In that case there's even less of an argument for USB-C ports since it's real world failure rate is much higher . Partly due to the increased complexity, partly due to the physical design, partly due to less stringent quality control, etc...
If you assess failure rate based off whether it can reliably meet advertised claims year-after-year, such that a large degradation would count as failure, then I would dare say real world failure rate are dozens or hundreds of times higher than Lightning ports.
Your first paragraph didn't have "dare say". And you can't just add that as a disclaimer to any factual statement to make you immune to needing evidence. If you made that guess based on how much you like the ports, then you're wasting everyone's time. But again, you said "real world failure rate is much higher" as a flat-out fact.
The previous comment did not mention any numerical figure in the first paragraph, only that rate would be much higher due to the aforementioned reasons. I left it intentionally ambiguous by not specifying a number for a reason.
The rest of your comment is not worth a substantive reply considering almost any passing reader can see through the attempt to stop the conversation with a dismissal.
