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 Air and iPhone 17 Limited to USB 2
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sure.The introduction of USB2 is closer to the release of the Apple 1 than it is to the iPhone Air. 24 vs 25 years
Like I said, it's intended as a charge port. If you're not using cloud services and wireless networking to sync files (whether its iCloud, ownCloud, NexCloud, Google, or wherever) - yeah I guess go buy something else.
Most people aren't living in 2006 any more and part of the appeal of the apple ecosystem is the wireless sync to all your devices, transparent backup to iCloud over the network, etc.
If you need high speed wired transfer - the pro phones exist.
Evolving would actually mean to just remove the port. There is no need.
For low quantities we are talking $3-$5 difference between 2.0 and 3.0. Assume because apple is buying a ton of these, their savings is $2 per phone. Maybe add $1 for additional manufacturing/assembly complexity. That 's easily 600 - 800 Million in yearly savings.
I'm confused as to why you think non-professionals buying Airs are going to be up in arms if they don't have the fastest transfer speeds for videos.
And by pain...you mean letting your iPhone sit on the desk, while plugged in?
I've had Pro Max models for 5 years. I typically feel that I utilize most of the Pro or Pro Max features, but I have not transferred data via usb once in those 5 years. I'm sure people do, but like throAU said, the Pro models exist. Even with USB 2, it's 1/10th as fast? As long as you aren't transferring hours of video or hundreds of photos, you should be fine anyways.
It makes experience significantly worse for 1% of customers who buy an iPhone, while benefiting the 99% who buy it and never face that scenario.
Yes, this is done to save $. At the end of the day Apple aims to hit a target % margin. That few bucks translates to a couple hundred million that they would find other ways to take from you. Either through increased price or cost cutting elsewhere.
Imagine making a meaningless analogy and believing it counters a valid criticism.
There’s no reason we shouldn’t be able to back up direct to an external storage medium if that’s what we want want to do.
Not sure what you think that has to do with flint and tinder, but if you want to talk about fire (and make a proper analogy/metaphor): iCloud would be more like only being allowed to start fires with government supplied lighters. Damn good lighters but other options are needlessly restricted. Flint and tinder (backing up through a PC) is allowed but matches (direct backups) and other lighters (non-apple cloud services) are restricted.
This isn’t something that benefits the end user, but keep advocating against consumer interests if it makes you feel good I guess.
The message I'm getting from you is never be happy with any product you buy; it's productive/healthy/justified to always find something to complain about and let everyone know.
I disagree. I think it's more productive/healthy/justified to vote with your wallet and buy the best value product that exists in your eyes--and not expect that a company or anyone owes you anything beyond what you agreed to pay for. Give feedback of what you wish changed, sure. But there's a world of difference between that and entitlement ("expecting more" than what was promised). Entitlement is a cancer of the mind and a happiness thief.
Last edited:
Again, it's not something I agree with, but it's not unexpected to happen with the way current Apple is run.
Spending too much money in the wrong places and then penny pinch in the other wrong place to get the margins back for the price point they want.
I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding here. This isn't about being entitled; it's about fair criticism of a company's product offerings. We're in a forum dedicated to discussing these very products, and when a corporation cuts corners, they're fair game for criticism. I, like many others, will be voting with my wallet.
Apple's recent issues with their new Al features and general stagnation are indicative of this broader problem. For example, they pulled their own ads for "Apple Intelligence" and barely mentioned Al at all during their recent iPhone event. Their valuation dropping below Microsoft's isn't just a coincidence it's a reflection of these failures. People are starting to notice that they're no longer the undisputed leader they once were.
It's completely justified to expect value from the product you're spending your hard earned money on. A near thousand dollar phone shouldn't be just fine. While many people may have no issue with the lack of USB 3.0, to me, it's just pure cost-cutting when competitors offer it on even cheaper products. Expecting features you desire on a product you're spending money on isn't entitlement; it's a basic consumer expectation. You're twisting the argument to defend a corporation, not to engage with valid criticism.
You could even say that limiting transfer to usb 2 is to make it less convenient to backup data offline.
They're cutting corners in other areas too so yeah at the end of day they're saving tons of money while jacking up the iPhone Air price.
Which is it--a misunderstanding or I'm twisting the argument to defend a corporation?
Also arguments are about logic--what does "taking sides" have to do with it? Let's stick to logical arguments and dispense with character assassination.
If you back up your complaint with your wallet vote then I commend you. Many here don't match their words with their actions. The reason I thought you were in the latter group was because in your phrase "expect more from the products you buy/spend your hard earned money on" I thought buying the products was the given. So I took this as a call to never be satisfied with your purchase and to always criticize. If you actually mean "scrutinize the value proposition of every potential purchase and only give your money for as great of return as possible", then I would heartily agree with you. But "great return" is very subjective, so one consumer ultimately can't judge another in that regard. People can simply disagree on value, it doesn't necessarily mean one is "defending a corporation" and the other is an "Apple hater".
Being frugal is a virtue in my opinion. What I challenge is the notion that any company owes anyone the product or price they wish for. I hear many people use the "loyal customer" argument as a justification for their anger at/expectation of Apple, but that argument doesn't hold any logic to me at all. Apple offered their products at the prices they did, and those people chose to buy them. That was the transaction beginning to end, no other promises were made. Any further obligation from Apple was only in the mind of those customers.
I actually think it’s both. There was a misunderstanding of my original point, but I also think the way you framed it twisted my words into something I wasn’t saying. That’s why I pushed back.
To me, the core issue isn’t whether Apple “owes” anyone a specific product or price point it’s about whether their current offerings fairly reflect the value they’re asking for. Once a company sets a price and releases a product, it’s absolutely fair for consumers to critique whether that product delivers. That’s not entitlement, it’s a basic market dynamic.
I agree with you that “value” is subjective, but that doesn’t mean valid criticism is meaningless. Forums like this exist precisely so people can hash out where they feel Apple is cutting corners or stagnating. If all critique gets dismissed as just subjective preference, then we might as well never discuss these products at all.
And yes, the ultimate vote is with our wallets I intend to do that. But public criticism matters too. It sends signals not only to the company, but to other consumers weighing their own choices. Calling out stagnation or cost-cutting isn’t about demanding the impossible; it’s about holding a premium brand accountable to the standard it set for itself.
So how was removing ports on Mac doing these days? Last time I checked they put them back.
This isn't targeted at you, but at forum dynamics in general. Endless weird nerds jumping in front of the bullet of (often, but not always) valid criticism. I'm only replying to you because you mentioned "voting with your wallet," and it's such a destructive phrase that I wish would go away. It's a phrase that completely ignores real market dynamics and replaces it with an oversimplified (and fictional) market representation.
Voting with your wallet isn’t a thing when you want to buy something that isn’t offered. Nor is it really true after companies achieve a minimum threshold of market dominance, start buying or blocking out the competition and raising the barriers to entry. With phones or most any consumer good, consumers can only "vote" on a limited selection of pre-packaged features in the first place. They can't cast their already meaningless "vote" on the product with everything they want, because generally that product won't even exist in the first place. Voting with your wallet isn't a remedy that will drive a producer to produce the specific package of features that you want, or would most enjoy if it were actually available.
It is important to understand that products built by the producer to serve the needs of the producer, not the consumer. Things that have value for the consumer, but not for the producer simply aren't made available, by anyone. Not because consumers don't want it or wouldn't "vote with their wallet" for it, but simply because every producer reaches the same conclusion that not offering something improves their overall margins by pushing consumers to something else they don't want as much, but can tolerate. If people want something that's not on offer, we can't really do anything but raise hell over it and hope someone notices, as unlikely as that may be. From my perspective, websites and blogs should act more like consumer advocates and educators, because they can at least amplify some voices, but few meet that standard. Voting with our wallets unfortunately can't fix that either.
If voting with our wallets worked as people suggest it does, trillion dollar companies wouldn't exist at all. Who votes to be overcharged? That's what the trillion dollar valuations represent: excess margins that a truly competitive market would erase. One should always be critical (or at least aware) of a multi trillion dollar company’s intentions, because they are aimed at taking as much from your wallet as possible, not making you as happy as possible. While they say ignorance is bliss, it's not an effective consumer protection strategy.
It's not wrong to be happy with a product, that's a good outcome. Nor is it wrong to suggest people buy the product that best suits their needs, but that doesn't extend to dismissing other people's criticisms of that same product. Which this forum is want to do. People are allowed to have differing options of the same product, including negative ones. Telling people to vote with their wallets or go elsewhere (buy an Android is another popular refrain here) doesn't resolve those critiques, and those statements are directed at a person, when the original comment was directed at either an inanimate object or amorphous corporation. That's problematic. Critiques of Apple aren't critiques of people who buy Apple products (unless we are talking about a troll doing just that of course). Those are different things, but they so often get conflated here. If Apple wants to defend themselves from criticism, they could put reps in the the most popular forums and do it, but they don't give AF. If Apple can't be bothered to pay someone to do it, no one should be compelled to do it for free, but tribalism is something fierce.
Last edited:
95% is of course, completely made up, but it could be correct that 95% don't see it as a problem. That's not the same as it not being a problem though. I guarantee that a lot more than 5% of iPhone users complain about iCloud subscriptions and feeling pressured into paying for it. People may not recognize that Apple limiting phones to USB 2 is one of several strategies Apple uses to box them in to paying for iCloud, but it is one of them nonetheless. Anyone engaged enough to exist on this forum should be able to see Apple's intentions for what they are however.
There's no good reason to exclude USB 3, in the best case scenario it saves Apple a fraction of a fraction of a percent in costs. Maybe that adds up with enough devices, but it offers no consumer benefit whatsoever. Whether you care about the feature or not, an iPhone with USB 2 is as lesser product than an iPhone with USB 3, and it doesn't make the phone cheaper for the consumer. We keep being told that Apple doesn't do things first, they do things best, but when we point out that Apple isn't meeting that standard, the same people just say you don't actually need or want that. Which is it? Should we expect the best, or something just good enough?