There is a reason for USB-C extensions not to be part of the standard. They can be bothersome in the best case and dangerous in the worst.

  • Natanael@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    75
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    That’s an active extension cable, which is essentially a single port USB hub.

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 months ago

      Shouldn’t it be possible to only do the negotiation part and otherwise bridge everything? Not having to do anything high-bandwidth actively should keep the silicon costs down.

      • Anivia@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Yes, and such cables already exist, like this splitter cable:

        https://www.amazon.de/dp/B0CRZ6JJ6D (not an affiliate link)

        It’s not an extension cable, but it does exactly what you are suggesting. It gets the available PD profiles from the charger and then intelligently negotiates a profile that will work best to split the power to the 2 devices connected to it. The charger thinks it’s just connected to 1 device, and the connected devices think they are directly connected to a charger.

        Doing the same for with a USB C extension would be trivial, but it’s probably hard to market such a cable when passive USB c extension cables are available at a fraction of the cost, even if those aren’t compliant to the USB standard