Apple already did, when Apple released I forget what generation iPod, it introduced it with the 3.5 millimeter headphone jack, setting the standard still used today
What is worst is that people want to put disk arrays and other goodies on those wobbly TB connectors. TB just makes me feel insecure and makes me question the wisdom of using it to store critical data.
It's a real contrast. Lighting is almost perfect from a physical point of view: small, reversible and a firm fit, but has a relatively low data rate. Thunderbolt on the other hand is wobbly even when plugged in, and has big chunky connectors in order to move certain circuitry external, but it has a screaming data rate, the fastest of all ports. Take your pick...
The two main drawbacks I've seen on the Lightning is that the connector, under the right (wrong, depending on how you look at it) can be broken. I've seen them broken on displays at the local Apple store because a kid grabs the phone and doesn't lift up and they end up putting too much pressure on the connector and it ends up snapping. The other drawback is that it isn't a standard whereas Micro or Mini USB is. That's a dilemma that Apple has had to deal with. I don't know if I would have chosen for the Lightning route if it were up to me. it's just a problem when trying to deal with these standards.
Is it any more likely to break any other connector? I had a mini-USB connector attached to a portable hard drive fail last week; it looks like it got bent breaking one or more of the wires inside. Of course it cost less than $5 to get a replacement whereas a lightning cable will be much more expensive.
A magsafe-style connector would have been very appealing. I'm sure Apple considered it/prototyped it, but it didn't make the cut for some reason.
Thank heavens they didn't settle on mini or micro USB however. Talk about a design done by committee and having almost nothing going for it.
Trust Apple to take something as simple and pedestrian as a 'connector' to the next level.
Five years from now, most of the rest of the world will claim that it was all, of course, obvious.
The copying machines are running overtime everywhere, I am guessing.
Actually some of this is pretty obvious and in some cases has been done before. This is especially the case in the arrangement of the contacts. I would imagine the patentable parts will be in the ID technology and the non,y in this specific implementation, after all using pins to ID a port or functionality is nothing new.
This is by far an evolutionary design, not revolutionary. Considering the fact that they give up functionality on four pins this isn't exactly an aggressive design. It is an interesting design that is for certain but it is far from revolutionary.
The 3.5mm headphone jack was first made and used in audio equipment in the 1880's.
So Apple "introduced" this connector and "made it a standard" only 120 years later even after the popular Walkman and all of the pre-ipod MP3 players.
Uh huh, sounds legit.
Dude, think for a minute. Obviously the original poster was referring to the addition of the volume control/skip button wiring. I don't know if Apple invented that, but it's a defacto standard now.
Is it any more likely to break any other connector? I had a mini-USB connector attached to a portable hard drive fail last week; it looks like it got bent breaking one or more of the wires inside. Of course it cost less than $5 to get a replacement whereas a lightning cable will be much more expensive.
A magsafe-style connector would have been very appealing. I'm sure Apple considered it/prototyped it, but it didn't make the cut for some reason.
Thank heavens they didn't settle on mini or micro USB however. Talk about a design done by committee and having almost nothing going for it.
I've never understand the desire for MagSafe on an iDevice. For starters, the device you're not likely to trip over. Also, you end up making the cable end much larger. Also note that MagSafe doesn't need to deal with data as it's only power going over those wide spaced pins.
It's been a long time since I've seen a patent that had excellent drawings.
I don't understand why people assume Lightning is only capable of relatively low data rates? Are you judging the NAND bottleneck? Isn't that like claiming Usain Bolt is slow if he's queued up for a hot dog in Times Square?
Probably because it has never been specified as supporting USB3. Long term this could be a significant problem, it would take little effort on Apples part to surpass UsB2s capability.
Does anyone know why they didn't just mirror the pins on both sides? Dynamically assigning pins is neat and all, but it seems to me to be an overly complicated solution to a simple problem.
The way I read the document they only have 4 data lanes which seems really odd. If so that makes your question even more interesting. It is almost like this is part of the security arrangement in that dynamic data lanes makes it difficult to just plug in a connector and grab a port. Or in other words there are no data lanes until the authentication process succeeds.
Or taken another way this is an extended effort to screw the consumer as the port offers no real value other than limiting choice.
Probably because it has never been specified as supporting USB3. Long term this could be a significant problem, it would take little effort on Apples part to surpass UsB2s capability.
