Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The parent has a point, the regulation is forcing a slightly smaller battery, slightly less durable connector, much more expensive repairs when the port stem breaks, etc.

For devices that doesn't need the extra capabilities.



People keep repeating this but how frequently do USB C ports actually break?

Anecdotally, I had horrendous issues with mini USB but I've never had a micro USB or USB C port break. I'm not particularly gentle with them either, I've had the female end come out of the cable boot/snap off and the cable stop working due to strain on the boot.

I don't know anyone who has experienced this personally and I can't recall seeing any anecdotes of it actually occurring in the HN threads where it's brought up.


> People keep repeating this but how frequently do USB C ports actually break?

Even if the real rate was only 1 in a thousand devices, that's still a serious burden for the unlucky few. Whereas for lightning connectors, it's trivial to dislodge.


You need to look at overall failure rate, not just that one specific type of failure can only happen to USB-C.


Why?


Because we're talking about which one is more durable.


No? The parent was clearly referring to the connector specifically not the overall durability of devices.


Oh, that's the confusion.

I mean the overall failure rate of the port.


In that case there's even less of an argument for USB-C ports since it's real world failure rate is much higher . Partly due to the increased complexity, partly due to the physical design, partly due to less stringent quality control, etc...

If you assess failure rate based off whether it can reliably meet advertised claims year-after-year, such that a large degradation would count as failure, then I would dare say real world failure rate are dozens or hundreds of times higher than Lightning ports.


Do you have a source for those numbers?


'dare say' usually means that the source is the writer.


Your first paragraph didn't have "dare say". And you can't just add that as a disclaimer to any factual statement to make you immune to needing evidence. If you made that guess based on how much you like the ports, then you're wasting everyone's time. But again, you said "real world failure rate is much higher" as a flat-out fact.


The previous comment did not mention any numerical figure in the first paragraph, only that rate would be much higher due to the aforementioned reasons. I left it intentionally ambiguous by not specifying a number for a reason.

The rest of your comment is not worth a substantive reply considering almost any passing reader can see through the attempt to stop the conversation with a dismissal.




Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: