If you look closely you can see there are indentations on the sides of the plug which I presume interlock with some sort of spring loaded mechanism that snaps in to securely fasten it to the device.
Thanks, that sounds reasonable. I wish these people taking photos would at least take decent comparison shots and shots of each side of the connectors. What's the point of all these useless 'glamour' shots?
Gee,
I wonder how they have avoided these problems with the mag safe connector? I mean any one-year-old that stick the power adapter in his mouth...
Not gonna happen for technical reasons already discussed by others more conversant with circuitry than I many times in these forums (and in articles).
Quote:
Or they could just, you know, use Micro USB, like every other small portable device on Earth.
Wouldn't save consumers money, or add convenience, or anything like that. Nah. Let's make a new proprietary connection and FORCE CONSUMERS TO BUY THE CABLES AND ADAPTERS FROM US. [....]
Was gonna chime in on this, but decided I'd be in over my head (not that that's always stopped me before), but I will share this anecdote (which will date me even more, but so be it):
We recently staged our 50th HS Class Reunion and I was in charge of the geekery aspects - including interfacing our notebooks/laptops to the resort's video projectors and TV's. We had all the media on three different vintages of Macs - and had to purchase THREE SEPARATE kinds of adapters for $60+ (the venue didn't have cables for even one of them) to hook up to their display equipment (VGA and HDMI).
That seems just... ...stupid.... ...but I'm hoping TB and this new iDevice docker will be stable staples of Apple World for a good while (e.g., that current TB stuff won't be superceded when the all optical path versions are released).
And while I've felt left behind by Firewire's being superceded by USB, even now I can buy Macs that I can plug my FW drives and cams into, so guess I can't bitch that much......
An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou... ...life is complete.
An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou... ...life is complete.
USB is designed to handle shorting of the power without ill effect. It's in the standard.
My worry is exposed contacts increase the probability of static electricity being discharged into the pins. It would suck for an unplugged cable to fry your USB port when you brush past it carrying a charge, which in dryer, cooler weather can be significant.
Solipsism did it quite well on the previous page, I believe.
That's exactly why it's a terrible reason.
Apple is legally required to make a MicroUSB adapter for their devices sold in the EU. I'm not sure how that's not 'telling'.
Yes, I must have missed the part where we don't know this, can't know this, and may or may not be true. Ah, no. I'm not the one that missed it.
My prediction: you'll be able to charge the iphone 5 with microUSB, but a data connection will require the official 9-pin .
Sure, with an adapter. I'm not seeing how you'd expect two types of plug to fit in the same socket.
Huh. A newspaper from in the EU (yes, I know how much Britons dislike the EU and how they'd leave in a heartbeat if it federalizes), whining about the progress of technology. Am I supposed to be surprised?
Is there an identical article every time a new port or standard is released? Was there one for Mini DisplayPort? How about USB3-B? Or USB itself back in '97. Maybe there was one for DVI in 1999. Or HDMI. There was probably an article for HDMI, right? And how introducing a new port was a "power grab" because it wasn't compatible with older stuff.
I'm gonna take a guess here and say there wasn't a single article about any of those. Not a one. Feel free to prove me wrong, and I'm not commenting at all on the integrity of the news source, but this is a load of tripe, cooked up specifically because Apple gets hits.
Huh. A newspaper from in the EU (yes, I know how much Britons dislike the EU and how they'd leave in a heartbeat if it federalizes), whining about the progress of technology. Am I supposed to be surprised?
Is there an identical article every time a new port or standard is released? Was there one for Mini DisplayPort? How about USB3-B? Or USB itself back in '97. Maybe there was one for DVI in 1999. Or HDMI. There was probably an article for HDMI, right? And how introducing a new port was a "power grab" because it wasn't compatible with older stuff.
I'm gonna take a guess here and say there wasn't a single article about any of those. Not a one. Feel free to prove me wrong, and I'm not commenting at all on the integrity of the news source, but this is a load of tripe, cooked up specifically because Apple gets hits.
Even if it is a load of tripe, you can't possibly be happy to pay more money for yet another (different) proprietary connection.
