Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

USB-C Ports durability?

C

Crowdx44

macrumors member
Original poster
Hi all,
so how do you guys feel about USB-C ports vs older USB 3.0/3.1 ports. I feel that they seem more likely to break than the older larger ports? Is it just me? Or have you guys had experience on this?
Thoughts?
Patrick
 
When I use the USB-C ports they seem to flex more and being that the plug itself is much smaller and the way it fits into the socket it just feels a lot less substantial than the old USB 3 which due to being larger had more metal and stronger construction.
 
some people reporting of loose ports on the 2015 MB (see the MB forum). But still working

As u have 2-4 ports there's always a backup
 
Crowdx44 said:
When I use the USB-C ports they seem to flex more and being that the plug itself is much smaller and the way it fits into the socket it just feels a lot less substantial than the old USB 3 which due to being larger had more metal and stronger construction.
Click to expand...

I see. I just tried each on a couple different computers, and it seems to me the newer port is tighter and has less flex, but that could be only because it's newer (the USB-A is on a 2011). It's definitely smaller, but so is a headphone jack, which seems very sturdy. Probably will depend on how well they make the ports, regardless of size.
 
In the USB-C port the contacts are in the center and for everything to work all those contacts must connect inside the USB-C plug. For a headphone socket the whole unit is pretty much solid on the plug side and the contacts only have to connect on the length of that plug. I think a headphone socket would be a lot more robust.
 
Wasn't durability supposed to be one of the selling points? They can't be any worse than the lightning adapters with the exposed pins.
 
On the new MBP the smaller ports seem more solid to me. Surrounded by aluminum, I would imagine the cables would generally break first...though I have not tested this.
 
So, I just looked at an USB-A and a USB-C connectors side by side. The metal is of equal thickness on both, but the USB-C connector is smaller, additionally reinforced with a plastic core and using rounded edges instead of squared ones for much better pressure distribution. I think all this makes the USB-C much more sturdy than a USB-A. After all, a hollow bar with a rectangular cross-section is much easier to bend than a more pipe-like structure... in fact, I can flex the walls of the USB-A connector with my fingers. Good luck trying that with the USB-C 🙂
 
  • Like
Reactions: XSharp
IIRC the type-C is rated for quite a bit more plug-unplug cycles than A. It has something like 10,000 plug-unplug cycles as the absolute bare minimum! Over the next few years, it will be interesting to see if this offsets what could be additional usage since now the port is used to also power the computer. (With the iPhone 7, I am equally interested to see how the Lightning port holds up since for many users it is now being used more than twice as much since it now carries both headphones and power/sync.)

My impression from the implementation of the C on the MB is that the cable itself has been carefully designed to wear and break before the actual port does, so someone winds up replacing a cable instead of a logic board. The flex you are feeling may in part have to do with the plastic/poly core and be aimed at reducing permanent deformation when under pressure (as USB-A can bend pretty easily!)

I've always been curious if the metal contact points inside the C-port use a harder metal than those on the plug...my guess is yes, as Apple has historically been pretty anal with those sorts of things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlanShutko
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back