I could be wrong, but my understanding is that speed is as a HOST and not as a device. For iPad to PC/Mac connections, the speed was only USB 2 since the iPad was acting as a device. To some extent, this is a new features at the silicon level as it now supports it as a device not just a host.
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.
Apple Selling New 60W and 240W USB-C Woven Charge Cables
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
...that a USB 2.0-only cable needs 8 less physical wires than a USB 3 one, which makes it cheaper (sure) but also lighter and more flexible & makes room for thicker power wires to support higher charging speeds.
Sure, the USB IF committee have a special gift for picking pesimally confusing names - and should have mandated standard labelling on cables.
Hopefully, someone will come up with an App for displaying the capabilities of USB-C cables...
Based on this teardown, the iPad Air 2020 includes a discrete USB 3.0 controller chip - so the support isn't built into the A14.
The problem with Ultra chip is that laptops can not go beyond 100W or it will not perform without a power cable but that's totally normal for all laptops. It's just that Apple hate to go beyond 100W.
The 'new' 1m shares the same part number & appearance as the one that's almost a year old
USB-C Charge Cable (1 m)
This 1-meter charge cable has USB-C connectors on both ends and is ideal for charging USB-C devices. Also supports USB 2 for syncing and data transfer between USB devices.
web.archive.org
That’s not how Apple uses “new” in the store. It’s “new” because it’s 1 meter. Previously they only sold longer versions.
Me. It’s the fastest and most reliable way to transfer a 1 hour 4K video from phone to computer.
The Anker 515 cable that another poster mentioned is good.
Not who you asked, but...
I tried this repeatedly with an iPhone 12 Pro to sync to a 2014 Mac Mini. It failed 100% of the time. I haven’t tried it since I switched to a 2023 14” MBP. I will get around to trying it eventually as an experiment, but since the phone needs to be charging for WiFi sync I have to plug in a cable anyway.
The iPhone 15 Pro supports WiFi 6E. If you have a Mac that also supports 6E and spend a few hundred on a router that supports 6E it still won’t approach the 10Gbps that the USB port is (theoretically) capable of.
EDIT: So it turns out that there are some 6E routers that claim better than 10Gbps for a lot more money than a TB4 cable.
Last edited:
But the new one is USB 2 as well?
Old one: Thin, USB 2, 100W
New one: Thick, USB 2, 60W
That's illogical to me. The old one has a benefit of 100W and I can travel and pack light. The new one trades this for being more robust. Is that the only benefit??
That's exactly what I'm thinking. Because they got rid of the 0.8m USB-C Thunderbolt 3 cable as well.. (which was a lot cheaper than the TB4 cable). That was a perfectly usable cable for most scenarios. Now it's nearly double price.
It’s not like Apple’s cornered the market on Thunderbolt 3 cables, though. Thunderbolt being a standard (and a more stringent one than USB-c
), any Thunderbolt 3 cable will do the same as Apple’s.From recent news related to gaming on the iPhone 15 (and AAA developer’s support of it), it looks like the MBP is not where they’re focused. Which, really, makes sense because a developer that makes a game iPhone 15 Pro compatible has a greater likelihood to make a profit as there will be more of those sold in a year than Macs.
I get your point, but I suspect the number of people who would really benefit from that is so small it wasn't worth the effort and cost. In addition, it likely would mean needing a better cable, at a higher cost, to ensure you can get those speeds reliably.
Last edited:
This is actually quite common. Nomads excellent Kevlar USB-C cables, Native Unions excellent USB-C cables, and most cables from Anker, Belkin etc. Are all USB 2.0 speed. The reason for this is because of how much easier it is to create high-quality cables supporting 100-240W power at 1.5 meters+ when you don't need to have signal integrity in mind.
Achieving USB 3.2 certification is much harder and costly, it's even tougher with USB 4.0. To reduce the cost of a charging cable most manufacturers won't bother with this. Instead, they have the cable certified for USB 2.0 as this doesn't require much at all. If your cable has been made to support 100-240W charging, it will most certainly pass USB 2.0 certification with ease. Many of these cables will be fully capable of transferring at USB 3.2 10Gbps, and even USB 3.2 20Gbps speeds, they simply haven't been certified for it.
Achieving USB 3.2 certification is much harder and costly, it's even tougher with USB 4.0. To reduce the cost of a charging cable most manufacturers won't bother with this. Instead, they have the cable certified for USB 2.0 as this doesn't require much at all. If your cable has been made to support 100-240W charging, it will most certainly pass USB 2.0 certification with ease. Many of these cables will be fully capable of transferring at USB 3.2 10Gbps, and even USB 3.2 20Gbps speeds, they simply haven't been certified for it.