Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > USB... Firewire... HDMI... etc...

USB... Firewire... HDMI... etc...
Thread Tools
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2009, 11:32 PM
 
How long do you think it will be before we have one, and only one type of cable to deal with? I mean, in this new all digital age, all they have to do is pump ones and zeros and maybe some power. Can't one cable handle all of these tasks? Shouldn't I be able to go out and buy 50 cables of various lengths and use them to hook up everything in my house... from my TV, to my stereo to my hard drive, to my everything?

How long until this happens? I bet in 5 years we start to see someone try and move in on this.

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
d4nth3m4n
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Far above Cayuga's waters.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2009, 11:45 PM
 
it'll be well after they figure out how to standardize something as simple as cell phone chargers.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2009, 12:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by d4nth3m4n View Post
it'll be well after they figure out how to standardize something as simple as cell phone chargers.
...and digital camera interfaces (though that's less confusing than cell phones). Each of the mentioned connection types is specific to a particular kind of signal. USB is great for packets of data. Firewire is at its best with streams of data. HDMI is specialized for high def video and audio. The application should be the driving factor in deciding about what a particular connection method needs.

I can see a time when there are a number of "this is the only way these items are connected" standards, one each for each application (including, I hope, "charging and transferring data to and from a cell phone"). But not a single connection for everything. Such a universal interface would either handle high data requirement applications very badly in order to be as small and cheap as possible, or it would handle those applications very well but be too huge and heavy for smaller applications like getting pictures off your camera.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2009, 03:13 AM
 
What Glenn said. One connector for every type of electronics need would involve a ton of trade-offs and not be optimized for any particular use. We have reduced the number of cables we use in this decade compared to the 80s and 90s, but we're never going to get to just one port and cable type. USB has become standard for a variety of devices (thanks in large part due to Apple's stupidity with the original iMac). Firewire is for high end peripherals. HDMI is an A/V cable used with HD devices. You have mini-jacks for basic audio needs, which will always make sense because you'll never be able to fit a USB port where an iPod audio jack goes. Different cables are used for different purposes and needs.
( Last edited by Big Mac; Feb 8, 2009 at 03:26 AM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2009, 04:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by d4nth3m4n View Post
it'll be well after they figure out how to standardize something as simple as cell phone chargers.
Why would any cell phone manufacturer on the planet have the slightest interest in doing that?

The real margins are ALWAYS in the accessories - 40¢ articles sold for $19.95.

They'd be complete idiots to relinquish that market entirely to (by definition) generica.
     
CharlesS
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2009, 05:06 AM
 
... don't a lot of the cell phone manufacturers already use Mini-USB and Micro-USB to charge the phones?

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2009, 05:37 AM
 
Not "a lot", no - not Apple, not Sony-Ericsson, not Samsung, not Nokia, except perhaps on the odd model, and I'm pretty sure LG and RIM don't, either.
     
angelmb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Automatic
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2009, 06:14 AM
 
RIM does, my BB Pearl (oldest, first model) can be charged once attached to the USB ports of the Mac… with the trade-off of having to install the RIM software < LOL placeholder >.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2009, 06:41 AM
 
The Bold and the Curve appear to have standard USB ports, as well - not the Storm, though.
     
Captain Obvious
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2009, 07:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
... don't a lot of the cell phone manufacturers already use Mini-USB and Micro-USB to charge the phones?
RIM Blackberries and recent Motorolas but that is about it.
At least Nokia had the decency to use the same mini tip on the majority of their models. LG and Samsung seem to change the charging interface with every third phone they come out with.

Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2009, 08:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
How long do you think it will be before we have one, and only one type of cable to deal with? I mean, in this new all digital age, all they have to do is pump ones and zeros and maybe some power. Can't one cable handle all of these tasks? Shouldn't I be able to go out and buy 50 cables of various lengths and use them to hook up everything in my house... from my TV, to my stereo to my hard drive, to my everything?

How long until this happens? I bet in 5 years we start to see someone try and move in on this.
And as soon as you have one type of cable, some enterprising company will create a new, better cable and we'll be back to square one again.

