• carl_dungeon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    183
    arrow-down
    31
    ·
    1 year ago

    Not fair. It was a great cable. It came out when everyone else was using mini and mico usb which both sucked hard ass. They weren’t reversible, and they broke easily.

    • Marxism-Fennekinism@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      52
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It was a good cable when it came out, but as soon as USB-C became common it was obsolete. It was limited to USB2 speeds and did not support fast charging.

      Which, seeing how Apple is still hellbent on continuing to only have USB2 speeds even with USB-C, plus lockout chips, their new connector is obsolete as well.

        • Marxism-Fennekinism@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Faster USB chipset is more expensive and potentially also physically larger with more traces on the circuit board to deal with I imagine. And faster data speeds require more attention to how the traces are routed to prevent interference. I very much doubt this is anything other than to save a relatively small amount on materials and engineering costs, on an already overpriced phone, and/or to try and “encourage” you to use iCloud by making offline sync and backup painfully slow.

          • RealHonest@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            As someone involved in engineering boards with both USB 2.0 and 3.0 the costs are negligible. You’re not wrong about more traces or about it requiring more attention but per phone this cost less then a few cents.

            I think it’s more about the upsell to the Pro line or as you suggested encouraging use of iCloud.

            • jasondj@ttrpg.network
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              As I remember it the USB 3.0 chips can cause interference in 2.4GHz range unless shielding is used and the USB chipset is kept far away from the 2.4Ghz antennas. Probably just “juice not worth the squeeze” on the smaller non-pro model, if there’s a significant chance it could interfere with Bluetooth and wifi.

      • Zoolander@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        USB-C is still not “common”. There are now all kinds of different cables with nothing in common except a form factor. Also, USB-C came out 2.5 years after lightning and didn’t match feature parity until the Thunderbolt spec and that was 5 years later. At that point, accessories and cables that used the Lightning port numbered in the millions, if not billions.

        Also, what do you mean? The new phones support USB3…

        • CoderKat@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          How is USB-C not common? It’s the default for every remotely modern android phone I’ve seen, all the modern game consoles I’ve seen (eg, the Switch and PS5 controllers), and many other random electronics use it (I even had a covid tester that was plugged into USB-C). All my laptops these days use it (including two Chromebooks, a high end MacBook, and a Windows laptop) and of those, only the Windows laptop even had USB-A ports (ie, the other laptops only had USB-C).

          I won’t pretend it’s perfectly ubiquitous. There’s lots of older electronics still using micro or mini USB (there’s been no reason for manufacturers to update older devices). But it’s definitely common in my book.

          • Zoolander@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            It’s not “common” in the sense that a USB-C connector can be all kinds of different implementations of the USB2/3 standards. To use your example, using a USB-C charger other than the default Nintendo one can short out a Switch completely and kill it. Compared to products that use Lightning, the number out there dwarves the current USB-C landscape. There are tons of devices that still use USB-A and USB-B and USB-C hubs don’t really exist.

            • Aganim@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              In that case either the charger or the Switch was faulty, no matter the protocol in use, the devices should negotiate which charging profile to use. You can’t blame a non-spec implementation on the protocol, that’s on the manufacturer.

              From what I’ve been able to see, that specific issue stems from a combination of cheap chargers/docking stations and Nintendo changing the USB-C port tolerances to allow smooth sliding in and out of the dock. Again, don’t blame the standard if the manufacturer decided to implement their own crappy version of it.

        • locknessmeownster@lemmy.fmhy.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Only the Pro models, I believe. Funnily enough, typical Apple too, since they are bundling only a usb2.0 cable in the box for the Pro as well.

      • crispy_kilt@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        84
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        And they made sure no one else could develop a design with the same characteristics by patenting the fuck out of it. Thanks apple

        • AdmiralShat@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          43
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          What’s funny to me is that the solution to long term use was in their hands. They could have licensed it cheaply to other devices until it replaced the mini USB, then charged whatever they wanted for use once it was the defacto standard. Instead they clasped too tightly onto it and now it’s being forced into retirement

          With how many cheap android phones have been produced, they’d be making money even if someone wasn’t buying an apple product, essentially taking a piece of the market share that wasn’t theirs.