But why would anyone expect Apple to say that either of the iDevice port interfaces are capable of supporting different transmit rates when the NAND is still the bottleneck?
Look at the drawings again! The four data pins could simply have been mirrored saving the complexity of switching those lanes around electronically. More so with electronic switching why don't we have eight data lanes? This port sounds more and more like Apple at its worst, building overly complex solutions that do nothing more than try to lock people out of their hardware.
Was the 3.5mm not used before it was in an iPod?
Mirroring would appear to be more complicated to build since that would mean a lot more overlapping pins in such a small space.
Why would that be the case? You would only be mirroring the d'état pins already there.
What I'm seeing in the design that each side has the exact same order of pins save for the ground pin which will dictate which side is pugged in. Since the ground accounts for one of the pins the other power pins are shifted over by one in the same power pin slots for one side. Doesn't this allow all the complexity to be in the chip itself?
It allows the lock out to be in the chip. Mirroring of the data pins could have easily been done with a couple of visa in the plug.
The only way I could see it be less complex is if they do a direct mirror on the male plug, as you state, but wouldn't that mean the device would need a 9h pin so that it could use that dedicated ground on each side to know which orientation it was plugged in?
Not at all. Look this is simple nothing would of changed other than the data pins being mirrored. Orientation detection could have be the same but even that isn't absolutely needed. They could have instead mirrored the I'd detection. In the end there are multiple approaches but this one seems to be overly complex. It really looks like it was done this way to make it difficult to use the port without Apple hardware.
By dynamically assigning pins, they have eight distinct configurable "data" pins. If they required hardwired mirrored pins, there would only be four. Maybe they're contemplating using these eight pins, for example, as four differential pairs (i.e., four pairs of complementary signals) in order to implement the high speed Thunderbolt interface.
That isn't what the document describes. They only have four data lanes.
Look at the drawings again! The four data pins could simply have been mirrored saving the complexity of switching those lanes around electronically.
The data pins are mirrored. No matter how you turn it the 4 pins for data are still the 4 pins for data. What you're talking about is a pointlessly complex HW solution that would allocate the specific data pin to the exact same place regardless of the orientation. There is simply no need for this when you have an intelligent design that can determine the orientation based on which ground is in use.
But why would anyone expect Apple to say that either of the iDevice port interfaces are capable of supporting different transmit rates when the NAND is still the bottleneck?
Well I suspect they have defined the port well to those under NDA, it is the lack of public information that is a problem. As to NAND why do people get hung up on that? The speed of the NAND could easily change in the next round of devices. Beyond that why does the data have to go to NAND? For example lets say I want to make an oscilloscope attachment for an iPad, that dat may never need to go to NAND but the faster I can get it to RAM the more impressive the performance of the O'scope. It this context talking about NAND is just a distraction.
The data pins are mirrored. No matter how you turn it the 4 pins for data are still the 4 pins for data. What you're talking about is a pointlessly complex HW solution that would allocate the specific data pin to the exact same place regardless of the orientation. There is simply no need for this when you have an intelligent design that can determine the orientation based on which ground is in use.
Again look at the print, the pins are connected opposite each other not mirrored. Now the drawing could be wrong but I just checked again. To do that they have to be connected through the substrate, if you are going to do that you could have easily mechanically mirrored them. The reality is we have a solution that is more complex than it needs to be.
Obtuse people who screech about Apple lacking innovation tend to miss the innovation right in front of their faces, like this connector. Most people won't give it a second thought, but insightful people will realize that even with a connector, there can be a ton of innovations in the design and engineering. The lightning connector being a prime example. It's clear Apple thought very deeply and carefully about every single aspect of this connector, and put the same amount of R&D and care into it as any other product they make. I marvel at it everytime I plug it in. A new connector, which will be ubuiquitous on ALL your mobile devices, which will sell in the billions, is not something tot take lightly, and clearly Apple did not.
Well I suspect they have defined the port well to those under NDA, it is the lack of public information that is a problem. As to NAND why do people get hung up on that? The speed of the NAND could easily change in the next round of devices. Beyond that why does the data have to go to NAND? For example lets say I want to make an oscilloscope attachment for an iPad, that dat may never need to go to NAND but the faster I can get it to RAM the more impressive the performance of the O'scope. It this context talking about NAND is just a distraction.
