This is basically how USB C became a thing. A group of engineers at Google created the connector design and then gave it to the USB standards body to use as the next gen.
Go look at the number of engineers that were on USB-C. Apple, not Google, contributed 18 of 79 named engineers listed on the connector certification project, or under 23%.
Intel had the most, as well as the editor position.
I think those 79 engineers should have paid more attention to compatibility and longevity. The cable should have been tested in a dirt tumbler. There is no way a cable should have 32 pins without some kind of built in self test of connectivity on all the pins every time you plug it in. Pins should be reassignable so that when 6 of the 32 pins are dirty/broken the cable still works at a slightly reduced speed.
All the Comms should have been done via an OFDM-like scheme rather than just a binary sequence over a twisted pair, giving far more throughput and allowing for compensating for conductive dirt in the plug causing crosstalk.
Overall, I believe such a design would have reduced costs, since there is no longer a need for such precision on cable and plug manufacture, which more than compensates for a tiny OFDM 'modem' inside the USB phy.
Citation, please. More bluntly: I simply don't believe you.
Google has absolutely none of the expertise required to put such a connector together. It requires a very specific set of skills in chip design, signal integrity, and connector design which Google has none of.
I have no idea if Google had anything to do with USB C but "design" doesn't mean "build schematics for". It could be that they just had a few specs they liked and thought would make a good connector and did a rough proposal of form factor and specs.
That's not useful. Here's my diagram for a new connector -> .
Connector design like this is a delicate balance between signal integrity (wants biggger) and mechanical integrity (wants bigger) and size (always smaller).
As for signal integrity: A lot of the signal integrity was papered over by having complex interface chips. This is why there is so much training and negotiation in USB-C.
As for mechanicals: The whole point of USB-C was to take failure-mode data from the previous generations and design a connector that avoided those. USB-C, in spite of how many people bitch about it, was designed so that the the most probable failure modes (which they learned from prior things like mini and micro USB) occur in the cable--ie the replaceable part.
In practice none of that is true, the cables hold up fine and the ports wear out. Lightning was a FAR superior design and form factor to USB-C, where what you’re suggesting was actually the case.
I have never encountered an iPhone with a dead lightning port, it’s always the cable that wears out. There’s tons of laptops and android phones with worn out USB-C ports
Intel had the most, as well as the editor position.