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.
iPhone 15 USB-C Cables Again Said to Be Limited to USB 2.0 Transfer Speeds
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They never once were able to improve the Lightning standard and instead had to jump to USB-C on Mac to get people who need data transfers via cable for work or else, and it‘s the same with all the other proprietary tech they have (e. g. AFP).
There is nothing that any other cable tech can do what USB-C can‘t, and it‘s doubtful there will be in the near future. Which is what the EU is talking about and implementing correctly, a law for the near future.
Just out of curiosity: What cable is better than USB-C for phones?
Well...I picked the lowest amount perceivable by most people. What if it is 10 cents? 25 cents??
Then, how is apple’s decission to restrict transfer speeds to 480 mbps a consequence of EU’s ruling?
Totally agree. And that's why I've said here multiple times, if you're unhappy with Apple's direction/policy/features/products/etc, put some skin in the game and write a thoughtful letter to Craig Federighi letting him know your views. You'll likely get a response and a thank you. But most people won't do that - as it's far easier to take a slam at Apple on a tech forum and call it a day.
Complaining on a tech forum with inane/juvenile comments is really a waist of time and won't be taken seriously. Or respected.
Your all over the place here. Cables and transfers? We are talking about connectors. The lightning connector was said would last 10 years when it was released. What would have replaced it? We don't know because the EU has decided they know better.
(And to be clear, USB-C is almost 10 years old itself. It hasn't been improved either.)
Again, I'll assume that we are still talking about connectors. For me, lightning was a better connector, but I only use it occasionally for charging.
In general, we won't know anytime soon because it's pointless to spend money developing one.
And flinging inane remarks at Apple on a tech forum does, and will somehow be respected by Apple?
Nope.
Wrong argument. I'm making the argument that this USB-C mandate will lead to a worse outcome for the environment than sticking with lightning.
I mean, not everyone cares that much about the data transfer speed, especially if they're not using their iPhone to frequently transfer hundreds of GBs or more of data. There are other features that are more important to them.
Then you need to disagree with the other stuff I posted as they are examples of why your arguments are flimsy.
If Apple is shipping a USB 2 cable with the iPhone, I think there's little chance the iPhone port will support more than USB 2. Just look at the base iPad with USB-C. That port only supports USB 2, regardless of the cable you plug in. You can't buy a USB 3 cable to make a port go faster. It's possible the iPhone will support USB 3.1 gen 1 or something, but I don't think that's a safe assumption to make.
You went on a huge rant about how it's the EUs fault that Apple is bundling USB 2 cables, which will lead to ewaste when people replace them with USB 3 cables, yet we don't even know if that basic premise is true (a USB 3 cable will allow faster throughput on the base iPhone).
Your arguments consist of an arbitrary claim (that may not be true), and a conclusion based on that arbitrary claim being true. I can't think of a more flimsy foundation for an argument. You've made dozens of posts on the assumption that a portless iPhone is just around the corner. If that doesn't come to fruition, all those posts are just wasted space before even considering if the arguments made after that base assumption were reasonable.
I think his point is that it's not like Apple said, "Hey, guys, we've decided to switch to a USB Type C port but won't increase the data transfer rate." Nothing would've changed at all if it weren't for the mandate, so it's not like Apple was doing a bait and switch--it wasn't even their idea in the first place.
This line of argument is dishonest. There was a more performant standard available, and Apple even played a role in its development, but they stuck with the proprietary MFi one instead. No need for "what ifs," the scenario has already played out with USB-C and we've already seen the results.
That's more than a decade ago. Lightning was certainly better than the alternatives when it was released. The "what if" is what they'd create now.
In other news the USB-C standard only regulates the connectors physical properties, well ik ther might be some electrical specs in there what signal has ro be on what set of pins etc, unless that is covered in other usb standards.
The EU law only covers the physical connector and not what spec of usb c is mandated. I think that’s what you’re saying here but just wanted to clarify.
You mean the shaky rumor directly contradicted by other rumors in the very first post of this thread?
It would be unusual for Apple to have 2 different versions of their USB-C chords (one for 15 Pro's and one for 15's - a true nightmare for support and sales in their stores), but we'll see.
Thinking it'll be much more likely the chord will do fine with the faster speeds the 15 Pro's support, but the base 15's data port chips won't have been changed (keep that extra cost from happening) from the 14 Pro (going into the base 15 like last year's 13 Pro went into the base 14 this year) and will be limited to USB 2.0 speeds. But time will tell.
Thinking it'll be much more likely the chord will do fine with the faster speeds the 15 Pro's support, but the base 15's data port chips won't have been changed (keep that extra cost from happening) from the 14 Pro (going into the base 15 like last year's 13 Pro went into the base 14 this year) and will be limited to USB 2.0 speeds. But time will tell.
"Trust me, it will be different next time." Ad infinitum
The legislation is in place because your hypothetical scenario hasn't played out to date. Forget Lightning, we still haven't been freed of Micro-USB. How long are we supposed to wait and hope?
You can't ignore history. Another part of history is the (admittedly slow) evolution of the USB port. It's dishonest to assume this will stop. The USB-IF will continue development and lobby the EU for updates as appropriate. It will be good to have Apple invested in that process instead of their own proprietary version too, as it might speed the process up.
At the end of the day Apple and co brought this layer of bureaucracy on themselves, and they need to sleep in the bed they made.
Edit: Dishonest is harsh. I consider it a misrepresentation. If the misrepresentation is intentional, then it would be dishonest, but I shouldn't assume intention.
Last edited:
I must re-read that directive I though it mandates a USB-C port for charging, so how can apple comply if they remove said poer and rely on wireless charging. Or did the mandate say " any wiered charging port must be USB-C"? And if it's not blidingly obvious IANAL so the legalese might go over my head and cause me ro completely miss read stuff.
Horrible. Now half my devices will be lighting and half will be USB C with bad transfer speeds.
USB-C iPhones mandatory from 2024, as EU agreement reached
The pressure on Apple to create USB-C iPhones in place of Lightning ones ramped up another notch today, as the...
9to5mac.com