Ondrej Holzman It's been just over four years since Apple caused a stir by replacing the 30-pin connector in its iPhones with the new Lightning. A few years is usually a long time in the technology world, during which a lot changes, and this also applies to connectors and cables. So now is the time for Apple to once again change the connector on a device used by hundreds of millions of people around the world?
The question is definitely not just a theoretical one, because there really is a technology on the scene that has the potential to replace Lightning. It's called USB-C and we already know it from Apple - we can find it in the MacBook i the latest MacBook Pro. Therefore, there are more and more reasons why USB-C could also appear on iPhones and eventually, logically, on iPads as well.
Those who used iPhones around 2012 surely remember the hype. At first, when users looked at the new port at the bottom of the iPhone 5, they were mainly concerned with the fact that they could discard all the previous accessories and accessories that counted on a 30-pin connector. However, Apple made this fundamental change for a good reason – Lightning was simply better in all respects than the so-called 30pin, and users quickly got used to it.
Lightning is still a very good solution
Apple opted for a proprietary solution for a number of reasons, but one of them was definitely that the general standard in mobile devices – at the time microUSB – simply wasn't good enough. Lightning had a number of advantages, the most important of which were its small size and the ability to connect from any side.
The second reason why Apple opted for a proprietary solution was the maximum control over the devices as such and also connected peripherals. Anyone who did not pay a tithe to Apple as part of the "Made for iPhone" program could not produce accessories with Lightning. And if he did, iPhones rejected uncertified products. For Apple, its own connector was also a source of income.
The discussion about whether Lightning should replace USB-C on iPhones is certainly not possible to develop on the basis that perhaps Lightning is insufficient. The situation is somewhat different from that of a few years ago, when the 30-pin connector was replaced by clearly better technology. Lightning works great even in the latest iPhone 7, thanks to it Apple has control and money, and the reason to change may not be so attractive.
The whole thing needs to be looked at from a slightly broader perspective that includes not only iPhones, but also other Apple products and even the rest of the market. Because sooner or later, USB-C will become the unanimous standard in most computers and mobile devices, with which it will be possible to connect and connect absolutely everything. After all, Apple himself this thesis could not confirm more, than when he inserted USB-C into the new MacBook Pro four times straight and nothing else (except for the 3,5mm jack).
USB-C may not have as significant advantages over Lightning as Lightning had over the 30-pin connector, but they are still there and cannot be overlooked. On the other hand, one potential obstacle to the deployment of USB-C in iPhones should be mentioned at the outset.
In terms of size, USB-C is paradoxically slightly larger than Lightning, which could represent the biggest problem for Apple's design team, which is trying to create ever thinner products. The socket is slightly larger and the connector itself is also more robust, however, if you put the USB-C and Lightning cables side by side, the difference is rather minimal and should not cause major changes and problems inside the iPhone. And then more or less only positivity comes.
One cable to rule them all
USB-C can also (finally) be connected on both sides, you can transfer practically anything and more via it works with USB 3.1 and Thunderbolt 3, making it an ideal universal connector for computers as well (see the new MacBook Pros). Via USB-C, you can transfer data at high speed, connect monitors or external drives.
USB-C may also have a future in audio, as it has better support for digital audio transmission while consuming less power, and it appears to be a possible replacement for the 3,5mm jack, which Apple is not the only one starting to remove from its products. And it's also important to mention that USB-C is bidirectional, so you can charge, for example, both the MacBook iPhone and the MacBook itself with a power bank.
Most importantly, USB-C is a unified connector that will gradually become the standard for most computers and mobile devices. This could bring us closer to the ideal scenario where one port and cable rules everything, which in the case of USB-C is a reality, not just wishful thinking.
It would be much easier if we only needed a single cable to charge iPhones, iPads, and MacBooks, but also to connect these devices to each other, or to connect disks, monitors, and more to them. Due to the expansion of USB-C by other manufacturers, it would not be so difficult to find a charger if you forgot it somewhere, as even your colleague with the cheapest phone would have the necessary cable. It would also mean prospectively removing the vast majority of adapters, which bothers so many users today.
MagSafe also seemed to be immortal
If USB-C should not replace a proprietary solution, there would probably be nothing to discuss, but considering how much Apple has already invested in Lightning and what benefits it brings, its removal is certainly not certain in the near future. In terms of money from licensing, USB-C also offers similar options, so the principle of the Made for iPhone program could be preserved at least in some form.
