Same. Well, I still love my 17" MBP, it just can't run macOS or Windows anymore because both attempt to use the dead dGPU; it's a great Linux system, though. That and my 15.4" is a late 2013 model, but I still like it well enough (I'm using it right now). I was smart enough to try out the 2016 and 2017 models in-store and realize I hated them before making a purchase decision, thus I still have the 2013.
In fairness, when manufacturers lock their bootloaders and sign their firmware with certificates Google does not have access to, what the fuck is Google supposed to do about it?
That's a serious question and I expect a serious answer.
Done right, it might not be that bad. I have a Lenovo YogaBook, which has a touch surface for its keyboard, and figured it would be okay for typing short bits of text but wanted something for longer typing sessions, so I picked up a small Bluetooth keyboard to go with it. I used the Bluetooth keyboard for longer sessions, as I had intended, for less than a week before I had gotten used to the touch surface enough that the occasional hiccup no longer outweighs the effort of carrying the Bluetooth keyboard everywhere.
There is a bit of a learning curve, and there are times when the thing just is not responsive, but I've only had it for 3 weeks and I can already type as fast on it as I can type on the MacBook Pro I'm using currently or the Model M clone at my desk. That said, having used Apple's new keyboards briefly, if their touch-only keyboard is anything like the current MacBook Pros, I'll pass.
Honestly, it's fine for the Android version of the YogaBook, but I wouldn't want it for a full laptop, or even the Windows YogaBook, which is why I chose the Android version to begin with: the whole reason they used a touch surface keyboard is that the touch surface doubles as a drawing surface and that intrigued me. All in all, it was a good purchase, serves the need for which I bought it (a decent portable solution for drawing and writing with digital capture) and, quite unexpectedly, has all but replaced a traditional laptop for the vast majority of non-work use cases.
If Apple wanted to sell me something like that for $600 or so (I paid about $350 for the Anrdoid version), I'd probably buy it, provided the typing experience was somewhat improved and it ran macOS rather than iOS. Oh, and battery life; I've gotten two days out of the YogaBook, though I more typically get 12-15 hours. I would expect Apple's offering to beat that at nearly double the price.
the license agreement is only for Google apps, not for Android itself
There is, in fact, a license agreement for Android, as well. It just happens to be very permissive at the moment, but Google could change that tomorrow if they wished.
We should be thankful for every day that they don't.
Maybe we like the OS, especially those of us who happen to be developers, and wish the hardware better suited our needs so we could justify buying it. What part of that makes one look like a twit? Many of us would be just as happy (and drop the hardware complaints) if Apple simply started selling their OS; even if they left us in the cold with regard to drivers, as the community has already managed to get most things working without Apple's help. What would be nice about that, on both sides of the fence, is that Apple would begin seeing some income from us and we wouldn't have to worry about the next update breaking our shit.
As it is now, I need something more reliable than a Hackintosh and faster than anything Apple will sell me, so OS X (sorry, macOS) is not an option, though it would be the best fit if it were.
That's why we (at least some of us) won't let it go -- because those of us who complain don't have an optimal solution, but we see a way to make one.
Huh, well thanks for that. I have a clue of that StarTech cable (I've been buying their sruff whenever possible ever since I picked up a couple HDMI cable and saw that they were high quality for a reasonable price). It must be the Dell laptop I'm using them with, then, as they work fine for Thunderbold devices but I have to dig out a StarTech USB3.1 USB-C cable to use any of my USB3.1 stuff with it.
Thanks for that, and thanks for providing sources and not being a douche about it like UnkowingFool. Also, I'm more than a little surprised the CalDigit cables don't meet the spec.
My understanding was that the active circuitry required to achieve 40gbps with a Thunderbolt longer than 1.5ft (my StarTech cables are all 3ft or longer and have active circuitry to support full speed transfer, by the way) is what prevented the passing of USB data. It seems that even CalDigit's 1.5 foot cable does pass both and would meet the spec, but they have the same active circuitry in their longer cables that StarTech has in shome of theirs; I also notice that both manufacturers leave the USB-C designator off of their active cables. Apple's cables will drop down to 20gbps at lengths longer than 1.5ft, since they lack the active circuitry.
It's been about 8 months since I've bought a Thunderbolt 3 cable, so I forgot some of these details, but that does explain how I ended up with cables from a known-good manufacturer which will pass Thunderbolt but not USB. I have no use for a 1.5ft Thunderbolt cable and no desire to hamstring my Thunderbolt performance.
I'm not sure how you think that would work long-term. Perhaps I'm missing something but...
If you're proposing that the government is only allowed to collect taxes (a percentage of the total paid) on money they've paid out directly, it seems to me that they'd necessarily run out of money in short order. Unless, of course, you think the government firing up the presses every time an expense comes up is actually a good thing?
Google could put an end to it by simply not allowing it in the license agreement. Of course, more than a handful of features have made their way from vendor overlays into vanilla Android, and I'm not sure Google would have considered those features for inclusion had they not been proven beforehand, so maybe there's some benefit to the current system.
I'm honestly torn on the issue. On one hand, the vanilla experience does lend itself to system updates more readily than what we have now; on the other hand, innovation has to come from somewhere and most of what Google adds to Android isn't originating from within Google.
Perhaps, at the very least, Google should require vendors to submit any proprietary drivers so that Google can release vanilla builds for every device; they would also need to require that any carrier- or vendor-specific apps be released on the Play store, to prevent any model-specific features from being locked behind those apps. Then, you could have the vanilla experience on any phone without losing and vendor- or model-specific functionality which may have made you choose that phone in the first place.
I don't think that has airbags or crumple zones, but I'd still rather be in that than on foot if things are gonna be as bad as proposed above. In short, I don't think things are gonna get that bad; if they do, car makers will be sued into oblivion in short order and we'll return to what we have today, only with perhaps a higher focus on build quality and smaller profit margins (e.g. better cars at a lower price) as the companies try to regain our trust and business.
Sad that it might take substantial loss of life to achieve, but the industry has already made that rule clear. It could be their lives lost, rather than ours, but we're all too chicken-shit to do anything but sue; and we can't start suing until we start dying.
I think USB-C would be a net with if it was just USB and power, rather than trying to include optional proprietary protocols with absolutely no labeling requirements. That's really my only beef with it and, well, I know enough that it won't affect me beyond the flood of "why won't this work" requests I get from friends and family, and getting to watch all of my USB-C devices slowly become obsolete as the standard fails to gain traction due to these issues.
Mass-market (e.g. idiot user) adoption is what drives traction for a standard. USB-C was simply made too complicated for the mass market and that will be its demise.
Also yes, fuck Apple's design decision re: going all USB-C on the new MacBook Pros. This late 2013 model will have to serve me until it dies, which will be a long, long time from now considering how infrequently I use it currently; in favor of a PC workstation far exceeding anything Apple will likely sell in the next decade, a Chromebook, and an Android convertible.
Laptops: Before USB-C, laptops all used proprietary power connectors and required proprietary docks if you didn't want to unplug/plug in 3 or 4 cables every time you wanted to move the laptop. This move allows you to plug in 1 or 2 cables into a universal dock.
A good number of laptops use a Type M barrel connector and we've had Thunderbolt and USB3, both fast enough for typical dock usage (including external displays) for some time now. I have a Thunderbolt 2 dock for my MacBook Pro and it's great. 1 or 2 cables into a universal dock has been a reality for me since I bought this laptop at the beginning of 2014 and has been possible way longer than that.
Ideally, it should do whatever the user wants (it's not hard to have a setting or a popup on both devices). In practice, it should be entirely predefined. As UnknowingFool pointed out, battery packs for example generally have 2 ports. One for output one for input. In the case of my devices, nothing will happen (as far as charging goes). They won't attempt to charge each other.
And in the case of my battery packs, that's how the USB-A ports work (output only) and the micro-USB-B is input only, but the USB-C port is bidirectional on both packs I own that have one. I guess something that's a problem for others isn't really a problem until it's a problem for you, right?
Only about 5% of the information that comes up when searching my name actually pertains to me, and there are a great many holes in that data, as well. I can't piece together my story from what's there and I do know all of the details. Perhaps you should be more careful?
And a reference to a standard ratified well over a decade after USB came to market.
The fact is I am right
Except that you're not; you claim we had this problem with USB-A from day one, but the charging spec came some time after. Any charge-only cable predating that did, in fact, not follow the spec.
Go buy a Thunderbolt 3 display (which will have a USB-C port on it, of course, because that's what Thunderbolt 3 uses) and use it with a non-Intel system. Go ahead, go try it, tell me how backward-compatible it is. Unlike previous versions of USB, which were port-and-protocol forward-and-backward-compatible, USB-C is not port-compatible (which is fine, the port is aguably better in every way) and very likely not protocol-compatible in many cases.
