I once heard that the USB naming is misleading by design so that vendors could still sell older generations accessories they had in stock. The USB-IF just rebrands the old ones to make them sound current.

Imagine the following naming:

  USB 3.0 / USB 3.1 Gen 1 / USB 3.2 Gen 1 -> USB 3 5Gbps
  USB 3.1 / USB 3.1 Gen 2 / USB 3.2 Gen 2 -> USB 3 10Gbps
  USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 -> USB 3 20Gbps

Isn't that much clearer? I think USB 4 is finally going to the right direction.

▲ sgjohnson 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> I think USB 4 is finally going to the right direction.

USB 4 is actually going into an even worse direction. USB 4 = Thunderbolt 4, except everything is optional. e.g. USB 4 might not even support DP Alt mode. Thunderbolt 4 always will.

	▲	brigade an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Even backwards compatibility is optional in USB4. There are USB4 devices (SSDs at least) that will not function when connected to USB 3 ports.

▲ xzjis 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Or it could be: 5 Gbps --> USB 3 10 Gbps --> USB 3.1 20 Gbps --> USB 3.2

Higher number = better

▲ kubik369 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I think this practice is rather blatantly what you say. The same thing with HDMI forum folding HDMI 2.0 into HDMI 2.1. They made the new 2.1 features optional, therefore manufacturers were able to call their 2.0 devices 2.1 without actually supporting the 2.1 features. AMD has been recently doing similar things, releasing “new” generation of mobile processors where half of them are just rebrands of the older generation.