https://www.extremetech.com/mobile/apple-to-limit-iphone-15-usb-c-cables-to-usb-20-speeds-report
Only the Pro models will offer faster charging.
Apple to Limit iPhone 15 USB-C Cables to USB 2.0 Speeds: Report::undefined
There has to be a USB-C. Some people will always want wires to transfer data, even if it's through their "wireless charger", which is proprietary.
The difference with wireless listening vs. charging is that the former doesn’t need close to 2x the power of the cable-bound method and doesn’t destroy the phone’s battery in the process, unlike the latter
Wireless listening absolutely needs more than 2x the power of wired listening. It also needs charging an entire other device. You're right that it doesn't affect the phone battery, though I don't think wireless charging "destroys" it.
It warms it up, and you're not going to get the absolute maximum battery life out of it if you're wireless, but the impact usually isn't that big, unless you're really cooking it. Using the standard fast charger that comes with your phone is probably going to put about as much, if not more wear than a. 10W wireless charger.
You're not meant to wirelessly charge it by sticking it in the microwave.
Wireless listening absolutely needs more than 2x the power of wired listening. It also needs charging an entire other device
It might be more than that. A wired headset is incredibly simple, unless you're running a ridiculous amplifier through it. It's just two speakers, maybe a microphone and button if it's a mobile headset.
By comparison, wireless listening would usually need the audio encoder/decoder chips, the Bluetooth receiver/transmitter, the processors for the pairing/controls/noise cancellation, and the speakers on top of that. That's not a small amount of componentry.
I’ve tried using wireless charging in a friend’s car on my iPhone SE a few weeks back.
Result: notification that charging had (!) to be stopped at around 50% due to overheating and was poised to continue once the iPhone had cooled down sufficiently. It never continued as that was all I needed to know about the current state of wireless charging with light usage on the side.
Good point on the wireless listening and ear pieces needing a battery as well, though. I guess with those it comes down to convenience for most buyers.
I can't imagine Europe wouldn't lose their shit if Apple removed it entirely. And if Android manufacturers did that consumers would also promptly lose their shit.
Beyond the consumer, having a physical port is beneficial to Apple. Businesses use attached devices (e.g. barcode scanners, DSLR camera attachments, charging stations) all the time. It's more common on Android phones, but I do see iPhones using these sorts of things. My local movie theater uses iPhones to scan tickets with an attached Lightning scanner, for example.
I don't disagree that wireless charging is more convenient, but from the standpoint of being in emergency situations where a cable is needed to charge your phone, it wouldn't be easily possible if the port is removed. People might carry around charging bricks, and while wireless charging bricks do exist they're not commonplace and they're certainly slower than charging by wire. I can tell you nobody will want to carry around a portable wireless charger, although MagSafe is almost already just that.
Playing devil's advocate, it's possible Apple does want things like portable wireless chargers to proliferate, like the one you can buy that slap onto the back of your phone. It means you're buying more of their shit, which is something they seem to love so much. It would mean you're buying MagSafe chargers or whatever proprietary crap they manufacture. I still do see it becoming an issue in emergency situations though, e.g. teens (a large user base of iPhones) use their phones a lot and borrow chargers from each other all the time.
Impossible? No. Unlikely? Yes, for now.
Well, as I said, the smart connector on the ipad. It is used to connect the keyboard if I'm not mistaken.
Some people will always want wires to transfer data,
But that group of people is growing smaller and smaller with each year. I haven't used a phone cable to transfer files once in the last 8 years. Phones just sync to cloud.
Same. I think the last time I used a cable to transfer data onto my phone was iTunes syncing my iPhone 5s music. Once I moved to Spotify I never needed to sync again.
It’s not the use case of everyone, but I’d bet the majority of iPhone users haven’t used a data transfer in years
I suspect cables are used more on Android because its filesystem is open so you can basically use an Android as a flash drive, which is very convenient at times.
Also since Androids in general have a way faster wired connection, it's more likely to be used for that.
Unlike iOS, Android also doesn't have a way to easily transfer files over WiFi by default.
Whereas if you're embedded in the Apple ecosystem, you can airdrop something from your iPhone to your Mac straight out of the box (after getting set up).
You can install the share app on Windows for the same experience.
I only use it for small files or photos. I use a cable for bigger files like movies or whatever, since it's much faster.
Using a cable with Android is also very easy since you don't need any apps or anything. You just have to click a notification and set the USB mode to "file transfer" from "charge only", after that it just works on pretty much every device. Fast USB ports are also useful because you can connect accessories to your phone like gigabit ethernet, and especially flash drives.
I suspect iPhone users very rarely if ever, transfer big files since the iOS file system is so locked down. The only big thing I can imagine that they would need to transfer is filmed 4k video.