Patiently awaiting my Haswell MacBook Air
Patiently awaiting my Haswell MacBook Air
Current safety standards allow presentation of up to 42V on exposed contacts. This is approximately the detection threshold for dry skin. Nine volt batteries with exposed contacts are in routine use around the world. Their greatest danger to children is as a choking hazard. All usb ports and adapters are voltage and power limited, as required by safety regulations. The potential for "major problems" is quite low.
If the leaked images of the iPhone5 are accurate, it will still have an exposed antenna, and I expect it will continue to be recommended by carriers for use in fringe reception areas, as that artsy exposed antenna system has proved quite capable.
I see no need to pity the parents of children who stick Apple dock connectors in their mouth, as Apple designs to (and perhaps beyond) current safety standards.
Your sense of the balance between art and engineering at Apple seems woefully off to me. Perhaps that's because I'm an engineer.
Is this a decathlon or something? I tear through each of your arguments in turn and you just ignore it and move onto the next sport? I'm FINE with doing that, sure, but it's sort of in poor form to be hopping around like this.
I'd like you to describe what makes you believe that Dock Connector 2 is costing anyone more than some other port. We need to establish if it even it happens first before we can question users as to their desire to pay more.
Once we can prove that it costs more, then we have to look at the whole of the capabilities of Dock Connector 2 and then weigh its cost against all other ports that provide either all or a subset of the aforementioned capabilities. If no port can do everything Dock Connector 2 can do, it cannot be said that we are "paying more money for it", even if it costs more than another—or any other—port to implement, because in that situation there are no other ports to which Dock Connector 2 can even be compared.
Is this a decathlon or something? I tear through each of your arguments in turn and you just ignore it and move onto the next sport? I'm FINE with doing that, sure, but it's sort of in poor form to be hopping around like this.
I'd like you to describe what makes you believe that Dock Connector 2 is costing anyone more than some other port. We need to establish if it even it happens first before we can question users as to their desire to pay more.
Once we can prove that it costs more, then we have to look at the whole of the capabilities of Dock Connector 2 and then weigh its cost against all other ports that provide either all or a subset of the aforementioned capabilities. If no port can do everything Dock Connector 2 can do, it cannot be said that we are "paying more money for it", even if it costs more than another—or any other—port to implement, because in that situation there are no other ports to which Dock Connector 2 can even be compared.
Ignoring the proposal that Apple has not shared the spec, and may very well not share the spec as to capitalize on the cables and adapters, why exactly must Apple create a brand new proprietary spec that won't be shared by anyone but themself?
There are billions of MicroUSB devices, cables, etc. Millions of Apple 30-pin devices. Now there will be a new form factor, and a big PITA for everyone with older devices.
What about radios that have iPod/iPhone/iPad docks, charging stations, and all the other doodads? How do you put an "adapter" on something that has a specific form designed to hold a device where you cannot? Now it's just legacy?
You seem to be happy about this, Skil. I can't imagine why. Why you would encourage waste, why you'd be happy for a new spec that could've been MicroUSB, why you'd want to pay more for cables and accessories, why you'd want to be new ones in the first place, etc.
Is this a decathlon or something? I tear through each of your arguments in turn and you just ignore it and move onto the next sport? I'm FINE with doing that, sure, but it's sort of in poor form to be hopping around like this.
I'd like you to describe what makes you believe that Dock Connector 2 is costing anyone more than some other port. We need to establish if it even it happens first before we can question users as to their desire to pay more.
Once we can prove that it costs more, then we have to look at the whole of the capabilities of Dock Connector 2 and then weigh its cost against all other ports that provide either all or a subset of the aforementioned capabilities. If no port can do everything Dock Connector 2 can do, it cannot be said that we are "paying more money for it", even if it costs more than another—or any other—port to implement, because in that situation there are no other ports to which Dock Connector 2 can even be compared.
There were huge rumors that there would be adapters for current stuff anyways! Only an idiot would argue with you about this.
You can ask that question of the original Dock Connector and the answer will be the same: Apple has looked at all the ports in the industry. None of these ports do what they want done. Instead of inconveniencing users by removing features they wanted to add or inconveniencing users (and their designers and engineers) by having multiple ports on the device, they made their own.
Would you have preferred Henry Ford simply hooked a wagon to both a horse AND a mule and said "there's your faster vehicle"?
Now there will be a new form factor, and a big PITA for everyone with older devices.
