When is a cable not a cable? When it is an active device with circuity that does protocol conversions, affects signal integrity, and changes the way a user has to think about using it with normal USB devices (due to 5VBUS limitations). It might as well be boxes at both ends.
Some may care about exquisitely proper, precise and narrow definitions of "cables". Others, like me don't care, as long as they perform the communications function for which they were intended. To us, they are only a means to a functional goal. How they work is not a major concern, as long as they do the job. If it looks and acts just like a passive cable, why the hair splitting?
So, how do these non-passive cables, like Corning, affect signal integrity? Do you happen to have measurements indicating they do not? We all would love to see them.
How do they affect "the way a user has to think about it", God forbid, other than having to use a USB A-B adaptor, like any other USB extension cable? I note that the now infamous Regen also required one.