Anyway, the fact that there's 16 pins on the current one means that there was enough room on the smaller plug that the form factor of the plug wasn't an issue. Some people seem to suggest that Apple compromised function in pursuit of the smaller plug. They must have purposely designed it knowing that 8 pins would be enough for them and given that USB 3 only has 9-10 pins, bandwidth shouldn't be a major problem.
It's a very bizarre workaround - almost as if two separate teams had the tasks of designing the port and adding HDMI support. Maybe this is why they've decided to collaborate more on things.
There are 16 pins on the male end of the plug but only 8 are ever used at a time. That means it's effectively an 8 wire setup. The female end of the plug as pins on only side.
Considering that it's dynamic 8 pins should be more than enough and as Gazoobee stated wired is being deprecated so it makes no sense to use a much larger port interface and add HW so this one adapter can be smaller, less complex and cheaper. Even now I have doubts about how much its used compared to AirPlay. Streaming to an Apple TV is a more expensive option and I bet that's used a lot more.
I'm quite happy with Lightning. It's one of my favourite aspects of the new iPhone. It's small, simple and future-forward.
[...] and as Gazoobee stated wired is being deprecated [...]
The one place I can think of where this adapter is important is in corporate conference rooms or trade shows where there is no Apple TV available but there is always HDMI or DVI. I have all the adapters for Lightning and Thunderbolt for those types of situations.
Another reason to support high bandwidth is to allow high quality streaming video. There are a lot of applications in the future that could use the iPad as a monitor for a camera (e.g., in cars) where there is no need to save the data. If Apple were smart, they would focus the lightning connector on providing high speed streaming input.
The one place I can think of where this adapter is important is in corporate conference rooms or trade shows where there is no Apple TV available but there is always HDMI or DVI. I have all the adapters for Lightning and Thunderbolt for those types of situations.
That's what I was thinking too. HDMI is how projectors work, so it shouldn't be an afterthought in the design of the iPad if they want it to take off in business (you don't want digital compression artefacts on your slides).
I am wondering how much circuitry the Lightning to USB adaptor has. Since Lightning is USB2 at the protocol level, it should have the minimum circuitry of any Lightning device, helping to show how much of what we're seeing here is video specific.
The Lightning connector, which frankly gets more ridiculous the more you hear about it, and the iMac's unmanufacturability, seem like design missteps to me.
That's what I was thinking too. HDMI is how projectors work, so it shouldn't be an afterthought in the design of the iPad if they want it to take off in business (you don't want digital compression artefacts on your slides).
I am wondering how much circuitry the Lightning to USB adaptor has. Since Lightning is USB2 at the protocol level, it should have the minimum circuitry of any Lightning device, helping to show how much of what we're seeing here is video specific.
I was under the impression that Lightning is USB only when the device tells it to output USB per reading the chip in the Lightning to USB cable. I thought that if you plug in a different connector it can dynamically alter which pins and how they are utilized.
I was under the impression that Lightning is USB only when the device tells it to output USB per reading the chip in the Lightning to USB cable. I thought that if you plug in a different connector it can dynamically alter which pins and how they are utilized.
I thought Thunderbolt was like that, but Lightning was just USB2 with a different connector.
The fact that this was JUST discovered proves this isn't an issue for 99% of people, since millions of iPads have already been sold, and these have been out for a while.
And yes, this is very Apple-like, which is streamlining the main device as much as possible, taking out components that most people won't take advantage of, and sacrificing some performance/functionality for a small percentage in order to simplify and streamline the product further. There have been many, many examples of Apple doing things like this previously with other products, both hardware and software.
Not only is it kludgey, it's blurry (see screenshot in Panic blog post).
This is from the company that loves beautiful graphics so much. Starting with Steve Jobs' obsession with typography, to the OS X Quartz graphics engine where every frame is rendered as a PDF, to Color Calibration/Matching all through the OS, to the Retina display.
And now every iPad from now on will have blurry HDMI output, the clarity of which is very important for it's use with projectors.
