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 Features 3D-Printed Titanium USB-C Port With Three Benefits
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It may not be false advertising but if I buy something with a USB 3 port I expect USB 3 performance/throughput, even if I only use it once in a blue moon. I think it’s pretty awful for them to do otherwise. I have thought so every time I have slapped up against this sort of nonsense over the years.
No, most people don't want to use external media on their iPhones. I sure as hell don't want something dangling off my phone, and I don't think I'm alone in that.
Not everything is some conspiracy, dawg. 😂 They put the high-speed port on the phone that they sell to videographers, and didn't put it on the phones that people just use to save basic stuff like their photos and some cached music and video. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
Agreed. I fully understand I'm not the target market for USB 3.0 (I virtually never do any transfers via USB), but given that "Professional Users" will almost always go for the "Pro" models, I'm really struggling to understand a common / regular use-case where a non-Pro user would even benefit from USB 3.0 speeds more than maybe once or twice a year.
Sure, it would add a couple of minutes to dump off your entire phone contents, but how often do non-professional users do that? To me, keeping the "Pro" features on the (more expensive) Pro models, and keeping the essential features on the (cheaper) non-Pro models is a logical decision.
Again, I get the use case for professional users (such as transferring RAW files), but isn't that why the Pro models exist (to serve that market / need / user group)?
Edit: In the interest of full disclosure, I'm getting a battery replacement for my iPhone 13 Pro next week rather than buying any of the 17 models, so I've got zero stake in the discussion, just genuinely trying to understand why a normal / casual phone user like myself (who primarily uses my phone for calls, texts, emails, web browsing, and family photos - which I suspect is similar to a majority of iPhone users) would benefit from USB 3.0 in practice.
It's not a USB 3 port. It's USB 2 using the USB C connector. USB C can be essentially any speed.
Seriously the USB is only for the rare wired charging, and very rarely for bootstrap. Any regular data transfer is going to be wireless. I haven't done even one USB phone transfer since the era of the iPhone 6. I'm quite surprised that it has a physical wired interface at all, as for most it is more of a dirt and water ingress liability than a benefit.
While this is true, add up all the people who transfer data regularly via cable from their iPhones and you'll have a much smaller sample than those who do not.
What we really need is a large, randomized survey of people who have iPhones to see what percent do that regularly. My hunch is it's a small group. Apple would have those data; it's likely the decision to include only USB 2.0 is driven both by the data about what percent of people use a cable to transfer data off and the fact that USB 2.0 will save Apple some money for each device (and potentially result in a few people spending more money for a Pro instead).
Interesting to see that it is so thin, that even Apple couldn't get the port entirely centered. It's a little closer to the back than it is to the front. Probably because the screen was in the way?
Not a big deal of course, but fun to notice because usually Apple goes out their way to pay attention to small details like this, and it's been centered on the iPhones over the last few years.
Not a big deal of course, but fun to notice because usually Apple goes out their way to pay attention to small details like this, and it's been centered on the iPhones over the last few years.
Would you prefer the technical term, additive manufacturing (Contrasted with reductive manufacturing, like using a CNC)?
There’s nothing cheap about 3d printing on an industrial scale. Apple isnt creating these ports on some creality hobbyist printer.
What you’re doing is the equivalent of comparing a home inkjet to an industrial newspaper press and thinking it’s the same thing
You’re gaslighting. USB 3 would add no extra cost to the price of an iPhone for the consumer. Apple only sees cost savings for cheaping out on the port because they sell hundreds of millions of devices. No downside to USB 3, yet here you are arguing against it. Why? Because you personally don’t “need” it and like to talk for other people who also don’t “need” it? You still don’t benefit from USB 2…
To your points:
Strange that videographers didn’t exist when the iPhone had a lightning port. Why wasn’t Apple offering USB 3 over lightning on the Pro phones before USB C? Lightning had the 9 pins (8 + shroud) necessary for it. If delivering this feature to videographers was so important to Apple, they could have done it years prior. Yet they waited until they were forced to move to USB C, and then used it as a selling point for the USB C iPhone Pros. Stating what happened isn’t a conspiracy.
We also know that Services revenue is Apples primary area of growth and that Apple is focused on maximizing that. That focus does extend to product design, and has for a long time. Not a conspiracy just an understanding of the nature of business.
So either you're a professional videographer or still backing up your iPhone to iTunes. In either case, the iPhone Air was not going to be the right phone for you, regardless of USB transfer speeds. The objective % of users who rely on wired data transfer is so small that it's just not a spec worth complaining about, though people on MacRumors will do so anyway.
The iPhone Air is a thin as it's thickest point at the camera, not the port. I don't care what Apple says.
I don't buy pants by measuring my ankles. I measure my waist.
It is a shame about the single speaker and USB 2.0 speeds, but anyone harping on that latter point completely miss the fact that they are *not* limited in data transfer speeds. A wireless connection is way faster, so nobody is actually limited by the use of USB 2.0.
As for people thinking that 3D printing is a substandard approach, it's not. It's the future. Entire spaceships will be built using a similar technique. Just look at Star Trek, which brilliantly predicts the future.
As for people thinking that 3D printing is a substandard approach, it's not. It's the future. Entire spaceships will be built using a similar technique. Just look at Star Trek, which brilliantly predicts the future.
The Air is intentionally breaking the mold. One can argue that the regular iPhone is actually a steal at its price! The Air packs in the Pro chip, features the same 120Hz refresh rate, etc... at only $200 more. Sure, it had to compromise on a couple of things, but it's still a full iPhone experience in a dramatically thinner device.
Not a rip off, just a boundary-pushing device that will lead to better devices in the future. That is its point of existence.
Can I get you a lollipop?
Do we (the general public) have a sense of the cost difference between licensing the two USB standards? Also, is there a mechanical, electrical draw, or heat difference between the two? Really am curious as to why the decision would be made and I'm assuming people smarter in phone development than me had a reason.
By "gaslighting" I think you mean simply disagreeing or have a different perspective? If so, yes, absolutely.
Being opposed to an improvement with zero downside is a pretty silly perspective. Trying to convince someone it that it isn’t meets the literal definition.
There's also wired personal hotspot to consider for people that want to use hotspot without using wi-fi*. Faster USB, faster connection.
* I noticed the phone is cooler when using hotspot via USB compared to over Wi-Fi. And it's a good way to not deplete the battery while using the hotspot. It's my preferred way if using the phone for hotspot for a computer. Kind of ridiculous to use wireless when the more reliable wired connection is right there
Last edited:
Zero downsides?
Sorry for the AI Dump but come on, you know there are downsides.
Manufacturing a phone with USB 3 versus USB 2 involves trade-offs that can impact cost, design, and production complexity. Here are the key downsides:
- Increased Component Costs: USB 3 requires more advanced controllers, cables, and connectors capable of handling higher data transfer rates (up to 5 Gbps for USB 3.0 vs. 480 Mbps for USB 2.0) and potentially higher power delivery. These components are more expensive, increasing the bill of materials (BOM) cost.
- Higher Design Complexity: USB 3 uses more signal lines (9 vs. 4 in USB 2.0), requiring more complex PCB (printed circuit board) layouts. This increases design time, testing, and the risk of signal integrity issues, such as electromagnetic interference (EMI), which may necessitate additional shielding or filtering components.
- Increased Power Consumption: USB 3 circuits typically consume more power due to the higher data rates and additional signaling. This can impact battery life, requiring manufacturers to optimize power management or include larger batteries, which adds cost and size.
- Compatibility and Testing Challenges: Ensuring USB 3 compatibility across a wide range of devices, cables, and chargers is more complex than USB 2. Manufacturers must invest in rigorous testing to meet USB 3 standards, increasing production time and costs.
- Thicker or More Expensive Cables/Connectors: USB 3 cables and connectors are more complex (e.g., supporting SuperSpeed differential pairs). While the phone’s port may remain the same size (e.g., USB-C), ensuring compatibility with high-quality USB 3 cables can raise costs or limit cheaper cable options.
- Limited Consumer Benefit Perception: Many users may not notice USB 3’s faster data transfer in daily use, as most phone tasks (e.g., charging, basic syncing) work adequately with USB 2. This can make the added cost less justifiable for budget or mid-range devices.
- Thermal Management: USB 3’s higher data rates and power delivery can generate more heat, requiring better thermal management solutions (e.g., heat sinks or design tweaks), which add to manufacturing complexity and cost.
The air concept looks kind of dumb in the perspective of the picture in the article. The camera bump is like twice as thick as the body. Just make it as thick as the camera so they don't have to drop features due to thickness issues.
Zero observable downside from the consumer perspective. AI dump is AI dump. Good at looking detailed and authoritative, but fundamentally devoid of substance. Cost difference is in cents at most. Apple’s already taken on the design complexity because they use USB 3 on the pro phones. Power consumption isn’t noticeable compared to the daily use of your phone.
Nor did you look into any of this before you established your position, so it’s not relevant to your position anyway. You’re searching for reasons to hold your position instead allowing reasons guide your position.
Consumers do not benefit from not having a USB 3 port on the base iPhone and iPhone Air. Period.
It’s fine if you don’t care about USB 3, but it’s a waste of time to comment on a story only to say “I don’t care.” IMO
Last edited:
Actually, it does matter. I don’t care about the price point, and it being $1000 doesn’t entitle you to anything. Bud.
