Comment Great idea, terrible implementation (Score 3, Insightful) 76
Sure, this sounds like a great idea up front, but the requirements hurt the ecosystem for bespoke designs.
The FrameWork 16 for instance has 6x USB-C ports on it for its modular connectivity. By Microsoft's new requirement, ALL 6 ports must have charging capabilities, video capabilities, and because they're above the 40gbps threshold, support PCIe connectivity too.
This sounds -great- on the surface, but what is the level of complexity and monetary cost to have SIX charging ports on a single laptop? Where is the practicality in that anyways? Additionally, the cost of the muxes to push video to all of those ports, and PCIe to all of those ports.
Does your desktop have 6 display output ports? Probably not.
Thanks to these requirements, the FrameWork 16 is essentially dead in the water for Microsoft Windows certification, along with any other vendor that wants more than 4x ports on their devices.
We're either going to have a limited number of ports, or regress back to the slop of USB-A, USB-C, (mini)DP, HDMI, and whatever slop a company wants to accommodate more connectivity, instead of a single port that has a few optional specs turned on/off depending how its wired internally.
Yeah, I totally get it and would love to have a world where there is truly a single port. But even with this new spec requirement, it still isn't standardized entirely. There is the above 40gbps spec and below 40gbps spec with different requirements for each. There is a difference between "has video" and "has GOOD video", as well as "has PCIe/Thunderbolt" and "doesn't have PCIe/Thunderbolt"
Vendors having the choice between driving up per-port costs for all this optional stuff that almost nobody will ever use vs not having the ports at all? Welcome to the Apple world of only having 2 USB-C ports.