That is exactly how the USB IF has been branding it for consumer use. They explicitly tell[0] implementers to not call it "USB 3.2 Gen2x2", but "USB 20Gbps".
The problem is just that the manufacturers and the tech press keep ignoring it...
Which is why I honestly believe they should have fixed this in the design stage itself. Post-facto reframing/renaming never seems to go well.
Especially once the mass produced cheap stuff starts being churned out, and there's no cost incentive to go back and fix wrong messaging. USB-IF constantly drops the ball around this ngl, feels like they're a pure scientific community that doesn't think about consumer adoption and UX.
Comments
That is exactly how the USB IF has been branding it for consumer use. They explicitly tell[0] implementers to not call it "USB 3.2 Gen2x2", but "USB 20Gbps".
The problem is just that the manufacturers and the tech press keep ignoring it...
[0]: https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/usb_performance_logo...
Which is why I honestly believe they should have fixed this in the design stage itself. Post-facto reframing/renaming never seems to go well.
Especially once the mass produced cheap stuff starts being churned out, and there's no cost incentive to go back and fix wrong messaging. USB-IF constantly drops the ball around this ngl, feels like they're a pure scientific community that doesn't think about consumer adoption and UX.