          • CptMuesli@artemis.camp
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            But they did not see themselves as a utility supplier. They preferred having the superior charging cable over licensing it to others. This way they protected their market share on Iphones.

            • Baku@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I don’t know, maybe I’m just in a minority but personally I don’t care enough about what port is on a phone that that’s my primary concern when choosing a new phone. Sure, if a similarly spec’d phone at a similar price point drops I might take it into account, but for the most part I buy the best phone I can with the budget I have

    • SnowdenHeroOfOurTime@unilem.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      It was a piece of shit, always. Doesn’t matter if it was technically better, it was not standardized so fuck lightning cables forever. Good riddance to seriously awful bullshit rubbish

      • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        As someone who has had 2 small fires started in their cup holder with that so called “technically better” cable I will never understand how apple was ever able to market an exposed contact charging cable in the first place.

      • iegod@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Doesn’t matter if it was technically better

        Do you approach your life with such black and white emotional reactions? Fuck nuance, details, and critical evaluations, amirite? Bad guy good guy hurrdurr.

        • SnowdenHeroOfOurTime@unilem.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m not going to argue why standards are good, that’s self evident. Sorry you’re blind to this.

          How’s this for nuance? Apple made billions of dollars by just choosing to be dicks. That’s the honest truth here. Simp all you want.

          • iegod@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Standards can be good, it’s not black and white, and dismissing the technical merit outright is batshit insane. You lack critical thinking. It has nothing to do with any other meaningless term you want to throw around.

    • schnokobaer@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, I still think it’s a great mechanical interface, if not the best. Would’ve been great if rather than killing it, regulatory bodies had forced USB to adopt the lightning design for the C type.

      • JCreazy@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Lightning doesn’t have near the capabilities of USB C. Lightning had its time but it’s pretty clear that USB C is superior.

        • schnokobaer@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          Lightning doesn’t have near the capabilities of USB C. … pretty clear that USB C is superior.

          Are you talking about the capabilities of the USB protocol 3.x, or the mechanical design like I was? I don’t know a single property where the mechanical design of USB is superior to Lightning, but I’m ready to be enlightened.

          • Paulemeister@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            For example having 3x the pins is a big plus. I don’t know why you are so focused on not including the protocols a port can use. Apple will most likely use USB to make connections between PCs and their Phones possible. And you have to have connectors capable of carrying the signals for those protocols.

            The huge speeds of USB 3.0 (USB 3.2 Gen 1x1) and up are because of added twisted pairs carrying the signals in duplex (Plus a new USB A connector). Anything above USB 3.2 (USB 3.2 Gen 1x2 and USB 3.2 Gen 3 2x2) needs to use USB-C because the older USB-A Connector doesn’t have enough pins to allow a connection to a cable with 4 twisted pairs (plus one for backwards compatibility).

            I think the lighting connector is enough to allow for a USB 3.0 connection, but you would have to switch the signals after it comes out of the port somehow, as the 3rd pair is not used during FullSpeed (I think there’s an adapter that does this)

            Even if they don’t use USB and develope their own protocol, it’s gonna benefit from more parralel connections

          • Enkrod@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The mechanical design was patented by apple, THEY decided that others were not allowed to use it (unless they pay).

          • png@artemis.camp
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            One area where that is the case is the clamping mechanism. With USB-C, the moving parts/springs, which are the part of a connector that is most prone to failute are in the cable, which is both easier and significantly cheaper to replace than the charging port/device.

      • whyNotSquirrel@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t think this design could have work for USB 3.1 and more, even apple put USB -c as PD on there MacBook because it can deliver more watt (I think)

        but yeah it was much better design than micro usb