You have no idea if that is that is true and is nothing more than speculation on your part.
100% agreed that this is speculation. What's the issue? Do you even doubt what I wrote? Pretty sure everything that makes this site possible is speculation.
You have no idea if that is that is true and is nothing more than speculation on your part.
The best experience would have been without the six month gap with no accessories (and still no docks, massively high prices and few battery backs).
Apple's attempt to fleece this market has harmed customers.
I don't get the need for the chip: why can't USB (or a cable that uses a different shape USB) be enough to charge and sync the device? 4 pins, and no chip.
If you want more fancy features like docks and cars, THEN use the expensive cable. They could make 2 cables, one which is only for charging and syncing
what youre sugesting (apple releasing *two* different Lightning cabels/specs) would only add mass confusion to average consumers. my dad would have NO IDEA which sort of cable to get...and imagine your frustration when you want to hook in to a smart device (something which supports external displays, tap zones, etc) but realize you only have the charging-only cable with you.
apple focuses on simplfying things, not complicating them. one cable.
Apple also likes to deny companies too. FiiO, a Chinese based DAC/Amp/PMP manufacturer has requested MFi certification and been denied.
How is Apple not allowing other companies to make the same cable cheaper a good thing?
Apple already does make a "Power Only" Lightning connector. It's one of the 4 configurations of the connector available for MFi partners to buy.
where is this? can you link us to it? i havent seen one of these charging-only lightning cables.
The other downfall is extending development times since Mophie just release their battery case. If Apple really cared about the accessory market some of these accessory makers would get prototypes so they could quickly get products to market.
In a nutshell, Lightning only serves 1 purpose to Apple: Money.
It doesn't exist for convenience. It doesn't exist for the customer - in fact Apple quite clearly dont give a damn about the customer when it comes to their proprietary ports, and never have done.
Whether we like it or not, Apples as determined as ever to make money in every conceivable way. That in itself is not bad per se, but their is a limit at which its exclusionary to the outside vendors that have been loyal. Contributed to the popularity of Apples products and enhanced the joy of using Apple products.
As you so aptly pointed out, a first class companie like Mophie suffers delays & in turn sales, as do Apple loyalists that rely on Mophies product. Yet none of that matters one wit to the singularly minded Apple.
I find it extremely convenient that the cable I got -for free- with my iPhone 5 can be plugged in any way I want, without looking or feeling around to make sure it's going in the right way, in addition to holding a much more secure connection than my previous cables would.
The obvious thing about the Lightning cable and reason for the authentication chip is it's a complex connection that can be plugged in either way, and Apple doesn't want some cheap Chinese $1 cable misfiring and burning out their $600 devices that they would have to support and replace. Duh.
----------
The hundreds of millions of devices currently in use that can use the previous Mophie products are still potential customers, and the hundreds of millions of future lightning connectored devices that will use their new products are here and on the horizon. Mophie didn't have to start from scratch (which they did before and made it through just fine) and will make plenty of money on pre-Lightning devices as well as Lightning devices.
Your argument just holds no water at all.
I agree, it is convenient. However you have to admit that the biggest advantage of the chip-cable for Apple, is that they have the ability to restrict the devices to only work with certain cables. There's nothing stopping them making you buy a new (identical) cable every time you get a new phone if they wanted to.
The price of it is still a hell of a lot more than it costs to make, and the cheap knockoff cables still perform the exact same function.
Also, dont expect there to ever be lots of addons for it, just like Thunderbolt, Apple are trying to charge stupidly high license fees. It's greed, pure and simple greed. Apple are no different from any big tech company other than they have much better PR.
I'm with Apple all the way on this one. The lightning cable is s auperb bit of engineering and with something as lithe as an ipod touch 5G it required a plug of this sophistication to be invented.
And by golly that's what Apple did and it is not an area that users would want to try and haggle over a few dollars. Besides that, they are allowing authorised people to make them cheaper anyway.
To complain about this is churlish in the extreme. And also a bit sad.
Having the ability to restrict doesn't mean that was ever their intention. There is no evidence that they're doing that or ever would. That's just your pure speculation. IF they do it and there isn't a good reason why, THEN you could be outraged appropriately.
What we do know as a fact, is cheap cables break iPhones. The customer and Apple both pay for those, and in both cases a hell of a lot more than a $2 knockoff or even a $20 official cable.
What we also know is the Lightning cable is much smarter and more useful than previous cables, that surely took many millions of dollars of research and development to produce and perfect to the point of shipping in hundreds of millions of devices and being a capable standard for years to come.
Apple isn't a charity, it's a business. Why wouldn't they want to recoup at least some of that investment?
Having the ability to restrict doesn't mean that was ever their intention. There is no evidence that they're doing that or ever would. That's just your pure speculation. IF they do it and there isn't a good reason why, THEN you could be outraged appropriately.
