Micro USB plz?

[Grench]

In data transfer times it's needing 5 minutes on USB 3.0 host to do what could take an hour on USB 2.0, two days on USB 1.1 or two weeks on USB 1.0.

Theoretically. But that situation doesn't happen often in actuality. What do the large majority of Pandora users do that takes them an hour on USB 2.0?

-God Ginrai

So - your argument is that we should neuter the USB device capabilities of the USB 3.0 OTG port because nobody needs to use peripherals at that speed and we should all just be a bit more patient?  Thanks, but I'll keep my sports car too, even though I have no practical purpose to drive 260kph.

Really, though, the peripherals to support USB 3.0 are just now starting to hit the stores.  USB sticks capable of handling the device speeds beyond what USB 2.0 can support.  http://www.zdnet.com/usb-2-0-and-3-0-in-the-real-world-7000023226/

The really cool bit though - being able to connect Pyra to Pyra and transfer data device to device just as fast as the combined throughput of the USB 2.0, SD1, SD2, 802.11n dual band and bluetooth combined.

Chopping valuable capabilities and bits off of viable ports just isn't going to happen.

 

[God Ginrai]

So - your argument is that we should neuter the USB device capabilities of the USB 3.0 OTG port because nobody needs to use peripherals at that speed and we should all just be a bit more patient?  Thanks, but I'll keep my sports car too, even though I have no practical purpose to drive 260kph.

If it means my device is less likely to break? Hell yes. Also, 35MB/s is hardly neutered.

-God Ginrai

 

[Grench]

So - your argument is that we should neuter the USB device capabilities of the USB 3.0 OTG port because nobody needs to use peripherals at that speed and we should all just be a bit more patient?  Thanks, but I'll keep my sports car too, even though I have no practical purpose to drive 260kph.

If it means my device is less likely to break? Hell yes. Also, 35MB/s is hardly neutered.

-God Ginrai

You keep coming back to 'less likely to break'.  That appears to be your exclusive argument FOR taking away the USB 3.0 OTG host capabilities of the device.

Since your solution to breakage on this port is exclusive to it's use in device mode - lets look at that.

In device mode, the unit is either charging or connected to another (desktop) computer for syncing.  How likely are you, really, to break something under those circumstances?  Do you live in an area highly prone to massive earthquakes?

Now, lets consider your solution.  Either a microUSB 3.0 OTG or a USB 3.0 type B port would have to be surface mount.  Either connector is going to wind up being held in place by 2 mounting tabs on each side.  Each port is equally subject to being dislodged by impact.  Each port is equally subject to being dislodged by forward or backward motion.  From a horizontal side-load perspective, the wider microUSB 3.0 port is going to have an advantage as it has the benefit of mechanical leverage.  From a vertical load perspective, the microUSB 3.0 port is, again, going to have an advantage as the distance from the top of the connector to the circuit board is minimized - meaning the leverage the peripheral can gain over the front-back pad distance is much less than the 13mm tall USB B port.

Then we can also look at likely points and causes of failure.  The USB 3.0 type B plug itself is huge.  It's like a big lever for prying up nails.  It gives a mechanical advantage to the device causing the breakage.  The microUSB 3.0 OTG connector itself is about 1/4 the depth of that type B plug.  It doesn't have the ability to generate anywhere near the leverage that a type B plug can.

I therefore argue that microUSB 3.0 OTG is also more durable than USB 3.0 type B in surface mount applications.

Bigger doesn't mean better in this case.  It just means more leverage is available for stuff to be broken off with.

 

[God Ginrai]

You keep coming back to 'less likely to break'.  That appears to be your exclusive argument FOR taking away the USB 3.0 OTG host capabilities of the device.

That is my entire reason, yes. I feel that USB 2.0 speeds are adequate, and do not wish to trade better durability for even faster speeds.

Since your solution to breakage on this port is exclusive to it's use in device mode - lets look at that.

Since your solution to breakage on this port is exclusive to it's use in device mode - lets look at that.

In device mode, the unit is either charging or connected to another (desktop) computer for syncing.  How likely are you, really, to break something under those circumstances?  Do you live in an area highly prone to massive earthquakes?

You are looking at this wrong. If you give the option for both, (OTG) then they will have that use-case and any USB 3.0 host use-cases in which they can damage the port. With only a USB-B port, then you do not have the USB 3.0 host use-case, only the case you mentioned. Which as you have pointed out, is less likely to break the port.

Now, lets consider your solution.  Either a microUSB 3.0 OTG or a USB 3.0 type B port would have to be surface mount.  Either connector is going to wind up being held in place by 2 mounting tabs on each side.  Each port is equally subject to being dislodged by impact.  Each port is equally subject to being dislodged by forward or backward motion.  From a horizontal side-load perspective, the wider microUSB 3.0 port is going to have an advantage as it has the benefit of mechanical leverage.  From a vertical load perspective, the microUSB 3.0 port is, again, going to have an advantage as the distance from the top of the connector to the circuit board is minimized - meaning the leverage the peripheral can gain over the front-back pad distance is much less than the 13mm tall USB B port.

Then we can also look at likely points and causes of failure.  The USB 3.0 type B plug itself is huge.  It's like a big lever for prying up nails.  It gives a mechanical advantage to the device causing the breakage.  The microUSB 3.0 OTG connector itself is about 1/4 the depth of that type B plug.  It doesn't have the ability to generate anywhere near the leverage that a type B plug can.

I therefore argue that microUSB 3.0 OTG is also more durable than USB 3.0 type B in surface mount applications.

Bigger doesn't mean better in this case.  It just means more leverage is available for stuff to be broken off with.

Because the microUSB 3.0 port is wide, it does give it more leverage than a microUSB 2.0 port. However, width is not the only dimension that matters. Because the length is not very long, it does not have leverage in that direction, and can easily be damaged by being lifted up.

-God Ginrai

 

[TrashyMG]

In data transfer times it's needing 5 minutes on USB 3.0 host to do what could take an hour on USB 2.0, two days on USB 1.1 or two weeks on USB 1.0.

Theoretically. But that situation doesn't happen often in actuality. What do the large majority of Pandora users do that takes them an hour on USB 2.0?

-God Ginrai

Copy ~30 gigs of data to a 32+ gig SD card.. I don't have a card reader on my desktop it's easier to go through USB cables in host mode.

How often do you find yourself repeating this procedure with this amount of data?

-God Ginrai

Since the Pandora is my only method of copying data from a PC to an SD Card and vice-verse.. About once a month or so.. I usually fill up a large SD card with photos/videos from my SLR camera and dump it on my PC, but doing it once is enough to wish it was faster.

 

[WizardStan]

Just so I understand, God Ginrai's suggestion is to completely ignore USB3.0, forgo OTG, and have just a full speed host and full speed B type connector as a slave?

 

[God Ginrai]

Just so I understand, God Ginrai's suggestion is to completely ignore USB3.0, forgo OTG, and have just a full speed host and full speed B type connector as a slave?

Almost. Completely ignore 3.0 host. So it would be eSATAp/USB-A 2.0 host and USB-B 3.0 slave.

-God Ginrai

 

[Grench]

You keep coming back to 'less likely to break'.  That appears to be your exclusive argument FOR taking away the USB 3.0 OTG host capabilities of the device.

That is my entire reason, yes. I feel that USB 2.0 speeds are adequate, and do not wish to trade better durability for even faster speeds.

Since your solution to breakage on this port is exclusive to it's use in device mode - lets look at that.


Since your solution to breakage on this port is exclusive to it's use in device mode - lets look at that.


In device mode, the unit is either charging or connected to another (desktop) computer for syncing.  How likely are you, really, to break something under those circumstances?  Do you live in an area highly prone to massive earthquakes?

You are looking at this wrong. If you give the option for both, (OTG) then they will have that use-case and any USB 3.0 host use-cases in which they can damage the port. With only a USB-B port, then you do not have the USB 3.0 host use-case, only the case you mentioned. Which as you have pointed out, is less likely to break the port.

Now, lets consider your solution.  Either a microUSB 3.0 OTG or a USB 3.0 type B port would have to be surface mount.  Either connector is going to wind up being held in place by 2 mounting tabs on each side.  Each port is equally subject to being dislodged by impact.  Each port is equally subject to being dislodged by forward or backward motion.  From a horizontal side-load perspective, the wider microUSB 3.0 port is going to have an advantage as it has the benefit of mechanical leverage.  From a vertical load perspective, the microUSB 3.0 port is, again, going to have an advantage as the distance from the top of the connector to the circuit board is minimized - meaning the leverage the peripheral can gain over the front-back pad distance is much less than the 13mm tall USB B port.


Then we can also look at likely points and causes of failure.  The USB 3.0 type B plug itself is huge.  It's like a big lever for prying up nails.  It gives a mechanical advantage to the device causing the breakage.  The microUSB 3.0 OTG connector itself is about 1/4 the depth of that type B plug.  It doesn't have the ability to generate anywhere near the leverage that a type B plug can.


I therefore argue that microUSB 3.0 OTG is also more durable than USB 3.0 type B in surface mount applications.


Bigger doesn't mean better in this case.  It just means more leverage is available for stuff to be broken off with.

Because the microUSB 3.0 port is wide, it does give it more leverage than a microUSB 2.0 port. However, width is not the only dimension that matters. Because the length is not very long, it does not have leverage in that direction, and can easily be damaged by being lifted up.

-God Ginrai

IF both connectors had the same length then you might be right.  HOWEVER - USB type B connectors are MUCH longer than microUSB 3.0 connectors - making them a giant lever against those poor little solder tabs holding the port onto the board.

For vertical motion caused damage, you have to look at how much force is realistically going to get applied to the socket.

Just so I understand, God Ginrai's suggestion is to completely ignore USB3.0, forgo OTG, and have just a full speed host and full speed B type connector as a slave?

That is my understanding.  He wants to have a USB 2.0 type A host and a USB 3.0 type B slave/device port and forego the USB 3.0 host & OTG capabilities because he thinks that a surface mounted female type B port is inherently stronger than a surface mount female USB 3.0 OTG port.

The fact that his methodology using a USB 3.0 type B port is 13 mm tall, removes USB 3.0 host capability from the device and breaks USB standards for this type of device appears to be irrelevant to him.

Did I get that all correct?

 

[God Ginrai]

The fact that his methodology using a USB 3.0 type B port is 13 mm tall, removes USB 3.0 host capability from the device and breaks USB standards for this type of device appears to be irrelevant to him.

How does my suggestion "break USB standards"? If I had suggested we supply OTG through the B port, (which is totally possible) like Binky thought, then it would be breaking USB standards. However, putting USB slave on a USB-B port is completely compliant with USB standards.

-God Ginrai

 

[WizardStan]

Completely ignore 3.0 host. So it would be eSATAp/USB-A 2.0 host and USB-B 3.0 slave.

And your argument is that the perceived strength of the B connector far outweighs the increased height and the benefits of the USB3.0 host?

 

[God Ginrai]

Completely ignore 3.0 host. So it would be eSATAp/USB-A 2.0 host and USB-B 3.0 slave.

And your argument is that the perceived strength of the B connector far outweighs the increased height and the benefits of the USB3.0 host?

I'm not sure what you mean by "height". However yes, I believe the strength is more valuable than the jump from USB 2.0 host speeds to USB 3.0 host speeds for a handheld device.

-God Ginrai

 

[bzar]

God Ginrai: Do you have any actual evidence that micro-usb ports are not durable? I haven't seen any except for cases that can be attributed to manufacturing or design errors. Or is this just a gut feeling "bigger must be better"? As I've quoted before, for connecting/disconnecting micro-usb is designed so that the cable side connector breaks instead of the port. Do you think it'll rip itself out of the PCB? Why wouldn't a USB-B do so?

I'm not convinced that a properly attached and supported micro-usb is as fragile as you make it sound. They're used all over and I don't hear people crying over broken ports all the time. Especially since they're used a lot in charging devices, people even use them daily.

 

[God Ginrai]

God Ginrai: Do you have any actual evidence that micro-usb ports are not durable? I haven't seen any except for cases that can be attributed to manufacturing or design errors. Or is this just a gut feeling "bigger must be better"? As I've quoted before, for connecting/disconnecting micro-usb is designed so that the cable side connector breaks instead of the port. Do you think it'll rip itself out of the PCB? Why wouldn't a USB-B do so?

I can try to do some research to show you. But to answer your question based on my current knowledge, I'd have to say that I have never even heard of a case of a USB-B port going bad before the comment about the MIDI keyboard in this topic. (And he never did clarify if that was the port or the cable)

As for microUSB, I've known many people personally who have replaced their phone only because the microUSB port started recognizing their cables only sometimes.

-God Ginrai

 

[bzar]

Were some/most of those phones (for example) N900 with the well known design error?

 

[_wb_]

If you're that concerned about physical strength of the ports and that uninterested in transfer speeds, then maybe you should argue to not have any ports at all. Just do everything over wifi, bluetooth, 3G, IR, or Morse code beeps, whatever, as long as it's wireless. Oh, and make the battery not removable, the SD slots sealed off, and have wireless charging as the only charging mechanism. That way nobody ever has to insert anything into the device, and there is no possibility of mechanical failure at all.

 

[slaeshjag]

I personally hate µUSB with a passion. My current phone (which is not a N900, and it was made just two years ago) currently has this behaviour, where it charges as long as I blow air on the cable. The second I stop, it stops charging.

I do not plan to use USB OTG however, so as long as the DC barreljack stays, I'm happy.

 

[SeeThruHead]

Haven't read the whole thread but a micro USB 3.0 would be my vote. Should be able to use an OTG cable if one wants to connect peripherals.

 

[thatgui]

You are looking at this wrong. If you give the option for both, (OTG) then they will have that use-case and any USB 3.0 host use-cases in which they can damage the port. With only a USB-B port, then you do not have the USB 3.0 host use-case, only the case you mentioned. Which as you have pointed out, is less likely to break the port.

But how do you want to fit a USB-B port into the Pandora ?

Yea, sounds all well and good until a lot of users are sending their Pyras back to EvilDragon for RMAs because of microUSB ports that they didn't give "proper care and attention" to when plugging and unplugging.

 

I can try to do some research to show you. But to answer your question based on my current knowledge, I'd have to say that I have never even heard of a case of a USB-B port going bad before the comment about the MIDI keyboard in this topic. (And he never did clarify if that was the port or the cable)

As for microUSB, I've known many people personally who have replaced their phone only because the microUSB port started recognizing their cables only sometimes.

With quite an experience now in terms of Pandora support, I can only remember one case out of at least 60 cases I worked on(probably more, but I'm trying to keep myself on the save side) where the Mini-USB port failing was the reason for an rma. And there is the personal experience of mine, plugging in my Pandora since mid 2011 at least once a day (chargeing and data transfer), with the port only loosing some friction (and I'm in no way a person that is carefull with its hardware).

 

[God Ginrai]

Were some/most of those phones (for example) N900 with the well known design error?

 3 Blackberries, at least 2 different models. 2 Android phones off the top of my head. And 2 bluetooth headsets.

If you're that concerned about physical strength of the ports and that uninterested in transfer speeds, then maybe you should argue to not have any ports at all. Just do everything over wifi, bluetooth, 3G, IR, or Morse code beeps, whatever, as long as it's wireless. Oh, and make the battery not removable, the SD slots sealed off, and have wireless charging as the only charging mechanism. That way nobody ever has to insert anything into the device, and there is no possibility of mechanical failure at all.

35 MB/s is a faster speed than most anyone gets when downloading a file online. That is more than adequate. Just because I think that is an acceptable speed doesn't mean I am anti-features as you seem to want to paint me.

EDIT:

With quite an experience now in terms of Pandora support, I can only remember one case out of at least 60 cases I worked on(probably more, but I'm trying to keep myself on the save side) where the Mini-USB port failing was the reason for an rma. And there is the personal experience of mine, plugging in my Pandora since mid 2011 at least once a day (chargeing and data transfer), with the port only loosing some friction (and I'm in no way a person that is carefull with its hardware).

microUSB and miniUSB are not the same thing. This doesn't relate to my arguments at all, but rather to the arguments made by other people earlier in the topic for why to use miniUSB.

-God Ginrai

 

[Neelix]

I can try to do some research to show you. But to answer your question based on my current knowledge, I'd have to say that I have never even heard of a case of a USB-B port going bad before the comment about the MIDI keyboard in this topic. (And he never did clarify if that was the port or the cable)

The USB type B socket grips the plug by way of a metal tab on each side of the socket. However, if the plug has any amount of lateral force applied to it the tabs compress, and after enough of that the socket tends to lose its grip.

On mostly stationary device like a printer or scanner this works quite well. On a mobile device like the Pyra, where the device is likely to be moved about quite a lot in the course of normal use it's asking for trouble.

- Neelix