660
US rule (lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] user224@lemmy.sdf.org 18 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Mini USB - 2000
Micro USB - 2007
USB-C - 2014

[-] DJDarren@thelemmy.club 15 points 1 week ago

I have two relatively new microphones that have mini USB, and honestly, I think it’s against the Geneva convention.

[-] JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl 6 points 1 week ago

MiniUSB is much more robust than microUSB. Those connectors would fail pretty quick while I have never even heard of miniUSB breaking. Fuck microUSB.

[-] DJDarren@thelemmy.club 3 points 1 week ago

Meanwhile, my Blue Yeti has a fucked mini USB socket, though in fairness that's because Blue, in their infinite wisdom, positioned it right next to the mounting insert. It's remarkably easy to knock the cable against the mount when moving it about.

[-] njordomir@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Yup, the Yeti and my ages old DSLR are the only remaining mini-usb devices in my home. I thought it was the other way around though. I thought mini was fragile and micro was smaller and stronger. I may have been wrong.

In any case, did you ever see the microUSB cables that could be inserted either way? I don't think it was ever standards compliant, but my chosen USB cable supplier at the time did this and it's was my favorite micro cable for years until it died.

My current frustration is devices that appear to be usb-c, but will only charge if the other end is usb A. Usually when you are on a trip with only USBC to USBC. :'''-(

[-] fallingcats@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 week ago

Mini USB cables basically falls out every port I have. Which makes sense, those things don't even have the tiny retaining clips that micro does.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

So any idea why they went with the horrible micro USB instead of a reversible C style?

[-] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Because its not just the connector, its the electronics. Usb c requires a chip to negotiate who is the host and whos the device. Usb-C thats completely ambiguous. But micro-B is always assumed is the device. But with power delivery becoming mainstream after micro B was drafted, the electronics can be all rolled into a singlw chip and finnally, reversible usb was cheap. To put in every device imaginable.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Hmm so the current C can be host or device, but really I'm not focused on that aspect. I'm focused on the reversible flip it over kind of thing - like USB A you flip over because you never get it right. You could have made a USB C style that always assumed is device.

[-] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I mean they could. But it would only solve one side. I dont think the original drafters envision using usb as a charging platform but a data transfer between thousands of different devices and host devices. I dont think they intended for most portable devices to have one side basically permanently fixed.

For exampe for each mini and micro type B connected theres a mini and micro type A connector. But ive never seen one in the wild, but its suggestion the intention for the usb drafters.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I don't think we're talking about the same thing and I don't know where the confusion is.

Like when MicroUSB came out, I think charging was pretty standard. The cable can be a normal USB A to USB-something-that-is-reversible-like-USB-C-style, instead of the the USB micro.

[-] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago

Like when MicroUSB came out, I think charging was pretty standard.

not really, in 2007, USB wasn't even the main way to charge phones. most manufactures were using their proprietary connectors. I recall Nokia was using their barrel plug well until they sold to MS.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I don't mean micro was the standard way to charge, I mean that charging things was common. People wanted to charge things in 2007. And micro could be used to charge. Charging was a feature of micro.

We're really not talking the same language, I don't know where the confusion is, so I think I'm gonna bow out.

[-] user224@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 week ago

Behold: Reversible USB-A

[-] user224@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 1 week ago

Because it was available for longer?
It takes a while to implement something. And it also took a while to basically standardize micro USB or mini USB as well. Remember when basically every phone manufacturer had their own connector? USB-C would for a while just break the norm again.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Really? I'm asking why they didn't design and use a reversible C style in 2007 instead of the micro USB. Afaik a reversible style is not dependent on tech development from 2007-2014,

[-] kn33@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Price, I imagine. Gotta make it cheap enough to get buy in. They were still competing with FireWire at that point.

this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2024
660 points (98.0% liked)

196

16401 readers
2291 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS