4 ms·
> 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 b
by MichaelZuo 4y 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 4y agoYou need to look at overall failure rate, not just that one specific type of failure can only happen to USB-C.
- MichaelZuo 4y agoWhy?
- Dylan16807 4y agoBecause we're talking about which one is more durable.
- MichaelZuo 4y agoNo? The parent was clearly referring to the connector specifically not the overall durability of devices.
- Dylan16807 4y agoOh, that's the confusion. I mean the overall failure rate of the port.
- MichaelZuo 4y agoIn 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 4y agoDo you have a source for those numbers?
- MichaelZuo 4y ago'dare say' usually means that the source is the writer.
- Dylan16807 4y agoYour first paragraph didn't have "dare say". And you can't just add that as a disclaimer to any factual statement to make you immune to needing evidence. If you made that guess based on how much you like the ports, then you're wasting everyone's time. But again, you said "real world failure rate is much higher" as a flat-out fact.
- MichaelZuo 4y agoThe previous comment did not mention any numerical figure in the first paragraph, only that rate would be much higher due to the aforementioned reasons. I left it intentionally ambiguous by not specifying a number for a reason. The rest of your comment is not worth a substantive reply considering almost any passing reader can see through the attempt to stop the conversation with a dismissal.