this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2023
653 points (96.7% liked)
Technology
59148 readers
2310 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Never said they carefully planned out usb c. All I said was that changing the physical port is the cheapest and most cost effective way of doing it. No need to change the entire module.
It’s all right there. So no idea man
I acknowledged that you weren't the person making the initial claim right at the beginning of my comment, but the flow of the discussion here is:
A) Initial claim: USB-C was coming anyway because it takes years to integrate this stuff into new devices
B) Counter-argument: If it took them years to integrate this port into the device then why does it appear to be slapped together with shit data speed?
C) Your counter counter-argument: it appears slapped together because it's a simple one line change in the production process and is very simple
A and C can't be true because they're diametrically opposed. If B and C are true then A is false.