Apple starts shipping first Lightning to 30-pin Adapter orders

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 43
    vaelianvaelian Posts: 446member
    I don't know of anyone here that has ever justified Monster cables or solid gold, diamond-encrusted device cases.

    Neither do I, and that's not what I'm talking about, either. I can, however, understand that your limited brain can't imagine anything else...

    Why?

    I've explained it already, but since you're kinda dense, let me try again. If your iDevice converts the output itself, the accessories won't have to do it themselves. Since people are more likely to buy accessories than iDevices (especially since each iDevice comes with at least one accessory -- the charger), it makes more sense to keep the common complexities in the iDevice rather than requiring every accessory to replicate it.

    Really? That's the case (first)? And there are NO other possible benefits (second)? 

    There is one benefit: the connector is smaller and plugs both ways; that's insignificant.


    Can you justify whatever your alternative is?

    Yes, it has a lot more conductors (meaning more versatility), it supports direct AV output, and it has a boatload of accessories available for it.
  • Reply 22 of 43
    vaelianvaelian Posts: 446member
    So sticking with 8" floppy drives carried between office cubicles when gigabit Internet exists. Got it!

    Yes, and the Internet is crap because you can transfer a lot more information over great distances using mass storage media.

    If you want to be taken seriously, stop trolling.
  • Reply 23 of 43
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member


    Originally Posted by Vaelian View Post

    Neither do I, and that's not what I'm talking about, either. I can, however, understand that your limited brain can't imagine anything else...

    I've explained it already, but since you're kinda dense, let me try again.


     


    I'm 50/50 about infracting this… I'll decide later.






    If your iDevice converts the output itself, the accessories won't have to do it themselves.



     


    Okay, and what benefit does this create?






    Since people are more likely to buy accessories than iDevices…



     


    Sounds kind of silly since the former is useless without the latter.






    …it makes more sense to keep the common complexities in the iDevice rather than requiring every accessory to replicate it.



     


    Does it? Why?






    There is one benefit: the connector is smaller and plugs both ways; that's insignificant.



     


    Pretty significant in a world where USB looks the same on both sides but doesn't operate the same. Pretty significant when the original connector was a limiting factor in the dimensions of the products in question, but now no longer is.






    Yes, it has a lot more conductors (meaning more versatility), it supports direct AV output, and it has a boatload of accessories available for it.



     


    So did the Charleville musket, but eventually people stopped using it and began to use breech-loaded rifles due to their immeasurable superiority.





    Originally Posted by Vaelian View Post

    Yes, and the Internet is crap because you can transfer a lot more information over great distances using mass storage media.


     


    Really? You can mail hard drives more cheaply than gigabit Internet? REALLY

  • Reply 24 of 43
    vaelianvaelian Posts: 446member
    I'm 50/50 about infracting this… I'll decide later.

    It's called Dunning–Kruger effect, it's natural for you to be unaware of it.

    Okay, and what benefit does this create?

    Makes accessory development trivial, ergo cheaper.

    Sounds kind of silly since the former is useless without the latter.

    You buy N accessories for one phone, not N phones for one accessory.

    Does it? Why?

    Because otherwise they have to be replicated in every accessory, I've already explained this; why don't you read what you reply to?

    Pretty significant in a world where USB looks the same on both sides but doesn't operate the same. Pretty significant when the original connector was a limiting factor in the dimensions of the products in question, but now no longer is.

    How USB operates is completely beyond the physical properties of the connector; I don't understand why you keep bringing this up without any evidence to back up your claims. Beyond that, did anyone ask for a thinner phone? Did anyone ask for a new connector? I don't think so, the Lightning Connector was an afterthought.

    So did the Charleville musket, but eventually people stopped using it and began to use breech-loaded rifles due to their immeasurable superiority.

    I've already mentioned this several times, but you don't seem to learn, which is why I've concluded that you're just dense, so here it goes once again: Analogies are fallacious due to inferring from the particular to the particular. Don't ever use them in arguments with me, it's a waste of time. Oh, and by the way, please stop quoting me out of context, because that's a fallacy, too. You are forcing me to repeat myself simply because you're quoting parts of my paragraphs rather than reading them in their entirety.

    Really? You can mail hard drives more cheaply than gigabit Internet? REALLY

    The Internet is not Gigabit Ethernet.

    By the way, I took a screenshot of the thread. Do something against me and I'll push as hard as I possibly can to have your moderation privileges removed. My bookmarks are full of evidence against you since our first discussion, so just give me the reason to start!
  • Reply 25 of 43


    Originally Posted by Vaelian View Post

    You buy N accessories for one phone, not N phones for one accessory.


     


    Funny, that… seems to be what Europe wants, and toward what all other manufacturers are striving, but with a woefully substandard port. Kind of like you're wanting with Dock Connector.


     



    Because otherwise they have to be replicated in every accessory, I've already explained this; why don't you read what you reply to?


     


    And you believe this is bad simply because the complexity is unneeded, yes, yes. You haven't given any meaningful explanation as to what gives you the right to speak on the complexity at all, much less its necessity.


     



    How USB operates is completely beyond the physical properties of the connector


     


    These are consumer products. People shouldn't have to care how it works as long as it works. Ergo, the easiest way to make sure it works is to make the port a circle. Since that can't be done, rotational symmetry is a step up from none whatsoever.


     




    I don't understand why you keep bringing this up without any evidence to back up your claims.



     


    I could say the same about you and price (and the "lack of any real benefits") here.


     


     



    Beyond that, did anyone ask for a thinner phone? Did anyone ask for a new connector?


     


     


    What's your point? You're acting as though you need an iPhone to live, much less work. Buy something else if this doesn't float your boat. Enough people think like you do and society will collapse Apple will change things back or to something you want.






    I don't think so, the Lightning Connector was an afterthought.



     


    And with no proof of this, your record for making crap up remains untarnished.


     



    I've already mentioned this several times, but you don't seem to learn, which is why I've concluded that you're just dense, so here it goes once again: Analogies are fallacious due to inferring from the particular to the particular. Don't ever use them in arguments with me, it's a waste of time.


     


    "Analogies are fallacious because I have no rebuttal to them and can't even point out their flaws, if there were any." That's a pretty good one. Do another! Oh, wait, you already have. 






    You are forcing me to repeat myself simply because you're quoting parts of my paragraphs rather than reading them in their entirety.



     


    Hilarity. Ever heard the old adage, "All your carefully crafted arguments can easily be ignored?" If I had no valid points, you'd ignore me or be able to give me the evidence I need to stop arguing. There's no 'forcing' anywhere.






    The Internet is not Gigabit Ethernet.



     


    O… kay? Guess Google really isn't going to offer Gigabit speeds, then. They must be lying or something. Certainly not out of character for them, but when it's something hardware-based, it's much harder to get away with it.


     



    Do something against me and I'll push as hard as I possibly can to have your moderation privileges removed. My bookmarks are full of evidence against you since our first discussion, so just give me the reason to start!


     


    So we can consider this a threat, then? image

  • Reply 26 of 43
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    vaelian wrote: »
    If your iDevice converts the output itself, the accessories won't have to do it themselves. Since people are more likely to buy accessories than iDevices (especially since each iDevice comes with at least one accessory -- the charger), it makes more sense to keep the common complexities in the iDevice rather than requiring every accessory to replicate it..
    So nothing like USB, which requires every device attached to it to replicate the same features already built into a computer?

    So it makes more sense, for example, for Apple to put the best D/A audio converter available in the iPhone, even if the best converter won't fit in the device without making it bigger and more expensive, than to leave the choice of quality up to the third party dock maker and pass the cost along accordingly? Likewise for every function a person might want to split out from the iDevice?
    vaelian wrote: »
    Yes, it has a lot more conductors (meaning more versatility), it supports direct AV output, and it has a boatload of accessories available for it.
    Well then, we should scrap MagSafe, USB, FireWire, Ethernet and Thunderbolt and go back to the 250-pin docking connector Apple used on the Duo series in the early 90s ... I mean why have five separate connectors on a Mac when one highly versatile connector can do it all?

    The only reason the dock connector supports AV output, is because Apple supports it on the iDevices. So again, see my rebuttals above regarding quality of components. Further dock makers are then reliant on Apple to support their hardware, even when it is logical that Apple may routinely change the specifications of their equipment creating incompatibilities. So why not just take Apple out of the equation for the accessory maker? Seems like everybody will be happier.

    And having a boatload of accessories available for it is kinda like saying the Android has a boatload of Apps available for it. It's all great until you actually start to use them and find most are cheap crap, not compatible with every iDevice, or designed to Apple's specifications.
  • Reply 27 of 43
    $29.99 is a little steep, I could see them charging around $14.99.
  • Reply 28 of 43
    vaelianvaelian Posts: 446member
    Funny, that… seems to be what Europe wants, and toward what all other manufacturers are striving, but with a woefully substandard port. Kind of like you're wanting with Dock Connector.

