This is the first claim I've ever heard that Mini-B is "far more robust" than USB-C. Mini-B is legendarily breakable, both from a pin standpoint (really low lifetime insertions) and from a physical one (the port profile put a ton of strain on the device side). Micro-B was created to resolve those problems, and did a decent job through the latching teeth on the back, but has fewer pins available for advanced connectivity and no room to add them in a backwards-compatible way. Even for small devices, the additional pins are beneficial for standardized high-rate charging via USB-PD.

Both Micro-B and USB-C are similarly rated for robustness.

> Micro-USB and Mini-USB were both far more robust.

Micro-USB and USB-C both have the same minimum durability ratings, you may just be buying non-compliant cables (or you're encountering selection bias or something):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_hardware#Durability

Could be that I'm somehow an outlier, I suppose time will tell since they'll be around for a while and in literally everything.

>the newer Micro-USB[4] and USB-C receptacles are both designed for a minimum rated lifetime of 10,000 cycles of insertion and removal.

Micro-USB is an abomination from a durability perspective, and in no way does this reflect reality for the majority of Micro-USB plugs and sockets I've found in the wild.

I'm pretty sure that rated lifetime is for correct insertion, yeah. USB-C has a thicker cross-section and the rounded ends definitely help with correct insertion to reduce the likelihood of whomping on the socket when you plug it in.

I personally have owned 5 phones with worn out USB micro-b ports, where to charge them I'd have to lay a book on the cable or position the phone at an odd angle.

I have never seen anyone do this with a USB-c port. I have never heard anyone complain their USB-C port wore out.

USB-C was designed for far greater durability & reliability & IMO it clearly & obviously shows.