Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Another Image of New Lightning Cable with Reversible USB Connector Surfaces
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Just the ordinary day to day war zone.
I get the feeling from several posts that some people don't think I deserve to have nice-looking lightning cables that work, because I must be mistreating them somehow.
But that's the wrong way to look at it. I actually CAN have nice-looking lightning cables that work and that hold up to my ordinary use. All I have to do is leave the Apple-supplied cable in a drawer as a backup, and use a third-party cable instead. The third-party cables are better made. They're more durable. They come in various lengths and even multiple colors. They cost less than Apple cables.
In short, whether I pass muster in the way I handle cables or not, I can have cables that, per Apple's credo, just work. They just don't come from Apple.
Nothing new, huh? I followed that link and found it was a USB cable for a printer. There's no way to plug it into my iPhone.
Apple's innovation is that BOTH ends of the cable are reversible.
The only thing left to keep straight is that the big end goes in the computer or USB power port, and the small lightning end goes in the iDevice. It would be nice to have the same reversible plug on both ends of the cable. With USB ports and power supplies nearly ubiquitous, though, I don't see it happening soon.
Often, when I'm plugging in my iPhone, I'm doing it in the dark, or with one hand, perhaps when I'm driving, so I can use the hands-free and not drain my battery.OMG, this is amazing! A USB connector that will plug in either way. My mind is racing with the possibility of how much time I'll save...
Let's see... I probably attach a USB device to some other device about twice a week on average. About half the time, I accidentally try to plug it in upside down. So, once a week I have to stop and flip the plug over. That extra step (flipping the plug over) probably wastes 2 seconds. So...
2 seconds x 52 weeks in a year = 104 seconds! Oh my, I'm going to save almost 2 minutes over the course of an entire year because of this revolutionary new USB connector!
Be still my beating heart!
Mark
This is a feature that could literally keep my heart beating a little longer.
Seems that Apple begun making sapphire panels
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/17/iphone-6-apple-mass-production-sapphire-screens
but if now apple begun...i think this is for the next generation iphone 6s...its impossible to make 60 mil in 2 weeks
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/17/iphone-6-apple-mass-production-sapphire-screens
but if now apple begun...i think this is for the next generation iphone 6s...its impossible to make 60 mil in 2 weeks
Is it really that hard to flip the plug if it doesn't fit initially? More movable parts means it's going to be easier to break, and the cables are already expensive as is. Plus, this end is rarely even unplugged from chargers. It's a nice detail, but it's not really necessary.
The reversible Lightning cable is useful, but the reversible USB end isn't so much. It would be really useful if everything else using USB, especially the kinds of things I plug into the back of my computer after reaching my arm over it, had reversible plugs!
----------
I really don't see why they were all non-reversible, other than that people didn't care enough back then. They were almost just rectangles of pins that would've been reversible if they weren't all slightly trapezoidal.
----------
I really don't see why they were all non-reversible, other than that people didn't care enough back then. They were almost just rectangles of pins that would've been reversible if they weren't all slightly trapezoidal.
I can't see that, in the picture the metal casing is bigger, a standard USB plus hasn't got the room for the connector to be reversible, the connector would end up being too thin.
I can't see the cable being very durable, or fitting the majority of USB sockets going by the photo.
Actually his explanation is credible, cause rechargeable batteries do deteriorate over time.
Have you noticed that you have less charge left at nights before you recharge? I would find it extremely difficult to believe that your battery has the same charge after 4 years
Mine also has a similar charge to when it was new (lasts about a day, sometimes longer, but less with heavy usage). It's impossible for me to say whether the performance is the same, but based on previous devices I was actually expecting it to degrade more with age. My 2.5 year old Macbook Air is also showing similar lifetimes to when it was new (as shown by the time remaining counter). I suspect Apple has done something clever with the charging circuits - the battery is just standard LiIon as far as I can tell.
If your messing around plugging cables in whilst driving, you should NOT be driving and pull over!
Actually his explanation is credible, cause rechargeable batteries do deteriorate over time.
Have you noticed that you have less charge left at nights before you recharge? I would find it extremely difficult to believe that your battery has the same charge after 4 years
I never claimed the battery could hold the same charge as 4 years ago, only that *my moderate* usage pattern hadn't changed, and thus the OP's assertion of Apple compromising the battery just enough for me to upgrade after a couple of years isn't true.
Maybe I didn't need to charge it so frequently back in 2010 (every other day?) compared to now (everyday) but the point is that I'm fortunate enough to have used it over 4 years without feeling like the device is now sub-optimal and needs to be charged twice a day.