How is this any different from the transition to USB in the first place? How will this be any different from the transition away from USB in the future? Or are you pretending that the port that defines USB will not only be backwards compatible for the rest of eternity, it will be used at all at a specific date in the future? You'd rather the entire industry cut their own legs off and then try to run a race? I'd rather they take one last look at their sneakers and then hop on a bike.
What about radios that have iPod/iPhone/iPad docks, charging stations, and all the other doodads? How do you put an "adapter" on something that has a specific form designed to hold a device where you cannot? Now it's just legacy?
I think we'll have to reserve final judgement on that until we see Apple's adapter, but you do it by… having conformed to Apple's spec in the first place.
Accessories with Dock Connectors are supposed to have openings around the Connector plug of exactly certain dimensions. That was to afford future compatibility with all new devices, even ones five years down the road. By using identical dimensions as the Universal Dock opening, the inserts that are shipped with every pocketable Apple product that uses a Dock Connector can be put into any accessory that uses the Dock Connector, safely and securely seating the new product without needing to purchase a new accessory.
Accessory makers did flaunt that requirement, to their detriment. I have a speaker (great speaker) with a non-standard Dock Connector placement and custom, model-specific rubber inserts. This is all well and good, but when new devices with new dimensions are released, you have to guess. Instead of being able to use the perfection GIVEN to you by Apple, you have to make do with what the accessory gives you. But I digress.
Entirely new accessories had to be made when USB was released. Entirely new accessories will have to be made when Dock Connector 2 is released. But if there is an adapter, old accessories will work with Dock Connector 2 devices.
I own no microUSB accessories or cables right now. I would already be paying more for cables and accessories to get a MicroUSB device to work, and I would be sacrificing utility that I would not have to otherwise.
Let's look at a hypothetical again. 30 years hence. You would prefer to still be using a whatever-pin USB plug, now on version, let's say, 9, instead of a brand new plug unencumbered by the physical limitations of the legacy USB format simply because you're too lazy to upgrade your woefully out of date humping dog flash drive? I realize I turned silly at the end there, but the point can be applied to anything.
It's not working. I don't see your post. 
I was trying to figure out AI's bifurcated forum design... I was originally going to post "poop"
Even if it is a load of tripe, you can't possibly be happy to pay more money for yet another (different) proprietary connection.
And yet people do, when they're given a choice.
People have a choice and some people do choose to pay more for the Apple cables and adapters. I do. I choose the Apple cables and adapters because they last. I had a MacAlly-branded adapter fail with hours of purchase. I'm happy to pay more for the quality. Don't believe me? Read the reviews to see how cheap copies hold up in the real world (that's literally the first link that comes up when I type "ipod dock cable" into Amazon).
You want to worship at the alter of cheapness? Be my guest. But don't be so ignorant to assume nobody else is willing to pay more for quality.
"Can't innovate anymore my ass!" -- Phil Schiller
"Can't innovate anymore my ass!" -- Phil Schiller
Thought of that. And it would be, if technically/economically feasible. Most of us have TB holes in the laptop and nothing to stick into them.
However, although there's some argument above, I'd read somewhere a couple of years ago that Apple had committed to conforming to a standard connector (micro-USB?) for European markets.
Whuh? First does that "aligned in a linear manner" add anything to the explanation? When aren't contacts pins set up in a line? Then we have that bit about the female receptacle having a tongue. Um, gulp. Is this just saying the new Apple connector is exactly what it looks like in the picture and not the "USB way" where the connectors are hidden inside a hollow metal flat rectangular frame? Obviously his is one of those "pictures is worth a thousand words" situations, because I don't think the above section would help anyone who couldn't look at the photos. Interestingly and unmentioned in the article (or if it was I couldn't understand it), is that the "traditional" iPhone connector did things the USB way, just with a thinner (hollow) tongue of the female receptacle. (Of course I always assumed that the part that had something sticking out was "male" and therefore didn't need to be called a female tongue, since male parts by analogy "stick out" and go into things.) But I'm glad Apple is going for a more "robust" (dare we say "normal"?) male/female system.
I suspect that what they were getting at is that current cables - 30 pin / USB / Thunderbolt / etc - are setup in such as way that both the cable and the socket have male and female parts - or in effect are a male to female connector enclosed in a female to male housing. What is different about the new connector is that the cable end is purely male and the socket end is purely female - such as the headphone jack/port or an electrical plug/socket (unless you have a watertight or shrouded cable as in a 200 volt rack).
As for linear - there are alternatives, such as staggered - or there could have been contacts on the edges - or some on top and some on bottom - or two rows one in front of the other etc - I agree that the description in the article is poorly worded and the picture barely requires a description, except perhaps to anyone who is blind. A better description might be along the lines of, the new connector consists of a single male tab containing a row of flush mounted contacts which mates with a female socket on the device - and so far as we can tell is not keyed in anyway that would require a specific orientation for proper insertion allowing for the cable to be plugged in "upright" or "upside-down" - actually, better yet perhaps, the connector is horizontally symmetrical compared to existing USB and 30pin connectors which have a left and right and can only be connected one way, the new cable can be inserted "up" or "down"
Ignoring the proposal that Apple has not shared the spec, and may very well not share the spec as to capitalize on the cables and adapters, why exactly must Apple create a brand new proprietary spec that won't be shared by anyone but themself?
There are billions of MicroUSB devices, cables, etc. Millions of Apple 30-pin devices. Now there will be a new form factor, and a big PITA for everyone with older devices.
What about radios that have iPod/iPhone/iPad docks, charging stations, and all the other doodads? How do you put an "adapter" on something that has a specific form designed to hold a device where you cannot? Now it's just legacy?
You seem to be happy about this, Skil. I can't imagine why. Why you would encourage waste, why you'd be happy for a new spec that could've been MicroUSB, why you'd want to pay more for cables and accessories, why you'd want to be new ones in the first place, etc.
Simple: Apple creates the products it wants to create, and specifically make software/hardware decisions to suit the products' goals. USB would have forced Apple to compromise on these goals. In the end, the market decides, and if people are actually upset about this they'll vote with their wallets. So far, most people seem pretty happy with the decisions Apple has made, and in the end this will be an absolute non-issue.
Just make the devices capable of faster transfers. Tired of the USB speeds when they keep touting Thunderbolt speeds. I've an iMac. Let me sync my iDevices utilizing the faster port.
That might be feasible when Thunderbolt is commonplace on PCs. There are lots of iPods and iPhones that are still connected to Windows, unfortunately.
"Can't innovate anymore my ass!" -- Phil Schiller
"Can't innovate anymore my ass!" -- Phil Schiller
Ok to my way of thinking this looks like thunderbolt connectivity, it also future proofs devices when wireless charging fails to be able to connect via cable.
Secondly if device output is thunderbolt with input ( to computer ) being thunderbolt too! With included adapter for USB input, covers all grounds.
You don't appear to understand politics or government very much so I would indeed not suggest to take this further.
However, at no point did the EU tell anyone which ports to use on devices. The EU has asked the mobile industry to come up with a solution to the different charging mechanisms because it is not in the interest of the consumer or the environment that every single brand needed a new charger. The EU asked the mobile industry to come up with a solution, the mobile industry got together and decided to harmonise on micro-usb.
That is how things work in the market. Something can be in the interest of all players in the market while it is not in the individual interest of those same players to be the first. At that point a sensible government can provide a platform or incentive to overcome that barrier. That is also why governments can sometimes play a role in creating a level playing field in a market, either to create a market that didn't exist, or increase competition in an existing market.
Which is exactly what happened here and I haven't heard a single of the more than a dozen signatories to this Memorandum of Understanding complain about how this was achieved. And personally I am very glad that the mountain of useless old phone chargers I have hasn't grown in the last two years thanks to this.
The thing about the agreement is, as for now at least, that the manufacturers adopted one technology that might have been great (not that micro USB is great) 2 years ago, but times change. Apple, being Apple, has to look at micro USB connectors and say they look like crap and have issues over time with their general functioning (I know those I have for my BT headsets end up not working as the tabs start wearing down). Just like with so many other aspects of the user experience, Apple looks at these mundane things like chargers/connectors, to find ways to improve the user experience (I know there's more to it than that, but for this comment it suffices to only deal with the consumer experience).
Agreeing to use a standard technology is only good for as long as the technology is good. But it can also stifle advancement. And if Apple or Nokia or Samsung create some great new way of connecting and charging devices, are they expected to just "give" the new IP to their competition? Even if they could license the tech, what tech company will gladly pay for something new if what they're doing today works and has less cost built into it?