The latest MacBooks have already confirmed that USB-C is not far off for Apple. As well as the fact that Apple can get rid of its own solution, although few expect it. MagSafe was one of the best connector innovations that Apple gave the world in its notebooks, yet it seems to have gotten rid of it for good last year. Lightning could follow, as at least from the outside, USB-C appears to be a very attractive solution.
For users, this change would certainly be pleasant due to the benefits and above all the universality of USB-C, even if it would mean changing a whole range of accessories at the beginning. But will these reasons be equally valid for Apple to do something like this already in 2017?
I absolutely agree. It would fit in perfectly with Apple's philosophy, i.e. maximum simplicity. Unfortunately, I don't think this step is very likely, since Apple would have already deployed usbc. Constantly adding accessories is a thing that only confirms it (airpods, pencil...). It's true that lightning has a few advantages, such as a smaller size or a better or more compact design, but I like to sacrifice these things in favor of unifying the connectors. It would also clearly benefit the iPad Pro and its potential to replace the PC if Cook keeps getting it wrong.
I agree too. What I no longer agree with is the transition from MagSafe to USB-C in terms of charging. I think that's a downgrade like a cow and I'd like to charge via MagSafe. He saved my MacBook many times and if there was USB-C, the poor guy is already dead.
I personally thought it was a downgrade too. But in my opinion it is a reasonable step for the future. You can always find a company that makes some sort of USB-C magnetic connector. It also exists for iPhones.
MagSafe is a great thing, but how many times have I changed the charger cable with a new connector only because the spring mechanism at the contacts in it simply went away.
If macbooks really gave those 10 hours, it wouldn't be a problem and I would only charge at home overnight, it's a bit of an inconvenience, but I'll wear out the magnetic port anyway. at least I will be able to choose the side from which I can charge the laptop. But what annoys me is the absence of a diode..
yes, that diode is very cool.
The disadvantage of those magnetic reductions is that they stick out and are ugly.
Yeah…
It's not supposed to replace your PC (and certainly not a desktop full of cables;) ), but an activity.
A laptop for 20k (the price of an iPad) is, by its focus, a home portable computer where you chew on the Internet, video or IM. And what are we going to lie about, the iPad can do it very well (I would say that today in the time of the jungle around SW equipment and technologies in Windows, in reality, even better for many).
The fact that someone tells you to use a motorcycle instead of a car, that they will replace it, will certainly be in the context of e.g. the way to work, when yes, that will be the case (with its advantages and disadvantages). But no, a car won't replace you in front of a bar :)
I agree, but I have a reservation about USB-C. In my opinion, Lightning is mechanically simpler, more resistant to mechanical damage. When I plug USB-C into the computer, I sometimes feel that I can break the center that is in the computer. But you can get used to it.
Exactly. The Lighting connector is mechanically more resistant than the USB-C connector.
Yep, but Apple also allows itself to sell a cradle with Lightning as the only connection point for the iPhone. So they don't have balls on the iPad anymore :) I don't remember an alternative for USB-C (it's true, I didn't look for it among the capable Chinese people.
I saw a certain cable salvation in USB-C before the information surfaced that one USB-C cable only supports USB 2.0 but full charging throughput, another Thunderbolt 3, another USB-C 3.1 but cannot supply 100W. So again it's not one cable, just one connector. Until the manufacturers fix this, we will be where we are. So, for now, definitely a Lightning cable for me.
Just the connector is a pretty good start :D
We honestly couldn't care less. Simply, if we connect a t3 peripheral to usbc, it will only be slower and vice versa. I just put the desired item in the hole I want it in and if I connect a larger field or display I will see which one I put it in
But that's not true. Not every Thunderbolt 3 peripheral can be plugged into every USB-C connector. For example, a 12″ macbook only has USB-C in version 1.0 (5GB/s) without a Thunderbolt port, and therefore no device with a Thunderbolt port works with it.
Ah, I thought that the disk would only slow down its throughput and the display would "downgrade" the resolution.
If you have a TB disk and you connect it to something that doesn't have a TB controller, then the cable has nothing to talk about. If the drive will have a USB interface at the same time, it will be as you say, the theoretical 20GB/s transmission bandwidth that TB is capable of will not be used, but 10 or 5GB/s (depending on the version of the USB controller, itself and possibly USB 2.0).