You are acting as if specs will always be followed to the letter
Actually, no, I understand that they won't be. What you;re missing is that the USB logo set is trademarked and that trademark is openly licensed only for use on products which follow the soec represented by the logo. Prior to USB-C, the USB logo meant the cable or device complied with the spec or, at the very least, the USB consortium could sue the manufacturer into oblivion. With the USB-C spec being so loose, that guarantee goes away. That is why these problems won;t be fixed this time around.
That's a step backward, not forward.
As for you insisting you're right, well, at this point we both have our opinions and time will tell which of us is right. I can see the USB-C connector surviving with a limited USB-protocols-and-charging-only spec but, otherwise, as long as the "open" standard is tied to proprietary protocols (Thunderbolt -- which Intel won't license for non-peripheral use, so it's limited to peripherals and systems running Intel CPUs --, HDMI, and DisplayPort) with associated licensing fees, it will remain a compatibility nightmare as most lower-end computers will not be licensed to use those features on their ports, making them incompatible with devices which rely on those features.
Maybe that could be fixed with labeling requirements but, as you so astutely pointed out, those requirements will likely be disregarded.
So then... How, pray tell, will this be fixed going forward? I'm sitting here with open ears and an open mind, but all I keep hearing is "it'll be fixed by magic". I'm ponting out clear differences between USB-A and USB-C which prevent USB-C from being "fixed" the same way USB-A was, and you just keep insisting it will be fixed with no hint as to how.
Now that I've shown you that you're wrong are you going to change the meaning of the word "devices"?
You've not shown that, though; and no, I was merely pointing out that I am referring to peripheral devices which one may attach to a computer. I said that bit about not being pedantic to try and keep you focused on the context of the conversation you inserted yourself into.
The monitor you linked to will not work if plugged into a non-Thunderbolt USB-C port, nor will a Thunderbolt dock. Show me one peripheral device that falls back to USB3.1 when Thunderbolt is not available, as was being discussed before you showed up.
Here's a hint: USB3.1 cables lack the active components to pass a 40gbps Thunderbolt signal and active Thunderbolt cables won't pass a USB signal, so such fallback is not even technically possible. In the case of your dock and monitor, those include a USB3.1 chipset in order to make those ports available, but that all goes back to the computer as good ol' Thunderbolt 3 at 40gbps.
Software implementation of at 40gpbs protocol over a 10gbps protocol? I'm sure there's an award for that if you can figure it out. Since USB3.1 and Thunderbolt use different cables (there are active components in a Thunderbolt cable and most Thunderbolt cables won't pass a USB signal), it's not simply a matter of making the port speak the language (just a bit slower), as a Thunderbolt device won't recognize a USB3.1 USB-C cable and a Thunderbolt USB-C cable won't sync at 10gbps.
The suggestion is similarly amusing regarding HDMI.
And all of that is ignoring the real issue: licensing.
That would be the first-ever example of UnknowingFool agreeing with me, so you'll forgive me if I don't immediately jump to the same conclusion, I'm sure.
The devices, my friend.... the devices. I even said devices. Name one device that implements both USB and Thunderbolt over a USB-C port. Please, try not to be pedantic and point out that a computer is technically a device; you know precisely what I'm getting at.
I still don't get why they combined data, A/V, and power into one interface. Was this really an issue that needed solving? Were there devices out there that just couldn't handle an extra port or use Bluetooth or some other wireless tech for their needs?
People, pay attention: this guy gets it.
If USB-C were just a USB connector, it would be great. It's not... so it's not.
Do you also understand that the issues with USB-A came down to drivers, rather than hardware? And that, no, not every complaint against USB-C existed with USB-A -- namethose involving protocol mixing, which wasn't a thing with USB-A. You can't fix missing Thunderbolt suppora non-Intel system with a sofware update; likewise with HDMI/DisplayPort passthru on systems lacking that hardware.
The problem with USB-A was poor initial support for the specification. The problem with USB-C is that it's a collection of specifications with no way for the end user to know what a given compliant port or cable may or may not support; and the spec allows this condition. Things that didn't work with USB-A simply were not compliant; with USB-C, two fully compliant devices with the correct drivers on both ends are allowed to not work, and the spec says that's fine.
Slashdot Mirror
I loved my 17" MacBook Pro.
I liked my 2015 15.4" MacBook Pro.
I hate my 2017 15.4" MacBook Pro.
Same. Well, I still love my 17" MBP, it just can't run macOS or Windows anymore because both attempt to use the dead dGPU; it's a great Linux system, though. That and my 15.4" is a late 2013 model, but I still like it well enough (I'm using it right now). I was smart enough to try out the 2016 and 2017 models in-store and realize I hated them before making a purchase decision, thus I still have the 2013.
