I can’t remember the last time I used a cable for data transfer (except for a couple of external SSDs which use the cable they came with) and I’d be surprised if the vast majority of iPhone/Android users are any different. The e-waste is generated primarily from charging requirements.
It sounds to me from reading this thread like there is a market failure around transparently selling and labelling cables for data transfer. Perhaps this also needs government intervention, but it’s likely the EU at least have other issues to deal with.
Bless him, and that’s the type of user this law is mainly for. The typical user. What typical users need to do EVERY SINGLE DAY is to keep the device charged. They don’t regularly pull 4K video in ProRes off their phones, so data transfer, while important, is way LESS important to the typical user than charging. Esp. as the typical user will keep their phones for longer than us nerds, and get to experience batteries with deteriorating capacity.
Finding yourself with low battery and without your own charger nearby, it would be neat to be able to borrow somebody’s charger, even if that person happened to have chosen an Android device. Charging interoperability is the main goal.
I’m a bit confused by the posts in this thread, to be honest. If you have a USB-A/microUSB/etc cable, does that notate cable specs any clearer than USB-C? Do you know Lightning cable specs off the top of your head?
The way I see it, moving iPhones to USB-C is a great thing - I can finally charge an iPhone with the same cable I use for my iPad and my MBP. Sure, it might not clearly state its specs on the tin (sleeve?), and it might be less-than-optimal, but at least it will work. We at least have the possibility of faster third-party solutions. What am I missing?
I don’t mean to invalidate the opinions of anyone in the thread - just surprised that the ideas expressed seem so different from anything I’ve heard before.
If at all possible, I use the specific cable and wall charger that came with each device. It’s not all about charging. Getting data transfer right is important when using cables to connect external disk drives, monitors, tablets, speakers, eReaders, and docks, etc. Mixing and matching between devices and third party vendors can be inefficient, can fail to operate, or even be dangerous.
IMO It’s better than Lightning. Apple is still selling iPhones that can shoot 4K video with a data connection that is limited to USB 2.0 speeds (480Mbps). Courage?
Thanks. And I agree in principle that having a standard interface is a good thing. I noted above that in practice this has not been a real issue for me, but I acknowledge that it has been an issue for others.
Nope. But a Lightning cable is a Lighting cable. A cable with a USB-C connector is …?
Perhaps the confusion comes from there being multiple discussions (not the first time in this forum, won’t be the last) in this thread?
There is the topic of one connector for charging, which I agree is a good thing.
There is the topic of governments mandating a specific technological solution. I’m not so sure this is a good thing. As I’ve noted above it has the potential to kill innovation before it starts.
Then there is the topic of the mess that the USB-C ‘standard’ is. A first world problem for sure. And one that would surely have flummoxed my dad.
I have more confidence in the quality of the Lightning plug. I find Lightning has a better fit and feels more sturdy than USB-C. But I also must admit I have never had a broken USB-C plug. I can imagine that when it happens the issue will be a broken port in the device instead of a broken plug on your cable.
I’ve never had a problem with lightning or usb-c. I’m just tired of my iPhone being limited to 1996 transfer speeds. The usb-c port on my iPP is 10 Gbps, the lightning port on my iPhone is 0.5 Gbps.
I actually agree 100%. And please read the rest of this comment in the context of “I love USB-C”, because I do - at least currently.
Yes, actually. USB-C has far more possibilities for a given cable. A USB-C cable can be a combo of:
Power Delivery
Up to 60w (any standards-compliant USB-C cable supports this)
Up to 100w
Up to 240w
Data
480Mbps (USB 2.0 speeds, any standards-compliant USB-C cable supports this)
5 Gbps
10 Gbps
20 Gbps
40 Gbps
If the cable is unlabeled, it could theoretically be any of those. And that’s part of what the argument above has to do with.
I, and several others, have owned / do currently own non-labeled cables. In fact, less than a year ago, TidBits determined that the labeling issue was enough of a problem that they actually suggested people use a label maker to identify their cables. The USB-IF (the organization that standardizes USB, including USB-C) has created a standard for cable labeling that clarifies all of the above - but at least historically it seems to be inconsistently-followed at best.
The other half of the argument is:
Consider…
The law can apparently be changed if there’s a commercial consensus regarding a new standard
The reason the law was created was because we couldn’t arrive at a commercial consensus regarding a standard
For charging, USB-C - with the right cables - can deliver 240w. IMHO it’s unlikely that we’ll need more than that for charging anytime in the near future.
But for other uses, USB-C may or may not be ideal. For example, fiber optics has a theoretical limit in Tbps, not Gbps. Let’s say somebody comes up with another connector in the near future that supports much faster speeds than what USB-C can deliver.
Rather than determining which charge/data connector makes the most sense, that company would have to install a USB-C charging connector on their device (at least on EU models), and another port for whatever their new connector is. And given form-factor and market constraints, that may lead to companies not aggressively pursuing other avenues.
It may or may not be an issue, but it wouldn’t be the first time the legal environment influenced research and development.
Well, Apple basically already did - and their new „connector“ is wireless and called MagSafe.
They could easily ease to use Lightning altogether for charging - but may have to engage in more greenwashin the lower efficiency and waste of power in wireless charging. And explain how to transfer these 4K60 HDR ProRes files to your Mac for further editing.
