10 ms·

Interestingly enough, they're specced the opposite way. > Standard USB has a minimum rated lifetime of 1,500 cycles of insertion and removal, the Mini-USB rece

Interestingly enough, they're specced the opposite way. > Standard USB has a minimum rated lifetime of 1,500 cycles of insertion and removal, the Mini-USB receptacle increased this to 5,000 cycles, and the newer Micro-USB and USB-C receptacles are both designed for a minimum rated lifetime of 10,000 cycles of insertion and removal. [1] > To accomplish this, a locking device was added and the leaf-spring was moved from the jack to the plug, so that the most-stressed part is on the cable side of the connection. This change was made so that the connector on the less expensive cable would bear the most wear. [1] I suspect that would make it the responsibility of the cable, not the receptacle, to give you that satisfying feedback. Which is good, because the cable is much cheaper and easier to replace than the receptacle. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_hardware https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_hardware

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
picture 3y ago
I think it's a bit ironic that the cable is considered more costly than the receptacle, which is generally true if you consider the device as a whole, but now we have multiple hundreds of dollars thunderbolt cables and the cap on the actual receptacle component is below $10 even for ones with support for higher speeds. But then again, most people don't have the SMD rework tooling to be able to easily replace receptacles
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- chx 3y ago
  > now we have multiple hundreds of dollars thunderbolt cables This is mostly an exaggeration. Apple has a $160 3m 40Gbps cable but Cable Matters has the same for $70 (and Trebleet has a 2.5m one for $50). The 25 feet 40gbps cable from Pure Fi is the only I can think of that fits the "multiple hundreds' description at $200 but then again it's an active optical cable (it's not compatible with plain USB). > the cap on the actual receptacle component is below $10 even for ones with support for higher speeds. Maybe the actual C connector they started with is below $10 but you are looking at rather expensive redriver chips inside and careful engineering to care for the signal integrity at 40gbps.
  - szundi 3y ago
    It is rather less than 1 usd even on Lcsc where everyone can buy it
- atoav 3y ago
  It is probably easier to have two cables and replace a broken one in case of failure than replacing your USB connector (or the lifted pads) in case of failure. A broken cable means the cable will be replaced, a broken connector might mean the device is thrown out. Now I am a person with the skill and tools to replace such a connector or patch up the PCB in most cases, but Ibstill think I'd rsther replace the cable. Thebexpensive thing isn't the part. It is my time.
- lxgr 3y ago
  Paying multiple hundreds of dollars is a choice, not a necessity. An active 40 Gbps, 240W cable is around $50 these days. I doubt that most repair shops would even give you a repair estimate for less than that. > But then again, most people don't have the SMD rework tooling to be able to easily replace receptacles And that's exactly why a reasonable design assumes that buying a new cable will be the preferred option (over having to re-solder components on a device) by most consumers. It certainly is for me.
hurryer 3y ago
Minimum is just that, minimum. Have you ever seen a broken standard USB port or connector? Me not once in my entire life, unlike micro-USB or USB-C.
- arcticbull 3y ago
  I surely have. Any even semi-public USB power socket is hanging on by a thread, some of them have the inside paddles snapped off entirely. I haven't seen a Type C one in such a state yet, but I eagerly await it.
  - holoduke 3y ago
    The problem with usb c (but also mini and micro) is the weak connector on the device itself. The way its connected to the board is way weaker than a large usb a connector on a motherboard. Accidentally pullen a keyboard while attached will for sure destroy a usb c port. A usb a most likely survive.
    - yencabulator 3y ago
      Simply put your money where your mouth is. Framework laptops come with expansion cards that are on sturdy rails and serve as the world-facing USB-C/A/HDMI/SD card/whatever connection. The inner connector on the mainboard is well protected. https://frame.work/assets/pdp/expansion-card-9240577483dc9e23bf019770192c518e34bc20c9daff3c37246c713f580adafa.webp https://frame.work/assets/pdp/expansion-card-9240577483dc9e2...
    - arcticbull 3y ago
      That's going to depend on the connector. Plenty have through-hole mounts. You can also get surface-mount type A connectors.
      - janoc 3y ago
        They all do. Yet it still doesn't help. Those 4 little retaining lugs are fixed into the board only by solder, which is fragile and will crack after a while, esp. when the connector is mated/demated constantly and forces are applied to it. USB A has those lugs much larger and usually also bent under the board or twisted, so the connector isn't fixed into the PCB only by solder. USB C and micro USB are mostly designed for clamshell enclosures such as a typical phone - in that case the connector shell is supported by the enclosure itself (ideally through some flexible padding) and not only by the flimsy contacts/solder lugs. However, there are plenty of devices on the market where these connectors are not supported like that because the designer has been an idiot - and guess which devices end up in the landfill with broken off connectors the most. Breaking the old school USB A, square USB B or mini USB is almost impossible like this unless one applies really unreasonable amount of force. I have only ever managed to accidentally destroy a USB A port once like that by accidentally hitting a USB stick hanging out of it - but the board and the adjacent ports were fine, only the port shell and contacts were destroyed.
wannacboatmovie 3y ago
Personally I think these numbers are fabricated horseshit, drafted by some engineer behind a desk running endless simulations. The USB industrial complex made the same claims with micro-USB vs mini-USB; and are now doing it again with Type-C. My empirical evidence: I've now had to replace two laptop motherboards due to a (mechanically) failed USB-C port. Guess what I haven't had to do in 25 years? Replace a failed USB-A socket. Ever. USB-C connectors are fragile and companies are making more and more large, heavy cables with huge connectors especially common with Thunderbolt or port replicator-type devices. It is a recipe for disaster and they expect us to fall for this USB Jedi Mind Trick again.
- kayfox 3y ago
