Eh, universal just meant that you could plug in all different kinds of peripherals, which is still true. It used to be that most different kinds of peripherals had their own port (although several ports were overloaded on functionality, and many custom/odd peripherals reused the ports designed for other things).
Versioning of buses is hardly unique to USB. Technology must advance. People want to plug their shit in arbitrarily, have it work, AND have it be fast.
The problem is with imprecise labeling of what ports are capable of and what devices require. This is the fault of manufacturers of laptops and shitty widgets, who, frankly DNGAF. I also note that, with respect to the DisplayPort alternate debacle, it's not a single group of people defining what works. It's a hodgepodge of groups trying to reuse the same port.
universal just meant that you could plug in all different kinds of peripherals, which is still true
No, that's the blurred line now. If "plug in" means strictly physical, sure. If you mean to operate at a minimal mode of compatibility between mixed versions, okay. But when a device behaves differently depending on what version the host is running, and depending on whether the hub is powered or not, then it's not exactly "universal" anymore...at least not the way I define universal.
Versioning of buses is hardly unique to USB. Technology must advance.
It's marketed as "the same as before, just better". For use cases that are that much more demanding of power, bandwidth, scalability, accessibility, reliability, or anything that just needs more complexity, they shouldn't use USB for that. Use the right tool for the right job, as they say, and USB is not a one size fits all bus.
I will give you that "Universal" for the foreseeable future is going to be a lie.
USB has always been more about cheap than good. And yet "good enough" means that not a lot of devices embrace alternatives.
(post is archived)