I mean yeah I barely use cables to transfer data, but there are times I need to plug it in to back up files. The Pixel 7 Pro is also a bar of soap and slides off of my wireless charger, so it's more reliable for me to use a USB-C cable. I also like having the phone next to me in bed, and so I use a USB-C cable.
It just seems odd to remove something that is so reliable, even if only to have as a backup method. It would only make sense to remove it if wireless chargers are the dominant form of charging devices, especially in a portable manner.
Having a port also enables things like game controllers and wired headphones, if the user chooses to do something like that.
About the sliding phone, Apple has proposed a magnetic solution to that.
Haven't tried it, but seems to solve that specific issue.
In this case I just have a case on my phone which stops it from sliding. But generally I do like having phones without cases on them.
Yes, I know that,
The comment above implied that faster USB support isn't needed because WiFi is faster anyways (obviously wrong).
And if USB SS+ (aka USB 3.1 gen 2 aka USB 3.2 gen 2×1) with 10 Gb/s is not enough for you, the newest iteration of the USB standard USB 4.0 version 2.0 has USB4 gen 4 at 80 Gb/s
Edit: for reference: Wi-Fi 4 supports up to 600 Mb/s or .6 Gb/s, while Wi-Fi 7 supports up to 46.12 Gb/s
I dont know anyone who transfers anything besides power to the iphone via cable. What are you guys doing? Syncing it with itunes?
Apple car play would be a bitch if I don't have a port since it doesn't have wireless carplay. And my car is a 2023
Well if you don’t want to subscribe to iCloud, how can you do it except with iTunes?
To be honest I’d really want to be able to create an image of my iPhone and back it up on my kdrive (a cloud storage service).
This was my thought exactly. I would sooner transfer over Wi-Fi than cable. This is a charging port to me.
It would actually be a lot safer if the charging port was only able to supply power. People plug their shit into random cables all the time and it’s been a vector for compromise.
That's a good point though the port is also needed to pair an iPhone or iPad to a Mac/PC (the famous 'Trust This Device' screen can only be triggered if a device tries to access the phones data via USB) which is required to do any backups / music or picture syncs in the first place. ,nd it's also necessary if youre a developer as - even at USB2.0 speeds that people complain about here - it is still faster to test and debug applications than via wireless.
Amazing how this company is so successful knowing they're just scamming their clients
And yet their anti-consumer practices continues to be hailed by their loyal customer base.
It's mind blowing.
"A fool and his money are soon parted."
Oh? Can I voice my opinion here that people suck off apple despite how shitty they are? Are we doing this?
When you’re the biggest shop in your town it’s because you do good work.
When you’re the biggest shop in the world it’s because you’re scamming your clients.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/KHZ8ek-6ccc?si=yv2GYqskEXF3LOks
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
I doubt your typical apple user will use the usb port for anything other than charging.
If they are going to improve transfer speeds it's not going to happen in the same iteration they're being made to switch to usb c for two reasons:
The reason is that like with the iPhone 14, in the non-Pro models they put the SoC from the previous year's Pro model, and that one was only designed for Lightning so only USB 2.0. So the non-Pro will get USB 3 once the USB 3-supporting SoC trickles down from the Pro.
Apple is very good at price discrimination. I hey know if they can build a slightly cheaper phone by reusing the SoC from the older lightning version, and 99% of iPhone users won’t care (for whatever reason) they then know that the 1% that does care will spend a little bit more on the Pro model. And they do that with few different features, which ends up with the Pro models selling a significant number of units.
ITT people pretending this is a spite based move, when realistically it is probably cutting costs by reusing the same hardware they used for lightning ports just soldering on a USB-C port instead of a lightning one.
Are you trying to suggest the company that invented rounded corners isn't innovative enough?!
I mean, it’s not like it matters much. Most of apple devices actually expected to transfer data over wire are on thunderbolt already aren’t they? Frankly I’m a little surprised they switched to C on 15 already, iirc they could have still released this cycle on lightning according to EU regulation (I think it only comes in effect end of 2024, right?) It comes to me as no surprise that they use up the controllers they had for lightning before they roll out thunderbolt. It will probably be 2.0 for base and thunderbolt for pro this cycle and likely thunderbolt for all next cycle. That would be the apple m/o.
dude usb 3.0 is 15 years old by now, and they're a trillion dollar company. They'll manage, this is 100% by choice
One could argue that you don't become a trillion dollar company by leaving money on the table.
One could argue, greed is a subset of malice, and spite isn't mutually exclusive with any of it.
Yes, the choice being the respective SoCs not needing 3.0 support because they were intended to be used with lightning connectors.
