terms are synonymous

• USB 3.1 Gen 2
o Product capability: product signals at 10Gbps
o Marketing name: SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps

 

I do think it is important to consider whose "fault" it is and I think it's two-fold. Manufacturers need to stop their bullshit marketing and USB-IF should care a bit more and tell one way or another try to convince manufacturers to adhere to the guidelines. Make it mandatory for certification or something.

 

2 hours ago, pythonmegapixel said:

If I buy a flash drive, the USB version is listed using the specification numbers. If I go to the Kingston website, for example, there is little to no mention of the "SuperSpeed" names:

 

 

This applies even if I go onto the actual product page and look at the specs: (click for screenshot)

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

 

 

Kingston is not a cherry-picked example, they are the first flash drive company that came into my head. Other manufacturers do the same.

 

So whether or not they are meant to be public-facing names, they are certainly being used as such.

That's a big part of my gripe with this and in my eyes that market control part is where the frustration should be aimed at . You provide a perfect example with that Kingston page: the first two products claim USB 3.2 Gen 1 yet one is apparently twice the speed of the other. The third product lists 3.1 Gen 1, but is also half the speed of that 3.2 Gen 1 stick, even though it's the same transfer mode and last but not least the fourth one just saying "3.1 Gen 1 speeds" (for which USB-IF created the 'SuperSpeed USB' name). Not to mention the "USB 3.1 Gen 1 (USB 3.0)", although the 3.1 marketing guidelines did consider 3.1 Gen 1and 3.0 synonymous (internally). Kingston is making a royal mess of their lineup when everything there could fall under one label: SuperSpeed USB.

 

I think we need stricter marketing control (just like the 1 ms or bazillion:1 dynamic contrast nonsense with monitors). All those <250 MBps speeds are only 2 Gbps and would thus comfortably fall in the 5 Gbps SuperSpeed category, so what I speculate might play a role here is that they take the sneaky misleading way of reporting the standard they built against (I assume) to report a higher number, because higher is better in the eyes of the consumer even though none of those sticks seem capable of utilising anywhere near the full bandwidth.

[Eigenvektor]

30 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

The issue is that manufacturers are not using the correct terminology. We consumers should ask them to use the appropriate names, and preferably the USB-IF will become more strict with this as well.

If the USB-IF enforces that companies use "USB4 20 Gbps" going forward, then I'm all for it. Just drop the silly, overly verbose "SuperSpeed" that adds nothing and enforce "USB3 20 Gbps" for the older stuff instead.

 

Just call it USBx yy Gbps from now on and rename the internal stuff to USB standard spec reversion x.y. Make internal stuff a really long boring name, so marketers don't pick up on it. The reason they used USB 3.2 in the first place is because it is short and memorable, while SuperSpeed USB 20 Gbps is not.

 

3 minutes ago, tikker said:

I do think it is important to consider whose "fault" it is and I think it's two-fold. Manufacturers need to stop their bullshit marketing and USB-IF should care a bit more and tell one way or another try to convince manufacturers to adhere to the guidelines. Make it mandatory for certification or something.

In that case, the USB-IF is at fault for using short marketable names for their internal naming and super complicated names as the "official name".

 

Just take a look at what Wi-Fi has been doing. They've moved to Wi-Fi 1, 2, … for the official name and are using 802.11xyz as the internal name. The USB-IF should do the same. Use USB 1, 2, … as the official name and reserve the more awkward SuperSpeed USB 20 Gbps as the internal name.

[tikker]

26 minutes ago, Eigenvektor said:

In that case, the USB-IF is at fault for using short marketable names for their internal naming and super complicated names as the "official name".

I can understand that sentiment, but at that point we're blaming a company for using simple semantic versioning which to some extent contradicts the complaints about things being too complicated or confusing. Wi-Fi fell into a similar pit in my eyes when they decided Wi-Fi 6E and Wi-Fi 6 Release 2 were good names. Now there are again three types of Wi-Fi 6 devices out there. How is that less confusing? I haven't kept up with Wi-Fi too much, so it may be me not fully grasping the Wi-FI naming scheme, but that's the point of contest around USB as well. The main difference I see is that manufacturers actually use Wi-Fi 6 in their marketing.

 

I think the move to USB4 20/40 Gbps naming is good as well. The slides above mention them wanting to consolidate cables as well, so I think they are moving in a better direction for sure.

[Eigenvektor]

2 hours ago, tikker said:

I can understand that sentiment, but at that point we're blaming a company for using simple semantic versioning which to some extent contradicts the complaints about things being too complicated or confusing.