See Microsoft's attempts to invent a new, "better" web browsing experience.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2009, 11:57 AM
 
It's interesting to see Ethernet network cabling use for more and more purposes.
eg. Network hard drives and even HDMI. A lot of the pros use CAT5e for HDMI runs (way) over 50 feet, with HDMI-CAT5e converter boxes. If done right with good equipment, it's should be more reliable than passive HDMI at those lengths.
     
CharlesS
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2009, 01:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Not "a lot", no - not Apple, not Sony-Ericsson, not Samsung, not Nokia, except perhaps on the odd model, and I'm pretty sure LG and RIM don't, either.
Samsung

Nokia

LG

RIM has already been pointed out in this thread. Sony Ericsson can be expected to make the switch soon also, according to this. Palm and Sanyo apparently make some phones with micro-USB as well, judging from the availability of third-party adapters such as this. Motorola, of course, has been using USB for charging since the original RAZR came out.

That's pretty much all the major cell phone makers right there.

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2009, 02:58 PM
 
I'm sure the industry will get right on that as soon as you resolve the following concerns and tradeoffs:

Mechanical
Difficulty/ease of disconnection - friction (USB, HDMI, etc) or locking (RJ45, BNC, etc)
Connector size - are we going to use cell phone sized connectors for everything?

Electrical
Bandwidth, run length, shielding: pick two.
How much power does it need to provide?
Unidirectional or bidirectional?

Cost
Chipset
Cabling - copper or fiber
(connector prices are usually small)

I'm sure there are a few more I've neglected.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2009, 03:04 AM
 
The same cable type for every type of connection would actually be more of a headache. Look at the back panel of an HDTV or desktop computer and imagine every single connector being exactly the same. Now unplug everything and let the tangle of cables fall. Now plug everything back into its correct port. Nightmare.

Meanwhile, it's relatively easy to figure out where a monitor cable, vs. a USB cable, vs. audio cables, vs. an Ethernet cable goes just by simple observation. The biggest problem with a universal connector for everything is people would constantly be plugging the wrong devices into the wrong ports- and probably frying things.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2009, 03:09 AM
 
Good observation, CH.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
tooki
Admin Emeritus
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2009, 08:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
How long do you think it will be before we have one, and only one type of cable to deal with? I mean, in this new all digital age, all they have to do is pump ones and zeros and maybe some power. Can't one cable handle all of these tasks?
People seem to think "it's just ones and zeros, so it's simple". It's not like that at all. There are tons of different tradeoffs. Things like maximum cable length, cable thickness and flexibility, cable cost, and chipset cost.

For what it's worth, HDMI (which is really just souped-up DVI) is actually a terrible standard, as its signaling does not lend itself to length at all.

But moreover, some applications need "dumb" cabling systems that is very fast, but carries simple signals (e.g. DVI). Other applications require cabling systems that have a lot of smarts, but that causes delays in transmission (e.g. ethernet). Others (like USB and FireWire) are somewhere in between.

There's really no way to unify all these needs into one cabling system.
     
ort888  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2009, 11:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
The same cable type for every type of connection would actually be more of a headache. Look at the back panel of an HDTV or desktop computer and imagine every single connector being exactly the same. Now unplug everything and let the tangle of cables fall. Now plug everything back into its correct port. Nightmare.

Meanwhile, it's relatively easy to figure out where a monitor cable, vs. a USB cable, vs. audio cables, vs. an Ethernet cable goes just by simple observation. The biggest problem with a universal connector for everything is people would constantly be plugging the wrong devices into the wrong ports- and probably frying things.
No, it would be easier. Imagine that instead of a monitor connector, usb ports, firewire ports, stereo speakers, etc... That you just had 10 input ports. You could plug all of the wires back in whatever plug you wanted. There would be no wrong ports.

I know that as of right now, there are all sorts of technical concerns... I'm talking about more in the future... when we all have jetpacks and flying cars. Surely these petty technical problems can and will be overcome at some point.

