> Why does this cable have all 24 pins when only half of them are connected? The extra pins could help the plug sit more securely in its socket. Another guess: the same factory makes Thunderbolt cables, and it’s cheaper to maintain just one design, even though that means wasted material and effort.<p>The highest volume manufacturers may be fully integrated. Usually how it works, especially for these relatively low volume no-name brands, is they buy connectors from one vendor, PCBs from another, cables from another, plastic moldings from another, and then assemble them together (which may also be subcontracted). The assembly process doesn't have to be sophisticated: a small warehouse with a few workers with soldering irons and some jigs. Even some medium-volume assemblies like the USB-C front panel cables for major computer case brands are soldered by hand by a handful of workers in a small building.<p>Almost all of the USB-C connectors which are available off the shelf have all of their pins populated. Pins are very cheap. You need to be moving a whole lot of volume before it makes sense to go to your connector manufacturer and ask for a custom one with missing pins.
I wish these were more widely available:<p><a href="https://caberqu.com/home/20-42-c2c-caberqu-746052578813.html#/26-case-without_case" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://caberqu.com/home/20-42-c2c-caberqu-746052578813.html...</a><p>I have one from the kickstarter, and every new USB-C cable gets tested and labeled. Most are USB 2.0. A few will have the power delivery pins. It's such a crapshoot on any shopping site.<p>It should be mandatory that these cables are correctly spec'd and labeled.
The scans and analysis were cool, but comparing one quality cable from Apple to one budget offering from Amazon and two e-waste options from completely unknown brands isn't enough to answer the leading question "Does Apple’s Thunderbolt 4 cable really warrant its $129 price tag?" Especially considering none of those cables even advertised feature parity with Apple's cable.
Speaking of USB-C 10 Gbit/s cables, I've noticed something odd about the iPhone 15 Pro:<p>I have a USB-C cable that has been yielding 10 Gbit/s speeds (i.e. USB 3 Gen 2x1 or possibly but very unlikely 1x2) when used at my Mac with various devices (mostly SSDs).<p>However, that same cable only gets USB 2 speeds when connecting the iPhone to my Mac. The iPhone itself also seems to only get USB 2 speeds using the SSD and that cable. Yet with another, newer USB-C 10 Gbit/s cable, I get 10 Gbit/s throughout all scenarios.<p>What's going on here? Is the iPhone overly strict about supporting USB 3 speeds over USB-C cables, i.e. is my old cable possibly not electronically marked properly, and the Mac is just more tolerant of that?<p>And something else I've noticed: The iPhone also does not get 10 Gbit/s using a somewhat monstrous adapter construction (USB-C to USB-A adapter, USB-A to USB-C cable) that should however be fully standards-compliant without any active e-markers (i.e. a resistor-marked A-to-C cable and a resistor-marked C-to-A adapter).<p>I really wish there was an easy way to dump the cable's SOP' communication on macOS and look into whether a given cable is actually e-marked, and if so, with what capabilities. Alternatively, just showing this in "System Information" would really help, i.e. indicating whether a connection is only using USB 2 speeds due to the cable or the device not supporting more.
“ Another curiosity hidden in the circuit board is this wiggle on one of the traces. It contains a tiny detour to make sure it’s the same length as its paired trace, which is especially important when dealing with extra-high-speed data transmission.”<p>A wiggle that small is adding picosecond delays. I’m surprised that’s necessary. Cool!
I'm curious about the 9-layer PCBA -- is it an amplifier or signal conditioner, to achieve 40 Gb/s? Or does it implement some protocol?<p>Or for power delivery? I see what might be resistors or capacitors. Not sure what else.
Very cool site. Their 3d models are fascinating to look at. I've often wondered what all goes into the construction of these and while I've seen one off scans in the past... being able to click and scroll around through the slices and whatnot is really cool.<p>Would be awesome if these were donated somewhere like Wikipedia some day.
This really highlights one of the disadvantages of everything going to the same physical port - it's not easy to tell what the capabilities of the port and cable are.
On the apple cable... That circuit looks like a lot more than an e-marker. Why do we have a massive 105 pin BGA chip in there?<p>Does this cable run iOS or something?
This demonstrates the biggest problem with usb-c: the connectors are the same, but the capabilities are very different and not visible to the naked eye.
Insane difference between thunderbolt vs competitors.<p>Clearly we are paying for quality here, the question is LTV<p>how quickly does the thunderbolt break
For a second I thought this was an ad for a democratized CT scan machine, but alas it's a 75k$/y subscription machine? This makes a convincing case for having CT scanners available in one's hobby workshop, but the prices would have to come down quite a lot.
For those interested, there is a book with cross-section pictures of various circuits: <a href="https://opencircuitsbook.com/#oc-gallery" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://opencircuitsbook.com/#oc-gallery</a>
Their 3D reconstruction viewer has some neat examples - there's a carbon fiber bicycle saddle where you can absolutely see voids in the layup process and step through the sagittal slices to see the propagation characteristics.
<i>> This is the only cable we scanned that contains no PCBA; the pins just connect directly to the wires.</i><p>What is the PCB for if it's technically possible to omit it?
I love the fact they call the lightening cable an “11 year reign”.<p>There’s a part of Apple that capitalized on hidden reservoirs of tech and talent.<p>Then there’s a part of Apple capitalizes on its own reputation and history.<p>Lightening cable feels newton era.
> This manufacturer claims the cable transmits data at up to 10 Gbps – a speed that corresponds to USB 3.1 Gen 2 – but it only has enough pins and wires to support USB 2.0 at up to 480 Mbps. In any case, this cable accumulated 29 one-star reviews on Amazon and was discontinued the day after we bought it.<p>Pretty much sums up the experience of buying cables in the past couple years.
I'm a bit annoyed that the only comparisons in the article are Apple's gold plated cable and then three random Amazon fly by night cables. I wish they had tested a more reputable cable that was maybe only 1/4 of the price of the Apple cable.
This is how you do advertising on HN...<p>The page is a very explicit plug (pun intended?) for their industrial CT products, and it was clearly done for marketing purposes, not because it reveals anything interesting. It is an apples-to-oranges comparison of several cables, basically showing that they're doing what they're supposed to and are constructed as expected. It was even submitted by an account that is clearly tied to the company.<p>I'm not upset with them - I think it's a better ad than most - but it's a pretty solid case study of how clever "covert" marketing is being done.
This stuff is what worries me about the whole EU standards body issue. I'd rather Apple be able to innovate and create a better connector than locking them into this mismatched and inconsistent reality.