We tend to use the bottleneck in networking because it's the reason why end-to-end communication can't be more efficient. As for your oscilloscope suggestion do you have any proof that Apple is artificially limiting the speed to 480Mbps or that the Lightning connector design isn't capable of speeds faster than 480Mbps? It has to be either/or for you to suggest that the connector isn't capable of faster speeds. At this point I would think the need for faster speeds simply isn't an issue due to the slow NAND and therefore Apple has yet to include a controller for USB 3.0 in there iDevices. In no way do I think that it being a smaller connector means that it's not capable of allowing faster throughput. Did we find that out with Universal Serial Bus v Parallel printer cables?
Again look at the print, the pins are connected opposite each other not mirrored. Now the drawing could be wrong but I just checked again. To do that they have to be connected through the substrate, if you are going to do that you could have easily mechanically mirrored them. The reality is we have a solution that is more complex than it needs to be.
The data pins are mirrored and the power pins are mirrored. You seem to think that Data 4 will need some complex mechanical method to switch to Data 4 when inverted. Why use that when you can implement Auto-MDIX and completely forego the the complex per device HW manipulation you are suggesting?
The data pins are mirrored. No matter how you turn it the 4 pins for data are still the 4 pins for data. What you're talking about is a pointlessly complex HW solution that would allocate the specific data pin to the exact same place regardless of the orientation. There is simply no need for this when you have an intelligent design that can determine the orientation based on which ground is in use.
Again look at the print, the pins are connected opposite each other not mirrored. Now the drawing could be wrong but I just checked again. To do that they have to be connected through the substrate, if you are going to do that you could have easily mechanically mirrored them. The reality is we have a solution that is more complex than it needs to be.
Ok, so that we are all on the same page:
The data pins are mirrored across a line running between the two sides of the connector.
The host power and ground pins are mirrored across a point in the center of the connector. This is what I meant when I was saying mirrored.
The way I read the document they only have 4 data lanes which seems really odd. If so that makes your question even more interesting. It is almost like this is part of the security arrangement in that dynamic data lanes makes it difficult to just plug in a connector and grab a port. Or in other words there are no data lanes until the authentication process succeeds.
Or taken another way this is an extended effort to screw the consumer as the port offers no real value other than limiting choice.
The 4 data pins make sense when you consider that current iPads/iPhones only have 8 contacts and only connect to one side of the lightning cable. I suppose in the future if they come out with a device requiring more pins, they could redesign the cable and port to utilize both sides while preserving backwards compatibility with the current cables.
I don't think it is fair to accuse apple of screwing us just yet. We still don't know the full capability of the port. For example we have only looked at the USB data cable. Remember, the old 30 pin dock had pins dedicated to things like A/V out and control inputs. I think we will likely see accessories like external speakers that will reassign the "data" pins to things like controls and A/V.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrAllister
Apple already did, when Apple released I forget what generation iPod, it introduced it with the 3.5 millimeter headphone jack, setting the standard still used today
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA, breathe! AAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA. Seriously!
The 3.5mm headphone jack was first made and used in audio equipment in the 1880's.
So Apple "introduced" this connector and "made it a standard" only 120 years later even after the popular Walkman and all of the pre-ipod MP3 players.
Uh huh, sounds legit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
The two main drawbacks I've seen on the Lightning is that the connector, under the right (wrong, depending on how you look at it) can be broken. I've seen them broken on displays at the local Apple store because a kid grabs the phone and doesn't lift up and they end up putting too much pressure on the connector and it ends up snapping. The other drawback is that it isn't a standard whereas Micro or Mini USB is. That's a dilemma that Apple has had to deal with. I don't know if I would have chosen for the Lightning route if it were up to me. it's just a problem when trying to deal with these standards.
Is it any more likely to break any other connector? I had a mini-USB connector attached to a portable hard drive fail last week; it looks like it got bent breaking one or more of the wires inside. Of course it cost less than $5 to get a replacement whereas a lightning cable will be much more expensive.
A magsafe-style connector would have been very appealing. I'm sure Apple considered it/prototyped it, but it didn't make the cut for some reason.
Thank heavens they didn't settle on mini or micro USB however. Talk about a design done by committee and having almost nothing going for it.
Besides reversibility, can anyone provide any other practical uses of dynamic pin assignment?
Actually some of this is pretty obvious and in some cases has been done before. This is especially the case in the arrangement of the contacts. I would imagine the patentable parts will be in the ID technology and the non,y in this specific implementation, after all using pins to ID a port or functionality is nothing new.
