Slashdot Mirror
New iPhones To Stick With Lightning Over USB-C, Include Slow-Charging 5W USB-A Charger In Box (9to5mac.com)
For those hoping the next iPhone would ditch the Lightning port in favor of the more versatile USB-C port, you'll surely be disappointed by the latest rumor. "Japanese site Macotakara says that not only will the 2019 iPhone use Lightning, Apple will also continue to bundle the same 5W charger and USB-A to Lightning cable in the box," reports 9to5Mac. "This is seen as a cost saving measure. It seems that customers wanting faster iPhone charge times will still have to buy accessories, like the 12W iPad charger." From the report: The site explains that Lightning port is not going anywhere and Apple is resistant to changing the included accessories to maintain production costs. Apple can benefit from huge economies of scale by selling the same accessories for many generation. As such, Apple apparently will keep bundling Lightning EarPods, Lightning to USB-A cable, and the 5W USB power adaptor, with the 2019 iPhone lineup. This is disappointing as Apple began shipping an 18W USB-C charger with its iPad Pro line last fall, and many expected that accessory to become an iPhone standard too. Even if the iPhone keeps the Lightning port, Lightning can support fast-charging over the USB Type-C protocol. It's not clear if the cost savings of this decision would be passed on to consumers with lower cost 2019 iPhone pricing.
Gotta love that, the devices users pay the largest markup for and apple choose cost saving measures over functionality. I guess as long as the user base continues to accept mistreatment that is exactly what they will get.
It's not clear if the cost savings of this decision would be passed on to consumers with lower cost 2019 iPhone pricing.
I don't think so.
Most customers want to keep the same connector, because they already have chargers and cables, and sometimes even accessories, for it.
USB-C is better in the long run, but that doesn't make it better now.
You need to capitalize the "traitors", "Trump Traitors" would denote a cadre of traitors under the banner of Trump, whereas "Trump traitors" suggests a group who has betrayed Trump. Also, shuuuuuuut the fuuuuuuck uuuuuuup
but it seems people who want to buy an iPhone don't care enough, to the point they'd switch to android.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
...you have to buy iFranklin. Just connect it to the Lightning port, beam the rod towards the sky and wait for the next thunderstorm to full charge your iPhone.
This is seen as a cost saving measure. It seems that customers wanting faster iPhone charge times will still have to buy accessories, like the 12W iPad charger.
Will have to buy one? I have had one for years and use it to charge everything from iPhones to Garmin devices, Android devices and headphones.
It's not clear if the cost savings of this decision would be passed on to consumers with lower cost 2019 iPhone pricing.
Oh I guarantee they'll take the entire 5 cents off the total price, making it ONLY $1199.95! Order now!
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
Apple can benefit from huge economies of scale by selling the same accessories for many generation.
I think they meant "Apple can boost their profit by selling proprietary Lightning accessories"
Their prices have gone up dramatically. Apple have lost the plot lately.
They seem to have finally woken up to that: https://www.bbc.com/news/busin...
They'll get so much flack for it from people who don't know better.
Between USBc teething issues and the switch to lightning only being what 4 or 5 begrudging years ago, it makes sense to wait.
Let's see them make Apple pencil and headphones USB C and a few more MacBooks being out in the wild.
They'll bide their time on the flagship product
But is slow charge not still better for the battery?
L'Idiot
... Apple truly understands.
Premium price, budget product.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
"...Apple is resistant to changing the included accessories to maintain production costs."
understandable, they barely make a profit with selling price they're asking for those phones.
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
I'm resistant to changing to Apple.
It is actually that simple.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Trump Traitors? Is that like the Wesley Crushers?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The word you're looking for is chutzpah.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Give the exact same phone as the 6S plus with a longer battery and a faster CPU and I'll buy it before it ships. But no headphone jack and no touch ID is a deal breaker. I'm simply no wasting money on a phone which removes features. iPhone 6S Plus was the best phone Apple ever made. I'll keep repairing the one I have until Apple makes a legitimate replacement.
