<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>adrianmonk</author><text>It seems like the spec must be at least reasonably clear because after these mistakes are made, someone like Benson Leung can always point to it and the community has little trouble adjudicating that yes, the spec said this one thing, but someone did that other thing instead.&lt;p&gt;Given this has happened time and time again, it seems like a process flaw more than a document flaw. Maybe well-meaning people just make mistakes. Or maybe people knowingly cut corners to save money (because saving on parts is a pressure that will never go away). Or something else.&lt;p&gt;So some sort of process fix seems to be needed, one that will (1) reward those who succeed and&amp;#x2F;or (2) punish those who try to get away with violating the spec and&amp;#x2F;or (3) create tools (like test equipment or certification services or processes) to make compliance easier to achieve for those who are trying to.&lt;p&gt;So, for example, could the Pi people have used some kind of device that would plug in and run through all the combinations? Or could there have been a canned list of test cases (representatives of different types of chargers, how they should behave) they should have run? Or could they have sent a prototype device off to USB Shouldn&amp;#x27;t Suck Labs to have them test it? Or email a schematic to them to have it reviewed by an engineer?</text><parent_chain><item><author>teilo</author><text>And the criticism is completely invalid here. The power spec is very clear and unambiguous, and there is only one way to get it right. It is not the fault of the spec when manufacturers cannot be bothered to produce a circuit that has already been designed for them in the spec itself.</text></item><item><author>loeg</author><text>This has always been a criticism of USB C and it proves true time and time again.  USB-C tries to be too many things to too many people and ends up with a huge matrix of incompatibility as a result.</text></item><item><author>groovybits</author><text>From a Pi consumer perspective, this is not that big of a deal.&lt;p&gt;However, it damages the purpose (in name) of USB C. Isn&amp;#x27;t C supposed to be the &amp;#x27;all purpose&amp;#x27; spec? If we have popular manufacturers failing to follow the spec, we end up with cables marked as &amp;#x27;compatible with Raspberry Pi&amp;#x27; or &amp;#x27;compatible with Nintendo Switch&amp;#x27;. To the average consumer (and even most techies), USB C was supposed to be the &amp;#x27;one size fits all&amp;#x27; connector. We&amp;#x27;re slowly heading in the opposite direction.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Raspberry Pi admits to faulty USB-C design on the Pi 4</title><url>https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/07/raspberry-pi-4-uses-incorrect-usb-c-design-wont-work-with-some-chargers/</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>squeaky-clean</author><text>The spec is not the product. The USB C spec is not a USB C charger. It may not be a valid criticism of the spec but it&amp;#x27;s a 100% valid criticism of USB-C</text><parent_chain><item><author>teilo</author><text>And the criticism is completely invalid here. The power spec is very clear and unambiguous, and there is only one way to get it right. It is not the fault of the spec when manufacturers cannot be bothered to produce a circuit that has already been designed for them in the spec itself.</text></item><item><author>loeg</author><text>This has always been a criticism of USB C and it proves true time and time again.  USB-C tries to be too many things to too many people and ends up with a huge matrix of incompatibility as a result.</text></item><item><author>groovybits</author><text>From a Pi consumer perspective, this is not that big of a deal.&lt;p&gt;However, it damages the purpose (in name) of USB C. Isn&amp;#x27;t C supposed to be the &amp;#x27;all purpose&amp;#x27; spec? If we have popular manufacturers failing to follow the spec, we end up with cables marked as &amp;#x27;compatible with Raspberry Pi&amp;#x27; or &amp;#x27;compatible with Nintendo Switch&amp;#x27;. To the average consumer (and even most techies), USB C was supposed to be the &amp;#x27;one size fits all&amp;#x27; connector. We&amp;#x27;re slowly heading in the opposite direction.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Raspberry Pi admits to faulty USB-C design on the Pi 4</title><url>https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/07/raspberry-pi-4-uses-incorrect-usb-c-design-wont-work-with-some-chargers/</url></story>