I second that.
While I can’t claim to have reliable figures on the respective ports‘ reliability, I‘ve had issues with USB-C ports myself - yet never anything beyond what could be quickly resolved with a small needle or SIM ejector tool to remove the lint or other matter stuck in a Lightning receptacle.
Also, from my (admittedly still „unscientific“) observation when I worked for an Apple Service provider, USB-C port failures were, relatively, much more common on Macs than Lightning port failures on iPhones.
Technically MagSafe isn’t a “connector” in the manner I used it - at least by EU rule, as the EU rule explicitly doesn’t apply to wireless technologies.
And as you correctly pointed out, wireless charging technologies are horribly inefficient by comparison to their wired counterparts.
Going back to the concern in my example, and addressing “preventing innovation”, let’s say Apple is currently developing Lightning 2, which is a little bit bigger than USB-C and allows speeds of 100Gbps. If they want to put that on a phone, they have to put that next to a USB-C port. And the logic is that if they’re already being mandated to do USB-C, the dual requirement may discourage them from innovating.
There were in the past other ports, too!
So, if it is really an Innovation, it would not prevent the companies from going that way!
And, the regulation allows this. The industry could, at any time, implement its own Standard, and the law will be taken away.
The law is not implemented to prevent new innovations, the law was implemented, because the industry did not come up with a standard, and Apple seems to be the #1 to blame for that, while they, at the same time presented long outdated interfaces to their customers!
MFI, Non-MFI, Fake-MFI, charging only, etc. are effectively variations due to shoddy manufacturing - not conflicting standards. Any cable that actually conforms to the Lightning standard can do all of that.
Is there a cable you’re thinking of that’s otherwise identical to a conventional lightning cable (i.e. “lightning to USB-(A/C)”) that can’t carry audio for some reason? The only audio stuff I’ve seen with Lightning is the specialized adapters that convert Lightning to some other end (i.e. not USB).
So, you blame the EU and the USB-IF for non marked USB-Cable, while the marking belongs to the USB-Standard almost from the beginning, but when it came to the different lightning cable with no markings at all on the cable, and the advise from Apple that you should take a magnifier and look on the “Quality” of the connector to distinguish a MFI from a Non-MFI cable, it is just the fault of the other manufacturer?
And yes, all Lightning cable from Apple are unable to carry audio, because there were some missing cable in it.
You can buy some cable who can do audio, but they are never MFI certified.
That is also the reason, btw, why Apple stick for so long towards the 3,5mm connector!
You guys are ranting about the EU-Regulation and the “fear” that this will prevent innovation, while it came around just the other way, that the EU-Regulation forces Apple to give up at the end a connector, that has a 10 years old Standard, and is STILL build in with its iPhone 14 Plus Max (and however!).
This Regulation is not preventing innovations, but forcing it to Apple.
I wonder a long time, why everybody is doing a big party with every Apple Event about the great new features of the cameras, while on the other Hand, you have to leave the iPhone plugged into the Mac the whole night, to download those videos you made with the cameras at its best solution!?
For every Minute of “4K ProRes” Filming with your iPhone, it will take a minimum of 8 minutes to get it to the Mac via the Lightning Cable!
Of course it is a “connector”, you transfer power true it, by making a direct contact between the sender and receiver! And yes, you could use it also to plug your (Non-Magnet!) credit card to it, but this does not matter.
The EU-Regulation is not preventing anybody from a further development of the QI-Standard.
But you are blaming, also here, the EU-Regulation as a reason to stop further innovations, while on the other hand, you try to keep exact this innovations out of the discussion, to keep your point!
Oh, and BTW also with QI, Apple is diverting from the standard, and forces the user to use a rather expensive “MagSafe” Charger, if you want to charge with 15W, instead of 7,5W.
Apple is NOT developing a “Lightning 2”, they developed nothing in that direction since 2012(!), AND they keep the 3,5mm Connector as long as possible, because their 2012 development was in lack of two tiny cable, to also distribute audio with it. So even IF they really want to develop an own standard, there will be no reason why they not going back to their “old tradition”, and place that connector right next to the USB-C.
Oh, and by the Way, USB-C is capable with the next upgrade for 80GB/s, and there is no reason to believe, that the connector of USB-C will not be able to carry even more in the future!!
And even IF, the EU-Regulation is not preventing the development of it, or to become the new industrial standard!
Audio, like everything else digital, is carried digitally over USB, so it needs a DAC at the receiving end to convert it into analog signals. Apple’s little Lightning to 3.5mm audio jack has a small DAC inside the connector. A standard Apple cable will allow you to plug into the USB port of an external DAC or you car connector (which technically also includes the DAC before amping the signal and routing it to your speakers).
The Audio Signal from the 3,5mm connector of an iPhone was an analog Signal!
So, there were no DAC in need for that.
And there were Non-MFI Lightning cable available that could also deliver that signal.
Correct, but that was an additional port, driven by the iPhone’s internal DAC. We never got an analog signal from the Lightning port, unless a DAC was added to the signal pipeline. Same as we’ll never get analog audio out of the USB-C connectors without a DAC somewhere.
…but I’m feeling we’re splitting hairs at this point, and I think we’re in general agreement that the EU law will rather speed up the transition to USB-C than “keep Apple from innovating”.