And yes, this is very Apple-like, which is streamlining the main device as much as possible, taking out components that most people won't take advantage of, and sacrificing some performance/functionality for a small percentage in order to simplify and streamline the product further. There have been many, many examples of Apple doing things like this previously with other products, both hardware and software.
Except HDMI is not some legacy and/or specialised-use technology. The most recent example of Apple's ruthless legacy-shedding was the Macbook Pro to Macbook Pro Retina revision. The Retina dropped Firewire, dropped Ethernet, dropped Optical drive and *added* an HDMI port.
I thought Thunderbolt was like that, but Lightning was just USB2 with a different connector.
Thunderbolt is protocol agnostic. Lightning is like the old 30-pin iPod Dock Connector except that instead of individual pins being set for features like USB, video out (composite and S-video), audio in/out, FireWire, serial, and then some pins for accessories use (perhaps ID detection and/or power, some unknown pins and additional ground pins. If I recall correctly I think 7 of the 30 pins are ground.
With Lightning you get a dynamic interface so if you are connected to Lightning cable with USB on it the chip will inform the device which will then adjust accordingly. With video out, audio devices, or various accessories, the same thing.
By the way, I looked at and priced several of apple's cables and decided the best solution and best bang for the buck was to buy a refurb Apple TV. At least I knew what I was getting . . . and it was actually "working as advertised," unlike this kludge cable.
By the way, I looked at and priced several of apple's cables and decided the best solution and best bang for the buck was to buy a refurb Apple TV. At least I knew what I was getting . . . and it was actually "working as advertised," unlike this kludge cable.
So $85 for a totally different solution instead of $49.
In what way didn't the cable work as advertised, since you didn't buy it in the first place?
Except HDMI is not some legacy and/or specialised-use technology. The most recent example of Apple's ruthless legacy-shedding was the Macbook Pro to Macbook Pro Retina revision. The Retina dropped Firewire, dropped Ethernet, dropped Optical drive and *added* an HDMI port.
1) Legacy or not the question is how often are people want this adapter into iDevices. I suspect it's not as often. If we instead include the HW into the iDevice would i make sense to increase the size, weight and cost of the iDevice (especially in the iPod Touch) to accommodate this atypical use? Then would it not be better to move the needed HW for connecting to HDMI for mirroring and video to an external adapter so that the iPod Touch and possibly the iPhone wouldn't have to increase in size, weight, and cost to support the needs of a few? I think so.
PS: I remember back when Apple used to ship multiple display adapters with their Mac notebooks in the PPC days. I personally hated getting all those extra components that I'd never use.
2) Regarding the RMBPs: FireWire was dropped because it's nearly completely obsolesced. FW800 is slower than USB and Lightning. it's only remaining benefit seems to be max power out. I doubt the Mac Pro will keep it.
Ethernet would have been nice but the 8P8C modular jack is quite large with no "mini' version like most modern connectors, and with WiFi so commonplace I have to think that not too many use it and if they do there is the Ethernet to USB adapter from Apple or others. With USB3.0 you also get the Gigabit Ethernet speeds which wasn't possible before the adoption of Ivy Bridge. Unlike the display adapters I mentioned previously adding the connector for Ethernet is extremely inexpensive but without the room or a high need I don't think Apple should hold off moving forward on PC design.
Same goes doubly for the ODD which I personally feel should have been removed years ago. I also doubts the Mac Pro will keep it despite people will say, "but there's room for it!"
1) Legacy or not the question is how often are people want this adapter into iDevices. I suspect it's not as often. If we instead include the HW into the iDevice would i make sense to increase the size, weight and cost of the iDevice (especially in the iPod Touch) to accommodate this atypical use? Then would it not be better to move the needed HW for connecting to HDMI for mirroring and video to an external adapter so that the iPod Touch and possibly the iPhone wouldn't have to increase in size, weight, and cost to support the needs of a few? I think so.
...
Ethernet would have been nice but the 8P8C modular jack is quite large with no "mini' version like most modern connectors, and with WiFi so commonplace I have to think that not too many use it and if they do there is the Ethernet to USB adapter from Apple or others. With USB3.0 you also get the Gigabit Ethernet speeds which wasn't possible before the adoption of Ivy Bridge. Unlike the display adapters I mentioned previously adding the connector for Ethernet is extremely inexpensive but without the room or a high need I don't think Apple should hold off moving forward on PC design.
I've got no problem with shifting potentially specialised circuitry to external adaptors, but if that's going to be your approach, you need to decide that up front, and make sure your one and only remaining port is up to the job. Something like Thunderbolt is, but (based on what we're seeing here) I'm not sure Lightning is. The fact that you have to set the res to 1600x900 (i.e. it can't do 1920x1080) is a dead giveaway that the port was under specified.
Regarding the MBP Retina ports, the GigE adaptor actually plugs directly in to a Thunderbolt port (I'm using one now). Thunderbolt is a work of art and it's a real shame the iDevices didn't get it, instead Apple went the cheap route.
It will be interesting if a Samsung/Microsoft/Google tablet comes out with a nice fat external bus and we see it being used for industrial applications that the iPad just can't do. For the sake of a few cents saving they could have sacrificed entire markets, and given competitors a way in.
I've got no problem with shifting potentially specialised circuitry to external adaptors, but if that's going to be your approach, you need to decide that up front, and make sure your one and only remaining port is up to the job. Something like Thunderbolt is, but (based on what we're seeing here) I'm not sure Lightning is. The fact that you have to set the res to 1600x900 (i.e. it can't do 1920x1080) is a dead giveaway that the port was under specified.
How is a port under specified? Is USB Type-A under specified? If not, would you have said that back in the USB 1.0 days when FW400 was much faster and supported power? I really don't see how any of this has to do with the port at all when everything is pointing to other HW not being including on the iDevice logic board. I certainly wouldn't have wanted to keep the 30-pin connector for another decade and mini-USB would be a huge downgrade in every way.
Let's remember this hasn't been an issue for 6 months. But's an issue now only after the adapter was taken apart a half a year later?
How is a port under specified? Is USB Type-A under specified? If not, would you have said that back in the USB 1.0 days when FW400 was much faster and supported power? I really don't see how any of this has to do with the port at all when everything is pointing to other HW not being including on the iDevice logic board. I certainly wouldn't have wanted to keep the 30-pin connector for another decade and mini-USB would be a huge downgrade in every way.
Let's remember this hasn't been an issue for 6 months. But's an issue now only after the adapter was taken apart a half a year later?
The quality problem appears to be due to the software on the iOS side compressing the video that it sends across the Lightning port to the mini ARM computer on the other side. Why is it compressing it? Why not send it uncompressed, or use lossless compression? It can only be because there is not enough bandwidth on the lightning bus. That is what I mean by Lightning being underspec'd.
I don't know why you think Lightning is not the problem, and the solution lies on the adaptor, when no amount of clever software on the adaptor can restore information that has already been lost due to compression for transmission.
The only way they will solve this (without upgrading Lightning, which would be embarrassing so soon) is changing/tweaking the video codec in some way. H.265 is almost ready, it is still lossy, but it can achieve the same quality at half the bitrate of H.264 (probably what it's currently using). But then the ARM chip in the adaptor might not be grunty enough to decode it. Therefore I boldly predict we will see a v2.0 HDMI adaptor soon, with either a faster ARM chip or a dedicated H.265 decoder in there.
I don't know why you think Lightning is not the problem, and the solution lies on the adaptor, when no amount of clever software on the adaptor can restore information that has already been lost due to compression for transmission.
Where is your evidence to support this claim that data is being removed because of the Lightning connector? You are free to assert that as a hypothesis but until it's proven you can't deny all other possibilities simply to fit your argument.
As previously stated, based on the HW in the adapter I think it's an offloading of HW that would have otherwise needed to be in each iDevice that would have increased size, weight and cost for every single iDevice despite this adapter not being being used frequently and the negative costs to the iPod Touch and iPhone. Based on the original article's statement that it's an AirPort streaming device (which is typically handled by an Apple TV over a network) it supports my hypothesis.
I think you might be getting hung up with the number of pins on HDMI v. Lightning but there is no one-to-one ratio that makes one better by simply having more pins in the connector, especially when it comes to a dynamic port.
Comments
There are 16 pins on the male end of the plug but only 8 are ever used at a time. That means it's effectively an 8 wire setup. The female end of the plug as pins on only side.
Considering that it's dynamic 8 pins should be more than enough and as Gazoobee stated wired is being deprecated so it makes no sense to use a much larger port interface and add HW so this one adapter can be smaller, less complex and cheaper. Even now I have doubts about how much its used compared to AirPlay. Streaming to an Apple TV is a more expensive option and I bet that's used a lot more.
I'm quite happy with Lightning. It's one of my favourite aspects of the new iPhone. It's small, simple and future-forward.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
[...] and as Gazoobee stated wired is being deprecated [...]
The one place I can think of where this adapter is important is in corporate conference rooms or trade shows where there is no Apple TV available but there is always HDMI or DVI. I have all the adapters for Lightning and Thunderbolt for those types of situations.
Another reason to support high bandwidth is to allow high quality streaming video. There are a lot of applications in the future that could use the iPad as a monitor for a camera (e.g., in cars) where there is no need to save the data. If Apple were smart, they would focus the lightning connector on providing high speed streaming input.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
The one place I can think of where this adapter is important is in corporate conference rooms or trade shows where there is no Apple TV available but there is always HDMI or DVI. I have all the adapters for Lightning and Thunderbolt for those types of situations.
That's what I was thinking too. HDMI is how projectors work, so it shouldn't be an afterthought in the design of the iPad if they want it to take off in business (you don't want digital compression artefacts on your slides).
I am wondering how much circuitry the Lightning to USB adaptor has. Since Lightning is USB2 at the protocol level, it should have the minimum circuitry of any Lightning device, helping to show how much of what we're seeing here is video specific.
The Lightning connector, which frankly gets more ridiculous the more you hear about it, and the iMac's unmanufacturability, seem like design missteps to me.
I was under the impression that Lightning is USB only when the device tells it to output USB per reading the chip in the Lightning to USB cable. I thought that if you plug in a different connector it can dynamically alter which pins and how they are utilized.
Looks like a frick'n epic kludge to me.
Very un-Apple like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I was under the impression that Lightning is USB only when the device tells it to output USB per reading the chip in the Lightning to USB cable. I thought that if you plug in a different connector it can dynamically alter which pins and how they are utilized.
I thought Thunderbolt was like that, but Lightning was just USB2 with a different connector.
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN
Looks like a frick'n epic kludge to me.
Very un-Apple like.
Can you plug it in?
>Yes (one point)
>No (zero points)
Does it work as advertised?
>Yes (one point)
>No (zero points)
Total your points. If you have more than 1 point, it is Apple-like.
The fact that this was JUST discovered proves this isn't an issue for 99% of people, since millions of iPads have already been sold, and these have been out for a while.
And yes, this is very Apple-like, which is streamlining the main device as much as possible, taking out components that most people won't take advantage of, and sacrificing some performance/functionality for a small percentage in order to simplify and streamline the product further. There have been many, many examples of Apple doing things like this previously with other products, both hardware and software.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN
Looks like a frick'n epic kludge to me.
Very un-Apple like.
Not only is it kludgey, it's blurry (see screenshot in Panic blog post).
This is from the company that loves beautiful graphics so much. Starting with Steve Jobs' obsession with typography, to the OS X Quartz graphics engine where every frame is rendered as a PDF, to Color Calibration/Matching all through the OS, to the Retina display.
And now every iPad from now on will have blurry HDMI output, the clarity of which is very important for it's use with projectors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy
And yes, this is very Apple-like, which is streamlining the main device as much as possible, taking out components that most people won't take advantage of, and sacrificing some performance/functionality for a small percentage in order to simplify and streamline the product further. There have been many, many examples of Apple doing things like this previously with other products, both hardware and software.
Except HDMI is not some legacy and/or specialised-use technology. The most recent example of Apple's ruthless legacy-shedding was the Macbook Pro to Macbook Pro Retina revision. The Retina dropped Firewire, dropped Ethernet, dropped Optical drive and *added* an HDMI port.
Whether it works is in question. But you've set a very low bar for "Apple-like" in my opinion.
Your criteria seem closer to Microsoft and Dell (maybe without the "as advertised" part.)
"Is it elegant, well designed and reliable?" might be more to my point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Can you plug it in?
>Yes (one point)
>No (zero points)
Does it work as advertised?
>Yes (one point)
>No (zero points)
Total your points. If you have more than 1 point, it is Apple-like.
Thunderbolt is protocol agnostic. Lightning is like the old 30-pin iPod Dock Connector except that instead of individual pins being set for features like USB, video out (composite and S-video), audio in/out, FireWire, serial, and then some pins for accessories use (perhaps ID detection and/or power, some unknown pins and additional ground pins. If I recall correctly I think 7 of the 30 pins are ground.
With Lightning you get a dynamic interface so if you are connected to Lightning cable with USB on it the chip will inform the device which will then adjust accordingly. With video out, audio devices, or various accessories, the same thing.
By the way, I looked at and priced several of apple's cables and decided the best solution and best bang for the buck was to buy a refurb Apple TV. At least I knew what I was getting . . . and it was actually "working as advertised," unlike this kludge cable.
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN
By the way, I looked at and priced several of apple's cables and decided the best solution and best bang for the buck was to buy a refurb Apple TV. At least I knew what I was getting . . . and it was actually "working as advertised," unlike this kludge cable.
So $85 for a totally different solution instead of $49.
In what way didn't the cable work as advertised, since you didn't buy it in the first place?
1) Legacy or not the question is how often are people want this adapter into iDevices. I suspect it's not as often. If we instead include the HW into the iDevice would i make sense to increase the size, weight and cost of the iDevice (especially in the iPod Touch) to accommodate this atypical use? Then would it not be better to move the needed HW for connecting to HDMI for mirroring and video to an external adapter so that the iPod Touch and possibly the iPhone wouldn't have to increase in size, weight, and cost to support the needs of a few? I think so.
PS: I remember back when Apple used to ship multiple display adapters with their Mac notebooks in the PPC days. I personally hated getting all those extra components that I'd never use.
2) Regarding the RMBPs: FireWire was dropped because it's nearly completely obsolesced. FW800 is slower than USB and Lightning. it's only remaining benefit seems to be max power out. I doubt the Mac Pro will keep it.
Ethernet would have been nice but the 8P8C modular jack is quite large with no "mini' version like most modern connectors, and with WiFi so commonplace I have to think that not too many use it and if they do there is the Ethernet to USB adapter from Apple or others. With USB3.0 you also get the Gigabit Ethernet speeds which wasn't possible before the adoption of Ivy Bridge. Unlike the display adapters I mentioned previously adding the connector for Ethernet is extremely inexpensive but without the room or a high need I don't think Apple should hold off moving forward on PC design.
Same goes doubly for the ODD which I personally feel should have been removed years ago. I also doubts the Mac Pro will keep it despite people will say, "but there's room for it!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
1) Legacy or not the question is how often are people want this adapter into iDevices. I suspect it's not as often. If we instead include the HW into the iDevice would i make sense to increase the size, weight and cost of the iDevice (especially in the iPod Touch) to accommodate this atypical use? Then would it not be better to move the needed HW for connecting to HDMI for mirroring and video to an external adapter so that the iPod Touch and possibly the iPhone wouldn't have to increase in size, weight, and cost to support the needs of a few? I think so.
