We have a product designed quite a while ago with mini-USB. We've had problems with the connectors on the cables wearing out and then mangling the connector on the product. The plastic tab that the contacts are on wears out and gets thin. The connector on the product is rated at 5,000 cycles, but the cables generally have no rating on the connector. We finally found a cable with a connector insertion rating. The bad cables were messing up a $500 box. The micro USB is rated for more insertion cycles. 5,000 is fine for our product (more than 10 years at one cycle per day), so we did not spend the money to redo the PCB and metalwork. We just have to buy a good cable. Harold > It is more robust > > > __________________________________________ > David C Brown > 43 Bings Road > Whaley Bridge > High Peak Phone: 01663 733236 > Derbyshire eMail: dcb.home@gmail.com > SK23 7ND web: www.bings-knowle.co.uk/dcb > > > > > *Sent from my etch-a-sketch* > > On 8 December 2016 at 23:24, Bob Blick wrote: > >> I see mini-B USB jacks continue to be designed into new products, even >> though micro-B jacks are supposed to be better and have been around for >> quite a long time. Other than being slightly larger, is there any reason >> why one would design a product with mini jacks? >> >> Bob >> >> -- >> http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive >> View/change your membership options at >> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist >> > -- > http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive > View/change your membership options at > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist > --=20 FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com Not sent from an iPhone. --=20 http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .