7 ms·

Personally I think these numbers are fabricated horseshit, drafted by some engineer behind a desk running endless simulations. The USB industrial complex made

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.
  - serf 3y ago
    >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. as someone who was involved with endurance/reliability testing of other physical products, I think you'd be surprised. Randomized jitter and movement patterns are often replicated and considered.
    - hulitu 3y ago
      I agree with the parent's comment. I also worked with automated test setups and did human tests. Nothing compares to a human tester. We tested small remote controlls and it was amazing to see that a human hand can inflict more damage to the product that an automated test setup. (the remote was given to different persons just to push the buttons until we reached the desired number of button presses).
  - roywashere 3y ago
    I guess most damage actually does not happen during insertion itself but when someone trips over the cable while the plug is in the socket. Simply because of its bigger size that force is then applied to a bigger grip surface and thus lower per square millimeters on USB-A while the forces will be much bigger with C
  - matsemann 3y ago
    > your test jigs are almost certainly Why assume that? Why not be humble and just ask the person with first hand knowledge instead of basically attacking their setup based on guessing?
    - userbinator 3y ago
      Because you can search for what connector testing machines look like, and they all look like they'll just destroy the connector if it isn't aligned correctly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdIdEbr9wQQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdIdEbr9wQQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GkDnQlesUM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GkDnQlesUM
- holoduke 3y ago
  How can a large usb A port be weaker than a tiny usb c port? If you attach a keyboard and throw it out of the window the usb A port will remain ok whereas the usb c port instantly gets damaged.
  - pbhjpbhj 3y ago
    Of course you want the port to be weaker than the board it is attached to, so that the port breaks rather than the board.
  - lxgr 3y ago
    > How can a large usb A port be weaker than a tiny usb c port? Because for USB-A, the part that wears down is in the port, while for USB-C it's in the plug. > If you attach a keyboard and throw it out of the window the usb A port will remain ok whereas the usb c port instantly gets damaged. Have you tried that yourself, a statistically significant number of times?
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      > Because for USB-A, the part that wears down is in the port, while for USB-C it's in the plug. I've had a number of USB-C ports break, I've never has a USB-A port break.
- Yizahi 3y ago
  My phone is 4 years old and it's type-c port completely destroyed for the last year, it barely connects (and cables are good, verified on the newer hosts). Even we assume I've connected it 2 times per each day every day, ot would mean about 2000-3000 insertions tops. This is an order of magnitude worse than that fantasy 25k number. Another phone with 1000-2000 insertions over life time is also showing port degradation. And I charge my phones in 99% of cases at home, stationary and undisturbed.
sbuk 3y ago
In my experience, it's entirely manufacturer-dependent. Comparing Apple, Dell and Lenovo, the Dell and the Apple machines (MacBook Pros and XPS 13) have had no problems. Both feel as good as the day they were purchased. The Lenovo (ThinkPad P14s/x280) had connectors falling out after around six months - which is particularly annoying given that they charge over USB C. Overall, I've been massively disappointed by the build quality of the more recent ThinkPads, especially since they get a lot of individuals espousing their benefits here, especially over the MacBooks.
- shortcake27 3y ago
  I once worked in an office where virtually everyone (30ish people) had failed USB-C ports on their MacBooks. This was around 2017. I don’t know if Apple fixed this, out of fear I baby the ports on my 2018 MBP, and they still click like brand new. So I do know that when treated with extreme care they will last. Just feels silly though. I’m definitely one of the few people lamenting Apple’s forced hand in moving to C on the iPhone. Lightning is incredible. It takes so much abuse and yet still fits like the day I bought the phone. Not looking forward to having to baby my phone’s port as well when I upgrade.
  - Gareth321 3y ago
