3 ms·
This just makes me mad that we never came up with a newer ethernet standard that allowed for smaller ports. I know it creates a ton of compatability problems b
by esskay 4y ago
This just makes me mad that we never came up with a newer ethernet standard that allowed for smaller ports.
I know it creates a ton of compatability problems but its just so unnecesserily huge when you consider its only 8 pins. You could half the height and retain the lock-in clip functionality quite easily.
- gsich 4y agoThere are newer standards. But so many to chose from.
- cesarb 4y ago> This just makes me mad that we never came up with a newer ethernet standard that allowed for smaller ports. AFAIK, there's one, IEC 61076-3-124, but it doesn't seem to be very common.
- flacebo 4y agoI think you highly underestimate the compatibility problems it would cause. You'd have to replace the global networking infrastructure. Starting from every wall plug to the switches and backbone devices. The new connector would have to be easily crimpable, and hopefully as cheap as RJ45, I don't think you could go much slimmer. All of this just so your end device can be a little bit slimmer. Definitely not worth it. Using both at the same time so you could leave the backbone alone might work, but this already exists in the form of a usb type-c network adapter.