I'm wondering if we'll ever see a future with no wires at all. I'm betting we get close. Just sit the DVD player on top of the receiver and they just "see" each other type of deal.

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
residentEvil
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Detroit
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2009, 02:12 PM
 
or back to the original post with a compromise*

a type for pure audio/video distribution (something like HDMI but actually is a solid connection, not a fall out of the port cause the wire is so heavy connection). i call these major devices.
- computer to monitor/tv
- cable/sat/dvd/etc to monitor/tv

a type for data distribution (like CAT6/CAT7). i call these major devices too.
- computer to computer
- computer to network
- cable/sat/dvd/tv/etc to computer/network
- home appliances to computer/network
- home automation to computer/network

then wireless/bluetooth for keyboard, mouse, printer, camera, cell phone, etc. i call these minor devices
- syncing/communication to major device
- syncing/communication between minor devices

so every major device has 2 jacks/ports plus wireless, every minor device has wireless. everything has power obviously (nobody will ever make a universal jack for that). some major devices can have multiple jacks/ports if that is needed of course.

i'm almost there at home. hdmi for all my major devices in section 1. cat6 for all my major devices in section 2. not so much happening all wireless/bluetooth for minor devices in section 3; that is a mess.

*this is purely for soho/consumer applications. commercial/industry/health care/education/government are bound by rules and regulations that some of the above device communications are illegal and/or not practical.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2009, 02:53 PM
 
You're also completely missing pro applications.
     
residentEvil
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Detroit
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2009, 03:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
You're also completely missing pro applications.
industry is pro. music industry? video industry?
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2009, 04:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
No, it would be easier. Imagine that instead of a monitor connector, usb ports, firewire ports, stereo speakers, etc... That you just had 10 input ports. You could plug all of the wires back in whatever plug you wanted. There would be no wrong ports.
I suppose it could be done- if each type of device had a unique 'signature' of pins it used to tell its corresponding controller what it was and what signals to send and receive. I'm no hardware person, but I'd guess it would need a universal jack big enough to contain dozens of possible pin combinations with one layout, and able to carry every type of signal over each pin type.

I'm guessing the problem would actually be that such a cable would actually end up costing all of us MORE, not less, than individual cables of each type. IE: when I just need a simple USB cable, or lengthy audio cable, I don't expect it to be as costly as an HDMI cable. But the simple fact is, if it could also be an HDMI cable, it would have to cost as much.

Of course I realize you're talking about a future where all cable types are scaled down to use less materials, and therefore cheaper, so who knows? Maybe you're on to something.


I'm wondering if we'll ever see a future with no wires at all. I'm betting we get close. Just sit the DVD player on top of the receiver and they just "see" each other type of deal.
That's what I'm hoping for. No wires at all. And while we're at it, no need for finite energy sources.
     
ort888  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2009, 04:46 PM
 
No, the pins in the cable would be irrelevant. The devices would be smart enough to recognize what was on each end and send the right information. And you would have one type of connector. Simply a locking and non-locking version. Stuff like monitors and DVD players and what not would have a type of cable that clicks into place. But a cel phone or a mouse would have one the just slides in. It could even be the same type of connector, only some things would be capable of accepting a lock in place version. They would still be 100% interchangeable.

Here's a drawring...

( Last edited by ort888; Feb 9, 2009 at 04:59 PM. )

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2009, 04:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by residentEvil View Post
industry is pro. music industry? video industry?
Ah. "Rules and regulations" sort of made that fly by me, because your concept's inapplicability to those two industries is governed by simple *necessity*.


But basically, now that even *monitors* are connected via USB (wtf, Samsung?), USB is actually becoming your defacto standard interface cable for most everything, with wireless LAN (plenty fast enough for consumer data transfer) and Bluetooth taking care of the rest.

In the consumer space, your idea is already near reality.

Everywhere else, specialized needs (and "rules and regulations" ) dictate specialized cables - and will for some decades to come.
     
tooki
Admin Emeritus
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2009, 05:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
No, it would be easier. Imagine that instead of a monitor connector, usb ports, firewire ports, stereo speakers, etc... That you just had 10 input ports. You could plug all of the wires back in whatever plug you wanted. There would be no wrong ports.
OK, what you're describing is basically a universal bus. But the problem with buses (as opposed to point-to-point connections) is that you are simply trading one kind of complexity for another. Yes, a bus allows for simpler cabling. But it also means that now, you must use some other method to assign routes for signals. With point-to-point, the signals "natively" go from source to destination because you went from an output to an input. When the connectors no longer create those distinctions, you need to do it some other way. And that adds a LOT of complexity.

Computer networks are a perfect example. The cabling for ethernet is extremely simple: device to switch, link switches to routers if need be. But configuring the devices to see each other is a g_ddamned nightmare.

There is no magic bullet like you'd like.


Also, if you're not already familiar with it, look at France's attempt to make such a bus for AV gear: the SCART connector that's used throughout Europe. It's supposed to make things easy, but it sometimes... fails. SCART voodoo. (Remember SCSI voodoo? LOL)
     
ort888  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2009, 05:35 PM
 
Yeah, I know we're not ready... yet. I'm really talking about down the road.

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2009, 06:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
The same cable type for every type of connection would actually be more of a headache. Look at the back panel of an HDTV or desktop computer and imagine every single connector being exactly the same. Now unplug everything and let the tangle of cables fall. Now plug everything back into its correct port. Nightmare.
I'd immediately open an online store with different colored cables, labelers, and cables with the device logo on the mold.

Also, if we're to the point where everything uses the same cable, I'd imagine there'd be some sort of chip that would differentiate the ports for you so it doesn't matter which port you plug the monitor, keyboard, or whatever in.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2009, 07:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
No, the pins in the cable would be irrelevant. The devices would be smart enough to recognize what was on each end and send the right information. And you would have one type of connector. Simply a locking and non-locking version.
Your starting to make your own idea needlessly complex. The cables -all identical- would all have a set amount of pins, but the DEVICES would use different combinations of those pins to make a simple but unique identifier. Therefore, a monitor plugged in would actually only be connecting to certain pins, and that combination of pins activated instantly ID it to the system as a monitor, not an audio cable, and then routed accordingly. And so on with each type of device. It could actually be kept very simple- which is about the only way it would really be effective.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2009, 07:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
I'd immediately open an online store with different colored cables, labelers, and cables with the device logo on the mold.
Yeah, companies like Monster would instantly claim their universal cables were worth more than a 'standard' one. And of course Apple would have to make sure it made nothing that was universal cable compatible!

Also, if we're to the point where everything uses the same cable, I'd imagine there'd be some sort of chip that would differentiate the ports for you so it doesn't matter which port you plug the monitor, keyboard, or whatever in.
Exactly- and as I said, triggered by a unique combination of pins used by the device.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2009, 09:29 PM
 
This "universal" cable would have to have a connector the size of a stick of butter to accommodate everything all the time, so what does it matter how smart the endpoints are? Who would buy such a big honking cable for a cell phone, a printer, or a monitor? It just doesn't make sense.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2009, 10:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
This "universal" cable would have to have a connector the size of a stick of butter to accommodate everything all the time,
I wouldn't have to accommodate everything all the time- just whatever the current combination of pins in use tells it to "become". In other words, if the device uses say, pins 3, 4 , 7 and 9, (or whatever) it's a printer and that combination of activated pins would itself be a hardware switch to trigger delivery straight to the needed controller. Maybe all the pins activated are video and audio.

I'm sure some genius could work out an ideal number of pins to provide enough combinations for the widest array of device types, without the connector becoming too huge.

You're right though- a cell phone doesn't make much sense. (But then, they'll probably always have proprietary connectors based on the different business model.) Printers/monitors and other peripheral devices would be more what I think would work.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2009, 11:05 PM
 
Can I put an order in for 64 channels of analogue audio in said cable, please? Thanks.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2009, 11:11 PM
 
And what happens when there's a misaligned dynamic pin and your computer thinks your monitor is a mouse?

