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.
EU Law That Could Force the iPhone to Switch to USB-C to Be Presented Next Month
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I usually have duplicates cables that just, forever, sit in my computer bag. I also carry around a cheap 1->3 extension cord. Something like this: Satco 93-192 - 6 ft. Extension Cord - 16/2 Gauge - SPT - White$3.29Bees Lighting
Apple released Lightning nearly two full years before USB-C was even finalized. Apple needed to move from the 30-pin connector. USB-C wasn't even close to being ready.
By the time USB-C was finalized, Lightning had already been established and Apple was not going to put their users (iPhone and iPod) through another connector change for very little benefit. Most computers at the the time were still being produced with regular USB ports.
I would like a more standardized plug. Although I admit I have no devices that use usb-c. I have a few that use micro usb though. But wouldnt want the iphone to use that. I wouldnt mind switching over.
BUT, I have a HUGE problem with some foreign country/group of countries telling a US company how they have to design their products. How is it even possible that they think its ok. Market pressure should drive Apple to move to a more standardized plug if thats what the customers want. Not some government over reach. I would tell them to pound sand if I was apple.
BUT, I have a HUGE problem with some foreign country/group of countries telling a US company how they have to design their products. How is it even possible that they think its ok. Market pressure should drive Apple to move to a more standardized plug if thats what the customers want. Not some government over reach. I would tell them to pound sand if I was apple.
I support this. USB-C is universal, including Apple’s own computers. There’s no reason for Lightning today.
I would argue that the design of the USB-C connector system for high frequency usage is way worse than Lightning, for the user.
Here's why. On Lightning, the "prongs" are on the phone and the flat copper connections are on the cable. In my experinence, when there's a failure, it's because the copper connections have worn away too much. Look at old video game cartridges. When the cable wears away, you get a new cable for $10.
On a USB-C connector, the "prongs" are on the cable and the flat copper connectors are on the phone. If you plug/unplug your phone a lot ... to the point where the copper wears away, you're looking at a costly repair, or buying a new phone.
Personally, I would want to wear parts to be on the low cost side of the connection. For connections that don't get used as frequently as plugging/unplugging an iPhone, it's not that big a deal. But for most people, their phone is the most heavily used device and it's mostly used unplugged, so charging is a high frequency activity.
Also we don't play cricket. We have our reasons....
This x2.
This is where Apple once again dropped the ball. Had they pushed a little harder without being a bunch of dink's about it, Lightning would have won the physical connection battle and the world would be a much better place.
Except that you are wrong. There is nothing USB-C does that Lightning could not without a little modernization from Apple. USB-C is physically a weaker design and prone to higher hardware failures than the more robust Lightning connector.
This x10. I can't see how anyone can say USB-C is physically a better connector with a straight face. My 9 year old daughter even pointed this out.
I have a suspicion the story is even more interesting than that.
For the record, I have no insider information. However, by reading the tea leaves, here's what I believe likely happened:
Apple was working with the USB-IF, who was looking to a next generation connector. I think it likely Apple already was looking at/experimenting with what was to become Lightning (because it is known that Apple had been working on various connector paradigms well prior--I imagine Apple had/has a "connector lab" with all manner of connectors having been imagined/examined). Apple showed Lightning to the USB-IF, and they liked it. This would have been in the waning days of Steve Jobs, say 2009 or 2010. Apple engineers had determined the optimal pin count for Lightning, and it was as it currently exists, 16-pin. Now, most things you read (including Wikipedia, right now) will say Lightning has an 8-pin count. But that's inaccurate! The connector, as with Type-C, is indeed double-sided capable. Regardless, Type-C is 24-pin (12 per side, double sided). The USB-IF wanted to maintain USB 2.0 backwards compatibility in the same port in the next-gen spec, which requires an additional 4-pins. However that would severely impact the number of "lanes" the spec could carry, if you're constrained to 16-pins. Apple, of course, had no use for that; they were already seeing the "future" with Thunderbolt (which they were working on), and had with Firewire: let the remote end of the connection provide lower-bandwidth backwards compatibility, via "dongles". That paradigm was "progressive" and generated a secondary market for dongles and accessories, which was profitable, and Apple already knew that. I think it likely Apple and the USB-IF tussled over this. MEANWHILE, back at the ranch, there was a contingent within Apple (likely driven by Jobs and parroted by his sycophant Phil Schiller) that was eyeing that potentially very-profitable accessories market that would result if Apple held Lightning for itself. Dreams of licensing fees, certification programs, advertising, fees… fees… fees! This was a fight that had been fought before, several times (and documented) in Apple's history: open vs proprietary. Unfortunately, for all of us, that contingent won out. At the slightest pushback from the USB-IF, Jobs and tribe said "OK, screw you." The USB-IF went with "Plan B", a mechanically inferior connector system with more pins.