Yep, Apple is stingy with the battery power (and the whole device thinness crap), but this intentional "max 1 day-usage dropping to 0.5 days after 2 years" mission? I don't buy it. I have an iPod Touch 2G from 2008 which still works perfectly. It's not the battery which has been compromised, it's the limiting features and speed. Apple uses "improved speed and functionality" to encourage consumers to upgrade.
It's actually not bigger at all. Or if it is, it's so slight that it will still fit into the USB receptacle (which is slightly oversized to deal with manufacturing tolerances).
As I explained before, the standard USB receptacle does in fact have enough room to allow for this reversible connector. In fact, those connectors already exist and are in general use by TrippLite. And since the USB port forces you to put the connector in roughly straight to begin with and then straightens you out as you go forward, it's going to be durable enough too.
----------
Yes, that is the entire point of the thing.
And by M-Systems, who were later acquired by Sandisk along with their patent portfolio. Their application has a priority date of August 2, 2004. Whether Apple will be granted their patent in this situation remains to be seen, but I can't see why they wouldn't. There's also no reason to believe that Apple does not already have cross licensing agreements in place with the holders of other reversible USB connector patents. Maybe, just maybe, we've been waiting for Apple to spend enough time and money on R&D to finally have a design that can be produced on the scale that they require... which is roughly 300 million units annually.
We also could have had these connectors years ago if you had gotten your engineering degree, done the work to make the concept commercially viable, and struck licensing agreements with interested parties. I guess it's easier to just blame Apple for the harm done by taking so long to become the first major OEM to adopt a reversible Type-A plug design for their best selling product.
Fair enough. I guess I should say that Type-C looks awesome on paper, but the proof will obviously be in how things turn out in terms of real-world usage. And for what it's worth, those stupid ZIF connectors for flat flex cables are the absolute worst to deal with in my book.
It's going to fit. It's going to fit just like all the other reversible Type "A" USB plugs which have been around for years fit and have always fit.
The 'tongue' of the Type "A" plug is central in the middle of the plug, a little of its thickness one side, a little the other. The mating piece of the socket is and always has been just a little away from center allowing the plug to contact it. The only differences in this plug, the really only difference, is instead of the area behind the tongue on the plug one side being full of plastic, it's empty and the tongue has connections both sides.
If you look at the two pictures of the two plugs on the front page, allow a little leeway for the fact that they have been held at two slightly different angles, just imagine trimming away most (80%) of the plastic at the top of the 'old' plug to leave a hole.. you now have the new plug. That plastic doesn't do very much, adds a little bit of mechanical grip, makes the plug go in one way. The reason it's there at all in the original design is that making one set of contacts is cheaper than making two sets of contacts, one on either side of the tongue on the plug and the USB group was concerned to make sure USB plugs were cheap to manufacture. If you only have contacts on one side, the plug MUST go in one way up, hence the blanking plastic to ensure that happens.
I'm fairly surprised at the number replies castigating Apple for coming up with a plug which won't fit a normal Type "A" socket, number one because it's very clearly absolutely going to fit it and two because they just aren't that stupid.
Technology is forced obsolescence, not Apple's business model. You act as if Apple is the only one that progressively adds to and improves products.
Good question, I'm still trying to put in a USB cable into my MBP the wrong way
Schrödinger's Mac theory: "The USB connector exists in a superposition of both possible configurations until you try to plug it in when the realities colapse into the wrong decsion every time"
Right, those are admittedly also terrible but they aren't meant for the average user to ever even see, let alone handle.
It's clear from this thread that there are people here who have little (or no) grasp on electronics, and yet - think they are able to design electronic components better than engineers with many years of experience in the field.
If you can do it better, go and do it better. If you understand breakdown voltages, contact plating materials, wear lifetime, lead length attentuation and loss (capacitance, resistance, inductance), insulator material dielectric constants, mechanical stress measurement, cross-talk, standing waves, low pass attentuation, shielding... etc... go for it, and show them "where they went wrong".
You might need a few years worth of materials science and industrial design, too, so better get started now.
PS: Oh, and I hope you've got a decent 'scope and signal generation / signal analyser & associated test kit to do it better - you'll probably need to sell your house to afford that, so all the best.
I dare you to have the courage to do it
If you can do it better, go and do it better. If you understand breakdown voltages, contact plating materials, wear lifetime, lead length attentuation and loss (capacitance, resistance, inductance), insulator material dielectric constants, mechanical stress measurement, cross-talk, standing waves, low pass attentuation, shielding... etc... go for it, and show them "where they went wrong".
You might need a few years worth of materials science and industrial design, too, so better get started now.
PS: Oh, and I hope you've got a decent 'scope and signal generation / signal analyser & associated test kit to do it better - you'll probably need to sell your house to afford that, so all the best.
I dare you to have the courage to do it