CD burning was great, but what killed ZIP drives was the advent of USB-A flash drives with tiny dimensions, no sensitivity to magnets, and no moving parts.
Another issue was increasingly most PCs had a USB-A port, but Zip drives were rare to see. Zip was fine for your personal use, but you couldn't transport files to use with someone else's computer because they didn't have a Zip drive. To use Zip discs, you have to have a Zip drive, whereas with those USB-A thumb drives, all you needed was that little port conveniently already in most computers.
No, I don't at all think poorly of these people, I think a lot about them in fact and how a cable that is the exact same at both ends is by absolute definition better and simpler to use than a cable with differing ends.
This is literally true; it is that bit more convenient if both ends match. Whichever end of the cable you grab is the 'right' one. The question is, how much does that benefit matter? Extension cords for appliances don't have matching ends (granted, if the 'out' end had electrified prongs, that'd be dangerous) and people routinely figure them out.
The simplest cable is the one that doesn't exist, however since we're not there in every regard, the second best cable is fast, small, tough, interchangeable in all ways and reliable and that's exactly what I find with USB-C.
Now if only all USB-C cables were created equal...but they're not. Data transmission speeds, power delivery capacity, not only are they not equal but they're usually not marked, so whether a given cable handles USB 2 or 3 speeds and whether it can be used to charge your iPad or notebook computer or just a smartphone is still a matter of 'hook it up and see if it works.' And beyond that, not all of the little charger blocks the cables plug into list their power.
Why hold on to something more complex when a simpler, more advanced version is available? And I mean that from the point of view of the industry, not us end-users (we'll still have a mix of cables at home for different devices for a while), but the industry should standardise to one type and USB-C on both ends is an absolute no-brainer.
This is a good question, and I'd like to hear from people in the industry the thinking that goes into it. We've already been told wireless keyboard and mouse receivers can cram their circuitry into a USB-A form factor that sits 'button-like' almost flush with the computer (really nice for notebooks, where a projecting dongle could be broken off). Some flash drives have the same benefit.
A computer maker wants to please the customer base, so include at least a couple of USB-A ports to accommodate those wireless receivers (which are in common use, and some people prefer this to Bluetooth) and maybe some old USB-A thumb drives (still sold cheaply retail - I just logged in to check 'in stock' flash drives at our local Walmart Supercenter - USB-A appears to heavily dominate the offerings). And people with old printers, scanners, etc... (and I imagine a lot of the kind of people who'd be confused by a USB cable with different ends don't upgrade their peripherals or computers often, may have old USB-A peripherals and don't need the hassle of adapters or 'USB-A to C converter cables').
So with the exception of very thin notebook designs, it makes sense to have maybe 2 USB-A ports in a desktop computer (at least with Windows PCs, which dominate and largely drive the market).
That leaves the question of why a peripheral maker would choose to include USB-A rather than C connectivity. We already know about thumb drives and wireless keyboard/mouse receivers. What else? Printers are often used wirelessly, but I suspect a USB-A style connector is often an option? The vendor wants broadest compatibility with the installed user base - that might still be USB-A, and many people who have computers without A ports would probably use the wireless option. A lot of printers are multi-function devices (e.g.: copier, scanner, fax), so that's partly covered, too.
The wireless option has been growing amongst speakers. Speaker vendors want max. compatibility with the installed base. So it's like printers.
Speaking of which, who is most likely not to have a USB-A port? A thin notebook user...who'd likely prefer wireless connectivity over a cable. Mac Minis are too tiny a portion of the market to drive big trends.
USB-C has gained a strong showing in computer displays, where it offers a compelling advantage. The USB-C DisplayPort Alt. Mode connection for non-Thunderbolt displays and computers works well, offers functionality HDMI lacks and can often charge your notebook computer!
I suspect one factor in play is that the broader personal computer market is not as enamored of Apple's minimalistic aesthetic, as exemplified in my old 2017 12" MacBook with 1 USB-C port and one audio jack, or the new M4 Mac Mini ditching USB-A ports.
With dock offerings often a number of USB-A ports and few USB-C ports are offered. Seems dock makers think the user base needs USB-A ports. Back in 2023 I picked up a fairly cheap Windows PC notebook for our kid...it came with 1 USB-C port which is data only and can't charge the notebook or drive a monitor. How many cheap (e.g.: $300 - $800) Windows notebooks are out there for every Mac notebook?
No, I don't at all think poorly of these people, I think a lot about them in fact and how a cable that is the exact same at both ends is by absolute definition better and simpler to use than a cable with differing ends. Maybe you don't consider much the "best" design for any given object but I'm always thinking like this.
Sounds like how I suspect engineers think. But the best design for what? A theoretical model considering one non-computing proficient 'lab rat' user in a room with a computer system, told to hook things up? The simplest, most efficient solution for a theoretical model of how the world should be?
Or...the very messy real world with a lot of old legacy computers and peripherals, customers who don't want to be bothered with adaptors and convertor cable issues, traditional momentum, and in a few cases (e.g.: wireless receivers) some benefits of USB-A ports.
Restated, your point would win in a perfect world, but we don't live in that perfect world.
P.S.: To save somebody the trouble of likening USB-A to Parallel ports, SCSI, Zip drives, Jaz drives, floppy drives, CD drives, etc..., a USB-A port is far smaller than most of those and far more prevalent in contemporary use. False equivalence.
