4 ms·

The early 2000s were a mess with company-specific cables and USB was forced upon them and made things much simpler, Apple is just the last holdout. Forcing 3rd-

The early 2000s were a mess with company-specific cables and USB was forced upon them and made things much simpler, Apple is just the last holdout. Forcing 3rd-party manufacturers to buy chips from them for their devices to work with Apple phones feels like the real protection racket to me.

MichaelZuo 3y ago
The parent has a point, the regulation is forcing a slightly smaller battery, slightly less durable connector, much more expensive repairs when the port stem breaks, etc. For devices that doesn't need the extra capabilities.
- Jochim 3y ago
  People keep repeating this but how frequently do USB C ports actually break? Anecdotally, I had horrendous issues with mini USB but I've never had a micro USB or USB C port break. I'm not particularly gentle with them either, I've had the female end come out of the cable boot/snap off and the cable stop working due to strain on the boot. I don't know anyone who has experienced this personally and I can't recall seeing any anecdotes of it actually occurring in the HN threads where it's brought up.
  - MichaelZuo 3y ago
    > People keep repeating this but how frequently do USB C ports actually break? Even if the real rate was only 1 in a thousand devices, that's still a serious burden for the unlucky few. Whereas for lightning connectors, it's trivial to dislodge.
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      You need to look at overall failure rate, not just that one specific type of failure can only happen to USB-C.
      - MichaelZuo 3y ago
        Why?
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        Because we're talking about which one is more durable.
        MichaelZuo 3y ago
        No? The parent was clearly referring to the connector specifically not the overall durability of devices.
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        Oh, that's the confusion. I mean the overall failure rate of the port.
        MichaelZuo 3y ago
        In that case there's even less of an argument for USB-C ports since it's real world failure rate is much higher . Partly due to the increased complexity, partly due to the physical design, partly due to less stringent quality control, etc... If you assess failure rate based off whether it can reliably meet advertised claims year-after-year, such that a large degradation would count as failure, then I would dare say real world failure rate are dozens or hundreds of times higher than Lightning ports.
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        Do you have a source for those numbers?
        MichaelZuo 3y ago
        'dare say' usually means that the source is the writer.

MichaelZuo 3y ago

The parent has a point, the regulation is forcing a slightly smaller battery, slightly less durable connector, much more expensive repairs when the port stem breaks, etc. For devices that doesn't need the extra capabilities.

Jochim 3y ago
People keep repeating this but how frequently do USB C ports actually break? Anecdotally, I had horrendous issues with mini USB but I've never had a micro USB or USB C port break. I'm not particularly gentle with them either, I've had the female end come out of the cable boot/snap off and the cable stop working due to strain on the boot. I don't know anyone who has experienced this personally and I can't recall seeing any anecdotes of it actually occurring in the HN threads where it's brought up.
- MichaelZuo 3y ago
  > People keep repeating this but how frequently do USB C ports actually break? Even if the real rate was only 1 in a thousand devices, that's still a serious burden for the unlucky few. Whereas for lightning connectors, it's trivial to dislodge.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    You need to look at overall failure rate, not just that one specific type of failure can only happen to USB-C.
    - MichaelZuo 3y ago
      Why?
      - Dylan16807 3y ago
        Because we're talking about which one is more durable.
        MichaelZuo 3y ago
        No? The parent was clearly referring to the connector specifically not the overall durability of devices.
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        Oh, that's the confusion. I mean the overall failure rate of the port.
        MichaelZuo 3y ago
        In that case there's even less of an argument for USB-C ports since it's real world failure rate is much higher . Partly due to the increased complexity, partly due to the physical design, partly due to less stringent quality control, etc... If you assess failure rate based off whether it can reliably meet advertised claims year-after-year, such that a large degradation would count as failure, then I would dare say real world failure rate are dozens or hundreds of times higher than Lightning ports.
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        Do you have a source for those numbers?
        MichaelZuo 3y ago
        'dare say' usually means that the source is the writer.