Why do we have so many different kids of cables and plugs?

I have a question. Consider serial cables and data cables for a moment. We have SATA, Ethernet, FireWire, USB 1.0, USB 2.0, PS2, Serial ports of all kinds of stripes, etc. Each of these has its own plug design, its own specification, and in many cases its own internal bus. In some cases, there are variations on the plug design: see USB. In some cases (I’m looking at you, hard drives), there’s a data cable and a power cable; in other cases they’re both in the same cord (USB, power over ethernet).

Why can’t we have just one cord with two or three plugs? Certainly the thing that would send information and power to a hard drive could do the same thing for your digital camera, your screen, your video camera, and your network. We could have on kind of plug for removable devices, another kind for semi-permanent devices, and a small version of both for compact devices.

Am I missing something here? Why can’t this be done?

Tags: , , ,
Posted September 19th, 2007 in main. Tagged: , , , .

4 comments:

  1. Jason Price:

    Different voltages and amperages.

    But things are moving that way. Most company phones are becoming PoE. USB is driving more things (but most USB HD enclosures still need a second cord for power, because they need more than the USB spec provides… same for USB CDROMs/DVD/etc).

    September 19th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
  2. daniel:

    Certainly we can have some sort of architecture that specified and delivers the right voltage and amperage based on the device’s request, can’t we? We’ve gone to the fricking moon!

    September 21st, 2007 at 1:56 pm
  3. Geof F. Morris:

    Um, no. There is profitability in specialization.

    September 21st, 2007 at 9:02 pm
  4. daniel:

    And, as always, the consumer ends up on the pointy end of a negative sum game.

    September 24th, 2007 at 2:03 pm

Leave a response: