This is the most disturbing leap of logic I've ever seen. I thought it would fit, otherwise I wouldn't have suggested it.
Yeah and it was repeatedly said that it just won't fit unless one of the major design goals "don't make it thicker than the Pandora" would be scraped. So if my "leap of logic" is so disturbing, please help me out and tell me an alternative conclusion. Maybe it so obvious that I just don't see it.
Just because I just said I made it on the assumption that it would not be mechanically problematic does not mean I admit it is. No one provided any solid proof in that topic that it would be mechanically problematic. And the reason I kept mentioning it is due to that.
Leaving aside the fact that this would give use only a 2mm (probably less) "win" in terms of height (so it still won't fit), I havent't found a receptable that lets you mount the USB port sideways (I don't had the time to do an extensive search, so I may be wrong here), so we would have to come up with a custom solution, that needs again time, money and a big leap of faith that it will work.All for your quest against the "unrealiable Micro-B-USB" port we probably won't use anyway - USB3 version it is (I guess).
By that reasoning, anything intended to fit onto a PCB is flimsy.
Ah, my bad, I'm sorry. I forgot one point:Accessible by the user, but not used very often - e.g. While both, an SD-Card slot an a sim/M-SDCard slot fit both previously mentioned categories the number of uses (=> insert, eject and open,close) will differ a lot.
Oh gee, durability. IIRC, that was the reason I supported USB-B, too. It seems like there is a theme. You once again miss the point that my comments in both topics are supporting making a handheld that lasts.
No, the point is that you scale your own priorties up or down depending on how it fits your arguments in a particular case. Or wouldn't you agree that an eMMC soldered onboard is less likely to break than something a user can physically access (and maybe even misuse): a mSD-Slot ? So durability plays only a secondary role in that particular case, as you weight the benefits that come with a removeable internal memory heavier. Which is totally fine, just do not pretend you have an overall agenda called durability that you follow tightly.Same here for me: If its cheap, why not give potential users the comfort of using audio hardware they already have without the need of an extra adapter ? If not skip it.
Well, I would assume that an organization that includes all the major players and even some smaller ones is comprehensive enough to define standards. I'm not quite sure why you would think otherwise.
Wouldn't that hinder innovation, if every company that enters the market has to accept the standards, the previous associations that rule the market have already set ? And what about stalemate situations like HDDVD vs BluRay or USB vs. "Firewire". Or invert the situation: if a big association where most of the big player on the market participate say "lets scrap ISO standard XYZ" wouldn't that be bad too ?
No I'm not. You asked if the ultimate goal was to change the industry. I answered "No". Then I pointed out that what my ultimate goal was: a device that won't have hardware problems. You are only claiming I am evading the question because my answer is not the one you assumed.
Maybe I did not phrase my question right, I was reffering to (or tried to) two of your statements:
"It's still not worth it to support functionality that conflicts with standard. Arguments like that are the reason I can't use my HID-compliant controller with over half the games that have come out for Windows over the past 3 years."
and specifically:
"This isn't accepting a standard. This is offering a compromise for your users without accepting that crap as standard."
No, the next "innovation" is always around the corner. Something doesn't become a standard until it is agreed upon and widely used. HD DVD and Blurary were both "around the corner" when the 360 and PS3 were about to come out, but neither were a standard until Bluray beat HD DVD and all the companies began to adopt it.
Are there really so much innovations out there ? Most look more like improvements of previous ideas to me. But anway - How many standards to connect devices internally to a computer can you remember (ISA, EISA, VLB, PCI, PCI Express + various iterations of it) ? Or to connect mass storage devices internally (PATA, SCSI, SATA) ? Or competing standards to connect peripherals (PS/2, RS-232, RS-485, RS-*insert random number here*,Parell ports, USB, Firewire, Thunderbolt, the custom thing Lenovo is trying to push currently,etc.) ? Or how to connect displays internally (LVDS, MIPI and this are only high level) or externally (VGA, DVI, HDMI, DP) ?And this list goes on forever. Sure a part of the examples I gave were initially ment to replace its predecessor, but for several reasons that did not work out as intended, leaving them competing against their successors.
But the the key words here are: "agreed upon" and "widely used" both seem to be valid for the "crap standard" too, the only difference I see is that the OMTP one entered the market earlier.
Or do we have to wait long enough and the see wether the other "standard" gets the upper hand by that elevating itself from beeing a "crap" to beeing a "not crap" standard ?
I did say that. Just because not everyone has adopted that does not mean that Apple does not have power. Hell, if they didn't have power enough to cause some companies to convert, we wouldn't even be having this argument right now.
Fair point
It is rated to 5,000 insertion cycles, rated to MIL and EIA standards and can sustain a 50G shock load.
Don't know that much about EIA, but as far as I know, they are responsible for "signaling standards" (like voltage and timing levels) and not for durability standards, so I don't think that it is interesting in the discussion at hand - correct me if you know more about it.MIL specs cover working conditions, like shock, temperature, humdity, vibrations and such, which is nice if you want to take your Pyra with you on your next tour to the southpole or you if you like to play some Crazy taxi while you are driving to the grocery store in your brand new tank.
But I'm thinking more of the average "LIU" (least intelligent user, don't know the proper translation for "DAU") pushing things to hard, inserting things not the correct way, etc. With a rather "fragile" construction like the component you found more prone to break than a audio jack witha switch in it, in my opinion.
As an Example: beeing a regular visitor of the support section and helping out Ed in the support ticket system for quite some time now, I have the (maybe biased) impression that the audio receptable of the Pandora (which already contains a switch) is something that rarely breaks so I don't see such a big problem in it. But then again I was never specific about the actual implementation...