Except USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 isn't exactly semantic versioning. But as you and others said it's supposed to be an internal name, so I suppose they can tack on any extra information they want. I get it's up to companies selling these products to use the official names they're supposed to. But I suspect their marketing departments took one look at SuperSpeed USB 20 Gbps, decided this name wasn't going to stick in people's minds and went with USB 3.x instead, because the official naming was too complicated.

 

2 hours ago, tikker said:

Wi-Fi fell into a similar pit in my eyes when they decided Wi-Fi 6E and Wi-Fi 6 Release 2 were good names. Now there are again three types of Wi-Fi 6 devices out there. How is that less confusing?

I agree that this is equally bad. They improved things by going from Wi-Fi 802.11ax (or whatever) to Wi-Fi 6, then they turned around and immediately broke it for no good reason. If they didn't feel the improvements warranted going to Wi-Fi 7, they could've just gone with 6.1 and 6.2, but 6E is a thing because they probably want to avoid semantic versioning for some reason. If we randomly decided to label our new software release as version 6E, I'm sure customers would be upset too.

 

2 hours ago, tikker said:

I think the move to USB4 20/40 Gbps naming is good as well. The slides above mention them wanting to consolidate cables as well, so I think they are moving in a better direction for sure.

Let's see for how long they manage to stick to that

[DildorTheDecent]

>USB 420

 

Ok, based.

[LAwLz]

3 hours ago, Eigenvektor said:

I agree that this is equally bad. They improved things by going from Wi-Fi 802.11ax (or whatever) to Wi-Fi 6, then they turned around and immediately broke it for no good reason. If they didn't feel the improvements warranted going to Wi-Fi 7, they could've just gone with 6.1 and 6.2, but 6E is a thing because they probably want to avoid semantic versioning for some reason. If we randomly decided to label our new software release as version 6E, I'm sure customers would be upset too.

In the case of Wi-Fi 6 and Wi-Fi 6E, the issue is that they are both the same standard.

Wi-Fi 6 and Wi-Fi 6E are identical in every single regard, except which frequency they operate in. Labelling it Wi-Fi 7 or Wi-Fi 6.1 doesn't really make sense since Wi-Fi 6E isn't an improvement over Wi-Fi 6.

People would probably have been pissed if they were told their new Wi-Fi 6.1 equipment was 

 

I feel like standards for advanced technologies like these will always have caveats, but we need to have some oversight with them.

[starsmine]

I mean second revision of USB4 being called USB4 2.0 Im fine with.

Im just waiting for it to be renamed USB4.1 when USB4 3.0 comes out and gets called USB4.2 and USB4 is just USB4

[Jito463]

19 hours ago, LAwLz said:

And this is why I don't think people who has (sic) no understanding of the situation shouldn't comment on it.

19 hours ago, LAwLz said:

for some reason people didn't adopt the general use naming scheme

Seems like you lack some understanding.  Are you sure you should be commenting on this?

 

Hyperbolic joke aside, the USB group could have forced those using the spec to follow a certain naming scheme, yet they didn't.  That makes it their fault, period.

 

Also, you can think all you like that so-and-so (myself included, it seems) shouldn't be commenting, but it's a good thing you're not in charge of deciding who gets to post their thoughts.

[Curufinwe_wins]

USB-IF (amongst others) has been rubberstamping the decay of meaning for the very idea of a standard for ages now. The sad part is, the engineers and others know how bad it is, know how stupid and silly the situation is, but like so many other open-standard orgs... getting 50 (more like 1000s of members now) manufacturers in a room to decide on a system inevitably decays into this. The members of USB-IF are directly the cause of the mess, and the promoters of the mess, so the org can't just get a free pass saying 'oh no, we have a system that makes sense, if manufacturers would just follow it, hur hur hur.' You make the standard, you police the standard, or the standard inevitably means nothing.

 

Not a new problem though.

 

[Eaglerino]

I don't get it mean, SpaceX names their Starships as SN1-whatever version they're on now. Bethesda patches all their games with Patch 1-whatever patch their games are on now. It's 10 times easier to say "Check out patch 36 for the crap update" than "check out patch 4.5482d with the update they didn't add to it sometime last June". Why can't companies attempting to become world standard figure this out already? Someone has to be doing it on purpose

[Eigenvektor]

6 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Wi-Fi 6 and Wi-Fi 6E are identical in every single regard, except which frequency they operate in. Labelling it Wi-Fi 7 or Wi-Fi 6.1 doesn't really make sense since Wi-Fi 6E isn't an improvement over Wi-Fi 6.

Depends on how you want to look at it, I suppose. It may be the same transmission protocol, but it adds additional spectrum. This gives you more channels and less congestion, which could increase bandwidth (but less range and less ability to go through walls)

 

In the software world I'd definitely call that an enhancement. It may not warrant a new major version (i.e. no incompatible changes), but definitely a new minor version. Both router and device(s) need to support it to take full advantage of it. So you can tell people 6 and 6.1 are compatible, but you only benefit from its advantages if both devices support 6.1.

