I remember how amazed I was the first time I saw a USB-C port work as a display output. Simply plug in a USB-C cable with HDMI or DisplayPort on the other end, and it just works.
This wasn’t some virtual display adapter either. This was a direct connection to your GPU with all the performance and features that entails. It meant a laptop could get rid of bulky display output ports, and it also meant you could have a monitor with just a USB-C connection, both charging your device and displaying your video signal at the same time. The thing is, while a few monitors have tried to offer this streamlined experience, most monitors with USB-C input have simply added it as an option. So what gives?
USB-C was supposed to kill cable confusion, not reinvent it
Why do we have more ports now?!
USB-C’s whole shtick is that you only need one connector to do multiple jobs. So Thunderbolt, any version of USB from 2.0 onward, and DisplayPort.
On the monitor side of things, we started out with just a single connection. First, a 9-pin connector for the EGA and CGA video standards, and then the 15-pin VGA connector that’s still around on many monitors today. For a long time, mainly throughout the CRT monitor era, VGA was the only connector. Then, when we switched to flat panels, it grew to include DVI, HDMI, DisplayPort, and now also USB-C.
DVI, HDMI, and DisplayPort all had numerous versions, which could make it a nightmare to figure out why, for example, your computer wasn’t getting the best resolution or refresh rate, or other features that require everything in the chain to be above a minimum version.
So, does this mean that if you see a monitor with a USB-C port and have a device with a USB-C port, you can just connect them and get a picture? No! In fact, it’s more likely than not you won’t get any picture, because USB-C is a total mess.
- Brand
-
Cable Matters
- Cable Type
-
Unidirectional USB C to DisplayPort 1.4
An affordable, effective, all-in-one USB-C to DisplayPort 1.4 cable. Every laptop bag should have one.
The same USB-C port can mean wildly different things
Not any port in a storm
USB-C just describes the shape and wiring of the connector. It doesn’t have to dictate what the connector should be capable of. Whoever makes the device determines what features to include.
For example, if I connect my Samsung Galaxy phone to a monitor using USB-C, I get a full picture and even desktop thanks to Samsung Dex. Likewise, my iPad Pro also works with external monitors just fine.
My Chromebook and MacBook both have USB-C ports that can send DisplayPort signals, but not a single USB-C port on my otherwise high-end workstation laptop has this ability. Even worse, you can have multiple USB-C ports on the same device, but not all of them can output an image. The MacBook Neo is a recent high-profile example. One USB-C port can handle a monitor, and the other is just plain old USB 2.0.
- Brand
-
Apple
- Operating System
-
macOS
The MacBook Neo with the A18 Pro chip is Apple’s most affordable laptop yet, with all-day battery life and buttery-smooth performance in a thin and light profile.
So while any monitor with a USB-C connector probably accepts a video signal over said plug, not every device with a USB-C port can feed that plug. And so instead of monitors slimming down and just offering a few USB-C ports, they have to drag all the legacy ports with them.
Your cable is now part of the compatibility problem
The odds are never in your favor
While the ports are problematic, you haven’t experienced existential dread until you pull open a drawer of USB-C cables and have absolutely zero way of telling them apart. I end up either labeling them, or buying cables that are distinctive. For example, I have a braided cable with orange insides that I know is good for USB 3.1 and 65W of charging. Inevitably whenever I hook up my laptop to a portable monitor, this is the cable I reach for.
I’ve spent far too much of my life so far putting in one USB-C cable after the other looking for one that will work, and that goes for getting a picture to show up on a monitor too.
USB-C simplified the outside while hiding the complexity underneath
In the end, the big problem is that USB-C is just a facade. When you see an HDMI or DP cable, you know that if you connect any two devices together with them, you’ll get a working image. You might not get the highest resolution or refresh rate, but thanks to backwards compatibility in those respective standards, something will work.
The same can’t be said for USB-C, so as it is now it can never replace the other ports on our monitors, and so we’ll keep having to pay for this fiasco in both actual money and technical debt for the foreseeable future.
