• carl_dungeon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    2 years ago

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

    • Marxism-Fennekinism@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

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

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Apple is still hellbent on continuing to only have USB2 speeds even with USB-C, plus lockout chips, their new connector is obsolete as well.

        • Marxism-Fennekinism@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • schnokobaer@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

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

      • JCreazy@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

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

        • schnokobaer@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          2 years ago

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

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

          • Paulemeister@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

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

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

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

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

          • Enkrod@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            2 years ago

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

          • png@artemis.camp
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

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

    • SnowdenHeroOfOurTime@unilem.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      2 years ago

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

      • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

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

      • iegod@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        Doesn’t matter if it was technically better

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

        • SnowdenHeroOfOurTime@unilem.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          2 years ago

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

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

          • iegod@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            2 years ago

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