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 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

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 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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.

[–] user224@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 week ago

Behold: Reversible USB-A