660
US rule (lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] 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.

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

Behold: Reversible USB-A

[-] 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 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