Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

USB inventor explains why the connector was not designed to be reversible (2019)

pcgamer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 544 posts

Re: USB inventor explains why the connector was not designed to be reversible (2019)

#311

Post by randyrand »

snakeyjake wrote: post #140

> Making USB reversible to begin with would have necessitated twice as many wires and twice as many circuits, and would have doubled the cost. This is... not correct. You can make USB reversible with 1 extra pin and 1 extra wire. Grounds on pins 1 and 5, data on pins 2 and 4, and VCC on pin 3. Then have those pins on both sides of the plug and a socket with a single set of contacts on one side. That's BASICALLY what…

To help visualize:

    1: GND
    2: DATA +/-
    3: VCC
    4: DATA +/-
    5: GND

Re: USB inventor explains why the connector was not designed to be reversible (2019)

#312

Post by ngcc_hk »

rzzzt wrote: post #200
stevage wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even having a bump on the rubber moulding as part of the standard would have solved the problem.

The USB symbol goes on top, IIRC. Edit: ninja'd by an enormous amount of people elsewhere in the thread, gah.

Apple and many others need to be reverse always. There is no top.

Re: USB inventor explains why the connector was not designed to be reversible (2019)

#314

Post by cyberax »

AnotherGoodName wrote: post #254
aranchelk wrote: post #164

My take on USB-A: aside from audio connectors that have axial symmetry (and have no meaningful orientation), I never used any reversible computer cables prior to USB-C, and that’s not the main issue. Nor is it the axis of symmetry of the casing allowing failed upside down plugin attempts. The shitty part of USB-A is that the tactile feedback of being slightly misaligned is identical to it being upside down. My experi…

This is somewhat related as it's the next step of the above. The floating tongue of the USB connection is in the socket, not the on the cable. As in the most fragile part of the design is on the device side, not the cable side. This means that you can more easily break your $1000 device not the $2 cable. They repeated this mistake with USB-C as well. It's not hard to make a port where the cable is the free floating t…

That's incorrect. USB-C design maximizes the device longevity by removing springs from the device that typically get worn down quickly.

The cable is responsible for the grip. You do get a protruding tongue on the device side, but it's well protected.

Re: USB inventor explains why the connector was not designed to be reversible (2019)

#315

Post by Scoundreller »

JoblessWonder wrote: post #280
Scoundreller wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

oh god, I was made to be an idiot when I once told someone they would need a crossover cable to do what they wanted to do a few years ago...

If it makes you feel any better... for some reason there are some currently in production business jets that still require crossover cables for maintenance... so they ARE still required sometimes.

I've also dug further into my parts bin thinking "oh, that yellow cable would've been perfect, but I need a non-crossover cable"... could've used the yellow one instead of digging further. Ah well.

Re: USB inventor explains why the connector was not designed to be reversible (2019)

#316

Post by cmrdporcupine »

londons_explore wrote: post #259
dylan604 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>edit: Gah! you don't even have to do that just flip the flipping wires) Isn't that essentially what all ethernet cables do? it's not like this something never done before.

Ethernet hardware now has auto-crossover. However, that hasn't always been the case. There was a good decade in the 90's where you needed a special cable wiring if you wanted to connect two computers vs a computer to a switch.

Now I know I'm old because I just assumed that's how it still was. I'd be like the weird old grandpa at a party talking about a choke or carburetor or a hand crank on a car while all the kids just stare blankly.

Re: USB inventor explains why the connector was not designed to be reversible (2019)

#317

Post by jdjdjdhhd »

lesuorac wrote: post #13

I know everybody is still on the high from USB-C but I'm still going to go on the record it will be one of the biggest disasters in cable history. 1) There's going to be video-only cables; low-voltage only cables; etc and this time everything is usb-c so you can literally only tell which ables work by testing all of the dozen cables instead of the 1-2 USB-As you have. 2) The connector is symmetrical but the pins aren…

I need a round USB connector

Re: USB inventor explains why the connector was not designed to be reversible (2019)

#318

Post by bombcar »

dylan604 wrote: post #299
Sakos wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Easily going into the early 2000s. I remember trying to setup LAN parties in 2004/2005, where the wrong combination of patch or normal cable with hub/switch/PC made everything a nightmare.

I found a few patch cables mixed in with regular cables. one day, i got so tired of messing with them, i cut the cables and put them in the trash. i could have just trashed, them, but that didn't feel right. i mean, what if someone were to go dumpster diving. the curse would then be on them.

Whenever I have a bum cable and confirm it’s the cable, it gets destroyed. Too many cables have failed to get into the trash or have somehow crawled back out for me to do anything else.

Re: USB inventor explains why the connector was not designed to be reversible (2019)

#319

Post by sacnoradhq »

Backwards rationalization / cognitive dissonance for a poor engineering tradeoff.

The cost of zillions of the same panel mount connector will converge to dirt cheap. Although cents matter, user experience matters more if everyone hates your craptastic cheap design. Thankfully, Apple came along and gave the world USB-C which simply increased the bandwidth and current with the convenience of rotational symmetry. A USB-C panel-mount connector costs $0.492 in bulk. Fancy rugged and waterproof ones are $2.18. Micro USB B costs $0.45 in bulk. 10% increase in cost: big whoop for everything except Arduinos and portable kids' night lights.

Re: USB inventor explains why the connector was not designed to be reversible (2019)

#320

Post by qingcharles »

AnotherGoodName wrote: post #254
aranchelk wrote: post #164

My take on USB-A: aside from audio connectors that have axial symmetry (and have no meaningful orientation), I never used any reversible computer cables prior to USB-C, and that’s not the main issue. Nor is it the axis of symmetry of the casing allowing failed upside down plugin attempts. The shitty part of USB-A is that the tactile feedback of being slightly misaligned is identical to it being upside down. My experi…

This is somewhat related as it's the next step of the above. The floating tongue of the USB connection is in the socket, not the on the cable. As in the most fragile part of the design is on the device side, not the cable side. This means that you can more easily break your $1000 device not the $2 cable. They repeated this mistake with USB-C as well. It's not hard to make a port where the cable is the free floating t…

I was surprised this mistake was made with USB-C. Surely a committee voted on this and knew what they were doing? Isn't Lightning the opposite way around?
Post reply on HN