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2009, 11:31 PM
 
Instant Cintiq!
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2009, 11:44 PM
 
Lions... Tigers.... and Bears.... Oh My!


Because each has its own strength and weaknesses.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2009, 05:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Can I put an order in for 64 channels of analogue audio in said cable, please? Thanks.
heh.

But for the end *behind* the A/D, MADI is a pretty practical solution, no?
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2009, 07:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
heh.

But for the end *behind* the A/D, MADI is a pretty practical solution, no?
If you're into that kind of thing.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
kmkkid
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Brantford, ON. Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2009, 07:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
No, it would be easier. Imagine that instead of a monitor connector, usb ports, firewire ports, stereo speakers, etc... That you just had 10 input ports. You could plug all of the wires back in whatever plug you wanted. There would be no wrong ports.

I know that as of right now, there are all sorts of technical concerns... I'm talking about more in the future... when we all have jetpacks and flying cars. Surely these petty technical problems can and will be overcome at some point.

I'm wondering if we'll ever see a future with no wires at all. I'm betting we get close. Just sit the DVD player on top of the receiver and they just "see" each other type of deal.
We're already on our way to Wireless everything. So I bet we'll see completely wireless devices sooner than a standardized universal port.

The only thing atm that can't be done wirelessly is charging AFAIK. Since you can't have power flowing through the air.
     
tooki
Admin Emeritus
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2009, 08:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
Yeah, I know we're not ready... yet. I'm really talking about down the road.
Time's not gonna help this -- you can't make one cable that is ideal for all needs, not when those needs are opposite.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2009, 02:23 PM
 
Maybe consumer use (and replacement of everything else) is too far reaching, but I'd be willing to bet there's some sort of specialized use (industrial, medical, aerospace, military, etc.) where a universal cable would be revolutionary. The core idea is pretty damn good.

I personally think we're more likely to have telepathic control before the day ever comes that everything is wireless. Wiring is just too efficient and cheap to be done away with completely.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2009, 08:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
I'd be willing to bet there's some sort of specialized use...where a universal cable would be revolutionary.
I didn't think it'd be possible to describe a scenario mutually exclusive with ITSELF, but you've just done a great job.

The more specialized, the less universal. I.e., yes, absolutely: You've just described the status quo.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2009, 11:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
I wouldn't have to accommodate everything all the time- just whatever the current combination of pins in use tells it to "become". In other words, if the device uses say, pins 3, 4 , 7 and 9, (or whatever) it's a printer and that combination of activated pins would itself be a hardware switch to trigger delivery straight to the needed controller. Maybe all the pins activated are video and audio.

I'm sure some genius could work out an ideal number of pins to provide enough combinations for the widest array of device types, without the connector becoming too huge.

You're right though- a cell phone doesn't make much sense. (But then, they'll probably always have proprietary connectors based on the different business model.) Printers/monitors and other peripheral devices would be more what I think would work.
You'd still have to have tons of UNUSED parts, just in case you wanted to hook up something that only a few people had, and most of the time you'd have the majority of the connection completely wasted. Instead, I'd still choose a few connection media that were optimized for their application. And advocate for keeping all new products in line with existing connection schemes unless the new product did something completely new.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2009, 10:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
I didn't think it'd be possible to describe a scenario mutually exclusive with ITSELF, but you've just done a great job.

The more specialized, the less universal. I.e., yes, absolutely: You've just described the status quo.
Universal: adapted or adjustable to meet varied requirements. A 'universal' remote doesn't actually control every device in the world- would be nice though.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2009, 02:48 PM
 
Well, whaddaya know:

Electronista | Phone firms plan universal chargers for 2012

What this article oddly completely fails to mention is that this agreement would never have happened if the EU in Brussels hadn't put the pistol to their heads, threatening to make this a legal requirement come 2012...
     
CharlesS
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2009, 03:02 PM
 
Not just the EU, apparently China as well is going to be requiring Micro-USB as the charging port, at least according to the article from a little over a year ago that I posted halfway up the thread (here it is again).

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:02 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,