[arcticbull]

USB A was released in 1996, it's older than I suspect the majority of HN readers at this point. An A to C cable is entirely passive, so not exactly a big deal to get a cheap adapter.

Not sure I'd rely on keyboards as the standard bearer for 'not a relic' many of them still support PS/2 via passive adapter. That was announced in 1987 and is older than me.

[picture]

Comparing technology to human lifetimes doesn't seem very relevant. Even not accounting for broad categories like "fire" or "language", we're still using individual technology from "long ago" like knives, forks, pen and paper, etc. It's fine to make improvements that keep backwards compatibility (more ergonomic scissor should be able to cut the same paper), but changing connector just because it's old is unwise.

The issue of type C is that it's trying to accommodate the entire spectrum of applications from very high bandwidth to very low cost. The range of possibilities has much increased since when Universal Serial Bus was devised, thus many recent solutions feel like they're bad at everything and good at nothing. Perhaps we should allow the specialization of type A as a cheap, reliable, slow, high power, connector, and save type C for only when high throughput is needed?

[arcticbull]

> ... but changing connector just because it's old is unwise

Well not because it's old, I'm a huge fan of my 1/8" headphone jack.

Type C is intentionally significantly more functional (not to mention the ergonomics of reversibility) but also fully backwards-compatible requiring only passive routing to get you a Type A adapter.

> The issue of type C is that it's trying to accommodate the entire spectrum of applications from very high bandwidth to very low cost.

That's up to the host. You can support just USB 2.0 with the same signals routed as a vanilla type A connector.

There's even super cheap USB-C receptacles that only have the relevant USB 2.0 pins routed out. Like this one [1].

There's really no reason I can think of not to use one.

[1] https://www.digikey.ca/en/products/detail/gct/USB4125-GF-A/1...

[picture]

I've implemented USB-C with PD and SS speeds before, so I know. I've even used if not that exact same connector, but at least a functionally same one from LCSC.

It's just that these reasons seem so inconsequential to me. There's stuff like type C needing two extra resistors even for USB 2.0. Being able to adapt between connectors is also BS in my opinion because you can convert anything between anything if you really wanted to. And if you only use USB HS speeds, you'll just waste connect lifetime of your expensive higher-specced cable. Sure, you can get 2.0 only type C cables, but why? I think there's no good reason to use USB-C besides high bandwidth purposes. Barrel jacks or supply power better. All our normal peripheral devices aren't consuming exponentially more bandwidth anytime soon.

[linuxdude314]

Absurd comparison. It’s completely irrational to compare computer hardware is if it’s just some tool.

If you don’t need the bandwidth, good for you. The rest of us choose modernity and nice things like, USB-C hard drives, network adapters, etc…

USB-A is not a connector, it’s a whole spec. You can’t get the same performance out of that connector as you can a USB-C connector.

[Tijdreiziger]

You can push 10 Gbps over USB-A connectors with USB3.

[necovek]

I haven't seen a USB-A port implementation that exceeds 10Gbps (3.2, was it?).

I just assumed there aren't enough lines/pins in a USB-A connector for it to work.

A quick search gives me https://www.tomshardware.com/news/usb-3-2-explained which supports that experience (USB-A is not listed under 20Gbps).

[picture]

I'm perfectly fine with higher bandwidth connectors, but don't force it on the majority of users who do not need the modernity and nice things. Have Type-C as a dedicated high bandwidth connector and don't force me to use it on my devices that don't need the high bandwidth.

[throw555chip]

The wheel was invented before anyone living today yet it remains relevant.

[arcticbull]

Only because this is living rent-free in my head - a good wheel analogy would be Type C is rubber wheels and Type A is wooden wheels. Compatible, but nobody uses wood anymore.

[throw555chip]

Actually some continue to use wooden wheels:

https://dcrwheels.co.uk/custom-wheelsets/building-with-woode...

"Ghisallo have been making rims since the 1940s"

[arcticbull]

That's really cool :) thanks for sharing!

[JohnFen]

I don't think that analogy works. On the female side, Type A is robust and Type C is fragile. I'd prefer to have my equipment with the more robust solution if at all possible, because fixing it is a real problem.