this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2023
575 points (97.8% liked)
Technology
57432 readers
3403 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Perhaps a controversial opinion here, but the usefulness of reversibility is vastly overrated. It's not a game changer, just a tiny first-world luxury that's nice to have, but it does it by introducing a bunch of unnecessary complexity that I'd rather avoid. Not worth the trade off IMO. I can count on one hand the number of minutes USB-C has saved me by being reversible and I honestly don't care
I'm happier with how long usb c last before they start getting finicky than I am the reversiblity.
In theory, USB-C should be better, but in practice, the quality control is all over the place.
All of my micro USB cables and ports have lasted just fine. I used one daily with my phone for 10+ years with no issues, and I've only had maybe two cables ever actually fail. Meanwhile, I've already had at least 5 USB-C cables or dongles that have fully failed, and plus the primary USB-C charging port on a laptop just completely die. I wish it was better, but it just isn't.
Also if USB-C was just replacing just micro USB I'd be ok with that. But the problem is they're also replacing USB-A, and Type C is not nearly as durable as Type A since it's so small, it's just physically impossible. I wish they made a larger version of the Type C port. Same shape, same pins, just bigger in every dimension. As large as Type A, for durability.
I'm not a big fan of Apple, but the lightning connector is just better, physically. It's way more durable in practice since it's just a solid piece. I wish USB-C was designed that way instead of what we actually got.
They exist
https://www.startech.com/en-se/cables/usb3sab10m
That's not going to get you Thunderbolt, mate
USB C was designed so that the spring contacts that wear out/get damaged are in the relatively cheap cable, and the solid, more durable tang that the contacts slide on is in the expensive device.
Now let's have a look at Apple's design for their lightning connector...... hmm I wonder why they designed it like that?
The issue is that USBC was the first standard to really take the mechanical design process seriously in a consumer context. In doing so, it was made both way more ergonomic and way more durable. I'd argue that without the focus on some of these "small but marketable" consumer-oriented bits, we would not have gotten the great overall connector design we did.
I’m not a big fan of Apple, but the lightning connector is just better, physically. It’s way more durable in practice since it’s just a solid piece. I wish USB-C was designed that way instead of what we actually got.
If I recall correctly, Lightning connectors are designed in a way that makes the port more likely to wear out. USB-C is designed in a way that makes the cable more likely to wear out. I would rather replace my $5 charging cable than replace my $150 (or more!) phone.
Engineering centric worldview versus user centric worldview.
I am just laughing here because I spent the day dealing with ancient serial tech pigtails and DB9s. You people have no idea the pain of losing multiple days of your life trying to get RS-232 to work. Especially when stuff doesn't follow the standards it is supposed to follow.
Yes, you're right: that was controversial.