• MeanEYE@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      112
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      11 months ago

      I can bet you it’s incompetence. They failed upwards. Sure, protocol is great and universal, but connector is atrocious and it has nothing to do with cost. Few points in favor of this hypothesis:

      1. Plastic inside of the connector was initially black. Why chose hard to see color? Go with something easier to see;
      2. Connector is perfectly rectangular and only distinguishing feature they made hard to see. Don’t make ti symmetrical if it’s not reversible, basic design principle;
      3. Connector is perfectly rectangular making it difficult to insert. There’s a reason why most connectors have rounded corners, they are self-correcting, even TypeC does this;
      4. They made various different connector types but pushed for the only one with these issues. No one ever had doubts how type B or mini B or micro B go in.
      • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        51
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Initially, the plastic inside the connector was white. They started to use black to denote USB2.0 devices, and USB2.0 rapidly became the standard. They at least tried to do something similar with blue plastic with USB3.0.

        It’s basically the only example I can think of where the plug and socket are rotationally symmetrical without also being reversible. That’s the kind of thing where I ask “did you test this before you shipped it?” Thirty years later we’re still plagued by the damn thing.

        • MeanEYE@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Right you are. Completely forgot about that. That said, I don’t think USB1 was a standard for too long. If I remember correctly it went to 2.0 pretty fast.

          • nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            If you had Macs, USB 1 was around a lot earlier, and really only good for peripherals and HID for a long time. FireWire and external SCSI drives were necessary because USB 1 wasn’t even viable for anything beyond external floppy drives. USB2 was a boon to external drives and bigger thumb drives, but took a while to arrive at the time.

            • MeanEYE@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              I don’t think I had anything with USB1 in it. Even the early Pentium machines had USB2.

              • nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                I built a Pentium 2 in 1998 and needed a separate pci card to add usb 1.1 (which was what most early Usb was) USB2 came out in 2000. By then I was ready to upgrade the motherboard and the next one had USB built in, but I can’t remember if it was usb 2 or not, since that might have been late 99

      • P03 Locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        34
        ·
        11 months ago

        No one ever had doubts how type B or mini B or micro B go in.

        I agree with most of your post, but micro B is a step too far. That fucking plug was always inserted with the following procedure:

        1. Try to plug it in.
        2. Flip the side and try to plug it in again.
        3. Flip it again because you had the right damn side the first time.

        Always, always, always.

        • out@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          11 months ago

          Don’t forget to scratch up your entire phone because micro B is so incredibly sharp.

          Mini B was great.

          • jarfil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Mini B was rated for something like 10x fewer insertion cycles than micro B, the retaining tabs would give out and the connector would fall off… or worse, twist and break the socket’s inner plastic bit.

            • Björn Tantau@swg-empire.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              11 months ago

              For some reason I always had fewer problems (meaning none) with mini B breaking than with micro B or C breaking.

              • jarfil@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                11 months ago

                In my experience, Mini B was mostly used for data transfer, along with some other port to do the charging. Micro B got introduced as the “all in one” data+charging port. I’ve seen both kinds of ports break, but only the Mini B ones that were also used for charging; the data-only ones, were fine.

                My conclusion is that charging ports use more insertion cycles and are more likely to break, and I keep magnetic charging adapters in all of them (as a side effect, twisting the cable or pulling at an angle just disconnects it, instead of breaking the port).

      • everett@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        No one ever had doubts how type B or mini B or micro B go in.

        How lucky you were to never have a device that had one of these upside-down.

    • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      11 months ago

      Considering the much higher cost of production then vs now, it makes complete sense. The economy of scale took care of that problem with time.