• piccolo@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      16 hours ago

      Because its not just the connector, its the electronics. Usb c requires a chip to negotiate who is the host and whos the device. Usb-C thats completely ambiguous. But micro-B is always assumed is the device. But with power delivery becoming mainstream after micro B was drafted, the electronics can be all rolled into a singlw chip and finnally, reversible usb was cheap. To put in every device imaginable.

      • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        16 hours ago

        Hmm so the current C can be host or device, but really I’m not focused on that aspect. I’m focused on the reversible flip it over kind of thing - like USB A you flip over because you never get it right. You could have made a USB C style that always assumed is device.

        • piccolo@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          14 hours ago

          I mean they could. But it would only solve one side. I dont think the original drafters envision using usb as a charging platform but a data transfer between thousands of different devices and host devices. I dont think they intended for most portable devices to have one side basically permanently fixed.

          For exampe for each mini and micro type B connected theres a mini and micro type A connector. But ive never seen one in the wild, but its suggestion the intention for the usb drafters.

          • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            12 hours ago

            I don’t think we’re talking about the same thing and I don’t know where the confusion is.

            Like when MicroUSB came out, I think charging was pretty standard. The cable can be a normal USB A to USB something that is reversible like USB C style, instead of the the USB micro.

            • piccolo@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              11 hours ago

              Like when MicroUSB came out, I think charging was pretty standard.

              not really, in 2007, USB wasn’t even the main way to charge phones. most manufactures were using their proprietary connectors. I recall Nokia was using their barrel plug well until they sold to MS.

              • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                49 minutes ago

                I don’t mean micro was the standard way to charge, I mean that charging things was common. People wanted to charge things in 2007. And micro could be used to charge. Charging was a feature of micro.

                We’re really not talking the same language, I don’t know where the confusion is, so I think I’m gonna bow out.

    • u/lukmly013 💾 (lemmy.sdf.org)@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      19 hours ago

      Because it was available for longer?
      It takes a while to implement something. And it also took a while to basically standardize micro USB or mini USB as well. Remember when basically every phone manufacturer had their own connector? USB-C would for a while just break the norm again.

      • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        16 hours ago

        Really? I’m asking why they didn’t design and use a reversible C style in 2007 instead of the micro USB. Afaik a reversible style is not dependent on tech development from 2007-2014,

        • kn33@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          14 hours ago

          Price, I imagine. Gotta make it cheap enough to get buy in. They were still competing with FireWire at that point.