Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Your point being?
Every single phone manufacturer does this.


like this

31tunaFwm3L._SL500_AA300_.jpg
 
That's because of the lighting in the cable. I a 30 pin version from my iPhone 4 and it's the same. When you open that up, the controller for the cable lighting is underneath.

Apple's lightning cable is very small and contains the same electronics. No, the size of the cable is due to the blue lighting.
 
I hope everyone realizes that using unauthorized accessories voids AppleCare. Use at your own risk.

Official **** will come out soon enough.

This statement is plain ridiculous.

Whether or not it is meant to "void" any guarantees "on paper", it certainly doesn't in the real world
 
If anyone wants a really high quality dock and doesn't mind spending EVEN MORE than Apple charge for similar stuff, check out http://made2dock.myshopify.com/products/coming-soon-dock-in-case-iphone5.

Had one of these for my iPhone 4 and is the best quality, most sturdily built 3rd party Apple accessory i've ever puchased. Will definitely be getting the new one when they release it.

The pics on the link aren't of the finished product btw, just placeholder pics, the finished one will work with iPhone 5 with or without a case, it will adapt somehow, apparently.
 
Ah, condescendance. People are happy that options are popping up. As it was, Apple failed to launch cables/adapters on day 1 for buyers of the iPhone 5, leaving us stranded with 1 cable. If something happened, no more phone charging...

And what is laughable about the picture ? Sure light-up cables are goofy and I wouldn't use it, but the real news here is that 3rd parties are managing to get their hands on the chips and cracked chips are coming which should create volume and start the race to the bottom. We might be able to have variable length cables now on the cheap from Monoprice, in more than just 1 color (which happens to be white).

Not trying to be condescending, and Apple had plenty of extra cables in my market at launch. It must be all the people who took 6 of them that ran the supply down elsewhere. Also, Apple has replacement cables for those with issues, even if they don't have any stock for sale.

What I found laughable was their attempt at reproducing the male plug of the lightning interface. It's pretty small in the picture, but look closely. When I see a knock-off handbag, and it's a reasonable facsimile, and it cost considerably less than the brand name version, I understand the attraction. If I see one that is obviously not the same quality, like the kind where elements are mismatched or the brand name is misspelled, and it costs slightly MORE than the actual article, I'm pretty sure someone is trying to pull a con. Do you not see that this dock is a sham? If you thought Apple charged too much for something, and then I bought it and painted it blue and offered it to you for a dollar more, would you think I was a hero for providing options and driving prices down?

I'm all for Monoprice selling Lightning cables for a lot less than $19, but I also don't see how this is related to that. Monoprice can source cables made with official Apple connectors and still probably sell them for $7. Give them a couple years and they'll be $3.12, which is the cheapest they currently sell 30-pin cables for. There is a difference between counterfeit and generic. Monoprice deals in the latter, not the former. And you think "creating volume" is the issue? Apple has produced and shipped about 30 million Lightning cables in less than 3 weeks. There's plenty of volume, what needs to happen is supply needs a chance to catch up with the strong initial demand. Until then, even folks making knock-offs can overcharge.

Oh, and what needs to be "cracked" about the chips that are in the connector? Has anyone confirmed that these aren't generally available from whoever produced them?
 
Last edited:

No.
What you say is correct. But what I mean is something like this:

P01585_1_image.jpg


There should be a standard. But there is not. Loose your cable and you have to buy a 3rd party knock off or pay top dollar from the original supplier for a replacement.
 
I really want Apple to make a dock for the iPhone 5. I use mine all the time for the iPhone 4.

I'm not sure if I would buy a third party one though.
 
i don't get it. everyone is saying how great it is to have a cheap 3rd party cable. this cable is $19.90, apple charges $19.00. i don't see what the big deal is. apple's cable is cheaper and smaller...
 
Man **** apple! Charging me 37$ for a lightning adapter. Seriously. I mean seriously. An expected 100$m to be made from just a ****ing adapter? Just wow apple. Just wow. How about spending more on r&d instead of patents. Just makes me sick. This coming from a company that prides itself in innovation. Yeah right. Not for long.
 
Man **** apple! Charging me 37$ for a lightning adapter. Seriously. I mean seriously. An expected 100$m to be made from just a ****ing adapter? Just wow apple. Just wow. How about spending more on r&d instead of patents. Just makes me sick. This coming from a company that prides itself in innovation. Yeah right. Not for long.

This nation needs a monument to the victims of Apple Rip Off.
 
Last edited:
While there might be other ways to figure out required pin configuration what you said makes sense. If that is correct though the authentication chip should only be required for connecting to legacy hardware (charge only or USB). All new hardware developed specifically for Lightning should have this feature in the device itself rather than in the cable.

In this instance the 'device' *is* the cable. It tells the iPhone to configure it's pin-out for USB. A standard USB port can't tell the iPhone that it's a USB port until the iPhone is configured to read/write/draw power from the correct pins.

----------

Peter Bradstock, who started all those rumors about the "authentication" chip and then "dynamic pin assignment", which have since made it all the way around the interwebs and even CNN has "reported" on, also sells custom headphone cable kits for $17,000.00. I'm not sure I would trust any of what he has to say about the engineering behind Apple's Lightning interface.

I kind of agree with you that this chip being for pin reassignment doesn't add up. First of all, from just looking at the ribbon cables in the iFixit teardown, you can see that there are two sets of traces going to the female Lightning connector in the iPhone 5 that look like differential signaling pairs. I just double checked my Lightning cable against Mr. Bradstock's pinout, and came up with similar results to his, although his pin numbering seems a bit wonky. If we number the pins on the female jack from left to right, like this:

Shield 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Shield

And call "top" side of the male Lightning connector "Side A" (the one I believe the chips to be on, although I didn't actually cut mine open to find out.) Then we arrive at a pinout that looks like this:

Code:
 Lightning       Lightning
Plug Side A     Plug Side B       USB Type A

  Shield --------- Shield ---- Shield (tied to GND)
     1 ------------- 1 ------------ 4 GND
     2 ------------- 7 ------------ 3 D+
     3 ------------- 6 ------------ 2 D-
     4 ------------- 8
     5 ------------- 5             (1 VBUS)?
     6 ------------- 3
     7 ------------- 2
     8 ------------- 4

As you can see, there is no direct path for the USB VBUS, but there sure is for D+, D- and GND, so the cable does not reassign its own pins. The SoC in the iPhone 5 would appear to switch the signaling pair being used depending on the cable orientation. It would also appear to be outputting a completely normal USB 2.0 signal; no muxing/demuxing appears to be done by the chips in the cable.

I would therefore presume that the chips have more to do with voltage regulation and/or digital negotiation of bus power. I suppose it is possible that the larger chip also communicates with the SoC via an AUX channel or C-wire to request a USB 2.0 signal rather than a video signal, or acts as a sort of trusted platform module to lock out unauthorized aftermarket accessories, but I have trouble believing that the latter is the primary purpose.

I don't think anyone has ever claimed that the *cable* (male connector) end of things is where the dynamic pin assignment was happening. That would make for a *MUCH* more expensive cable.

----------

Apple's lightning cable is very small and contains the same electronics. No, the size of the cable is due to the blue lighting.

Yeah. But given the number of lit cables I've seen out there that *don't* require such a huge block at either end, I'm inclined to think they could have done this better. :(

----------

I think he means as opposed to the more common "lit" instead of lighted.

'Lit' typically implies that the lights are currently active. 'Lighted' usually only seems to imply that it has lights. It's a subtle difference, sure.
 
Why is Apple not allowing industry-wide adoption of this useful standard?? Sounds very short-sighted to me. Hopefully this will give Apple a clue that it can't continue to hoard the profits for much longer, whether they want to or not.
 
Man **** apple! Charging me 37$ for a lightning adapter. Seriously. I mean seriously. An expected 100$m to be made from just a ****ing adapter? Just wow apple. Just wow. How about spending more on r&d instead of patents. Just makes me sick. This coming from a company that prides itself in innovation. Yeah right. Not for long.

Who forced you to buy an iPhone5? No one. If you don't like the cost of Apple accessories, buy a different phone.
 
No.
What you say is correct. But what I mean is something like this:

Image

There should be a standard. But there is not. Loose your cable and you have to buy a 3rd party knock off or pay top dollar from the original supplier for a replacement.

Exactly. That's what Micro-USB was made to fix. And did, except for Apple.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.