Yeah, the author accidentally swapped the new names. The rebrandings never changed the "Gen X" part.
That's what I don't understand: Why go with both minor versions and the Gen's in a single name?
They could have just retroactively rebranded USB 3.0 to USB3 Gen1, and then went USB3 Gen2, USB3 Gen3 for the 3.1 and 3.2 specs (2×2 is another mess [1]).
Tech people would have understood that the specs are 0-indexed and the marketing names (GenX) are 1-indexed. Consumers would only see the Gen on ports, cables and devices.
Still, I don't even understand why hiding the raw speed number from consumers is so important: Short Numbers are always better than vagely similar marketing names:
- USB3 (5Gb)
- USB3 (10Gb)
- USB3 (20Gb)
- USB3 (40Gb) or (2×20Gb)
Done.
Yet the article states:
>Accordingly "USB 3.1 Gen 2" became "USB 3.2 Gen 1x1" and "USB 3.1 Gen 1" was renamed "USB 3.2 Gen 2x1".
Either way, this article gets the point across that USB has turned into a complete mess.