The motherboard maker can include USB 3.2 ports.
The motherboard maker can include USB 3.2 ports.
Beyond just the port, there are other components at play. A pricier controller could increase costs, while stricter trace requirements often demand higher-quality motherboard materials, leading to greater production expenses and thus a rise in price.
The traces depend mainly on lithography processes, and small adjustments can be made by expanding or reducing them with a minor edit. Many motherboards use identical trace widths for both Gen 1 and Gen 2 ports. For the controller, unless you're adding extra USB ports (or switching to USB-C), you likely won't need one since the chipset already includes a controller.
You're focusing on direction, size, and electrical properties. I'm considering conductivity, insulation, and the motherboard's design. It seems the outcome could depend on specific factors. Your concern about this being intentional is valid—there likely is a reason behind it. I'm just trying to guess what might cause it. "But it might not be that way" isn't a solid point, but it's worth exploring.
I understand. My aim was just to clarify my point, not to cause any upset. The reason manufacturers set these limits is mainly about marketing and making more profit. While it might seem like they're trying to squeeze you, it's not really fair or ethical. They focus on selling products cheaply, which isn't a sustainable business model. It's similar to how Tesla restricts certain features to unlock full performance—clearly, it's more about business strategy than genuine concern for customers. Every major company is driven by financial goals, and that's why this happens. Would you like me to explain this further?
It seems like you're questioning whether profits are being made through exploitation. The market appears to have several players, which makes it less likely for any single entity to gain unfairly.
You recently mentioned a user who hasn't participated on the forums since 2016, even though it was Linus—he probably wouldn’t reply. Including USB ports raises production expenses, and every additional port contributes to the overall cost, making each advancement more expensive.
Perhaps a company neglects to review parts costs. People often believe you receive value for your money, which leads some organizations to set fixed prices.
A computer component deep state? Even more unlikely and it was already pretty unlikely. I vaguely recall a GN video when x570 came out where the presenter (Steve, techJesus, however he is referred to) did a deep dive into why some motherboards cost so much more than others. It was sort of an issue at the time because board prices varied between under $150USD and over $1000USD Edited November 25, 2020 by Bombastinator
I'm not focusing on adding USB ports. The question is about why manufacturers stick to Gen 1 ports instead of Gen 2, even though Gen 2 offers more options.