...
Ethernet would have been nice but the 8P8C modular jack is quite large with no "mini' version like most modern connectors, and with WiFi so commonplace I have to think that not too many use it and if they do there is the Ethernet to USB adapter from Apple or others. With USB3.0 you also get the Gigabit Ethernet speeds which wasn't possible before the adoption of Ivy Bridge. Unlike the display adapters I mentioned previously adding the connector for Ethernet is extremely inexpensive but without the room or a high need I don't think Apple should hold off moving forward on PC design.
I've got no problem with shifting potentially specialised circuitry to external adaptors, but if that's going to be your approach, you need to decide that up front, and make sure your one and only remaining port is up to the job. Something like Thunderbolt is, but (based on what we're seeing here) I'm not sure Lightning is. The fact that you have to set the res to 1600x900 (i.e. it can't do 1920x1080) is a dead giveaway that the port was under specified.
Regarding the MBP Retina ports, the GigE adaptor actually plugs directly in to a Thunderbolt port (I'm using one now). Thunderbolt is a work of art and it's a real shame the iDevices didn't get it, instead Apple went the cheap route.
It will be interesting if a Samsung/Microsoft/Google tablet comes out with a nice fat external bus and we see it being used for industrial applications that the iPad just can't do. For the sake of a few cents saving they could have sacrificed entire markets, and given competitors a way in.
How is a port under specified? Is USB Type-A under specified? If not, would you have said that back in the USB 1.0 days when FW400 was much faster and supported power? I really don't see how any of this has to do with the port at all when everything is pointing to other HW not being including on the iDevice logic board. I certainly wouldn't have wanted to keep the 30-pin connector for another decade and mini-USB would be a huge downgrade in every way.
Let's remember this hasn't been an issue for 6 months. But's an issue now only after the adapter was taken apart a half a year later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
How is a port under specified? Is USB Type-A under specified? If not, would you have said that back in the USB 1.0 days when FW400 was much faster and supported power? I really don't see how any of this has to do with the port at all when everything is pointing to other HW not being including on the iDevice logic board. I certainly wouldn't have wanted to keep the 30-pin connector for another decade and mini-USB would be a huge downgrade in every way.
Let's remember this hasn't been an issue for 6 months. But's an issue now only after the adapter was taken apart a half a year later?
The quality problem appears to be due to the software on the iOS side compressing the video that it sends across the Lightning port to the mini ARM computer on the other side. Why is it compressing it? Why not send it uncompressed, or use lossless compression? It can only be because there is not enough bandwidth on the lightning bus. That is what I mean by Lightning being underspec'd.
I don't know why you think Lightning is not the problem, and the solution lies on the adaptor, when no amount of clever software on the adaptor can restore information that has already been lost due to compression for transmission.
The only way they will solve this (without upgrading Lightning, which would be embarrassing so soon) is changing/tweaking the video codec in some way. H.265 is almost ready, it is still lossy, but it can achieve the same quality at half the bitrate of H.264 (probably what it's currently using). But then the ARM chip in the adaptor might not be grunty enough to decode it. Therefore I boldly predict we will see a v2.0 HDMI adaptor soon, with either a faster ARM chip or a dedicated H.265 decoder in there.
Where is your evidence to support this claim that data is being removed because of the Lightning connector? You are free to assert that as a hypothesis but until it's proven you can't deny all other possibilities simply to fit your argument.
As previously stated, based on the HW in the adapter I think it's an offloading of HW that would have otherwise needed to be in each iDevice that would have increased size, weight and cost for every single iDevice despite this adapter not being being used frequently and the negative costs to the iPod Touch and iPhone. Based on the original article's statement that it's an AirPort streaming device (which is typically handled by an Apple TV over a network) it supports my hypothesis.
I think you might be getting hung up with the number of pins on HDMI v. Lightning but there is no one-to-one ratio that makes one better by simply having more pins in the connector, especially when it comes to a dynamic port.