    Substandard? MicroUSB IS the standard! If you're removing the analog ports, might as well switch to that! The Dock Connector made sense because it was superior; the Lightning Connector lost the advantage, so it's just a proprietary plug for the sake of it now.

    And you believe this is bad simply because the complexity is unneeded, yes, yes. You haven't given any meaningful explanation as to what gives you the right to speak on the complexity at all, much less its necessity.

    Why would I need a right to speak?

    These are consumer products. People shouldn't have to care how it works as long as it works. Ergo, the easiest way to make sure it works is to make the port a circle. Since that can't be done, rotational symmetry is a step up from none whatsoever.

    In the other hand you're making the port smaller, thus harder to connect, in addition to rendering people's accessories completely useless.

    I could say the same about you and price (and the "lack of any real benefits") here.

    No you couldn't, because you've already agreed about the complexity and you've already agreed about the loss of functionality.

    What's your point? You're acting as though you need an iPhone to live, much less work. Buy something else if this doesn't float your boat. Enough people think like you do and society will collapse Apple will change things back or to something you want.

    My point is that things don't need to change unless they're broken, especially if the change is to worse. I would have accepted a change to MicroUSB, because at least that's standard, but this doesn't even have that advantage, it was not designed with the consumers in mind. Finally, just because I have arguments against it, doesn't mean I'm not jumping ship, I can do both.

    And with no proof of this, your record for making crap up remains untarnished.

    While I don't have irrefutable proof, I do have some evidence of this. The iPhone 4S and iPad 3G were launched with the unique ability to stream HDMI video, and as a result, an HDMI adapter was also released. Less than a year later, the Dock Connector is replaced with the Lightning Connector without any alternative accessories in the market to support it, and I'm not just talking about the HDMI Adapter, I'm talking about the entire range of first-party accessories Apple still sells, so apparently it wasn't a problem to release a product with a Dock Connector back in March, but apparently it is so much of a problem now that they're switching their entire product range over.

    Hilarity. Ever heard the old adage, "All your carefully crafted arguments can easily be ignored?" If I had no valid points, you'd ignore me or be able to give me the evidence I need to stop arguing. There's no 'forcing' anywhere.

    And I have given you the evidence you need: you are resorting to informal logic in order to subvert the discussion. I have pointed out your fallacies, have I not? Why didn't you stop arguing? Could it be that you're just trolling?

    O… kay? Guess Google really isn't going to offer Gigabit speeds, then. They must be lying or something. Certainly not out of character for them, but when it's something hardware-based, it's much harder to get away with it.

    That is an inference from the particular to the general, another fallacy. See? I keep demonstrating why you arguments are invalid, but you never seem to stop coming back with the same kind of argument over and over again.

    So we can consider this a threat, then? :lol:

    Yes, you can. Mark my words on that. I may not be able to achieve anything, though usually I'm quite convincing when it comes to this stuff, so please, just try.
  • Reply 29 of 43
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member


    Originally Posted by Vaelian View Post

    Substandard? MicroUSB IS the standard!


     


    And as a worse port than Lightning, it is being superseded with another standard.


     



    Why would I need a right to speak?


     


    I just mean if you've any engineering experience in this regard or in others such that you'd know what you're talking about here.


     



    In the other hand you're making the port smaller, thus harder to connect


     


    That doesn't follow.


     



    No you couldn't, because you've already agreed about the complexity and you've already agreed about the loss of functionality.


     


    Not really.


     



    My point is that things don't need to change unless they're broken


     


    So if you were in charge, we'd still be using bronze tools. Check.


     



    …this doesn't even have that advantage, it was not designed with the consumers in mind.


     


    HA! MicroUSB designed with "customers" in mind! Oh, that's rich. Oh, and by the way, if "smaller means harder to plug in", then MicroUSB must be the second-hardest plug of all. 


     



    Finally, just because I have arguments against it, doesn't mean I'm not jumping ship, I can do both.


     


    By accepting its existence, you render your entire argument moot. 


     



    That is an inference from the particular to the general, another fallacy. See?


     


    I specifically said "gigabit Internet" in my analogy. If you'd read it, you'd see we're right where we left off. See?


     



    I keep demonstrating why you arguments are invalid…


     


    Funny, you've given zero evidence as to this, just your own inferences backed with nothing. 






    Yes, you can. Mark my words on that.



     


    Okay, now I have to decide whether to infract this, too.

  • Reply 30 of 43
    vaelianvaelian Posts: 446member
    And as a worse port than Lightning, it is being superseded with another standard.

    Which one?

    I just mean if you've any engineering experience in this regard or in others such that you'd know what you're talking about here.

    This is an ad hominem fallacy, you are attacking the poster rather than the post.

    That doesn't follow.

    Of course it does! Remember our argument about the iPad dock?

    Not really.

    Yes, really! Remember our argument about the potential loss of analog AV where you suggested a $1k alternative to what the iPhone 4S and iPad 3G give for free?

    So if you were in charge, we'd still be using bronze tools. Check.

    That's an inference from the particular to the particular fallacy. You are incorrectly assuming that the conditions are the same in both cases in an attempt to subvert the discussion without any logical base to deduce or even induce from.

    HA! MicroUSB designed with "customers" in mind! Oh, that's rich. Oh, and by the way, if "smaller means harder to plug in", then MicroUSB must be the second-hardest plug of all.

    That's a straw man fallacy. You are misrepresenting my position and attacking that misrepresentation in a failed attempt to subvert the discussion.

    By accepting its existence, you render your entire argument moot.

    What do you mean by "its existence"? 

    I specifically said "gigabit Internet" in my analogy. If you'd read it, you'd see we're right where we left off. See?

    And I was making a purposely fallacious and sarcastic counter-argument using another analogy in hopes that you'd get it. Funny how you can spot the informal logic in my analogy but not in yours...

    Okay, now I have to decide whether to infract this, too.

    Go right ahead, give me even more ammo to take you down!
  • Reply 31 of 43


    Originally Posted by Vaelian View Post

    This is an ad hominem fallacy, you are attacking the poster rather than the post.


     


    Since you've provided no actual evidence about the hardware itself that would lend your position any legitimacy, I was hoping you'd have a background in this sort of thing to explain why you think what you think. Guess not.






    Of course it does! Remember our argument about the iPad dock?



     


    Smaller port ? harder to dock.


     



    Remember our argument about the potential loss of analog AV where you suggested a $1k alternative to what the iPhone 4S and iPad 3G give for free?


     


    No. I'll suggest a $99 alternative, though.

  • Reply 32 of 43
    vaelianvaelian Posts: 446member
    Since you've provided no actual evidence about the hardware itself that would lend your position any legitimacy, I was hoping you'd have a background in this sort of thing to explain why you think what you think. Guess not.

    The burden of proof is on you, since you're the one making the claim that the physical properties of the connector are relevant to the implementation of new USB standards when there is absolutely no reason to believe so. Using your informal logic to excuse your informal logic won't get you anywhere in this argument.

    Smaller port ? harder to dock.

    Currently you have to "guess" where the hell the port is since the iPad doesn't just "fit in". With the smaller port, that'll be even worse since there will be less margin for error.

    No. I'll suggest a $99 alternative, though.

    Here you agreed that I'd probably have to buy a $10 adapter, implying that even you think $30 is overpriced. Here you suggested a $1k alternative to address the potential loss of analog AV output. I take it that you have either bad or selective memory, but I don't.
  • Reply 33 of 43
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member


    Originally Posted by Vaelian View Post

    …implying that even you think $30 is overpriced. 


     


    Nope. Try again. I like that you're pointing out all these "fallacies" and then make one of your own.






    Here you suggested a $1k alternative to address the potential loss of analog AV output.



     


    Yep. That's called 'what happens when you want to use archaic tech when modern solutions exist'. Pretty sure that if you wanted to build a clipper ship, it'd be cheaper to amass and construct one with modern materials instead of in the style of a 19th century ship. And here, I'll get ahead of you on that one:


     


    "BUT THAT REMOVES FUNCTIONALITY"






    I take it that you have either bad or selective memory, but I don't.



     


    Absolutely wretched. But thanks for rubbing in the fact that yesterday feels like a month ago. 

  • Reply 34 of 43
    vaelianvaelian Posts: 446member
    Nope. Try again. I like that you're pointing out all these "fallacies" and then make one of your own.

    It is a fact that the price is three times higher than your expectations, thus making it overpriced to you.

    Yep. That's called 'what happens when you want to use archaic tech when modern solutions exist'. Pretty sure that if you wanted to build a clipper ship, it'd be cheaper to amass and construct one with modern materials instead of in the style of a 19th century ship. And here, I'll get ahead of you on that one:

    "BUT THAT REMOVES FUNCTIONALITY"
    I take it that you have either bad or selective memory, but I don't.

    Absolutely wretched. But thanks for rubbing in the fact that yesterday feels like a month ago. 

    Thanks for this, it proves I was right when I said that you agreed about the complexity and loss of functionality despite your attempt to deny it. I can make your selective memory work against you. You've just validated my point and exposed yourself as a bigot.