But yes, Apple has gone downhill. Far and fast.
In fairness, when manufacturers lock their bootloaders and sign their firmware with certificates Google does not have access to, what the fuck is Google supposed to do about it?
That's a serious question and I expect a serious answer.
Done right, it might not be that bad. I have a Lenovo YogaBook, which has a touch surface for its keyboard, and figured it would be okay for typing short bits of text but wanted something for longer typing sessions, so I picked up a small Bluetooth keyboard to go with it. I used the Bluetooth keyboard for longer sessions, as I had intended, for less than a week before I had gotten used to the touch surface enough that the occasional hiccup no longer outweighs the effort of carrying the Bluetooth keyboard everywhere.
There is a bit of a learning curve, and there are times when the thing just is not responsive, but I've only had it for 3 weeks and I can already type as fast on it as I can type on the MacBook Pro I'm using currently or the Model M clone at my desk. That said, having used Apple's new keyboards briefly, if their touch-only keyboard is anything like the current MacBook Pros, I'll pass.
Honestly, it's fine for the Android version of the YogaBook, but I wouldn't want it for a full laptop, or even the Windows YogaBook, which is why I chose the Android version to begin with: the whole reason they used a touch surface keyboard is that the touch surface doubles as a drawing surface and that intrigued me. All in all, it was a good purchase, serves the need for which I bought it (a decent portable solution for drawing and writing with digital capture) and, quite unexpectedly, has all but replaced a traditional laptop for the vast majority of non-work use cases.
If Apple wanted to sell me something like that for $600 or so (I paid about $350 for the Anrdoid version), I'd probably buy it, provided the typing experience was somewhat improved and it ran macOS rather than iOS. Oh, and battery life; I've gotten two days out of the YogaBook, though I more typically get 12-15 hours. I would expect Apple's offering to beat that at nearly double the price.
the license agreement is only for Google apps, not for Android itself
There is, in fact, a license agreement for Android, as well. It just happens to be very permissive at the moment, but Google could change that tomorrow if they wished.
We should be thankful for every day that they don't.
Maybe we like the OS, especially those of us who happen to be developers, and wish the hardware better suited our needs so we could justify buying it. What part of that makes one look like a twit? Many of us would be just as happy (and drop the hardware complaints) if Apple simply started selling their OS; even if they left us in the cold with regard to drivers, as the community has already managed to get most things working without Apple's help. What would be nice about that, on both sides of the fence, is that Apple would begin seeing some income from us and we wouldn't have to worry about the next update breaking our shit.
As it is now, I need something more reliable than a Hackintosh and faster than anything Apple will sell me, so OS X (sorry, macOS) is not an option, though it would be the best fit if it were.
That's why we (at least some of us) won't let it go -- because those of us who complain don't have an optimal solution, but we see a way to make one.
I remember the first 25 years of my life and just how awful it was not being able to communicate!
Huh, well thanks for that. I have a clue of that StarTech cable (I've been buying their sruff whenever possible ever since I picked up a couple HDMI cable and saw that they were high quality for a reasonable price). It must be the Dell laptop I'm using them with, then, as they work fine for Thunderbold devices but I have to dig out a StarTech USB3.1 USB-C cable to use any of my USB3.1 stuff with it.
Thanks for that, and thanks for providing sources and not being a douche about it like UnkowingFool. Also, I'm more than a little surprised the CalDigit cables don't meet the spec.
My understanding was that the active circuitry required to achieve 40gbps with a Thunderbolt longer than 1.5ft (my StarTech cables are all 3ft or longer and have active circuitry to support full speed transfer, by the way) is what prevented the passing of USB data. It seems that even CalDigit's 1.5 foot cable does pass both and would meet the spec, but they have the same active circuitry in their longer cables that StarTech has in shome of theirs; I also notice that both manufacturers leave the USB-C designator off of their active cables. Apple's cables will drop down to 20gbps at lengths longer than 1.5ft, since they lack the active circuitry.
It's been about 8 months since I've bought a Thunderbolt 3 cable, so I forgot some of these details, but that does explain how I ended up with cables from a known-good manufacturer which will pass Thunderbolt but not USB. I have no use for a 1.5ft Thunderbolt cable and no desire to hamstring my Thunderbolt performance.
Is there any part of this Administration that can sink any lower?
This can't be the first time you've asked that. Have you not learned that they're more than happy to answer? PLEASE, stop asking!
I'm not sure how you think that would work long-term. Perhaps I'm missing something but...
If you're proposing that the government is only allowed to collect taxes (a percentage of the total paid) on money they've paid out directly, it seems to me that they'd necessarily run out of money in short order. Unless, of course, you think the government firing up the presses every time an expense comes up is actually a good thing?
Google could put an end to it by simply not allowing it in the license agreement. Of course, more than a handful of features have made their way from vendor overlays into vanilla Android, and I'm not sure Google would have considered those features for inclusion had they not been proven beforehand, so maybe there's some benefit to the current system.
I'm honestly torn on the issue. On one hand, the vanilla experience does lend itself to system updates more readily than what we have now; on the other hand, innovation has to come from somewhere and most of what Google adds to Android isn't originating from within Google.
Perhaps, at the very least, Google should require vendors to submit any proprietary drivers so that Google can release vanilla builds for every device; they would also need to require that any carrier- or vendor-specific apps be released on the Play store, to prevent any model-specific features from being locked behind those apps. Then, you could have the vanilla experience on any phone without losing and vendor- or model-specific functionality which may have made you choose that phone in the first place.
I don't think that has airbags or crumple zones, but I'd still rather be in that than on foot if things are gonna be as bad as proposed above. In short, I don't think things are gonna get that bad; if they do, car makers will be sued into oblivion in short order and we'll return to what we have today, only with perhaps a higher focus on build quality and smaller profit margins (e.g. better cars at a lower price) as the companies try to regain our trust and business.
Sad that it might take substantial loss of life to achieve, but the industry has already made that rule clear. It could be their lives lost, rather than ours, but we're all too chicken-shit to do anything but sue; and we can't start suing until we start dying.
I think USB-C would be a net with if it was just USB and power, rather than trying to include optional proprietary protocols with absolutely no labeling requirements. That's really my only beef with it and, well, I know enough that it won't affect me beyond the flood of "why won't this work" requests I get from friends and family, and getting to watch all of my USB-C devices slowly become obsolete as the standard fails to gain traction due to these issues.
Mass-market (e.g. idiot user) adoption is what drives traction for a standard. USB-C was simply made too complicated for the mass market and that will be its demise.
Also yes, fuck Apple's design decision re: going all USB-C on the new MacBook Pros. This late 2013 model will have to serve me until it dies, which will be a long, long time from now considering how infrequently I use it currently; in favor of a PC workstation far exceeding anything Apple will likely sell in the next decade, a Chromebook, and an Android convertible.
Laptops: Before USB-C, laptops all used proprietary power connectors and required proprietary docks if you didn't want to unplug/plug in 3 or 4 cables every time you wanted to move the laptop. This move allows you to plug in 1 or 2 cables into a universal dock.
A good number of laptops use a Type M barrel connector and we've had Thunderbolt and USB3, both fast enough for typical dock usage (including external displays) for some time now. I have a Thunderbolt 2 dock for my MacBook Pro and it's great. 1 or 2 cables into a universal dock has been a reality for me since I bought this laptop at the beginning of 2014 and has been possible way longer than that.
Ideally, it should do whatever the user wants (it's not hard to have a setting or a popup on both devices). In practice, it should be entirely predefined. As UnknowingFool pointed out, battery packs for example generally have 2 ports. One for output one for input. In the case of my devices, nothing will happen (as far as charging goes). They won't attempt to charge each other.
And in the case of my battery packs, that's how the USB-A ports work (output only) and the micro-USB-B is input only, but the USB-C port is bidirectional on both packs I own that have one. I guess something that's a problem for others isn't really a problem until it's a problem for you, right?
Someone else who gets it. Thank you.
Only about 5% of the information that comes up when searching my name actually pertains to me, and there are a great many holes in that data, as well. I can't piece together my story from what's there and I do know all of the details. Perhaps you should be more careful?
nope
And a reference to a standard ratified well over a decade after USB came to market.
The fact is I am right
Except that you're not; you claim we had this problem with USB-A from day one, but the charging spec came some time after. Any charge-only cable predating that did, in fact, not follow the spec.
Go buy a Thunderbolt 3 display (which will have a USB-C port on it, of course, because that's what Thunderbolt 3 uses) and use it with a non-Intel system. Go ahead, go try it, tell me how backward-compatible it is. Unlike previous versions of USB, which were port-and-protocol forward-and-backward-compatible, USB-C is not port-compatible (which is fine, the port is aguably better in every way) and very likely not protocol-compatible in many cases.
