This spec by contrast must be far more complicated[1]; also since it is so much faster, can't quality components supporting it all be more expensive - leading to cutting corners as a cost cutting feature?
Also if as a consumer you can't predict what "should" be about to happen (which way power will flow, what will be host) that is down to a bad spec re connector types. For example couldn't a universal visual indicator on a port (including the bottom of a phone) indicate its capabilities and what will happen very clearly? (Through symbols.) They do not. Couldn't a software popup make you choose? They do not.
Not to mention that it is not clear what should happen. If a phone can power a USB peripheral (like usb on the go) that means it could charge a second phone.
So if you connect two phones which one should charge the other? With old versions of USB phones the answer is simple: whichever one you put an on the go converter into, making it a master instead of a phone's usual role as a slave.
The fact that the spec does not make these as clear for USB C is down to the spec and design.
Can't USV C simply be badly designed? (overdesigned, underdesigned, badly designed.)
[1] Consider that a 1-page spec that can be read and implemented quickly in 15 minutes, can be implemented by anyone. A five-thousand page spec that takes 1,000 hours to read and understand can be implemented by no one (only teams). In between we have both previous versions of USB and USB C - but is it possible that USB C is too far in the latter direction?