Face ID - nice feature, but doesn't actually add convenience.
Wireless charging - useless feature since I can't charge while watching the phone. The charger needs a cable anyway.
Edge to edge screen - means I can't use a protective cover to avoid breaking the glass and still be able to reach all parts of the screen. Also, holding the phone from the sides becomes difficult as it interferes with the text.
Swiping gestures to replace the home - means you have to swipe either side of the phone. If I use the phone right handed, I can manage this, but left handed, I end up dropping it all the time.
I upgraded from the iPhone X 256GB to the iPhone 6S plus and it was the biggest upgrade I ever made on a phone.
The site explains that Lightning port is not going anywhere and Apple is resistant to changing the included accessories to maintain production costs.
Just remember Apple is claiming to be eco-friendly while producing hundreds of millions of unnecessary, proprietary, and redundant connectors instead of using an industry standard USB-C cable that would accomplish exactly the same purpose AND waste less in the process. Not to mention that USB-C can transfer data faster (480Mbps vs 10Gbps), transfer more power (12W vs 100W), be double ended, and work with other devices.
When Lightning was introduced it was an improvement over the truly awful microUSB connectors. USB-C has eliminated any reason for Lightning to continue to exist other than profit seeking and vendor lock in.
Of course, if Apple had announced a change to USB-C, then they be getting shit for making their users change cables again. Samsung would probably run some ads mocking the move, despite transitioning to USB-C themselves.
I consider all people willing to pay $1000 for a new phone without fast charging to be dumb, frankly.
To be fair you can get fast(er) charging with the iPhone if you buy their (expensive) USB-C to Lightning cable and one of their (expensive) higher voltage USB-C power adapters. I have this setup at home and it works substantially faster. I haven't timed it but it gets me most if not all of a charge in less than an hour.
Honestly though my complaint about the iPhone charging is that they continue to use Lightning connectors when USB-C has eliminated any technical reason for Apple to continue to use them. USB-C is faster, can deliver more power, is double ended, ships on all their laptops, and is an industry standard. Continuing to use Lightning at this point on the iPhone is just a dick move.
No, he's a potential new customer, which actually makes him more valuable.
Not necessarily. Not all customers are equal and sometimes the cost of winning a new customer exceeds the value that customer brings.
Getting people off competitors' products and onto yours is a higher priority for businesses
Definitely not in Apple's case. Apple has never tried to chase market share at any cost. They have always been happy having a smaller but more profitable and stable portion of the market. In the case of the iPhone they get the vast majority of the profits in the industry so it's unclear what point there would be to them in chasing low margin customers unless their market starts eroding under them. Apple exists to make money, not to get the largest possible market share.
do you think it's just an odd accident people switching from one broadband provider to another get discounts and loyal customers get nothing?
Different markets with different dynamics.
Why support a non-proprietary connector when you can use a proprietary one and charge an arm and a leg for peripherals that work with it? And screw customers and the inconveniences they may suffer, profits matter more.
Lately? How does it feel waking up after a 15 year coma?
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
There may be a rationale for 5W versus 20W chargers that has to do with making the phone batteries degrade slower and reduce the risk of fire.
But I do know that my phone gets pretty warm when it is charging and though heat flux does not scale perfectly linearly with temperature, for small differences it's linear enough to say that if you double the charging rate you will double the temperature rise.
Since I'd not want a phone that was 3 times hotter than room temperature rise than it gets now I think this battery charge rate is fixed by this. The only way to do better would be to make the charging heat loss closer to the thermodynamic limit. it's possible different batteries can have different charging heat losses but I'd guess that every phone maker uses the most efficient one currently possible.
Some fixed fraction of every watt that fluxes into storage goes into heat. I'm not quite sure what that amount is, certainly the laws of thermodynamics put a lower bound on that but if it's like most things it's way more than that, probably in double digit percentages.