So, the peripheral must be able to use both controllers, TB and USB, so that it has the possibility to use both the maximum theoretical throughput and the most universal possibility of communication.
Moreover, it's not even true (see dfx) straight out of the box from Apple:) The power cable for the MBPro is USB 2.0, so yes, the connected thing will eventually communicate more slowly (e.g. a portable player), but maybe not at all, see the connection of the MBPro- MBPro for migration.
Exactly. USB-C is still cable hell. It is not possible to guarantee that a specific cable will work with two specific devices. I'd rather have an Apple Lightning connector for iPhones and iPads, and I'll carry one or two Lightning cables to make sure I can charge my iPhone anywhere via a USB 2 or USB-C port.
In my opinion, usb-c in iPhones is unrealistic due to the size, it would barely fit now and I assume further thinning of the upcoming devices..
Thinning is just a popular urban legend, especially with Apple (it's definitely not the one that pushes it to extremes, there are really others for that).
But you have to realize that the structure is also changing internally. For iPhone 7, for example, an increase in the Taptic Engine and a shift to Home (subsequent collision with the jack).
Also, the increased resistance against the ingress of dirt and moisture needs its own space. Etc.
There are more and more things in phones (e.g. haptics, IR camera, etc.) and at the same time there is pressure for a more efficient display:body ratio. It goes against each other and victims fall. The first to hit are the external "holes", i.e. slots and connectors. At the same time, the thickness of the device did not have to budge even an inch.
I probably agree with all of the above, but there is still pressure for thinning, which does not mean that I would support it at the expense of, for example, the battery, which is finally more usable with the ip7 (I really don't miss the jack). I'm not an expert, but I assume that further thinning will allow an oled display… (?)
It is necessary to perceive thinning and thinning:) If the area grows (in the past, when we grew from 3,5″ devices to today's say 5,7″), thinning was needed due to the reduction of the volume of the device. After all, today's 5,5″ paddle/pad fits better in the pocket than the 4″ block of the day (for example, the Desire Z with a keyboard).
This of course necessitated changes in component layout and design. Something fell as a victim (old power connectors, slots, replaceable battery, etc.). In this diction, de facto everyone followed.
Then thinning as a design element is seen occasionally today. Where other difficulties are encountered, see for example jack no longer suited some layouts. But in my opinion, thinning is no longer on the agenda today. I think the last time Apple thinned it was three years ago, didn't it? (iThings).
Ad OLED displays. I do not know. It doesn't seem to me that phones with an OLED display are somehow thinner than those with an LCD. yes to you Even with a TV, it's just a pseudo-thinning, because the electronics have to be put somewhere anyway, so there are various problems with where to place them, but the result is that you don't have much space on the wall anyway. It also needs to be cooled.... What goes against the current development, HDR, i.e. higher radiation power, i.e. higher waste heat.
You can agree with the article from the given point of view, but there are some buts.
I would still dwell on "Lightning over 30pin in everything", which is not true, 30pin could do LineOut, Lightning can't. True, today with a forced external DAC it is actually "solved".
But USB-C as a connector yes, full agreement, as communication no. As shown by the case with the power supply (into which, for example, Google sews), the matter is definitely not resolved (realistically). And that's something UX-centric Apple doesn't exactly like.
This is connected to the topic of MFi, which was described here in a monochromatic manner as a source of finance. Which of course is nonsense. Just with regard to the above topic.
This raises the question of how far the USB-C certification is possible. I think it's possible at the "provides some technology" level, not "it's good for the company". I would be surprised if the USB Consortium would allow an MFi program in USB that would actually separate from that standard.
In other words, except for "one connector to rule them all", Apple has no reason to complicate life with the transition.
In my opinion, USB-C is not an ideal connector for pocket items, as it has pins on the handle in the middle, making it much more difficult to clean. Apple, on the other hand, is pushing lightning into more devices (AirPods, Apple Pencil, Magic Mouse, Apple Keyboard), so I wouldn't be surprised if Apple, as usual, was the biggest troll and was the only one to go with its connector wherever it wanted. Even now, for example, the Beats Solo 3, which for reasons I don't understand have a MicroUSB (WTF??) - it's all just wishful thinking, but Apple is known for... throwing a punch at wishful thinking.
I hope that at least Apple is sane and won't attack USB-C iPhones.