Back when USB-C was just starting to catch on, it was hard not to get excited about the possibility of a one-port future. With the help of regulators, nearly all new consumer electronics products released feature at least one USB-C port. Apple, despite releasing the first-ever product with a USB-C port in the 12-inch MacBook, was one of the final holdouts. It converted the best iPhones to USB-C with the iPhone 15 series, and the rest is history. However, we were promised a future we didn't get with USB-C. The new port solved one problem, and created a slew of others. If you've been following the progress of USB over the years, that shouldn't be surprising.

On the surface, USB-C is very consumer friendly. Whether you're charging a pair of earbuds or connecting accessories to a flagship gaming PC, you'll use the same cables and ports. The second you take a deeper look, it becomes very obvious that the current state of USB is a complete mess. Unfortunately, I'm doubtful there is much that can be done to fix it at this point.

USB-C (the port) and USB (the spec) are different

Just because two ports use USB-C, doesn't mean they can do the same things

Let's get one thing out of the way first: the USB-C port is great. Despite housing the connector inside the port, USB-C is just as durable — if not more durable — than past ports. It can do a lot of things, from transferring high-speed power and data to supplying video to monitors and TVs. But that's precisely the problem. From a hardware standpoint, there is only one type of USB-C port and one type of USB-C connector. However, there are many different specifications that ports and cables can adhere to while still using USB-C hardware and branding. There are eight officially-recognized protocols that can be supported by a USB-C port or cable. That doesn't include the countless types of non-compliant USB-C cables, usually from cheap, no-name brands.

There are four main protocols that a USB-C port or cable can support, and more specifications exist under each of these protocols. They are USB, Thunderbolt, DisplayPort Alt Mode, and USB Power Delivery. USB and Thunderbolt are primarily data-based specifications, and they excel at transferring things at high speeds. Thunderbolt is more robust, encompassing data transfer, power delivery, graphics support, and more all in one specification. The DisplayPort Alt Mode and USB Power Delivery specs help explain which USB-C ports support which features beyond the base USB spec. DisplayPort Alt Mode allows for video to be transmitted over USB-C, and Power Delivery allows for high-wattage power transfer.

If that sounds confusing, it's because it is. Most people know that USB-C ports and cables have the ability to transfer data, power external monitors, and charge devices. However, the concept that a USB-C device or cable might only be able to perform one or two of those functions, and at various speeds or capabilities, is less familiar to the average user. Plus, since USB has an awful naming scheme, it isn't easy for people to learn. Manufacturers don't make it easy, either. I've reviewed nine of the best laptops so far this year, and all of them shipped with USB-C ports supporting different specification. How are people supposed to get comfortable with USB-C when their accessories will work on one of a laptop's ports and not the other, despite the ports looking identical? It's madness.

The USB IF should be ashamed of its naming schemes

I don't think we could come up with worse names if we tried

If you're a tech enthusiast, you know that companies can do a pretty terrible job at naming products and features sometimes. That's true, but the USB Implementers Forum — the organization that manages USB specs — makes all of them look great. USB has had a naming problem for more than a decade, and the problems really started in 2013, when USB 3.1 was introduced. The USB IF launched two versions of USB 3.1: Gen 1 and Gen 2. USB 3.1 Gen 1 brought transfer speeds of 5Gbps, but USB 3.1 Gen 2 doubled that, supporting 10Gbps. Things got ridiculous in 2017. This was when USB 3.2 was announced, bringing USB 3.2 Gen 1 (which was actually the same as USB 3.1 Gen 1), USB 3.2 Gen 2 (which was the new USB 3.1 Gen 2), and USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 (the only actually new spec here, bringing 20Gbps speeds).

The collosal failure of the USB IF's naming schemes for USB 3.1 and USB 3.2 created a hole that the organization is still trying to dig itself out of. Things kind of got better with the release of USB4 (there's no space now), which leaves the whole "generation" naming scheme behind. But USB4 ports still aren't alike — there are 20Gbps and 40Gbps variants. To make matters worse, the 40Gbps version of USB4 is cross-compatible with Thunderbolt 4. The lower-spec version? It won't work with Thunderbolt 4. This has created the common misconception that USB4 and Thunderbolt 4 are the same thing. And they are, but only sometimes. See the problem?

When the USB IF came up with USB4, the idea was that the Gbps rating of USB4 devices and cables would be the differentiator. This would simplify the terminology a bit, because Gbps can be easily compared, whether we're talking about the first USB (480Mbps) or the latest USB4 (40Gbps). It's also easier to compare across specifications. Thunderbolt 5 can do 80Gbps, and FireWire 800 supports 800Mbps. This too didn't pan out how USB IF intended. The whole plan hinges on manufacturers actually including the Gbps rating on USB4 ports, which many do not. So, instead of it becoming easier to identify the specs of USB-C ports, there are just two more protocols that can be found on often-unlabeled ports and cables.

The other problem is that manufacturers just can't stop using older versions of USB. I've reviewed laptops in 2024 with Thunderbolt 4 ports and USB 3.2 ports on the same system. Why? It's unnecessarily confusing, and seems like a cost-cutting measure to avoid making all USB-C ports Thunderbolt-licensed and putting the necessary controllers onboard. If there's one thing PC manufacturers can learn from Apple, it's this — all the USB-C ports on a device should do the same thing. And please, just make them all USB4/Thunderbolt 4.

Cables are the worst part

I have tens of USB-C cables in a drawer with no idea what each one does

I'll briefly discuss the absolute worst part of the USB-C experience, and that's cables. Thunderbolt cables do a decent job at identifying themselves, since nearly all of them feature the "bolt" logo near the connector and the version number — for example, Thunderbolt 4 versus Thunderbolt 5. This tells you that the USB-C cable you're holding in your hand isn't just your average USB-C cable, it'll work with the USB4 and Thunderbolt 4 specs. As for the rest of the USB-C cables out there, it's complete anarchy. Most products still come with USB-C cables included, and they're usually nondescript and black. Does a cable support data transfer? Power delivery? DisplayPort Alt Mode? If you don't remember which product a cable came with, good luck finding out.

What can we do to fix it?

Not much, unfortunately

There doesn't seem to be a realistic solution to fixing the mess that is USB. The USB IF had a chance with USB4, and for its part, the organization did a decent job at attempting to simplify things. However, any progress made by the USB IF has been thrown out the window by manufacturers. They can't agree which specs to use on their USB-C ports and cables. Even if a speculative "USB 5" reduced the number of USB specs down to one, I have zero confidence that OEMs would unilaterally accept it. There isn't much incentive for manufacturers to consistently add USB-C ports supporting USB4 40Gbps to their devices, and even less incentive for brands making USB-C cables. That's where USB stands in 2024. We finally found the right port (USB-C) , but no one can agree on how to use it.