So that goes to heat. The battery has a fixed surface area to volume ratio. So the rate at which is can dissipate this heat to it's surroundings is fixed by that, which apple can control, and the surroundings which apple cannot control. e.g. is it in the foam padded (insulating) pocket of your back or jacket? Is it under a pillow or a sheaf of papers. Is it standing up in the air or flat in on a table?
If you plan for a reasonable first case, and then build in thermal protection for the rest, then one can figure out how much the temperature inside the battery can get up to for any given charge rate.
At some point the battery is harmed by this temperature. It might just degrade its lifetime but in some cases that degradation also increases the chance of fire or battery swelling.
In any case there is some maximum advisable charge rate for a given size battery.
if this is the limit, then It would seem reasonable that an ipad with many times the surfaces area (and volume) could sustain a higher charge rate than an iphone.
I cant say that apple is bumping into this limit because it's too hard to guess without knowing what the battery limits are. But given how warm the phone gets now I'd say they can't charge much faster without making it a lot hotter.
Finally I'll note that this is slightly different than short term fast charging. Since the phone and batter also have a heat capacity, it's possible to temporarily charge the phone up to some total energy without appreciable temperature rise. SO you may be able to partially charge the battery quite fast. But at some point you would have to fall back to the thermodynamic limit described above.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
I've only ever seen one USB-C cable and the person who uses it finds it annoying
Oh well clearly then your single data point proves that nobody uses USB-C despite it being on nearly every new computer and smartphone sold these days, including all the computers sold by Apple.
I don't know why someone would have a "ton" of those cables, maybe two if they have a new iphone.
Because even if you aren't trying you end up with a bunch over time. I've used iPhones for several product generations and so has my wife. I'm sure we have at least a dozen Lightning cables between us. I have 40+ USB-A/B cables, dozens of micro and mini USB cables, and probably 5 USB-C cables with more undoubtedly coming. They come with devices and it's pretty easy to end up with a lot after a while. And that's even if you don't buy any extras. This is why I wish lightning and USB-A/B and microUSB would die in a fire so we can standardize on USB-C and I can get rid of a lot of unnecessary cables.
Fast charge doesn't matter if you're able to actually let go of the phone and put it down, charging overnight should last all day.
It doesn't matter until it does. I generally only charge at night but I've had days where I've needed a quick charge. Not everyone has the same schedule. It's particularly problematic for people traveling a lot.
When I first saw information on USB-C ports, I thought, "Hopefully they've made them more sturdy than the crappy micro-USB!"
My hopes were dashed by reality - USB-C incorporates the same weak design as micro-USB, just altered to so that the cable can be plugged in without regard to "up or down".
The problem with both ports is that the device-side contacts are on a thin plastic strip, prone to being broken if the cable is flexed. And since the first-to-break part is embedded in the expensive device, rather than the cheap cable, a lot of hardware becomes trash "before its time". Headphones, phones, tablets, etc., needing to be replaced because the only charging port broke while charging.
The Lightning connector, despite its other shortcomings, is less likely to break than either micro-USB or USB-C.
And you don't think they deserve some mocking for going with ligthning in the first place, considering there was the deal, that manufacturers would make an effort to unify the ports on phones?
No because microUSB sucks sour frog ass. Seriously, it's a terrible physical connector. If USB-C had been available when Lightning was introduced then yes introducing Lightining would have been a terrible decision. But at the time of its introduction Lightning as a big improvement over the alternatives even in the face of being expensive and proprietary. Now however USB-C has pretty much eliminated any meaningful advantages Lightning once had, hugely outperforms it, and is standard. Apple sticking with Lightning at this point is nothing but a pathetic cash grab and lock in attempt.
USB C also has its problem
All connectors have their problems. USB-C isn't perfect but it's definitely Good Enough. The physical connector is a big upgrade over Micro-USB (keyed connectors suck) in pretty much every meaningful way. It's very fast, can carry all the power a smartphone will ever need, is double ended, it's cheaper, and has more advantages besides.
Lightning has about 10 times more sturdy connection.
Not really true but even if it were that is not sufficient justification for its continued existence or use. USB-C is durable enough to get the job done in most cases and it is far more capable as an interface. Lightning was a good idea at the time of its introduction but not it's an idea which has run its course. Time to let it die.
Business schools teach a "potential new consumer" is worth about 10% of an existing consumer. Because he is likely to have many reasons not to switch. (You think a new cord is a bigger deal than his entire app library?) You want to keep your customers happy first.
The Ford example is very wrong because it's not a potential new customer. It's a new customer.
And frankly, I don't see anyone switching to an iPhone who is going to care about the cables. If you're willing to pay a premium for the hardware/OS/store, then you're willing to pay a premium for a new cable. Meanwhile, if you think getting rid of the headphone jack made people not want to upgrade, get rid of their new lightning headphones, and all their other accessories. Getting rid of the lightning port hurts their best customers the most.
Also, the lightning cable is better than USB-C. It's more solid (can support the weight of the phone), and it's more wear resistant and it's designed so the wear goes more on the cable, not the phone.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
The USB-PD protocol is physically tied to USB Type-C signals. It can not be implemented over a Type-A connector. You require the CC (Configuration Channel) lines to facilitate USB-PD communication. The Type-A connector instead relies on specific pull-up / pull-down resistors on the data lines. It is nasty compared to the newer, USB Type-C / USB-PD standard.
I suppose Apple could use an active Lightning to Type-C cable to implement USB-PD. It would not be simple and would require that the Lightning connector be able to facilitate configuration data.
Because "industry standard" wires don't use natural resources.
Using a standard cable means you need less of them in total. It means that nobody has to create tooling or waste energy or transport a second type of cable. This costs real money, uses real energy and is easily shown to be wasteful.
You have a good point about battery longevity. We have a slow charger in the bedroom, and a fast one in the car (which is only used when needed), for that same reason. But this seems like something that Apple could address in software. It might need tighter integration between the USB controller and the OS, but Apple controls all of that.
I'm not too familiar with how Apple lighting chargers work, but with USB the device negotiates the voltage and current with the charger. It seems possible that iOS could notice that you plugged in the phone, and set an alarm for X hours from now, and negotiate a charging speed that will have the phone ready to go at that time.
Electric cars do just that, charge up to y% right away to give you a quick boost when you need it, then slowly charge the rest of the way targeting a (user configurable) completion time the next morning.
In my household we got several Apple iPads, lots of Android USB-c phones, and also a number of devices (like BT earbuds and speakers) that will stick with micro-USB for a long long time. Any place where I need to charge the mobile devices, whether car, kitchen, or bedroom, I need to have at least three cables around. These cables are like black spaghetti or copulating worms, always follow me and stare around with their sad sad eyes. How did we end up here?
Ye olde USB 1 isn't going away anytime soon, because it is cheap to implement.
Sadly this is undoubtedly true, at least the first bit. USB-C isn't hugely more expensive to implement but there is a large installed base of USB-A/B cables and ports out there already and that matters. I still haven't seen a printer with an USB-C port though I'm sure some exist. I've never seen a USB-C keyboard or mouse in person though again I'm sure they exist.
That makes it ideal for low-cost, low-bandwidth devices, especially input devices.
The cost argument isn't as significant as many people think. I make cables for a living so I'm more familiar than most with the costs involved. It actually costs more in a lot of cases to use multiple cables optimized for individual tasks than to just use a common cable that works for all, even if it is overkill for some of the tasks. USB-C is being produced at sufficient scale that the cost of it is not (or doesn't need to be) substantially higher than legacy USB connections. Once you include the engineering, tooling, support, warranty, supply chain, etc costs all in, the cost argument for legacy USB tends to be a poor one.
And USB 2 has to stick around for another decade or so because of legacy flash drives and cameras.