I mean Pixel 6 still didnt have 3.0 support, so the 15 year old argument doesnt hold too much ground either.
Pixel 6 has 3.1 gen 1 (3.0) and so did the Pixel 1
https://gsmarena.com/google_pixel_6-11037.php https://support.google.com/pixelphone/answer/7158570
The first phone with USB 3.0 appears to be from 2013.
https://www.theverge.com/2013/9/5/4696874/galaxy-note-3-usb-3-0-power-connector-explained
The SoC lacks the hardware. Even the USB C iPads with A series chips operate at 2.0 speeds. They can only do 5Gbit in host mode, like with an external SSD. Plugged in to a computer they are 2.0.
I would imagine future chips will have the capability, once the Pro chips trickle down to the base models.
You think this more likely than just creating a bigger artificial difference between the standard and normal model?
I think that is most likely a lot of what drives that divide, but this almost certainly the case for the port. Some shit undoubtedly is software locked, and that is in fact scummy, but new hardware will always be more expensive than hardware you have already designed and maybe even have lying around.
To get thunderbolt in there they probably need a new board specifically for the iphone, while they can just cram in the lightning version with a new solder job and call it a day.
At the end of the day 95+% of the people who will use their phones will only use the port for charging anyway.
Well we don't know yet what port the pro model we have, so once we do, we'll know whether it's just scummy behavior once again, or if Apple decided to use low to midrange hardware on all their models
Someone else commented that the SoC literally lacks the capability to run above 2.0. If this is the case it would be very hard to call this even scummy adjacent.
by reusing the same hardware
I'm sure their engineers are competent enough to repurpose she iPad Pro's TB4 hardware.
Two factors. Do they still have lightning hardware sitting on shelves? Do they need to design to fit the iphone form factor? If the answer is yes to either of these, designing for TB this release cycle seems non-sensical when most people only use the cable to charge their phones.
That, and also, how many iPhone users do you think will actually notice slower USB speeds? One percent? They literally do not need 3.0 to keep their customers happy. And they're not going to poach many Android fanboys with this change, so who cares?
I'm with you, people use the cable for power, it's pretty rare to use them for data transfers. He'll moving to a new phone is all wireless, just set them next to each other.
I'm going over... that's literally all I needed from them. Consumer choice is all lesser evils atm.
RIP Firefox phone and Samsung Pure.
I believe it's both. Apple said that they'd be compliant with the EU regulations of having usb-c as a port for any cell phone with a charging port. I don't remember the exact wording, but a valid interpretation was that usb-c is not required if the device has no charging port. I believe apple is moving towards exclusively QI-charging and wireless connection. Reducing the capability of wired connections would in that case just be a way to move the users towards the planned infrastructure.
So it's both a spiteful move regarding the regulations, but also a move which reduces costs and pushes users their desired way.
I believe apple is moving towards exclusively QI-charging and wireless connection.
I sure hope not. I'd have to take off my case every time I wanted to charge my phone.
I charge my samsung just fine with a decently fat case. Does apple have a weaker QI receptor?
I have a wallet case. It's really really thick. It holds all my credit cards and drivers license and stuff.
I see. I believe that Apple's vision is that payment cards and drivers licence will soon be fully integrated in the phone, eliminating the need for a wallet case. Not that I'm an Apple user, but I am pretty much at the point of never using physical payment cards, and my drivers licence has a digital version in my country.
I'll still need my health insurance card, my driver's license, etc. That won't work on a phone.
My health insurance is fully digital and my country has an official app for driver's licences. This varies from country to country, but I think we're all heading in that direction.
Most people are totally lost in a sea of capitalistic greed and wealth indicators. If you don't keep up with the Joneses, are you really alive?
They have convinced themselves it tastes better than a club sandwich.
It never had to make sense.
I wouldn’t describe myself as a fanboy, but here’s my reasons for continuing to use an iPhone and not moving to Android:
What % of mobile users plug their phones into a computer to move files on/off them? I'm not even an iPhone user (I have a Pixel 6 Pro) and it's probably been 5+ years since I last moved files over USB on my phone.
I'm guessing it saves them a few cents. I just don't think most customers care so I can see why they'd want to save a little bit of money.
That's the same excuse used when they removed the headphone jack and forced you to use bluetooth. I owned many a cell phones and they all had headphone jacks and bluetooth and both worked just fine. But then the headphone jack was removed and now you had to dish out cash for over priced devices that have a limited lifespan (those batteries aren't going to last forever).
I heard so many people say "well I never/rarely used the headphone jack" or "but I like bluetooth". Fine, that's nice, no reason to make it exclusive other than the company stands to make money off it. People gave up better audio quality and a plug that was more universal than the USB port... we're not likely to get it back. No doubt Apple (because of course it'll be Apple) will release a new proprietary cabled audio port that only works with their headphones.