Why do I say "mechanically inferior"? Because the Type-C eschews the substantially more simple connector system gender paradigm that Lightning has: male and female, plug and receptacle, for a more complex hermaphroditic system that sees both plug and receptacle on BOTH sides of the connector system. What do I mean? Well, the Lightning plug goes into the Lightning receptacle. Pretty simple. The electrical connection is made subsequently, inside the receptacle. Likewise, the Lightning system is load bearing, can be considered a "solid slab" when joined. With Type-C, the plug goes into the receptacle, however the plug also has a "receptacle", into which another "plug" sitting within the receptacle slides. The electrical connection is subsequently made, inside the plug. But due to size constraints—basic physics—the parts get significantly smaller and more fragile, just like with matryoshka dolls. That small "tongue" in the receptacle is dainty! And that paradigm had already been known to be a significant longevity problem with the micro-USB connector system. The plug has to be thicker to accommodate the hole/ "receptacle" within in it, which is needed to accommodate a smaller "plug" which needs to be thick and big enough to withstand repeated insertions over some proscribed lifespan without breaking off, which in turn means the overall connector system "receptacle" needs to be bigger to accommodate the "plug". And, the "receptacle" now also has a thin component sitting inside like a stalagmite, just waiting to be snapped off by an errant object's intrusion. This all amounts to mechanical inferiority. It is de facto bigger, more prone to damage, and more complex.
As for the electrical side, as we see today, all of the exciting stuff, speed-wise and flexibility-wise, is happening on the four "SuperSpeed" lanes. The four pins dedicated to USB 2.0 backwards compatibly are… well… "there". Great. Fine. And there are four, because the backwards compatibility has to be maintained through "double-sided", meaning there are D+ and D- on "top" AND "bottom" of the plug! A waste of 2 pins. There is another waste of pins by the dramatic duplication of Power and Ground, encompassing a further 4 of the 24 pins. Hmmm… suddenly we're back down to Lightning connector pin count! Now, surely, the extra power pin count has ushered in USB Power Delivery. Certainly, Lightning could not have carried, cannot carry the amount of voltage and current that Type-C PD does. To be seen how things could have been different in that area, and I, for one, really do appreciate USB-PD. But Thunderbolt 3/4 and USB4 most certainly could be carried over Lightning, the lanes they use are all there. Apple actually has a USB 3 implement over Lightning on their USB Camera Card Adapter. And Apple even tipped their hand with a double-sided Lightning receptacle in some iPad models. So, electrically, Lightning theoretically is just as capable as Type-C, with very few exceptions. Which is completely contrary, it seems, to much of what the tech punditry seems to imply.
So… it has to be asked: Why is the world moving/being forced towards a mechanically inferior, less durable, shorter longevity connector system with, at best, "arguable" electrical benefit??
Because it is highly likely that the powers that be at Apple decided (out of complete arrogant hubris, most probably) to pursue short-term—a decade of—profits. Thanks, Apple.
Last edited:
I'm not supporting that original poster here. I dont think the usb-c change would be an environment thing for Apple at all
BUT I will say the exclusion of the wall warts have absolutely NOTHING to do with saving the environment. Even though they made a big deal to claim it was. I would personally call that a lie. I want apple to save money when possible. I own thousands and thousands of aapl shares. Have for years. So I have a vested interest in them being profitable. But I dont think the wall wart charger being taken out of the iphone box has a thing to do with the environment.
I don't like Lightning and I'd be happier only having to use USB-C to USB-C cables.
Did you ever try to connect a USB stick to the iPhone? You need an adapter AND the adapter must be plugged at power at same time otherwise you get this warning message:
How can Apple talk about "create electronic waste" when they force us to buy tons of disposable dongles and adapters?
Last edited:
This is amusing coming from a region that has how many different shapes for wall outlets?
Yep, it was a standard created by the industry, but is now required and enforced by state and local governments, similar to electrical code in most of the world.
So absolutely the government stepped in and made standards for this which is why it is still an ultra relatable example. There is no reason for this to not be the adopted standard for usb as well.
Your last statement, along with your first to be fair is only a vague attempt trying to put words into my statement to fit your own agenda and not based in reality.
Last edited:
It's no secret that Apple's iPhone cable is very poor quality. I swear by mophie's braided nylon cables.
im not sure what the problem would be. the port is direction agnostic and the standard behind it just keeps improving
Apple, as well as every other electronic device manufacturer have known for a number of years now that the EU was planning on a standard for charging devices connector. Everyone of them could have got together to work out a standard but no, instead they decided to carry on as they were. The deadline time has now come and the EU have seen there has been no action take by any of the electronic device manufacturers so they've had to step in and force the issue on them.
Apple is not a victim here. The EU made it extremely clear what they were planning to do, they want to limit the amount of e-waste produced due to the excessive amount of AC adapters ending up in landfills and the manufacturers ignored the EU's message.
Usb-c as a port type scales up to thunderbolt 4, of course you need the chips on either end and a cable to support that. Lightening only supports usb2 transfer speeds on most devices, usb3 on some others, but even then only the early usb3 spec, not the later faster gen speeds. It was a good hold over for 5+ years but that port/plug type is slow and ancient now.
I noticed Lighting ejects easier than USB-C. USB-C tends to be harder to disconnect. Otherwise, I welcome USB-C except for that issue.
Well, Apple’s never going to switch to it willingly so I guess they have to be forced, kicking and screaming. I’ll welcome the change if it happens but I don’t have anything against Lightning.
So wait... is this about ports on the charger?
Or the ports on the device?
Because I already use chargers with USB-C ports. And I use a cable with the appropriate port on the other end.
Seems like we've been down this road before with the EU. I think the last time they discussed this... it was about the charger that goes into the wall... not the device.
Is this still the same law or whatever?