EU will just order Apple to include an adaptor. This is a needless venture Apple, why add to the landfill already as you claim to be a green focused company.
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 Working on 'Ultra Accessory Connector' for Made for iPhone Program [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
EU will just order Apple to include an adaptor. This is a needless venture Apple, why add to the landfill already as you claim to be a green focused company.
I think people are looking at this wrong. I think the new connector will just be at the accessory end. It mentions nothing about the opposite end. It could be Lightning (2 license fees) or USB-C. Plus this won't roll out for at least another year or two.
I think you're all reading this wrong. ;-)
This would be a connector on the headphones, intended for charging and, optionally, passing audio/data while it's connected for charging (might also show up on the next generation of Magic Keyboards, Magic Mice, and AirPod docks, for example) - the cable would still have a Lightning/USB-C on the other end. There is no standard at all for this function currently, no edict from the EU, not even an existing de-facto standard.
Both USB-C and Lightning are overkill for charging a set of headphones (24 pins for USB-C, 16 pins to handle the reversible nature of Lightning). From a manufacturer's standpoint (not just Apple's - the cable/accessory-makers as well), each gold-plated connector pin is money. If all you need is 4 pins for data and 2-4 for power (multiple pins for higher current), then why pay for 16-24 pins? It also means that, on the equipment end, they may not need a chip to negotiate/mediate the various modes that USB-C and Lightning must support - it'll be handled by the chip on the connector plugged into the Lightning/USB-C port. Altogether, that's efficient manufacturing.
You and I may end up paying the same price for a replacement Beats charging cable with this new, cheaper connector on one end than we'd have paid for having a Lightning/USB-C on both ends. Apple and the cable/accessory-makers will likely pocket slightly higher profits per unit. The accessory-makers will like this just as much as Apple does. The accessory makers may pay Apple a licensing fee, but it'll be no higher than if the cable had a Lightning on both ends - they're mostly paying for the "Made for iPhone" label.
This would be a connector on the headphones, intended for charging and, optionally, passing audio/data while it's connected for charging (might also show up on the next generation of Magic Keyboards, Magic Mice, and AirPod docks, for example) - the cable would still have a Lightning/USB-C on the other end. There is no standard at all for this function currently, no edict from the EU, not even an existing de-facto standard.
Both USB-C and Lightning are overkill for charging a set of headphones (24 pins for USB-C, 16 pins to handle the reversible nature of Lightning). From a manufacturer's standpoint (not just Apple's - the cable/accessory-makers as well), each gold-plated connector pin is money. If all you need is 4 pins for data and 2-4 for power (multiple pins for higher current), then why pay for 16-24 pins? It also means that, on the equipment end, they may not need a chip to negotiate/mediate the various modes that USB-C and Lightning must support - it'll be handled by the chip on the connector plugged into the Lightning/USB-C port. Altogether, that's efficient manufacturing.
You and I may end up paying the same price for a replacement Beats charging cable with this new, cheaper connector on one end than we'd have paid for having a Lightning/USB-C on both ends. Apple and the cable/accessory-makers will likely pocket slightly higher profits per unit. The accessory-makers will like this just as much as Apple does. The accessory makers may pay Apple a licensing fee, but it'll be no higher than if the cable had a Lightning on both ends - they're mostly paying for the "Made for iPhone" label.
Then Apple should work with USB IF and create a micro/nano USB-C connector. Heck USB IF should have considered a micro/nano connector from the start.
You gotta wonder, how small can these connectors get?
I really wish Apple will standardize one one kind of port already, and upgrade the rest of its Mac line. I just wish Apple would settle with TB3 on everything. Nice and simple. No need to have lightning to USB-A, another for USB-C, etc.
Fragmentation. At present when you want a USB-C cable you buy one and you know it will work with all USB-C ports and devices. What you are recommending to save a few cents we should fragment it and now I will have to buy a 16pin USB-C cable vice a 24pin USB-C cable, thus adding more cost to manufacture two types of cables, add more pollution, more confusion, more warehouse space, etc. There is not a significant net result to just not include the default 24pin USB-C as a standard. If you believe you will save money, think again. Plus its easier to develop a controller chip with 24pin and deactivate them then to develop custom chips for either 16 or 24 pin. Why add to the confusion, keep it simple for the consumer market I though this was the reason for USB-C to begin with.
