• @edgemaster72@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1251 year ago

    Somewhat understandable, but they could’ve also done something like HDMI and DisplayPort and gone with a shape that could only plug in one way. It might not have been “as cheap as possible” but probably not as much added expense as the extra wiring and stuff. (maybe, idk shit about manufacturing)

      • @lolcatnip@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        251 year ago

        The problem there is at least as much from how hard it is to twist the cables as it is from the connector shape. The asymmetric connector is still better than nothing.

        I can think of some examples of asymmetric connectors that work great: mini USB; North American 3-prong power plugs; old school PC video, serial, and game ports; original NES controller connections, etc.

    • @nocturne213@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      321 year ago

      I really wish hdmi was symmetrical. (Peer behind tv, “which way goes up?” Tries to plug it in, “fml it was the other way” flips it drops it)

      • sverit
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        Unfortunately HDMI already uses pins on both sides of the connector, so you would have to shrink them to half their size first, then double them.

    • ChaoticNeutralCzech
      link
      fedilink
      English
      121 year ago

      Not all asymmetric port designs are good. SCART was capable – HDMI of the 1990s-2000s – but you cannot really feel where one ends and another begins with 2-3 of them in the rear of almost every TV and VCR sold in Europe back then. They carried flawless RGB video, two-way composite A/V, remote control signals etc. However, they were bulky (why 21 individually shielded wires instead of twisted pairs?), expensive and got loose easily. This was before digital technology that enabled error correction and multiplexing.