Apple is anti-consumer.
I usualy agree with this but here is a thing USB 2.0 is really not that slow. I higly doubt you need faster data transfers on a phone.
The best argument I can see for faster than USB 2.0 speeds is YouTubers that shoot 4k video on iPhones and then need to edit the video. That's a very small number of people though
Those are definitely iPhone pro users and those get thunderbolt if my feeling is right (based on rumors I lost the source, lol)
Proprietary card audio port? What are you talking about? Apple doesn't care about wired audio and neither does the average consumer.
I've been using Bluetooth headphones for many years and imo it was the right call to push the industry in this direction. Bluetooth headphones don't die as quickly as you think. My first gen QC35 lasted close to 5 years when I replaced them and the battery was still good. They were replaced because they started making a weird noise randomly and I didn't take the best care of them so probably some wire in them became loose or something.
People don't like change but if you still want to use wired headphones you can. Use a USB-C/lightning adapter to headphone jack.
Batteries can last a long time. We have a Tesla in the driveway that I expect the battery to last 10+ years at least.
Man, you over trust tech industries... but your on Lemmy, weird IMO.
Apple doesn’t care about wired audio and neither does the average consumer.
That's a lie, customers do care. They weren't given a choice.
imo it was the right call to push the industry in this direction
Why? Because I cannot fathom a reason to remove a perfectly good option, especially since that option has existed for some decades.
I fully expect Apple to release a "premium" cabled option down the road. And why wouldn't they? Better audio quality and a whole new tech line to get money from. And if it's proprietary then they don't have to worry about those pesky non-Apple branded headphone from working.
Good for you you've been using Bluetooth. So have I. I also use cabled audio sometimes because I can or because it has fewer issues. I have headphones from the 80s and 90s that still work. I also have Bluetooth that gets flakey if I put the phone in the wrong pocket or I turn my head the 'wrong way'. Because Bluetooth is just a low powered radio.
People don’t like change but if you still want to use wired headphones you can. Use a USB-C/lightning adapter to headphone jack
The whole world had 3.5mm headphones. Then Bluetooth was an option. Now it's forced and the standard everyone had that any headphone or 3.5mm cable worked with doesn't. And lightning, is only Apple. And it's ignoring the myriad of problems...
And to make it perfectly clear, because I feel like people completely miss the point here (because every time this is brought up that seems to be the case). I'm not saying Bluetooth audio needs to go away. I'm saying, there was nothing gained from forcing people. Also, there's nothing gained from proprietary bullshit or things that cannot be repaired/maintained by people.
Lithium-ion batteries can last 10+ years. They can also last much shorter. They're not magic and it doesn't matter who makes them. It's science. They will fail. From over use, kept at the wrong amount of charge for too long, too hot\cold, somehow damaged, etc. They are going to fail and are all e-waste. I mean, find me someone who has any mobile phone that's from 2013 that still gets the full use of it like it was originally advertised. I mean, you're expecting to get 10 years maybe more out of a car... and you're not mad about that. I know people who drive cars that were built in the 60s. They've been able to repair/replace/maintained that vehicle for the life of it. Apple hates the idea of you repairing anything from them.
Good point. I guess it can take a while if a large app is being moved to the device. I haven't done Android dev in a while but I think ADB debugging can also be done wirelessly.
What are you transferring? Do you really think others are? Most people just use Google Photos or equivalent for photo back up and YouTube Music/Spotify/Apple Music/Amazon Music/etc.
Ads campaigns apple spends billions in, such has having their brand name on top of every community to boost their popularity and overshadow competitors
I also use remote access on Android and the key bindings are so frustrating, the super key especially. I've looked for solutions but haven't found any yet.
it's an identity. you might be surprised to see how often the apple logo is used on random things in countries where copyright doesn't exist. like it's a symbol of something really important.
but I think the USB 2.0 thing is completely normal and this is a misleading headline
edit: oh look im being le downvoteddit
I mean, it has been normal for apple phones. Lightning cables only have USB 2.0 transfer speeds as it currently stands. They've used it from iPhone 5 up to iPhone 14, including the pro and max versions. Only the iPad pros have the potential for USB 3.0 speeds. Those are the only ones with 16 pin connectors instead of the standard 8 pins in all other lightning connectors
They are going to limit it to USB 2.0 speeds so in 3 or 4 years they can declare some new magical advancement and bump it up to full 3.0 speeds.
Apple purposefully limits things so that they have something to announce in the future. They aren't dumb. They know the advancements in smartphones has been starting to slow down. So they meter out the advances over many years in incremental updates to give their customers a reason to upgrade.