  The connector lifetimes are tested by some manufacturers. When I was working on USB (electrical) testing at Microsoft we had test jigs for testing connectors to failure and I can vouch for Microsoft's connectors having lifetimes exceeding 25,000 insertions. We would also test how many miles a mouse would travel before the glides would wear out.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    Then the tests must be faulty. At least, they don't reflect the real-world experience of me and my friends. USB-C has a much higher failure rate for us.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - Jiro 3y ago
    The fragility comes from how easy it is to damage them by handling them incorrectly. The fact that you can insert them properly 25000 times without damage doesn't change this.
  - userbinator 3y ago
    we had test jigs for testing connectors to failure[...] 25,000 insertions That's likely to be the exact reason why the reliability specs don't line up with reality: your test jigs are almost certainly going to be inserting the plugs directly with exact precision, whereas in practice people are going to just "jam it in" and apply significant side-loads as well as misalignment and levering forces. It's not hard to design a connector that'll last 25k precisely aligned insertions by a test jig but will consistently fail after a few cycles of being mated by typical "hamfisted" users.
causi 3y ago
Micro-USB and USB-C receptacles are both designed for a minimum rated lifetime of 10,000 The idea that micro-USB and USB-C are supposed to be equally durable is the wrongest thing I've read all day. Frankly, mini-USB is the single most delicate connector I've ever used. Other than a couple PDAs, I never owned a single mini-USB device those receptacle didn't end up breaking off the board.
- jhugo 3y ago
  You’re mixing up mini-USB and micro-USB. Also, the board attachment is not strictly speaking part of the connector standard. Manufacturers are free to, and do, screw that up in myriad ways.
  - causi 3y ago
    No, I'm not. The connector side of micro-USB is usually the failure point. I had mini-USB receptacles fail at an extremely high rate back when I was building and selling mini-USB 2.5 inch external hard drive enclosures back in high school. Micro-USB wasn't even invented until 2007.
    - necovek 3y ago
      Even if you are not mixing them up, your comment is confusing since you are intertwining commentary on both. Splitting them into separate paragraphs with your assessment and experience on each would help the legibility.
    - jhugo 3y ago
      If you’re not mixing them up, then I have no idea how to interpret your grandparent comment: > The idea that micro-USB and USB-C are supposed to be equally durable is the wrongest thing I've read all day. Frankly, mini-USB is the single most delicate connector I've ever used. Other than a couple PDAs, I never owned a single mini-USB device those receptacle didn't end up breaking off the board. What do the second and third sentences have to do with the first sentence? They read like they’re supposed to provide the (otherwise completely missing) support for your statement that it’s the “wrongest thing you’ve read all day”, but they don’t.
onetimeuse92304 3y ago
The insertion cycles are only for proper insertion. Like when you are looking at it and doing it at a correct angle. Also, rated lifetime does not take into account things like tugging the cable to the side of your PC because your foot got tangled in it. USB C is extremely fragile due to its size and not much can be done to help it. USB C might be created to withstand more insertion cycles. After all it is meant to be used for devices like phones that are plugged in and out constantly. Part of this improvement is just more experience creating connectors (yes, connectors got much better in the past decades). A cable connected to a back of PC is not being constantly plugged in and out. Nobody I know is plugging in their keyboard or mouse multiple times a day. -- When I design my boards, I put connectors that match the size of the board. I don't put extremely tiny connectors on a very large and massive project. I want a connector that isn't too fragile for the project and this means matching it with the forces that you can expect. We, humans, use different forces when around large objects than when we are around small objects. Large PC standing on your desk means forces used around it will be potentially larger than forces around a small appliance like a phone. If you tug on a cable that is hooked up to the phone, only small force is needed to move the phone. And we are usually more careful around a small appliance like phone. If you tug on a cable that is hooked up to a PC, much larger force will be needed before you move the PC. And people are less careful and using larger forces when doing things around a PC -- a larger object than a phone.
- nottheengineer 3y ago
  I once bent the USB-C connector on a dell dock just because the cable is stiff and the bend from going below my desk put too much force on the connector. It still works, but has an angle now. If the cable wasn't permanently attached, having the wear parts on that side would be fine. The EU should definitely mandate that, I don't see any technical reasons for soldering one side of the cable.
  - da768 3y ago
    On the WD19/22TB it's actually user-replacable/upgradable, but parts aren't necessarily easy to find.
  - 3y ago
fmajid 3y ago
Micro-USB had on paper better insertion/removal cycles than Mini-USB, but in practice Micro-USB connectors were flimsy garbage and Mini-USB fairly robust for the size.
- mordae 3y ago
  Not exactly flimsy, but they often have super high friction, translating into some seriously rough handling.
  - marcosdumay 3y ago
    And one messed up cable could force them enough so that they break. USB-C solved this by demanding thick walls on every side of the cable's connector.
iforgotpassword 3y ago
> To accomplish this, a locking device was added and the leaf-spring was moved from the jack to the plug, so that the most-stressed part is on the cable side of the connection. This change was made so that the connector on the less expensive cable would bear the most wear. Not arguing that this isn't a good idea, but considering that the A port looks gigantic compared to C it seems those springs being a couple times larger also makes them a lot more durable, to the point where it's a non-issue.
- Yizahi 3y ago
  Maybe they designed this way, but in practice usb-c ports are getting destroyed over time and not cables. On my two Samsung phones ports started degrading over 2 years use and after 3-4 years they are trash, barely connecting without fix to any cable. Same cables connected to the less used hosts, like new Kindle or new powerbank connect snugly and hold fine. I feel that usb-c port design is just garbage or maybe pushes materials too far. And I've never ever seen a usb-a port break or the cable connector part.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

