The only challenge will be pocket flash drives which will need adaptors because we'll still have to use them with legacy A ports.
Until they start making them with C, which should be as soon as ratification.
No, I mean if I buy a flash drive with a C connector (which I will, on the very first day I can) I will need an adaptor to plug it into all the existing A sockets I'll still encounter on existing machines, like at work.
That's exactly what I do with USB cables for some reason. I even try to come up with a system like checking the two holes face up but then realise some plugs have holes on both sides or I check where the thick part is inside the plug but then forget if that's supposed to be at the top or bottom. It ends up with me turning it twice more often than I'd like. I've even done it rarely a full other cycle so one way, nope, other way, nope, other way again, nope, checked the port to see it's the USB port I'm trying to use and verified that the current way is not happening so very slowly try the final way and success.
It looks like the USB C port won't have the two holes on it too so that should mean an end to people getting cables stuck in the ports.
So those reversible USB connectors achieve reversibility without the use of embedded chips or "dynamic pin assignment"? If so, that makes it look like Apple went out of their way to make Lightning more complicated than necessary, despite their supposed focus on simplicity and efficient design.
[CONTENTEMBED=/t/181878/questionable-leaks-raise-hopes-that-apple-will-release-new-lightning-cable-with-reversible-usb-connector#post_2581164 layout=inline]So those reversible USB connectors achieve reversibility without the use of embedded chips or "dynamic pin assignment"? If so, that makes it look like Apple went out of their way to make Lightning more complicated than necessary, despite their supposed focus on simplicity and efficient design.[/CONTENTEMBED]
Lightning is a very small connector with 8 pins, USB type A plugs are much bigger. USB C is smaller but might still be larger than Lightning.
That's exactly what I do with USB cables for some reason. I even try to come up with a system like checking the two holes face up but then realise some plugs have holes on both sides or I check where the thick part is inside the plug but then forget if that's supposed to be at the top or bottom. It ends up with me turning it twice more often than I'd like. I've even done it rarely a full other cycle so one way, nope, other way, nope, other way again, nope, checked the port to see it's the USB port I'm trying to use and verified that the current way is not happening so very slowly try the final way and success.
It looks like the USB C port won't have the two holes on it too so that should mean an end to people getting cables stuck in the ports.
Isn't the rule that for horizontal USB-A female sockets you need to plug the male connector in with the USB logo facing up? Some people complain about Apple cables printing the USB logo instead of embossing it (which I believe is a non-mandatory part of the standard), which makes plugging it in without line of sight more difficult.
Obviously that's of no help whatsoever if the female is vertical, and I don't think there's any rule for that case.
If Apple do change the connectors I hope they change the cables too to make them more robust; I think my most recent Lightning cable set a record for me, from pristine to frayed and useless within 6 months.
So those reversible USB connectors achieve reversibility without the use of embedded chips or "dynamic pin assignment"?
If so, USB is less complex than Lightning, so it’s perfectly reasonable to assume that they didn’t need it.
If so, that makes it look like Apple went out of their way to make Lightning more complicated than necessary, despite their supposed focus on simplicity and efficient design.
Nice try at FUD. Much better than most; at least you were subtle about it.
Apple focuses on simplicity and efficient design FOR THE END USER. Their products contain some of the most complicated electronics and involved designs out there.
So those reversible USB connectors achieve reversibility without the use of embedded chips or "dynamic pin assignment"? If so, that makes it look like Apple went out of their way to make Lightning more complicated than necessary, despite their supposed focus on simplicity and efficient design.
I think Apple's simplicity and efficient design is focussed on the end user experience, not the internal workings of cables. From what we've seen of this reversible cable it has a big flappy tongue on the inside. I'm sure Apple will ship something that's the best they can make it, but whichever way you look at it a big flappy tongue isn't as simple or elegant as the Lightning connector's small form factor and single piece design.
From what we've seen of this reversible cable it has a big flappy tongue on the inside. [...] a big flappy tongue isn't as simple or elegant as the Lightning connector's small form factor and single piece design.
To be clear, we're talking about the clusterhump of a connector shown in this article, right? I have serious doubts about Apple ever supplying those. Much more likely they will choose to use the new Type-C connector that both solves the issue AND allows them to stick with an "official" and "sanctioned" design.
I thought Type C is for the device end, not the master? In which case already has Lightning to do that part.
Forget Lightning. It just confuses the issue. We're talking about USB connectors, period.
I don't know one way or the other, but am under the impression that the Type-C connector is intended to be used on both ends. No more having one type of connector at the source and a different one at the destination. So, your iPhone will come with a cable that has USB Type-C on one end and Lightning on the other. A portable hard drive cable would be USB Type-C at both ends.
Interesting, I didn't realise that. But since there are currently no Apple computers with the USB-C female port, we'll be stuck with either USB-A or USB-A-reversible cables for a little while yet.
Why isn't the reversible USB not compliant with the committee?
You mean ‘why isn’t it compliant’? Because the whiners don’t want anything they haven’t personally ratified. Makes sense, except the decisions they make are moronic.
LightPeak used a modified USB port for its first implementations. Had the USB morons allowed them to keep doing it, we would have had Thunderbolt ports that were backward compatible with USB. Imagine what that would have done for Thunderbolt adoption and what it would have done for keeping USB relevant.
Hahaha it took me at least 30 sec to spot my grammar mistake, thank you
Yeah it's obviously a bureaucratic reason, but Apple could certainly throw a few millions for lobbying and get this ratification done in a blink so I thought there could be something else.