You will hear something like this from every reviewer after an Apple event: "The changes were small, but taken together the new insert product name here might be well worth the upgrade price."
In other news: company with long history of selling over-priced, under featured products to aspirational nitwits does it again!
Yes, I can't wait for them to launch the newest innovative tech of Type C for iPhone, which will offer more speed and better compatibility cause they are the good guys who swear they would protect your data and keep an eye on your photos too.
I have family who actually believes all of what you just said. The tribalism can get a bit much.
Once the brand becomes a core part of someone's identity, the company can do no wrong and it's extremely difficult to convince them otherwise. The level of willful ignorance is astonishing. We have a similar problem in American politics.
This will probably shock you to the core, but some of us can use and enjoy the company’s products for a wide variety of reasons, whilst continuing to be skeptical and not liking every one of their decisions.
Nuh uh!
You like a thing I don’t! You’re a fanboy of that thing. Why else would you like it?
I tried to explain to my MIL once that iPhones contain mostly Samsung chips and Samsung displays just like most non-samsung Android phones because Samsung happens to be the best semiconductor manufacturer for phone parts. She paused to look at me like I had 3 heads and continued on about the unicorn farts and rainbow barf that makes her iPhone work.
Not long after that she bragged about how good of a deal she got on the 3 year contract with the regional carrier who has the worst coverage for the $1k+ phone that costs her more in a single month than I pay for a year of prepaid phone service. She even tried to say we need to switch to the plan she's on to save money...
Which is fine, I have a full speed USBC cable and it's a thicc boi that I certainly wouldn't want to shove in my pocket all the time and the 2.0 speed ones still charge my laptop even. But Apple is limiting the PORT, not the cable, which isn't cool.
Because they are probably using the same controller, just rewired to usbc, there are videos of this modification being done aftermarket.
They still come with cables, just not bricks. That’s pretty much across the board on all phone manufacturers unfortunately.
And other “small” devices… hell even my toothbrush came with only a charging cable,.. with an usb-a port,.. and no brick…. FUCK YOU PHILIPS!!! What the F!!!
This is irrelevant.
We're talking about smartphones here, and most new Android phones support > 3.0.
Limiting a flagship phone in 2023 to USB 2.0 transfer and charging speeds is a cheapskate move.
The article only really has facts about the 2.0 cable, anything said about the device is speculated.
The entire article is literally based on a tweet where someone tested the cable. The title of the article and of this Lemmy post references that.
most new Android phones support > 3.0
Where do you find that information? Do you know of a reviewer that benchmarks the USB transfer rate of Android phones?
Edit: I found this: https://www.androidauthority.com/google-pixel-problem-usb-c-file-transfer-1075286/
10.8GB / 480 Mbps = 180 seconds, and those phones are all faster, so they must be using USB 3.x. In other words, iPhone 15 will have slower USB data than the Pixel 1.
IIRC current iphones with lightning connector are still using USB 2.0 and only ipad pro actually has USB 3. I could be wrong though.
Do you actually connect your phone for anything other than charging? Not trying to poke at you, I'm just honestly surprised this is a big issue for anyone really.
There's a difference between connector and protocol version. But they are all backwards compatible.
That likely includes most policy makers. They should have enforce color coding usb c cables instead of forcing the form factor.
Yeah I've ran into this problem a few times now. I use my Occulus Quest on my PC and it needs USB 3.2 cables. The meta branded ones are crazy expensive but I found a third party one for fairly cheap.
I just got a Pixel 7 Pro and it needs a special powerblock to rapid charge. My Samsung block from my S10+ didn't meet the requirements, I had to go back to the Essential Phones included charger. The USB-C port on my PC's case is at normal speeds, but the port on the mono charges rapidly.
The official Meta/Oculus one is expensive because the data lines are fiber optic which allows it to be longer.
Lol they will probably have a special Apple cable that allows for faster speeds only for their specific devices
Well, charger cables are usually at USB 2.0 speed because USB-PD works the same, but signal integrity doesn't matter as much, so you can make a longer, more flexible cable without using in-cable shielding...
So this is misleading, since the included cable coming in 2.0 speed (missing pins) absolutely does not mean that the iPhone USB-C port will only support 2.0.
The article states that the iPhone (the device itself) will be limited to USB 2.0 speed. Do you have information otherwise? Also limiting the speed does not mean it will not support the additional protocols that USB-C would allow for. I believe why people are making a fuzz over this is that people with iPhones want to be able to do large exports/backups/imports. Specifically those that use the devices professionally. In those cases you would want all the speed you can have, and this feels like an arbitrary limit set by Apple because they don’t want to fully comply. Perhaps there are good reasons due to heat issues in the storage controller.
