• DJDarren@thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        14 hours ago

        I have two relatively new microphones that have mini USB, and honestly, I think it’s against the Geneva convention.

        • JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          12 hours ago

          MiniUSB is much more robust than microUSB. Those connectors would fail pretty quick while I have never even heard of miniUSB breaking. Fuck microUSB.

          • fallingcats@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 hours ago

            Mini USB cables basically falls out every port I have. Which makes sense, those things don’t even have the tiny retaining clips that micro does.

          • DJDarren@thelemmy.club
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 hours ago

            Meanwhile, my Blue Yeti has a fucked mini USB socket, though in fairness that’s because Blue, in their infinite wisdom, positioned it right next to the mounting insert. It’s remarkably easy to knock the cable against the mount when moving it about.

        • piccolo@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          19 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
            ·
            19 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
              18 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
                ·
                16 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
                  ·
                  14 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
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    4 hours 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
          ·
          22 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
            19 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
              ·
              18 hours ago

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