This is by far an evolutionary design, not revolutionary. Considering the fact that they give up functionality on four pins this isn't exactly an aggressive design. It is an interesting design that is for certain but it is far from revolutionary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evilution
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA, breathe! AAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA. Seriously!
The 3.5mm headphone jack was first made and used in audio equipment in the 1880's.
So Apple "introduced" this connector and "made it a standard" only 120 years later even after the popular Walkman and all of the pre-ipod MP3 players.
Uh huh, sounds legit.
Dude, think for a minute. Obviously the original poster was referring to the addition of the volume control/skip button wiring. I don't know if Apple invented that, but it's a defacto standard now.
Here's the relevant (really boring) Wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phone_connector_(audio)
I've never understand the desire for MagSafe on an iDevice. For starters, the device you're not likely to trip over. Also, you end up making the cable end much larger. Also note that MagSafe doesn't need to deal with data as it's only power going over those wide spaced pins.
Originally Posted by wizard69
…wobbly… …insecure…
This is the opposite of every experience I've had with the connector.
The way I read the document they only have 4 data lanes which seems really odd. If so that makes your question even more interesting. It is almost like this is part of the security arrangement in that dynamic data lanes makes it difficult to just plug in a connector and grab a port. Or in other words there are no data lanes until the authentication process succeeds.
Or taken another way this is an extended effort to screw the consumer as the port offers no real value other than limiting choice.
But why would anyone expect Apple to say that either of the iDevice port interfaces are capable of supporting different transmit rates when the NAND is still the bottleneck?
Why would that be the case? You would only be mirroring the d'état pins already there. It allows the lock out to be in the chip. Mirroring of the data pins could have easily been done with a couple of visa in the plug. Not at all. Look this is simple nothing would of changed other than the data pins being mirrored. Orientation detection could have be the same but even that isn't absolutely needed. They could have instead mirrored the I'd detection. In the end there are multiple approaches but this one seems to be overly complex. It really looks like it was done this way to make it difficult to use the port without Apple hardware.
That isn't what the document describes. They only have four data lanes.
The data pins are mirrored. No matter how you turn it the 4 pins for data are still the 4 pins for data. What you're talking about is a pointlessly complex HW solution that would allocate the specific data pin to the exact same place regardless of the orientation. There is simply no need for this when you have an intelligent design that can determine the orientation based on which ground is in use.
Well I suspect they have defined the port well to those under NDA, it is the lack of public information that is a problem. As to NAND why do people get hung up on that? The speed of the NAND could easily change in the next round of devices. Beyond that why does the data have to go to NAND? For example lets say I want to make an oscilloscope attachment for an iPad, that dat may never need to go to NAND but the faster I can get it to RAM the more impressive the performance of the O'scope. It this context talking about NAND is just a distraction.
We tend to use the bottleneck in networking because it's the reason why end-to-end communication can't be more efficient. As for your oscilloscope suggestion do you have any proof that Apple is artificially limiting the speed to 480Mbps or that the Lightning connector design isn't capable of speeds faster than 480Mbps? It has to be either/or for you to suggest that the connector isn't capable of faster speeds. At this point I would think the need for faster speeds simply isn't an issue due to the slow NAND and therefore Apple has yet to include a controller for USB 3.0 in there iDevices. In no way do I think that it being a smaller connector means that it's not capable of allowing faster throughput. Did we find that out with Universal Serial Bus v Parallel printer cables?
The data pins are mirrored and the power pins are mirrored. You seem to think that Data 4 will need some complex mechanical method to switch to Data 4 when inverted. Why use that when you can implement Auto-MDIX and completely forego the the complex per device HW manipulation you are suggesting?
Ok, so that we are all on the same page:
The data pins are mirrored across a line running between the two sides of the connector.
The host power and ground pins are mirrored across a point in the center of the connector. This is what I meant when I was saying mirrored.
The 4 data pins make sense when you consider that current iPads/iPhones only have 8 contacts and only connect to one side of the lightning cable. I suppose in the future if they come out with a device requiring more pins, they could redesign the cable and port to utilize both sides while preserving backwards compatibility with the current cables.
I don't think it is fair to accuse apple of screwing us just yet. We still don't know the full capability of the port. For example we have only looked at the USB data cable. Remember, the old 30 pin dock had pins dedicated to things like A/V out and control inputs. I think we will likely see accessories like external speakers that will reassign the "data" pins to things like controls and A/V.