Well, the article showed their original source, the tweet, which shows cable spec, data from a tester, and teardown ONLY. 16 pins on the male connector instead of the full 24 means USB 2.0 transfer speed is the maximum it can support, which is typical of a charger cable. (And no, this cable won't be able to support things like DisplayPort since the 3.0 data pins are missing. )
My main point is that there is no information on the device side USB port configuration at all, therefore there is no conclusion that can be drawn about the USB-C port on the new iPhone yet, and it's incredibly bad journalism for Extremetech to draw conclusion about device side spec from only the spec of the included charger cable.
If this is all based on just the teardown of a cable than the article is just speculation. If it really lacks all additional pins this is just malicious compliance on Apple’s part. “Oh you asked for a usb-c connector EU Commission? Here it is”.
It wouldn't make sense to implement full USB 3 and then cap speeds. The alternative protocols like displayport over USB 3 needs the extra wires which were added in USB 3, so if the port only have USB 2 pins + power then it can't support the new USB 3 features
As I mentioned, high speed data connections could cause some thermal issues. So it could make sense. But Apple being Apple this could also just be some upselling technique or slow rollout (so they can talk about having made improvements for the next few models). If there are only USB 2 pins it isn’t USB 3 at all, the article specifically states that it the speed is capped.
And the Apple branded super speed cable can be sold for more profit. Win!
Edit: I did some searching and found all the major providers send the phone with a USB2 cable, so taking a punt at Apple for this actually is unfair.
Probably closer to 99%. It’s kind of dumb I guess (without knowing the port specs, it’s impossible to form an opinion.) What are these people up in arms about?
To the surprise of no one. However, EU is already on top of this. After this law was enacted they realized just how scummy Apple is, not sure how they managed to miss that especially considering they have to fine them and threaten with market ban if they didn't uphold 2 year mandatory warranty consumer protection laws in EU guarantee.
On top of what exactly? The EU law doesn't mandate certain transfer speeds.
The only thing mandated is a USB-C port to charge the device, and afaik that the fastest charging speed needs to be obtainable via USB-PD. The latter was always the case with iPhones, even though the port was different. Other manufacturers are actually way worse offenders when it comes to charging protocols, but Apple it obviously the worst offender when it comes to charging ports.
Maybe EU is playing some 3D chess? Leave open the possibility of Apple being scummy then fine the shit out of them. Not sure how though.
What a messy article. The title says that the cables are limited to 2.0 speeds (which they might as well be), the subtitle mentions charging speed as opposed to transfer speed and the article itself then talks about the port on the device having 2.0 speeds (for non "Pro" models).
Anyways, of course they gimp the base model on purpose. Every company does to set the more expensive models apart obviously, but Apple drives it to the extremes especially in recent years, which makes their line-up incredibly confusing. I mean they've gone out of their way to make their 10th gen base iPad use the old Apple Pencil, and they still don't laminate the display even after they redesigned the exterior.
If you want a new iPhone this fall and you're looking for something in the price range of the standard iPhone 15 (which will still be a very expensive phone of course), I'd recommend looking for previous year's "Pro" model. The iPhone 13 Pro dropped around the iPhone 14 price at launch, and it's essentially better in almost every way.
And because people will mention it: of course, you can also get a phone from a different manufacturer if it suits you, or keep your current phone.
Usb 2.0 is 23 years old now.
There's a line between "enhancing the pro model by shitting on everyone else" but like this is just disrespectful.
But hey your money, spend that shit as stupidly as you want
(3.0 came out 15 years ago for reference, it'll be older than some kids getting the phone ffs)
Apple didn't even need to use USB C to do this bullshit:
The Lightning receptacle on the 12.9-inch iPad Pro (1st and 2nd generation) and 10.5-inch iPad Pro models has 16 pins, as there are additional eight pins on the other side. It supports USB 3.0 (now USB 3.2 Gen 1) at the maximum transfer speed of 5 Gbit/s.
- Wikipedia - Lightning (connector)
For reference USB 1.x/2.x A and B connectors have 4 or 5 pins, while USB 3.0+ A and B connectors have 9 or 10, with USB C having 24. USB 4.0 version 2.0 supports transfer speeds of up to 80 Gb/s. I think the 16 pin lighting connector could support USB 4.0, but this is just my speculation.
No, no it’s fucking not. How about you not base radical accusations on bullshit articles?
https://www.macrumors.com/2023/08/24/iphone-15-usb-c-cable-usb2-transfer-speeds/
According to leaker Majin Bu, who has previously shared details about Apple's new cables, the USB-C cables supplied in iPhone 15 boxes are indeed limited to USB 2.0 data transfer speeds at a rate of 480 MBps, which is the same as Lightning.