You are acting as if specs will always be followed to the letter
Actually, no, I understand that they won't be. What you;re missing is that the USB logo set is trademarked and that trademark is openly licensed only for use on products which follow the soec represented by the logo. Prior to USB-C, the USB logo meant the cable or device complied with the spec or, at the very least, the USB consortium could sue the manufacturer into oblivion. With the USB-C spec being so loose, that guarantee goes away. That is why these problems won;t be fixed this time around.
That's a step backward, not forward.
As for you insisting you're right, well, at this point we both have our opinions and time will tell which of us is right. I can see the USB-C connector surviving with a limited USB-protocols-and-charging-only spec but, otherwise, as long as the "open" standard is tied to proprietary protocols (Thunderbolt -- which Intel won't license for non-peripheral use, so it's limited to peripherals and systems running Intel CPUs --, HDMI, and DisplayPort) with associated licensing fees, it will remain a compatibility nightmare as most lower-end computers will not be licensed to use those features on their ports, making them incompatible with devices which rely on those features.
Maybe that could be fixed with labeling requirements but, as you so astutely pointed out, those requirements will likely be disregarded.
So then... How, pray tell, will this be fixed going forward? I'm sitting here with open ears and an open mind, but all I keep hearing is "it'll be fixed by magic". I'm ponting out clear differences between USB-A and USB-C which prevent USB-C from being "fixed" the same way USB-A was, and you just keep insisting it will be fixed with no hint as to how.
Now that I've shown you that you're wrong are you going to change the meaning of the word "devices"?
You've not shown that, though; and no, I was merely pointing out that I am referring to peripheral devices which one may attach to a computer. I said that bit about not being pedantic to try and keep you focused on the context of the conversation you inserted yourself into.
The monitor you linked to will not work if plugged into a non-Thunderbolt USB-C port, nor will a Thunderbolt dock. Show me one peripheral device that falls back to USB3.1 when Thunderbolt is not available, as was being discussed before you showed up.
Here's a hint: USB3.1 cables lack the active components to pass a 40gbps Thunderbolt signal and active Thunderbolt cables won't pass a USB signal, so such fallback is not even technically possible. In the case of your dock and monitor, those include a USB3.1 chipset in order to make those ports available, but that all goes back to the computer as good ol' Thunderbolt 3 at 40gbps.
Software implementation of at 40gpbs protocol over a 10gbps protocol? I'm sure there's an award for that if you can figure it out. Since USB3.1 and Thunderbolt use different cables (there are active components in a Thunderbolt cable and most Thunderbolt cables won't pass a USB signal), it's not simply a matter of making the port speak the language (just a bit slower), as a Thunderbolt device won't recognize a USB3.1 USB-C cable and a Thunderbolt USB-C cable won't sync at 10gbps.
The suggestion is similarly amusing regarding HDMI.
And all of that is ignoring the real issue: licensing.
That would be the first-ever example of UnknowingFool agreeing with me, so you'll forgive me if I don't immediately jump to the same conclusion, I'm sure.
The devices, my friend.... the devices. I even said devices. Name one device that implements both USB and Thunderbolt over a USB-C port. Please, try not to be pedantic and point out that a computer is technically a device; you know precisely what I'm getting at.
I still don't get why they combined data, A/V, and power into one interface. Was this really an issue that needed solving? Were there devices out there that just couldn't handle an extra port or use Bluetooth or some other wireless tech for their needs?
People, pay attention: this guy gets it.
If USB-C were just a USB connector, it would be great. It's not... so it's not.
Do you also understand that the issues with USB-A came down to drivers, rather than hardware? And that, no, not every complaint against USB-C existed with USB-A -- namethose involving protocol mixing, which wasn't a thing with USB-A. You can't fix missing Thunderbolt suppora non-Intel system with a sofware update; likewise with HDMI/DisplayPort passthru on systems lacking that hardware.
The problem with USB-A was poor initial support for the specification. The problem with USB-C is that it's a collection of specifications with no way for the end user to know what a given compliant port or cable may or may not support; and the spec allows this condition. Things that didn't work with USB-A simply were not compliant; with USB-C, two fully compliant devices with the correct drivers on both ends are allowed to not work, and the spec says that's fine.
That's a problem.
I WOULD RATHER WALK.
I'd rather be in a wheeled steel cage with airbags and crumple zones, personally. Especially once the death machines you speak of start roaming,
The addicts won't put their phones down to steer their moped, problem will quickly solve itself.