• hcbxzz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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

    • Ejh3k@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

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

      • hcbxzz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

    • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • hcbxzz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • owatnext@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year 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.

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year 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.