In contrast, rumors converge on both iPhone 15 Pro models supporting higher USB-C transfer speeds. According to Apple analyst Ming-Chi Kuo, the iPhone 15 Pro models will support "at least" USB 3.2 or Thunderbolt 3. For comparison, the iPad Pro features a Thunderbolt port for transfer speeds up to 40 Gbps, while the entry-level iPad’s USB-C port is limited to just 480 Mbps.
And that is the crux of it. rumors
Ah, but what am I saying?! Please, return to your circlejerk, I’ll not bother you with any more inconvenient facts
I always get last year's model of whatever tech because it's likely to be both cheaper and less buggy due to the bugs already have been fixed.
Then they’re not standards compliant and they can’t claim to have usb-c on their phones. I wonder how that will work out for them?
No. Type C is just a shape. Pixels have had 2.0 transfer speeds too. This really isn't anything out of the ordinary. It doesn't NEED more than that honestly. We're not transferring massive music libraries to our mobile devices any more.
Speak for yourself, there are still many who refuse to use subscription services for music and still store it on their phones
Why wouldn’t we? I’ve got 300, 400GB of music from my beloved private trackers (RIP WCD) but I choose iOS because of the privacy policy, longevity, and I don’t wanna have to fuck around with custom OSes to not give all my data to Google.
My shit’s loaded up with music, and I’m hoping the next gen has 2TB models.
Lol, I'm sorry but this is just you thinking everyone is like you. Millions of people use their phones very differently.
This is absolutely wrong. The spec mandates that USB-C ports provides at least USB 3.1 support. Also USB-C is mandated for USB 3.1.
So to be compliant every USB-C port must support USB 3.1 at least. And you cannot support USB 3.1 with anything other than a USB-C port.
Wtf are you talking about? The spec has a section specifically for wiring a USB 2.0 cable. Apple is one of the companies who wrote the USB spec and I’d find it pretty hard to believe they’d go against their own spec.
All I can tell you is that the Pixel 7 has USB 3.2 spec.
Someone else in the thread said that the Pixel 2 (2017) also abides by USB 3.1 spec. I looked it up, apparently they weren't lying.
Though the Google site does say:
Pixel phones use USB-C with USB 2.0 power adapters and cables.
https://support.google.com/pixelphone/answer/7106961?hl=en
Not sure if it still only accepts USB-C 2.0 cables as it's maximum?
You must have replied to the wrong person because I’m not arguing the pixel doesn’t have 3.2. I’m saying the USB-C spec does allow for USB 2.0. The commenter I replied to is stating absolutely wrong information.
No. Type C is just a shape.
Tell me you know nothing about how hardware standards work without telling me you know nothing about how hardware standards work
He’s right though?
USB-C does NOT in any way specify capabilities or transfer specifications. It only specifies the form factor of the plug.
The plug can be used for any number of things from USB2.0 or ThunderBolt4, to power transfer, hells, even things like analog audio can use the plug.
Is what your comment did.
The connector is a usb-c connector. That is not the standard, just the connector type friend
Lol ok, I can see that I need to bring some corroborating data here: there’s a lot more to it than connector shape and pinout. The official spec (PDF warning) is nearly 400 pages long.
Saying something confidently doesn’t make it true.
Literally the second sentence in your own source:
The designation C refers only to the connector's physical configuration or form factor and should not be confused with the connector's specific capabilities, which are designated by its transfer specifications (such as USB 3.2).
Ok. Since we’re circumcising a mosquito here.
The type c designation only refers to the form factor.
That’s all.
Type c does not refer to its capabilities.
I am willing to bet you’ll find that information very early in what you linked me.
Could you elaborate? Because I’m like… 90% you’re wrong. Oc is correct. The “c” in type c referred to the connector. Just like micro-b mini-b usb A,etc. USB 3 is the speed standard. As well as 3.1 (or 3.2 gen 1 it’s called now or some other silliness), 3.2 gen 2, etc.
There are usb C cables that can do video, audio, some that have thunderbolt speeds. There are also usb c cables that only support usb 2.0. So if you can elaborate on why you believe otherwise, id appreciate it. the usb consortium has ridiculous conventions and I’m no hardware specialist. My knowledge on these is from USB consortiums training when I was a salesman.
Technically, they are. Type C is just port shape. Protocol version is a different matter, however newer versions are backwards compatible. What they are doing is not restricting functionality but to unlock fastest charging speed you have to buy approved cables. It's sort of a gray area but luckily EU already caught them planning to do this, so work to change it is already underway.
The port on the phone Pro model supports transfer speeds up to 20 or 40 gbps, it’s just the supplied charging cable that is limited to USB 2.0 speeds. If you use a thunderbolt cable you will get full speed and a full feature set.