 

This is pretty much how we've done it in software for ages. When a new release breaks compatibility with the previous version, increase the major version. Otherwise increase the minor version. If it contains no functional changes and simply fixes a bug, add a third version number (major.minor.patch).

[williamcll]

So that means we're not getting thunderbolt 3 then?

[LAwLz]

6 hours ago, Jito463 said:

Seems like you lack some understanding.  Are you sure you should be commenting on this?

 

Hyperbolic joke aside, the USB group could have forced those using the spec to follow a certain naming scheme, yet they didn't.  That makes it their fault, period.

 

Also, you can think all you like that so-and-so (myself included, it seems) shouldn't be commenting, but it's a good thing you're not in charge of deciding who gets to post their thoughts.

So it's the USB-IFs fault that companies are using incorrect terminology, because the USB-IF isn't ruling them like a dictator? 

 

Come on... Blame the companies and people using the wrong names rather than blame the organisation for not forcing them to use the correct names. 

 

Again, would you blame AMD if HP started mislabeling processors in computers? No, you would obviously blame HP for fucking up the labeling. Not AMD for not micromanaging how HP advertises their computers. 

[Jito463]

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Again, would you blame AMD if HP started mislabeling processors in computers?

Yes actually, I would.  The company behind the product is responsible for controlling the marketing of it.  If they let the other companies using their product advertise them however they want, then the brand gets diminished and it helps no one.

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

So it's the USB-IFs fault that companies are using incorrect terminology, because the USB-IF isn't ruling them like a dictator? 

It's not about being a dictator, but it is about controlling the marketing.

[tikker]

19 hours ago, Eigenvektor said:

Except USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 isn't exactly semantic versioning. But as you and others said it's supposed to be an internal name, so I suppose they can tack on any extra information they want. I get it's up to companies selling these products to use the official names they're supposed to. But I suspect their marketing departments took one look at SuperSpeed USB 20 Gbps, decided this name wasn't going to stick in people's minds and went with USB 3.x instead, because the official naming was too complicated.

Gen 2x2 isn't part of the versioning, although the way it's used that can be argued. The Hi-Speed and SuperSpeed stuff was probably too long indeed. I am equally guitly of just saying USB 3 for these things. Luckily with USB4 we finally can.

12 hours ago, starsmine said:

I mean second revision of USB4 being called USB4 2.0 Im fine with.

Im just waiting for it to be renamed USB4.1 when USB4 3.0 comes out and gets called USB4.2 and USB4 is just USB4

I think (hope) that won't happen given the reasons for the slight change in version naming. USB4 is, for now, just USB4.

 

6 hours ago, williamcll said:

So that means we're not getting thunderbolt 3 then?

It's backwards compatible with TB3 and the current spec already requires TB3 compatibility for docks:

Quote

2.1.5 Thunderbolt™ 3 (TBT3) Compatibility Support
A USB4 host or USB4 peripheral device can optionally support interoperability with Thunderbolt 3 (TBT3) products.

A USB4 hub is required to support interoperability with Thunderbolt 3 products on all of its DFP. A USB4-Based Dock is required to support interoperability with Thunderbolt 3 products on its UFP in addition to all of its DFP.

When interoperating with a TBT3 product, Thunderbolt Alt Mode is established on the link between products. The USB Type-C Specification describes how a USB4 product negotiates and enters Thunderbolt Alt Mode.

 

8 hours ago, Eaglerino said:

I don't get it mean, SpaceX names their Starships as SN1-whatever version they're on now. Bethesda patches all their games with Patch 1-whatever patch their games are on now. It's 10 times easier to say "Check out patch 36 for the crap update" than "check out patch 4.5482d with the update they didn't add to it sometime last June". Why can't companies attempting to become world standard figure this out already? Someone has to be doing it on purpose

Because for SpaceX SN1 refers to a specific version of the rocket (AFAIK). There are probably plans on how to specifically build the SN1, SN2 etc. versions of said rocket. That is not the case for USB 3.X. There the version means "how to build a USB device -- version 3.2" and not "how to build a USB 3.2 device". You can't build a "USB 3.1" device anymore, because that standard has been superseded, and USB 3.X doesn't really tell you how to build a "USB 3.X" device, but is the latest description of how to build a USB device within the USB 3.X standard.

 

41 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Yes actually, I would.  The company behind the product is responsible for controlling the marketing of it.  If they let the other companies using their product advertise them however they want, then the brand gets diminished and it helps no one.

The blame is with both. They can do more to ensure proper use, but if you don't listen the blame is also on you. If you use someone's product and someone tells you how to to use it it's simple decency to follow those guidelines. It's stupid that something simple as "please use X as to not confuse consumers too much" needs to have actual policed repercussions to it in order for companies to listen to that.

[Eigenvektor]

2 hours ago, Jito463 said:

Yes actually, I would.  The company behind the product is responsible for controlling the marketing of it.  If they let the other companies using their product advertise them however they want, then the brand gets diminished and it helps no one.

Not quite the same though. AMD and Intel sell a product, while the USB-IF sells a standard. So it's maybe more comparable to ARM refusing to sell their design unless you name the CPU based on it a certain way.

 

Not sure whether refusing to license a USB port would be positive for the market, nor how much of the blame can even be put on manufacturers for not keeping to the naming and how much of that is on vendors who ultimately sell it.

 

1 hour ago, tikker said:

I think (hope) that won't happen given the reasons for the slight change in version naming. USB4 is, for now, just USB4.

Kind of. As a customer I still want to know whether it is 40 Gbps or 20 Gbps, so you'll either have to call it USB4 40 Gbps or USB4 Gen 3x2. Hopefully manufacturers/vendors go with the marketing term this time around.

[tikker]

50 minutes ago, Eigenvektor said:

Kind of. As a customer I still want to know whether it is 40 Gbps or 20 Gbps, so you'll either have to call it USB4 40 Gbps or USB4 Gen 3x2. Hopefully manufacturers/vendors go with the marketing term this time around.

Oh yeah, I'm on board with the 20/40/80 Gbps labeling. I meant that I don't think they'll go back to "USB 4.1" or something like that, but will stick to USB4 [Version] X.Y for the spec.

[williamcll]

On 9/4/2022 at 12:04 AM, tikker said:

Oh yeah, I'm on board with the 20/40/80 Gbps labeling. I meant that I don't think they'll go back to "USB 4.1" or something like that, but will stick to USB4 [Version] X.Y for the spec.

These days on computer you would just see USB3 and USB3 10Gbps, and then thunderbolt.

[BigDamn]

On 9/3/2022 at 2:55 AM, LAwLz said:

So it's the USB-IFs fault that companies are using incorrect terminology, because the USB-IF isn't ruling them like a dictator? 

 

Come on... Blame the companies and people using the wrong names rather than blame the organisation for not forcing them to use the correct names. 

 

Again, would you blame AMD if HP started mislabeling processors in computers? No, you would obviously blame HP for fucking up the labeling. Not AMD for not micromanaging how HP advertises their computers. 

Why do you have such a difficult time understanding basic marketing? You use HP, AMD, etc. as examples, but don't ask why those companies don't have the issue that the USB-IF has? If you owned a product, would you not want companies to refer to it properly? If not, you'll be in the same mess that USB is in now.

 

Why do you feel the need to belittle people for understanding this? Though you're right in understanding the concept of internal and external naming schemes (an easy concept, but credit where credit is due), there is quite clearly a flawed implementation here that other products do not have. So simply pointing fingers at ALL board manufactures (and others) is an unrealistic "solution". Direct your blame to the source, they can fix it.

[LAwLz]

19 hours ago, BigDamn said:

Why do you have such a difficult time understanding basic marketing? You use HP, AMD, etc. as examples, but don't ask why those companies don't have the issue that the USB-IF has? If you owned a product, would you not want companies to refer to it properly? If not, you'll be in the same mess that USB is in now.

 

Why do you feel the need to belittle people for understanding this? Though you're right in understanding the concept of internal and external naming schemes (an easy concept, but credit where credit is due), there is quite clearly a flawed implementation here that other products do not have. So simply pointing fingers at ALL board manufactures (and others) is an unrealistic "solution". Direct your blame to the source, they can fix it.

I understand marketing.

The USB-IF do want manufacturers to refer to it by their proper names. The issue is that manufacturers don't, because they benefit from creating confusion and using the improper names. Consumers who don't know any better are directing their anger at the USB-IF as well, so the manufactures who are actually doing things incorrectly just reaps the benefits without getting backlash.

The reason why the same thing isn't happening with for example HP and AMD processors is because consumers understand that market better and would correctly aim their disapproval towards HP, not AMD. 

 

If AMD got the backlash for HP mislabelling processors, making them seem better than they are, then HP would do it for sure. Just like motherboard manufacturers and the likes misuse the USB names to confuse consumers and make their product seem better than they are.

That's why I think it is important for people to stop blaming the USB-IF and instead actually blame the ones responsible for this mess, the companies who are not using the correct marketing terms.

The flaw isn't the USB-IF, the flaw is consumers blaming the USB-IF instead of blaming the manufacturers using incorrect terminology. We are starting to see the same trend with HDMI as well and it needs to stop.