crap that that Apple embraces USB-C on macs, but still forces lightning port on the phones when the standard for all new phones is in fact, USB-C.
Agree completely. It doesn't seem to make sense for
Apple either. If they moved to a USB-C port on the iPhone, then you have the possibility of physical devices that connect directly to the phone
and the Mac (or other computers). What those might be - who knows. Hard drives that aren't limited by Wifi/BT bandwidth - high-end cameras that use the iPhone as a "live display device" - who knows?
I'd imagine a device manufacturer would be more likely to use an open standard like USB-C than a closed and (more importantly) relatively small market standard of Lightning. Though maybe that's different now, since the difference between a Lightning and USB-C interface is likely literally a single plug and a single chip.
The only real advantage for Apple is it's another cable to sell (and a very high-margin one at that). Has anyone out there made a off-brand Lightning/USB-A/C cable that will work reliably? And given that Apple's cables seem prone to "splitting-plastic-disease", this is probably a (relatively - perhaps) big money-maker for them. (Is this intentional? "CableGate" anyone?)
The "plastic disease" seems more common with their power cables (due to thermal stress? Or "
electromagnetic stress"??), but I'm sure happens with Lightning/USB-A/C cables too. With the power cables, it's *stupid* for Apple too - they have to replace an entire power brick, instead of simply replacing a single friggin' cable! (Which is more cost for them, and makes more e-waste. So much for "environmental Apple")
The two advantages that Lighting might have over USB-C is 1) it might be thinner (in terms of it's receptacle on the device), and 2) with Lightning you (might) have a smaller "part of the cable" that actually plugs *into* the device. (? that's not really clear.. With Lightning, the contacts on the cable are all on the "inside", rather than having a void on the inside of the cable like USB-A)
What Apple should have done (if they had been "on the ball" when the USB-C spec was being hashed out) was push for USB-C to have a magnetic locking option of some kind. That might or might not be possible. The contacts might have been smaller and they'd have to be "exposed" (perpendicular to the axis of the cable) which might create electrical problems (dust, etc).
Maybe it could be a "Magnetic Lightning plug" type cable so the contacts would be longer and parallel to the cable-axis instead (then you might have fingerprint problems). (Would be a *great* advertising term as well!). The magnets might interfere electrically though. (Time to move to optical! Yeah right - maybe in 5-15 years when we can make optical fibers cheaply out of carbon nanotubes.)
The magnets would probably have to be on the (lengthwise) "edges" of the plug, if you didn't have the "Magnetic Lightning" plug. The plug is too thin to have them be all along the width. That might mean that the magnets would have too be so strong to keep the cable attached at all that the "MagSafe" quality of the thing is lost completely (the "well, it's so light it'll fall off the table anyway" argument for removing MagSafe)
And doesn't MS have some patent that would be involved? Grr. Design patents that actually *hinder* "progress of the arts and sciences" Apple could bit the bullet and cross-license something with their arch-enemy. Maybe Apple could give Microsoft their "rectangle patent" so they can keep making.. well, everything.. (without fear of being "sued over a rectangle")