Do we? You claim that any mention of Apple trying to restrict the usage of Lightning is unfounded due to a lack of evidence, then you claim something as fact, with zero evidence yourself. Sorry but everyone on this thread (and past threads) who have said they use a cheaper knockoff has said it works fine. Sure they may not last as long, but breaking the phone is going to be a tough job given the low voltage, and authentication the phone requires before it opens up any level of power to the cable.What we do know as a fact, is cheap cables break iPhones. The customer and Apple both pay for those, and in both cases a hell of a lot more than a $2 knockoff or even a $20 official cable.
Yes, it would have cost a lot of money. A hell of a lot. It's a similar tech used by Thunderbolt, and is clearly a better way of communicating with peripherals so as to prevent damaging them.What we also know is the Lightning cable is much smarter and more useful than previous cables, that surely took many millions of dollars of research and development to produce and perfect to the point of shipping in hundreds of millions of devices and being a capable standard for years to come.
Apple isn't a charity, it's a business. Why wouldn't they want to recoup at least some of that investment?
However facts are facts:
- There are next to no third party Lightning compatible products on the market. The initial reason for this could just be put down to slow adoption, but no -Apple had zero intention of allowing 3rd party peripherals off the bat, leaving meetings with manufacturers until 2 months after the phone was released. This alone shows that Apple are not committed to making it easy to get Lighting peripherals on the shelves.
Here's the point:
Through this change, Apple is milking the third party cable market and accessory markets, and given itself the potential to make useless anything that doesn't contain the security chip.
The end user now has a bunch of useless cables from prior devices, is being forced to purchase more cables at significantly higher prices than previously (And to draw comparisons between the device purchase cost and cable purchase cost is asinine), and gains no significant functionality.
Obsolescence as a business practice generally works because there's a trade-off involved, regardless of how tenuous or downright false the reasons given may be, and that for Apple has been iOS. See; 'You can have Siri, but you need the processor that only comes with the new iPhone 4S'. But Lightning doesn't fit into this mould.
We're 5 months down the road from iPhone 5 hitting the shelves, and with it, lightning. There has been added costs passed onto the customer, and no benefits beyond a reversible connector.
But maybe we should all be grateful, because Apple clearly spent some money on developing this great leap in technology, and they could quite easily has gouged everyone for twice the cost.
You know what, you're right - there is no evidence. I was completely with you. Then you said this:
Do we? You claim that any mention of Apple trying to restrict the usage of Lightning is unfounded due to a lack of evidence, then you claim something as fact, with zero evidence yourself. Sorry but everyone on this thread (and past threads) who have said they use a cheaper knockoff has said it works fine. Sure they may not last as long, but breaking the phone is going to be a tough job given the low voltage, and authentication the phone requires before it opens up any level of power to the cable.
Yes, it would have cost a lot of money. A hell of a lot. It's a similar tech used by Thunderbolt, and is clearly a better way of communicating with peripherals so as to prevent damaging them.
However facts are facts:
- There are next to no third party Lightning compatible products on the market. The initial reason for this could just be put down to slow adoption, but no - Apple had zero intention of allowing 3rd party peripherals off the bat, leaving meetings with manufacturers until 2 months after the phone was released. This alone shows that Apple are not committed to making it easy to get Lighting peripherals on the shelves.
I get that, and completely understand that they need to make money, but theres a right way and a wrong way to do that. As it stands, there are so few companies willing to invest in making their stuff work with lightning - and there has to be a reason for that. Either the license costs are crazy, or Apple simply aren't opening the specs enough for anyone to make anything worth while.
But maybe we should all be grateful, because Apple clearly spent some money on developing this great leap in technology, and they could quite easily has gouged everyone for twice the cost.
Explain why micro usb is so bad? Because Apple didn't invent it?
The ONLY reason Apple created a new connector is to make money, nothing else.
I fail to see anything "great" about Lightning. It's smaller (i.e. less wide). SO WHAT? Exactly what device NEEDS that small of a connector? Clearly, the iPhone/iPad/iPod touch did NOT need it as previous generations did just fine with the 30-pin connector. Now every hotel/house with a 30-pin dock of whatever type (clock radios to charging docks) are INCOMPATIBLE without a $29 adapter that you better hope you don't lose track of given its high cost.
What else can Lightning do that the 30-pin connector could not do? Short of adding lightning connectors to some mico-sized iPod, WTF is the point supposed to be? What happens if that chip inside the cable fails and/or malfunctions while doing something important? In other words, reliability in the long run may be a factor (whereas the 30-pin connector is tried and true).
Sorry, but it strikes me as a money grab more than a true "need" for a smaller connector. Most people are probably going to sync via WiFi these days anyways so that just leaves a power connection and certainly micro-USB is an established standard so why create a new one? Frankly, if they were going to go high tech, I'd rather see an inductive based connection with NO cable or hard connection.
Well the flip side of that is - you just spent all that money and they want to nickel and dime you over a cable. I think that's the point people are making.
You know - when I used to fly all the time - I was annoyed when I was on a flight that kept getting more expensive each time that they would come around the cabin and charge $2 for headphones to watch the movie. Either absorb the cost or just add the $2 to the cost of the ticket. At that point the $2 doesn't mean anything to the price. But as a separate charge - it's poor customer relations.