picture 3y ago

I think it's a bit ironic that the cable is considered more costly than the receptacle, which is generally true if you consider the device as a whole, but now we have multiple hundreds of dollars thunderbolt cables and the cap on the actual receptacle component is below $10 even for ones with support for higher speeds. But then again, most people don't have the SMD rework tooling to be able to easily replace receptacles

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
chx 3y ago
> now we have multiple hundreds of dollars thunderbolt cables This is mostly an exaggeration. Apple has a $160 3m 40Gbps cable but Cable Matters has the same for $70 (and Trebleet has a 2.5m one for $50). The 25 feet 40gbps cable from Pure Fi is the only I can think of that fits the "multiple hundreds' description at $200 but then again it's an active optical cable (it's not compatible with plain USB). > the cap on the actual receptacle component is below $10 even for ones with support for higher speeds. Maybe the actual C connector they started with is below $10 but you are looking at rather expensive redriver chips inside and careful engineering to care for the signal integrity at 40gbps.
- szundi 3y ago
  It is rather less than 1 usd even on Lcsc where everyone can buy it
atoav 3y ago
It is probably easier to have two cables and replace a broken one in case of failure than replacing your USB connector (or the lifted pads) in case of failure. A broken cable means the cable will be replaced, a broken connector might mean the device is thrown out. Now I am a person with the skill and tools to replace such a connector or patch up the PCB in most cases, but Ibstill think I'd rsther replace the cable. Thebexpensive thing isn't the part. It is my time.
lxgr 3y ago
Paying multiple hundreds of dollars is a choice, not a necessity. An active 40 Gbps, 240W cable is around $50 these days. I doubt that most repair shops would even give you a repair estimate for less than that. > But then again, most people don't have the SMD rework tooling to be able to easily replace receptacles And that's exactly why a reasonable design assumes that buying a new cable will be the preferred option (over having to re-solder components on a device) by most consumers. It certainly is for me.

hurryer 3y ago

Minimum is just that, minimum. Have you ever seen a broken standard USB port or connector? Me not once in my entire life, unlike micro-USB or USB-C.

arcticbull 3y ago
I surely have. Any even semi-public USB power socket is hanging on by a thread, some of them have the inside paddles snapped off entirely. I haven't seen a Type C one in such a state yet, but I eagerly await it.
- holoduke 3y ago
  The problem with usb c (but also mini and micro) is the weak connector on the device itself. The way its connected to the board is way weaker than a large usb a connector on a motherboard. Accidentally pullen a keyboard while attached will for sure destroy a usb c port. A usb a most likely survive.
  - yencabulator 3y ago
    Simply put your money where your mouth is. Framework laptops come with expansion cards that are on sturdy rails and serve as the world-facing USB-C/A/HDMI/SD card/whatever connection. The inner connector on the mainboard is well protected. https://frame.work/assets/pdp/expansion-card-9240577483dc9e23bf019770192c518e34bc20c9daff3c37246c713f580adafa.webp https://frame.work/assets/pdp/expansion-card-9240577483dc9e2...
  - arcticbull 3y ago
    That's going to depend on the connector. Plenty have through-hole mounts. You can also get surface-mount type A connectors.
    - janoc 3y ago
      They all do. Yet it still doesn't help. Those 4 little retaining lugs are fixed into the board only by solder, which is fragile and will crack after a while, esp. when the connector is mated/demated constantly and forces are applied to it. USB A has those lugs much larger and usually also bent under the board or twisted, so the connector isn't fixed into the PCB only by solder. USB C and micro USB are mostly designed for clamshell enclosures such as a typical phone - in that case the connector shell is supported by the enclosure itself (ideally through some flexible padding) and not only by the flimsy contacts/solder lugs. However, there are plenty of devices on the market where these connectors are not supported like that because the designer has been an idiot - and guess which devices end up in the landfill with broken off connectors the most. Breaking the old school USB A, square USB B or mini USB is almost impossible like this unless one applies really unreasonable amount of force. I have only ever managed to accidentally destroy a USB A port once like that by accidentally hitting a USB stick hanging out of it - but the board and the adjacent ports were fine, only the port shell and contacts were destroyed.

wannacboatmovie 3y ago

Personally I think these numbers are fabricated horseshit, drafted by some engineer behind a desk running endless simulations. The USB industrial complex made the same claims with micro-USB vs mini-USB; and are now doing it again with Type-C. My empirical evidence: I've now had to replace two laptop motherboards due to a (mechanically) failed USB-C port. Guess what I haven't had to do in 25 years? Replace a failed USB-A socket. Ever. USB-C connectors are fragile and companies are making more and more large, heavy cables with huge connectors especially common with Thunderbolt or port replicator-type devices. It is a recipe for disaster and they expect us to fall for this USB Jedi Mind Trick again.

kayfox 3y ago
The connector lifetimes are tested by some manufacturers. When I was working on USB (electrical) testing at Microsoft we had test jigs for testing connectors to failure and I can vouch for Microsoft's connectors having lifetimes exceeding 25,000 insertions. We would also test how many miles a mouse would travel before the glides would wear out.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  Then the tests must be faulty. At least, they don't reflect the real-world experience of me and my friends. USB-C has a much higher failure rate for us.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Jiro 3y ago
  The fragility comes from how easy it is to damage them by handling them incorrectly. The fact that you can insert them properly 25000 times without damage doesn't change this.
- userbinator 3y ago
  we had test jigs for testing connectors to failure[...] 25,000 insertions That's likely to be the exact reason why the reliability specs don't line up with reality: your test jigs are almost certainly going to be inserting the plugs directly with exact precision, whereas in practice people are going to just "jam it in" and apply significant side-loads as well as misalignment and levering forces. It's not hard to design a connector that'll last 25k precisely aligned insertions by a test jig but will consistently fail after a few cycles of being mated by typical "hamfisted" users.

causi 3y ago

Micro-USB and USB-C receptacles are both designed for a minimum rated lifetime of 10,000 The idea that micro-USB and USB-C are supposed to be equally durable is the wrongest thing I've read all day. Frankly, mini-USB is the single most delicate connector I've ever used. Other than a couple PDAs, I never owned a single mini-USB device those receptacle didn't end up breaking off the board.

jhugo 3y ago
You’re mixing up mini-USB and micro-USB. Also, the board attachment is not strictly speaking part of the connector standard. Manufacturers are free to, and do, screw that up in myriad ways.
- causi 3y ago
  No, I'm not. The connector side of micro-USB is usually the failure point. I had mini-USB receptacles fail at an extremely high rate back when I was building and selling mini-USB 2.5 inch external hard drive enclosures back in high school. Micro-USB wasn't even invented until 2007.
  - necovek 3y ago
    Even if you are not mixing them up, your comment is confusing since you are intertwining commentary on both. Splitting them into separate paragraphs with your assessment and experience on each would help the legibility.
  - jhugo 3y ago
    If you’re not mixing them up, then I have no idea how to interpret your grandparent comment: > The idea that micro-USB and USB-C are supposed to be equally durable is the wrongest thing I've read all day. Frankly, mini-USB is the single most delicate connector I've ever used. Other than a couple PDAs, I never owned a single mini-USB device those receptacle didn't end up breaking off the board. What do the second and third sentences have to do with the first sentence? They read like they’re supposed to provide the (otherwise completely missing) support for your statement that it’s the “wrongest thing you’ve read all day”, but they don’t.

onetimeuse92304 3y ago

The insertion cycles are only for proper insertion. Like when you are looking at it and doing it at a correct angle. Also, rated lifetime does not take into account things like tugging the cable to the side of your PC because your foot got tangled in it. USB C is extremely fragile due to its size and not much can be done to help it. USB C might be created to withstand more insertion cycles. After all it is meant to be used for devices like phones that are plugged in and out constantly. Part of this improvement is just more experience creating connectors (yes, connectors got much better in the past decades). A cable connected to a back of PC is not being constantly plugged in and out. Nobody I know is plugging in their keyboard or mouse multiple times a day. -- When I design my boards, I put connectors that match the size of the board. I don't put extremely tiny connectors on a very large and massive project. I want a connector that isn't too fragile for the project and this means matching it with the forces that you can expect. We, humans, use different forces when around large objects than when we are around small objects. Large PC standing on your desk means forces used around it will be potentially larger than forces around a small appliance like a phone. If you tug on a cable that is hooked up to the phone, only small force is needed to move the phone. And we are usually more careful around a small appliance like phone. If you tug on a cable that is hooked up to a PC, much larger force will be needed before you move the PC. And people are less careful and using larger forces when doing things around a PC -- a larger object than a phone.

nottheengineer 3y ago
I once bent the USB-C connector on a dell dock just because the cable is stiff and the bend from going below my desk put too much force on the connector. It still works, but has an angle now. If the cable wasn't permanently attached, having the wear parts on that side would be fine. The EU should definitely mandate that, I don't see any technical reasons for soldering one side of the cable.
- da768 3y ago
  On the WD19/22TB it's actually user-replacable/upgradable, but parts aren't necessarily easy to find.
- 3y ago

fmajid 3y ago

Micro-USB had on paper better insertion/removal cycles than Mini-USB, but in practice Micro-USB connectors were flimsy garbage and Mini-USB fairly robust for the size.

mordae 3y ago
Not exactly flimsy, but they often have super high friction, translating into some seriously rough handling.
- marcosdumay 3y ago
  And one messed up cable could force them enough so that they break. USB-C solved this by demanding thick walls on every side of the cable's connector.

iforgotpassword 3y ago

> To accomplish this, a locking device was added and the leaf-spring was moved from the jack to the plug, so that the most-stressed part is on the cable side of the connection. This change was made so that the connector on the less expensive cable would bear the most wear. Not arguing that this isn't a good idea, but considering that the A port looks gigantic compared to C it seems those springs being a couple times larger also makes them a lot more durable, to the point where it's a non-issue.

Yizahi 3y ago
Maybe they designed this way, but in practice usb-c ports are getting destroyed over time and not cables. On my two Samsung phones ports started degrading over 2 years use and after 3-4 years they are trash, barely connecting without fix to any cable. Same cables connected to the less used hosts, like new Kindle or new powerbank connect snugly and hold fine. I feel that usb-c port design is just garbage or maybe pushes materials too far. And I've never ever seen a usb-a port break or the cable connector part.