Hey, a new meme for the forums, COOK UP, well done! Something tells me we'll see that again.
Why would a connector made for iPhone cause solutions for other non-iPhone platforms to die?
Next up, USB-Mag. Connection similar to the Apple Watch connector and as small of a dimension it can get without cross-talk and signal corruption.
[doublepost=1486414817][/doublepost]
Then how will Apple makes money off MFi /s. Seriously though I complete agree with you, its long overdue as it should have happened with the iPhone 7 at the least.
This is all we want. I can't understand the logic of going all USB-C on the macbooks and then introducing a new, proprietary connector.
[doublepost=1486415135][/doublepost]
Because there's other types of connectors we have on iPhones...
NO, on the contrary, they know exactly what they are doing. They are guaranteeing you have to buy a completely new set of products and accessories from the Apple ecosystem on THEIR timing, not yours, just as they did with the switch from 30 pin to Lightning. I love Lightning vs 30 pin, don't get me wrong, but it was still another proprietary port, and we all bought it hook line and sinker.
Why Apple has developed a new port rather than encouraging manufacturers to adopt USB-C or Lightning is unknown (there are already MFi specifications for Lightning ports), and it is also unclear if Apple will allow accessories beyond headphones to use the new Ultra Accessory Connector in the future.
Really? another completely new connector? we thought the USB-C was the future... lol...
what a joke@!!!
Apple just raised the prices of their Macs like $200-$500 (depending on model) and they're worried about a proprietary port threatening their profits? Yea, no, Apple. You can't rob people on every front and not expect your building to get burned down later on by angry customers.
Wow I hope this falls under fake rumors. We're all tired of new connections, let us adopt USBc first. And while you're at it try getting rid of lighting the cables. If I can't have a headphone jack I don't want your proprietary nonsense either
I seem to have a different iPhone than you then. Only connector I have on mine is Lightning.
Haha. Oh the kids these days. Anyone else remember pre-USB with bent PS2 pins and SCSI terminators? Can anyone name a superior connector (or standardized bus) from *before* USB? I sure can't. I'm not against further progress, but let's be realistic here.
The different USB connector designs were created to reflect changing technology, the devices in question, and new use cases over the course of years. The development of USB started in 1994, with 1.0/1.1 only offering the standard type A and B ports. Mini-USB connectors came out in 2000, when cameras and other devices became more common; Micro-USB in 2007, when thinner devices demanded a smaller connector. Compared to the alternative before USB, while there might be madness today, overall it was much less so than before.
While you might be able to make USB-C connectors smaller than they are now, I wouldn't bet on it anytime soon. USB-C is a reversible 24-pin connector in a form-factor that's only slightly larger than Micro-USB. That means there are more, smaller pins in a tighter configuration. The metal sheath is especially important in that context to prevent damage. A significantly smaller connector would be more likely to be physically damaged, with fewer insertion and removal cycles for a shorter expected lifetime. So while it's certainly physically possible, it's unlikely when other engineering goals such as durability are considered.
By comparison, while Lightning connectors are slightly thinner, the actual receptacle in the device itself probably makes it a moot point for the most part as the receptacle and plug pinouts are physically reversed relative to USB-C. Meaning, the USB-C plug encloses the receptacle pinout whereas the Lightning receptacle pinout encloses the plug.
Lightning receptacle:
USB-C receptacle:
Anyhow, you can't really compare this so-called 'Ultra Accessory Connector' Apple may be working on to USB-C. It's a slightly less wide 8 pin connector that's functionally limited by design. USB-IF isn't going to publish a similar spec because if they did, it would no longer be a universal cable design, USB 3.0 or otherwise. It's a proprietary port for a specific type of accessory input. That's literally the opposite of the entire idea behind USB.
It'd be limited and specific, not universal.
The only madness here is Apple's need to replace the headphone jack with nothing, and now, a proprietary accessory connector with limited functionality in an effort to correct a problem that didn't exist. It's a return to the worst of the 90s, when peripheral use required the inclusion of everything from PS/2 to serial ports, giant parallel ports, DA-15 ports, and more in order to give consumers a bad form of flexibility.
FireWire. Not only is it two years older, it supported computer to computer connections, faster speeds, higher power, and less CPU overhead than USB 1 and 2.