    Apple had the opportunity to make Lightning a standard. They could have dropped the royalties and enabled USB3/4 speeds on all their devices YEARS ago. They did neither and, predictably, an open standard came along and took over. I should add that’s it’s not a perfect connector. Every lightening cable I’ve ever owned has eventually developed corrosion on the male connector, leading to spotty connection with the device. I’ve never had that problem with USB-A or C. Probably because the pins aren’t exposed, so aren’t ever touched by my sweaty/oily/acid fingers. That said, it’s usually a quick fix with some rubbing alcohol.
- Espressosaurus 3y ago
  My USB C connector failed on my Dell 5520 about 2 or 3 years in. None of the USB-A ports have failed yet, and that computer is pushing 6 years old now. USB C is, in my experience, much more sensitive than USB-A to real-world usage.
microtonal 3y ago
My empirical evidence: I've now had to replace two laptop motherboards due to a (mechanically) failed USB-C port. I have had laptops with only USB-C ports since 2015 and not a single one failed. I also don't know anyone who had a broken USB-C port. There is probably variance between manufacturers.
- pbhjpbhj 3y ago
  And variance between users, some people grab the cable and yank it to remove the plug from the socket, for example.
Roark66 3y ago
Exactly. There is no way a significantly smaller connector with way more pins can be as robust as a large one with less pins. It is 100% horseshit. My anecdote to add, but this time comparing USB-c power delivery with the lowly ~8mm barrel jack. I recently got a laptop shipped to me by a remote client to use to connect to their network. I pull it out of the box set it up and I notice the usb c power cable has the slightest of kinks... Of course it wouldn't charge. I managed to manipulate the cable, holding it, pressing at various angles long enough to use the device until a replacement PSU was delivered. A barrel jack wouldn't care in the slightest about such kink. And if it didn't work I could get another barrel jack from an electronic parts store the same day, chop off the old one and solder the new one on. Good luck doing that with usb-c. BTW, let me also rant here on the (lack of) usb-c PD compatibility even between devices made by the same manufacturer at the same time. As the above was happening I happened to have another Dell xps laptop sitting on my desk with another usb-C power supply. I thought to myself, I'll just use one PSU for both, right? But before I tried my inate cynism made me think "surely they would not make it so convenient for us" so I googled if this is a good idea. Turns out no. The PSU I had was 90W while the other laptop required 120W. I read stories of it simply not working, but also of broken PSUs. I decided to try anyway and the laptop that needs 120W psu wouldn't even boot with the 90w PSU. I thought maybe it would throttle down the components. Nope, a bios message said, unplug it or else. So yes, I agree the magnificent claims of usb c resolving all sorts of problems are all horseshit. The only real problem they really resolved is that it is reversible. Also the ideas of PD and sending eDP over it were good, just implemented poorly.
- linuxdude314 3y ago
  Just use the 120w on both… Of course something that needs 120w isn’t going to be able to be be powered by a 90w supply. This is not a problem. Frankly it sounds like you don’t understand how electricity works. I use the same USB-C GaN charger for all of my devices including MacBook Pro and Sony A7RIV. It’s 200W… Just buy a big enough charger and you’re good.
  - lxgr 3y ago
    > Of course something that needs 120w isn’t going to be able to be be powered by a 90w supply. That might be true for desktops (and even these could very well throttle their TDP based on available power), but most laptops I know can actually just supply the difference from their battery. I personally just wouldn't get a laptop that can't run on a much more compact lower power wall adapter. Being able to use a tiny 20W power brick in a pinch is great.
onion2k 3y ago
Guess what I haven't had to do in 25 years? Replace a failed USB-A socket. Ever. USB-A connectors are robust enough that you can't really pull them out by the cable. You have to pull the connector, which means you always pull them straight out. USB-C cables are smaller so some people yank the wire part of the cable instead of the connector, leading to a shearing force on the socket, which breaks it over time. Broken connector ports are pretty much always user error. If you're a bit more careful to pull things out straight the port won't fail for years.
- wannacboatmovie 3y ago
  The shearing force is often done by the cable itself, with gravity doing the work. Some USB-C cables are so thick and connector so large to support the heavy shielded cable, that it's bent at an angle when plugged in.
- hulitu 3y ago
  > Broken connector ports are pretty much always user error. After using GPIB connectors (with huge cables attached to them) for some time, i tend to dissagree.
hulitu 3y ago
These are requirements. There is a looong way from requirements to final product.

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.
- serf 3y ago
  >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. as someone who was involved with endurance/reliability testing of other physical products, I think you'd be surprised. Randomized jitter and movement patterns are often replicated and considered.
  - hulitu 3y ago
    I agree with the parent's comment. I also worked with automated test setups and did human tests. Nothing compares to a human tester. We tested small remote controlls and it was amazing to see that a human hand can inflict more damage to the product that an automated test setup. (the remote was given to different persons just to push the buttons until we reached the desired number of button presses).
- roywashere 3y ago
  I guess most damage actually does not happen during insertion itself but when someone trips over the cable while the plug is in the socket. Simply because of its bigger size that force is then applied to a bigger grip surface and thus lower per square millimeters on USB-A while the forces will be much bigger with C
- matsemann 3y ago
  > your test jigs are almost certainly Why assume that? Why not be humble and just ask the person with first hand knowledge instead of basically attacking their setup based on guessing?
  - userbinator 3y ago
    Because you can search for what connector testing machines look like, and they all look like they'll just destroy the connector if it isn't aligned correctly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdIdEbr9wQQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdIdEbr9wQQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GkDnQlesUM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GkDnQlesUM
holoduke 3y ago
How can a large usb A port be weaker than a tiny usb c port? If you attach a keyboard and throw it out of the window the usb A port will remain ok whereas the usb c port instantly gets damaged.
- pbhjpbhj 3y ago
  Of course you want the port to be weaker than the board it is attached to, so that the port breaks rather than the board.
- lxgr 3y ago
  > How can a large usb A port be weaker than a tiny usb c port? Because for USB-A, the part that wears down is in the port, while for USB-C it's in the plug. > If you attach a keyboard and throw it out of the window the usb A port will remain ok whereas the usb c port instantly gets damaged. Have you tried that yourself, a statistically significant number of times?
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    > Because for USB-A, the part that wears down is in the port, while for USB-C it's in the plug. I've had a number of USB-C ports break, I've never has a USB-A port break.
Yizahi 3y ago
My phone is 4 years old and it's type-c port completely destroyed for the last year, it barely connects (and cables are good, verified on the newer hosts). Even we assume I've connected it 2 times per each day every day, ot would mean about 2000-3000 insertions tops. This is an order of magnitude worse than that fantasy 25k number. Another phone with 1000-2000 insertions over life time is also showing port degradation. And I charge my phones in 99% of cases at home, stationary and undisturbed.

sbuk 3y ago

In my experience, it's entirely manufacturer-dependent. Comparing Apple, Dell and Lenovo, the Dell and the Apple machines (MacBook Pros and XPS 13) have had no problems. Both feel as good as the day they were purchased. The Lenovo (ThinkPad P14s/x280) had connectors falling out after around six months - which is particularly annoying given that they charge over USB C. Overall, I've been massively disappointed by the build quality of the more recent ThinkPads, especially since they get a lot of individuals espousing their benefits here, especially over the MacBooks.

shortcake27 3y ago
I once worked in an office where virtually everyone (30ish people) had failed USB-C ports on their MacBooks. This was around 2017. I don’t know if Apple fixed this, out of fear I baby the ports on my 2018 MBP, and they still click like brand new. So I do know that when treated with extreme care they will last. Just feels silly though. I’m definitely one of the few people lamenting Apple’s forced hand in moving to C on the iPhone. Lightning is incredible. It takes so much abuse and yet still fits like the day I bought the phone. Not looking forward to having to baby my phone’s port as well when I upgrade.
- Gareth321 3y ago
  Apple had the opportunity to make Lightning a standard. They could have dropped the royalties and enabled USB3/4 speeds on all their devices YEARS ago. They did neither and, predictably, an open standard came along and took over. I should add that’s it’s not a perfect connector. Every lightening cable I’ve ever owned has eventually developed corrosion on the male connector, leading to spotty connection with the device. I’ve never had that problem with USB-A or C. Probably because the pins aren’t exposed, so aren’t ever touched by my sweaty/oily/acid fingers. That said, it’s usually a quick fix with some rubbing alcohol.
Espressosaurus 3y ago
My USB C connector failed on my Dell 5520 about 2 or 3 years in. None of the USB-A ports have failed yet, and that computer is pushing 6 years old now. USB C is, in my experience, much more sensitive than USB-A to real-world usage.

microtonal 3y ago

My empirical evidence: I've now had to replace two laptop motherboards due to a (mechanically) failed USB-C port. I have had laptops with only USB-C ports since 2015 and not a single one failed. I also don't know anyone who had a broken USB-C port. There is probably variance between manufacturers.

pbhjpbhj 3y ago
And variance between users, some people grab the cable and yank it to remove the plug from the socket, for example.

Roark66 3y ago

Exactly. There is no way a significantly smaller connector with way more pins can be as robust as a large one with less pins. It is 100% horseshit. My anecdote to add, but this time comparing USB-c power delivery with the lowly ~8mm barrel jack. I recently got a laptop shipped to me by a remote client to use to connect to their network. I pull it out of the box set it up and I notice the usb c power cable has the slightest of kinks... Of course it wouldn't charge. I managed to manipulate the cable, holding it, pressing at various angles long enough to use the device until a replacement PSU was delivered. A barrel jack wouldn't care in the slightest about such kink. And if it didn't work I could get another barrel jack from an electronic parts store the same day, chop off the old one and solder the new one on. Good luck doing that with usb-c. BTW, let me also rant here on the (lack of) usb-c PD compatibility even between devices made by the same manufacturer at the same time. As the above was happening I happened to have another Dell xps laptop sitting on my desk with another usb-C power supply. I thought to myself, I'll just use one PSU for both, right? But before I tried my inate cynism made me think "surely they would not make it so convenient for us" so I googled if this is a good idea. Turns out no. The PSU I had was 90W while the other laptop required 120W. I read stories of it simply not working, but also of broken PSUs. I decided to try anyway and the laptop that needs 120W psu wouldn't even boot with the 90w PSU. I thought maybe it would throttle down the components. Nope, a bios message said, unplug it or else. So yes, I agree the magnificent claims of usb c resolving all sorts of problems are all horseshit. The only real problem they really resolved is that it is reversible. Also the ideas of PD and sending eDP over it were good, just implemented poorly.

linuxdude314 3y ago
Just use the 120w on both… Of course something that needs 120w isn’t going to be able to be be powered by a 90w supply. This is not a problem. Frankly it sounds like you don’t understand how electricity works. I use the same USB-C GaN charger for all of my devices including MacBook Pro and Sony A7RIV. It’s 200W… Just buy a big enough charger and you’re good.
- lxgr 3y ago
  > Of course something that needs 120w isn’t going to be able to be be powered by a 90w supply. That might be true for desktops (and even these could very well throttle their TDP based on available power), but most laptops I know can actually just supply the difference from their battery. I personally just wouldn't get a laptop that can't run on a much more compact lower power wall adapter. Being able to use a tiny 20W power brick in a pinch is great.

onion2k 3y ago

Guess what I haven't had to do in 25 years? Replace a failed USB-A socket. Ever. USB-A connectors are robust enough that you can't really pull them out by the cable. You have to pull the connector, which means you always pull them straight out. USB-C cables are smaller so some people yank the wire part of the cable instead of the connector, leading to a shearing force on the socket, which breaks it over time. Broken connector ports are pretty much always user error. If you're a bit more careful to pull things out straight the port won't fail for years.

wannacboatmovie 3y ago
The shearing force is often done by the cable itself, with gravity doing the work. Some USB-C cables are so thick and connector so large to support the heavy shielded cable, that it's bent at an angle when plugged in.
hulitu 3y ago
> Broken connector ports are pretty much always user error. After using GPIB connectors (with huge cables attached to them) for some time, i tend to dissagree.

hulitu 3y ago

These are requirements. There is a looong way from requirements to final product.