Older USB ports will stick around for quite a while but for more general reasons than just those items. Those items could be adapted to USB-C easily enough. It's more general network effects in play. The PC sitting behind me as I type this doesn't have a single USB-C port on it and it's not that old. Even unpopular legacy ports tend to die a hard death, particularly when they are as common as the older USB ports are. Hell we still see PCs with PS/2 ports even today for some mind blowing reason.
I make wire harnesses for a living and you would not believe how many tens of thousands of unnecessary, obsolete, redundant, and superseded connection components are still in use today. I have a bookshelf literally full of catalogs 20 feet from my desk 90+% full of legacy components that still get used here and there, mostly by idiot engineers who make perfect the enemy of good. The big problem in converting is that a lot of existing equipment including a lot of charging infrastructure already has the ports. I think you are about right that it's going to take another 10-15 years to migrate the majority of equipment over to USB-C and to gradually clear out the older ports. They'll never completely go away but it's going to take a while to get to the tipping point where most vanish.
That relies on the assumption that you only have 1 standard that no older standards are ever used.
Not at all. I'm well aware of the existing legacy equipment and I understand that people will continue to use it for some time. But you are only thinking of it (understandably) from one perspective. Continuing to sell it going forward is demonstrably wasteful. 9 pin D-sub connectors used to be common and still exist but they aren't sold as standard equipment on most PCs anymore. Those who need them for old equipment either buy an interface card or an adapter. New equipment comes with new ports and you adapt old equipment to it. To continue to sell a variety of legacy ports in new equipment is wasteful. There is some waste and conversion cost to the new standard but in the long run having a single physical connection standard will demonstrably be less wasteful than trying to maintain numerous legacy connectors with physically different connections.
When USB-C became the standard, people didn’t stop using mini-B, micro-B etc and threw away all their devices that used them.
This is a sunk cost fallacy. Nobody is asking them to stop using devices they already have. Those items are already paid for so it doesn't make sense to keep throwing money at multiple legacy ports on the devices they connect to in perpetuity.
That would actually been a lot more waste.
Not at all if you think through the entire scope of the problem. It might be more waste for that individual but overall it ends up being less. You have fewer components to manufacture so the supply chain costs go down significantly. People give Apple a lot of shit for going whole hog into USB-C (perhaps too aggressively) but a big part of the reason they are pushing it is because it saves a LOT of money in the long run. Every legacy port Apple has to support creates a substantial and measurable cost to them and ultimately to their customers. Every PC maker will eventually have to follow suit to maintain profit margins because legacy ports and support are expensive.
Eventually old equipment gets replaced by new on the new standards and saves money in the long run. Trying to stick with legacy ports actually increases cost and waste globally even if it saves it for individuals in many cases.
It's really not about the cables, but about the interface itself.
That's approximately the point I was trying to make, perhaps badly. Although to be fair the cables are part of the problem.
USB2 is cooked right into the cheapest SoCs, USB1 is in cheap microcontrollers, keyboard interfaces, etc. The designs for those chips have been traded around, shared, transferred in fire sales etc. and as a result they are essentially free.
Those are sunk costs and thus not really relevant to a cost analysis. The designs don't really cost much at this point but the components and assembly and supply chain do cost real money every time we build a machine that uses them. I'm fairly certain the main reason companies still include these legacy ports is because they fear (with some justification) that they will lose sales if they don't include them. It would cost them less to not have to include them and to standardize on a single port type but that doesn't matter if they cannot sell the product. People have USB devices they want to use and not many companies are confident they can convince their users to adapt them or upgrade.
So we have sort of a Mexican standoff among device makers. None of them really want to include the legacy ports but they all think they sort of have to so their competitors don't get a leg up. This is how the 3.5" floppy drive hung around for about 10 years after it should have rightfully died. It's why we still have CD drives in so many desktop PCs that don't really need one. It's why we still see freakin' PS/2 ports even to this day. Apple has something of privileged position where they can get away from some of this since they are the only PC maker who is fully vertically integrated and controls their own operating system. But they are the exception that proves the rule.
Networks effects can be very powerful but not always in a good way.