you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 24 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (5 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I'm happier with how long usb c last before they start getting finicky than I am the reversiblity.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent