• Venia Silente@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    It changed my economy game.

    Now I have to buy an USB-C to USB-A adaptor to plug USB-C stuff into my already standing devices. Honestly, no idea why didn’t they make it connector-compatible. Wasn’t that the entire point of the “U” in “USB”?

      • Venia Silente@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        What are those benefits? The only potential one I have direct experience with (besides speed) is that the connector is reversible, but even that’s small-time and a flat out objective downgrade compared to the circular connectors of the 90s, which could be plugged in regardless of orientation.

        • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          IIUC USB-C puts less mechanical stress on the port and more on the cable connector, so instead of the port breaking the cable should break.

          Circular connectors wouldn’t be backwards-compatible either, and would be much harder to manufacture at the size of USB-C. I actually can’t think of circular connectors with more than 2 data channels that can be plugged in in any rotation - do you have an example? All the ones I can think of (PS/2, XLR) have a set orientation.

    • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Wasn’t that the entire point of the “U” in “USB”?

      Nah, the point of the “U” in “USB” is so that devices communicate in a standardized way through a standardized bus. The port itself doesn’t need to be universal—after all, USB-C is I believe the first time that the host port and the device port are the same, previously there was always an A for host and B for device, even with mini-USB and micro-USB.