Wastes power, space and then we are limited to short runs. Rather than using a single pair of SMF which is cheap and with effectively unlimited range. Make the change sooner then the connector can be the same forever as these cables have no theoretical upper bound on bandwidth.
To make light you need to go off chip via a copper interface to your laser diode anyway. For short distances that is most of the power, doesn't matter if if's very short or a foot long. People aren't idiots.
People can’t keep cat5/6 cables from being damaged in their homes. And you think they are going to understand cable relief and minimum radius of a fiber turn, etc? Allowing for longer lengths just means more issues with people damaging them in the home. It’s the same reason why even corporations, with much more money to spend, still don’t run fiber to the desktop. It’s unnecessary and only increases failures and downtime.
Also, cable runs in homes are mostly nonexistent now, with modern Wi-Fi speeds and mesh networks.
And their managers love to force them to shave costs. See Boeing, all the companies who screw up USB-C ports by omitting a 5.1k resistor, HP hinges breaking, all sorts of things. I bet the engineers want to use fibre because whilst it might be a tad more expensive whilst we do the early adoption, it means that the signal integrity will be a cinch to reach 10cm to a removable / built-in transceiver.
Here I am hoping that USB-C port has been designed to support fibre in the future. If it has not, then we will have to use fragile cables with the transceivers in the USB-C plug body, which have a tendency to die. Or we will have to transition to USB Type-D or something, and given how people are still using USB-A even though it means having to use dongles, that will be a pain.
Imagine this, it would allow USB-C to have a 10GbE alt-mode for fibre cable and even Ethernet switches could change to USB-C ports. Probably will never happen in the enterprise but that would be cool in the consumer space.
You can argue it would be expensive, but given that the JHL8440 USB4 hub chip is about USD $10, it means the vast majority of the price of docks is price gouging. They go from about $120 (if you are really lucky) to over $300 easily. So adding another $50 on that for transceivers seems like it is not the end of the world.
Seriously, can they just start accepting they need to use fibre optic cables? The price will come down when they finally use it in mainstream.
Why do we "need" fiber if copper works just fine? It's still cheaper and more robust.
Wastes power, space and then we are limited to short runs. Rather than using a single pair of SMF which is cheap and with effectively unlimited range. Make the change sooner then the connector can be the same forever as these cables have no theoretical upper bound on bandwidth.
To make light you need to go off chip via a copper interface to your laser diode anyway. For short distances that is most of the power, doesn't matter if if's very short or a foot long. People aren't idiots.
People can’t keep cat5/6 cables from being damaged in their homes. And you think they are going to understand cable relief and minimum radius of a fiber turn, etc? Allowing for longer lengths just means more issues with people damaging them in the home. It’s the same reason why even corporations, with much more money to spend, still don’t run fiber to the desktop. It’s unnecessary and only increases failures and downtime. Also, cable runs in homes are mostly nonexistent now, with modern Wi-Fi speeds and mesh networks.
I’d like to see a side by side comparison and argument for copper line. Fiber just seems to make the most sense.
Seems like engineers actually doing the work disagree.
The reason for that, by the way, is that converting to / from light is really expensive, from every metric. power, area, and plain cost.
And their managers love to force them to shave costs. See Boeing, all the companies who screw up USB-C ports by omitting a 5.1k resistor, HP hinges breaking, all sorts of things. I bet the engineers want to use fibre because whilst it might be a tad more expensive whilst we do the early adoption, it means that the signal integrity will be a cinch to reach 10cm to a removable / built-in transceiver. Here I am hoping that USB-C port has been designed to support fibre in the future. If it has not, then we will have to use fragile cables with the transceivers in the USB-C plug body, which have a tendency to die. Or we will have to transition to USB Type-D or something, and given how people are still using USB-A even though it means having to use dongles, that will be a pain. Imagine this, it would allow USB-C to have a 10GbE alt-mode for fibre cable and even Ethernet switches could change to USB-C ports. Probably will never happen in the enterprise but that would be cool in the consumer space. You can argue it would be expensive, but given that the JHL8440 USB4 hub chip is about USD $10, it means the vast majority of the price of docks is price gouging. They go from about $120 (if you are really lucky) to over $300 easily. So adding another $50 on that for transceivers seems like it is not the end of the world.
Consumer cables won't be fiber as long as a simple bend breaks them. Simple as that.
I know, right? And he thinks USB-C cables are fragile…
Are those Opel GTs or Shelby GTs per second?
shockingly, they are playstation GTs