    EDIT: Violated - validated.
  • Reply 35 of 43
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member


    Originally Posted by Vaelian View Post

    It is a fact that the price is three times higher than your expectations, thus making it overpriced to you.


     


    Ha. You keep thinking that's the case and that you know what the word means.


     



    Thanks for this, it proves I was right when I said that you agreed about the complexity and loss of functionality


     


    You'll have to cut it down to the meaningful bits. I said it's probably complex. I don't get how that helps your point. And I don't see where I said anything about loss of functionality… wait for it… that helps your position. I've already covered your position, in the post you quoted in that link, as a matter of fact.

  • Reply 36 of 43
    vaelianvaelian Posts: 446member
    Ha. You keep thinking that's the case and that you know what the word means.

    So what does the word mean?

    You'll have to cut it down to the meaningful bits. I said it's probably complex. I don't get how that helps your point. And I don't see where I said anything about loss of functionality… wait for it… that helps your position. I've already covered your position, in the post you quoted in that link, as a matter of fact.

    Oh, no problem, here you go:
    vaelian wrote: »
    No you couldn't, because you've already agreed about the complexity and you've already agreed about the loss of functionality.

    Not really.

    I took the liberty to add a link to my post in your quote of my other post since you didn't have one; this makes referring back to the original posts easier.
  • Reply 37 of 43
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    ILounge has already received theirs and verified its functionality ...

    http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/reviews/entry/apple-lightning-to-30-pin-adapter/

    Now somebody TEAR THIS THING DOWN ALREADY!!!!

    (Video adapters coming ... http://dvice.com/archives/2012/09/why-apples-new.php )
  • Reply 38 of 43
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member


    Originally Posted by Vaelian View Post

    So what does the word mean?


     


    Means just that. Feel free to go back and find where I said (didn't happen; don't bother) I wouldn't pay for it at $30 or at any price higher than $10. I vaguely recall saying that it might be nice if it was $15 or something, but I didn't complain about the price as-is. It'd also be nice if I could get a Tesla X for $10,000.


     



    Oh, no problem, here you go:


     


    Oh, come on, not that! Oh, boy… I'll just start over. 


     


    Yeah, the thing's more complex than Dock Connector. It has to be, as it is handling orientation and possibly the data that moves through it. This allows the port to be backward compatible with existing stuff while affording it the ability to be compatible with USB 3, Thunderbolt, and ports as yet unimagined. It's built "future-proof" from the start!


     


    Lightning is the port for the next ten years. Ten years ago, did you know about Thunderbolt or USB 3? What about the most modern HDMI standard? Can you not admit that making Lightning just a conduit for data (the concept) instead of assigning it specific "data" tied to fast-moving standards—outdating and bloating it by the end of its run—was a good idea?

  • Reply 39 of 43
    vaelianvaelian Posts: 446member
    Means just that. Feel free to go back and find where I said (didn't happen; don't bother) I wouldn't pay for it at $30 or at any price higher than $10. I vaguely recall saying that it might be nice if it was $15 or something, but I didn't complain about the price as-is. It'd also be nice if I could get a Tesla X for $10,000.

    Except it has nothing to do with complaints but rather with expectations. Clearly $30 is too expensive for what you were expecting, you can simply not deny this, thus it follows that to you the adapter is overpriced. Not admitting it makes you a bigot in denial, nothing else, because it's factual.

    Oh, come on, not that! Oh, boy… I'll just start over.

    You sure love to be humiliated! I'm gonna save this thread to show the world how incompetent you really re.

    Lightning is the port for the next ten years. Ten years ago, did you know about Thunderbolt or USB 3? What about the most modern HDMI standard? Can you not admit that making Lightning just a conduit for data (the concept) instead of assigning it specific "data" tied to fast-moving standards—outdating and bloating it by the end of its run—was a good idea?

    Everything you mentioned can be implemented on the Dock Connector just as easily. If you disagree, you have burden of proof, so either stop posting bullshit or post your evidence.
  • Reply 40 of 43
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member


    Originally Posted by Vaelian View Post

    Clearly $30 is too expensive for what you were expecting, you can simply not deny this, thus it follows that to you the adapter is overpriced. Not admitting it makes you a bigot in denial, nothing else, because it's factual.


     


    I love that you think you can tell me what I was thinking. It's pathetic.


     



    Everything you mentioned can be implemented on the Dock Connector just as easily.


     


    I'd ask for proof of this, as I have many times, but you refuse to give it, so I won't bother. No, you have the burden of proof. You can't just say whatever you want and have it be taken as law simply because you were first to say it.

Sign In or Register to comment.