3 ms·
I think that's a very developer-heavy perspective. As a user who doesn't know anything about hardware communication standards (lucky me, perhaps?) I think the f
by quietbritishjim 8y ago
I think that's a very developer-heavy perspective. As a user who doesn't know anything about hardware communication standards (lucky me, perhaps?) I think the fewer connector types there are, the better.
With a single USB OTG cable I can connect almost any peripheral to my phone, including my XBox 360 controller and my endoscopic camera. Why not a monitor as well? Why do they have all these other weird non-USB connectors like HDMI and DVI? I'm sure there's a good answer from a developer's perspective but from a user perspective or makes perfect sense for there to be a single connector to rule them all.
Edit: another example is that sometimes I connect more than one mouse or keyboard to a single computer. Imagine if there were still dedicated ports for each type of peripheral – would I need to buy a special motherboard with two mice slots? Or a mouse port expansion card? What a nightmare.
- jjoonathan 8y agoCompletely interchangeable cords for everything is an excellent goal that everyone agrees would be a beautiful thing. That idea/direction is not what we're criticizing. It's the implementation that we're criticizing. In particular, the implementation that still requires separate cords for separate tasks (because each USB-C cable supports an unknown subset of the capabilities) but removes the labels and visual / physical cues that you could use to identify which tasks it supports. Not only does this fail to achieve the dream, it fails to even live up to the previous generation. Eventually we'll reach the dream and it will be great, but there was no need to jump in the pit of spikes on our way there. It wasn't blocking the road, it wasn't camouflaged, it was out there in the open, and the USB-C guys decided it would be fun to jump in. Why?