Edit: Seems like I was wrong; only the Pro models get full speed. That’s kinda shitty, yeah. Unfortunately still in spec, as the mandate is only for the form factor, not the protocol.
I’m honestly not sure that I agree. Full speed USB 3.2/Thunderbolt cables are expensive, and 99.9 % of users will only ever use the supplied cable for charging. The ones who want to do cable transfers at high speed will probably already have the cable they need.
Limiting the speed of the *port * of the non-Pro models is worse, but likely also a cost-cutting decision that will have little impact on the vast majority of users.
It would be interesting to know how many of the competitors’ phones offer high speed data transfer through the USB port (I honestly don’t know, but would like to).
Right but USB 3.1 is a commodity now and most android phones support it. It doesn't need to be 20/40gbps. Even 5gbps would be decent for most people.
It's probably not an arbitrary explicit limitation just for the sake of it, they're likely using a cheaper component for the port.
You're likely not aware of all the facts. See, they're required to put the USB C port in because Apple has been getting away with bullshit for decades that needs to stop. There's zero reason for all the proprietary shit they force users to use that ends up creating millions of tons of plastic waste. So they decided to be extra massive cunts and are putting BOTH options on the phone instead of just using the one that every other phone does just fine with, creating a TON of plastic waste, and then, the kicker, forcing you to buy both cords anyhow if you want things to be fast.
Getting away with it? You know lightning came out like 4 years before USB-C, right?
Apple gets shit because they had a proprietary connector when everyone stated using mini/micro usb.
They then upgraded their proprietary connector to one that was MUCH better than the mini/micro connectors.
Now the usb-c connector is king and apple looks bad for not having the “better” connector this time.
But they aren’t forcing anyone to a NEW proprietary connector, just the one they have been using for like a decade now …
Standardizing on a GOOD connector will be nice, but it’s not like apples proprietary connector wasn’t BETTER for a long time.
Most folks don’t follow the timeline, yes apple is using a proprietary connector but it’s older than the new connector that was being used. They didn’t force you into a shittier product back then.
FYI it was newer by 2 years. I don't think anyone is complaining about the performance of lightning over USB C, its that people want things to be standardized like everything non-apple is. Apple could have contributed to the USB C research and made a better cable that's available to everyone, like IBM with the original USB or Phillips with HDMI.
iPhones for the lightning port in 2012 and I think the first usb c android was 2015ish
My point is that 11 years later people act as if this lightning port was thrust upon them RATHER than getting usb c.
They’ve been using the same connector for more than a decade now, that’s all.
Your points about apple opting to go their own route is salient and stands and I agree whole heartedly.
This, Apple is shitty for not advancing a standard. Can you imagine if every appliance came with some proprietary cable so you would be incentivized to stay with one brand to minimize hassle. We'd never stand for that, but for some reason we as consumers didn't demand standardization in this realm. It's a fast moving industry to be sure, but I don't really see how that precludes standardization and that is evidenced by all the non Apple equipment that has settled on USB.
What are you talking about? Lightning is older than USB-c, and iPhone has had 2 connectors (30pin, Lightning) during the time where all other phones had at least three (Mini B, Micro B, C)
No? A non-iPhone user has had to replace more cables during the same time span, and that’s not even counting the proprietary cables that existed on phones in the 2007-2009 era. Thunderbolt cables are expensive, even at Monoprice they are 3-4x the cost of a USB 2.0 cable that the vast majority will never need anything better.
and are putting BOTH options on the phone
While we haven’t yet seen the new phones, this is extremely unlikely. Since when does Apple have the reputation of adding ports?
I had read somewhere that they’re just continuing to use an older controller to save a few Pennie’s and reduce architectural changes
I'm only going off what this guy is guessing, but I don't think they would do that either.
USB-c has absolutely nothing to do with speed. It’s solely the port shape.
Most USB-c cables today are usb2.0
Many phones use USB-C with USB 2.0, or at least they used to very recently. The Samsung Galaxy S series had USB 3.0 micro B on the S5 and devolved into USB 2.0 with a USB-C connector.
Little bit of a strange article.
First, it's about data transfer speeds. I don't think... anyone else in my extended family, and certainly none of the iPhone users, use a cable to transfer data frequently.
But more importantly - the subtitle of the article says that only the pro models offer faster charging speeds. Despite the article being exclusively about data transfer speeds.
Why?
Not that I use the junk this company ships to stores but a part of me would like to hear the meeting where someone proposed this and the rationale to support it.
Merely a rumor. Apple is known to put multiple false rumors into their supplier chain to find leakers.
I’m going to wait for the upcoming formal announcement and specs.