Concerning thunderbolt, for Apple and a Apple product user point of view, the fact that they had to develop their own connector, would you say now its a good thing? I am very happy that Apple didn't switch to usb when they ditched the 30-pin! But I never use thunderbolt, so I can't say anything about it.
LightPeak used a modified USB port for its first implementations. Had the USB morons allowed them to keep doing it, we would have had Thunderbolt ports that were backward compatible with USB. Imagine what that would have done for Thunderbolt adoption and what it would have done for keeping USB relevant.
In that hypothetical parallel universe I wonder if we'd be talking about a reversible Thunderbolt cable. Because that'd be nice.
I think Apple's simplicity and efficient design is focussed on the end user experience, not the internal workings of cables. From what we've seen of this reversible cable it has a big flappy tongue on the inside. I'm sure Apple will ship something that's the best they can make it, but whichever way you look at it a big flappy tongue isn't as simple or elegant as the Lightning connector's small form factor and single piece design.
Looking at it it seems like it would wear faster and be prone to breaking more than the current Type-A connector. I think the new Type-C connector looks like a better design, of course that should since it's not trying to be backwards compatible with the tried and true Type-A port interface.
Comments
The only challenge will be pocket flash drives which will need adaptors because we'll still have to use them with legacy A ports.
Until they start making them with C, which should be as soon as ratification.
No, I mean if I buy a flash drive with a C connector (which I will, on the very first day I can) I will need an adaptor to plug it into all the existing A sockets I'll still encounter on existing machines, like at work.
That's exactly what I do with USB cables for some reason. I even try to come up with a system like checking the two holes face up but then realise some plugs have holes on both sides or I check where the thick part is inside the plug but then forget if that's supposed to be at the top or bottom. It ends up with me turning it twice more often than I'd like. I've even done it rarely a full other cycle so one way, nope, other way, nope, other way again, nope, checked the port to see it's the USB port I'm trying to use and verified that the current way is not happening so very slowly try the final way and success.
It looks like the USB C port won't have the two holes on it too so that should mean an end to people getting cables stuck in the ports.
Lightning is a very small connector with 8 pins, USB type A plugs are much bigger. USB C is smaller but might still be larger than Lightning.
That's exactly what I do with USB cables for some reason. I even try to come up with a system like checking the two holes face up but then realise some plugs have holes on both sides or I check where the thick part is inside the plug but then forget if that's supposed to be at the top or bottom. It ends up with me turning it twice more often than I'd like. I've even done it rarely a full other cycle so one way, nope, other way, nope, other way again, nope, checked the port to see it's the USB port I'm trying to use and verified that the current way is not happening so very slowly try the final way and success.
It looks like the USB C port won't have the two holes on it too so that should mean an end to people getting cables stuck in the ports.
Isn't the rule that for horizontal USB-A female sockets you need to plug the male connector in with the USB logo facing up? Some people complain about Apple cables printing the USB logo instead of embossing it (which I believe is a non-mandatory part of the standard), which makes plugging it in without line of sight more difficult.
Obviously that's of no help whatsoever if the female is vertical, and I don't think there's any rule for that case.
If Apple do change the connectors I hope they change the cables too to make them more robust; I think my most recent Lightning cable set a record for me, from pristine to frayed and useless within 6 months.
If so, USB is less complex than Lightning, so it’s perfectly reasonable to assume that they didn’t need it.
Nice try at FUD. Much better than most; at least you were subtle about it.
Apple focuses on simplicity and efficient design FOR THE END USER. Their products contain some of the most complicated electronics and involved designs out there.
So those reversible USB connectors achieve reversibility without the use of embedded chips or "dynamic pin assignment"? If so, that makes it look like Apple went out of their way to make Lightning more complicated than necessary, despite their supposed focus on simplicity and efficient design.
I think Apple's simplicity and efficient design is focussed on the end user experience, not the internal workings of cables. From what we've seen of this reversible cable it has a big flappy tongue on the inside. I'm sure Apple will ship something that's the best they can make it, but whichever way you look at it a big flappy tongue isn't as simple or elegant as the Lightning connector's small form factor and single piece design.
From what we've seen of this reversible cable it has a big flappy tongue on the inside. [...] a big flappy tongue isn't as simple or elegant as the Lightning connector's small form factor and single piece design.
To be clear, we're talking about the clusterhump of a connector shown in this article, right? I have serious doubts about Apple ever supplying those. Much more likely they will choose to use the new Type-C connector that both solves the issue AND allows them to stick with an "official" and "sanctioned" design.
I thought Type C is for the device end, not the master? In which case already has Lightning to do that part.
Forget Lightning. It just confuses the issue. We're talking about USB connectors, period.
I don't know one way or the other, but am under the impression that the Type-C connector is intended to be used on both ends. No more having one type of connector at the source and a different one at the destination. So, your iPhone will come with a cable that has USB Type-C on one end and Lightning on the other. A portable hard drive cable would be USB Type-C at both ends.
Why isn't the reversible USB not compliant with the committee?
You mean ‘why isn’t it compliant’? Because the whiners don’t want anything they haven’t personally ratified. Makes sense, except the decisions they make are moronic.
LightPeak used a modified USB port for its first implementations. Had the USB morons allowed them to keep doing it, we would have had Thunderbolt ports that were backward compatible with USB. Imagine what that would have done for Thunderbolt adoption and what it would have done for keeping USB relevant.
Alas, they dug their own grave.
Hahaha it took me at least 30 sec to spot my grammar mistake, thank you
Yeah it's obviously a bureaucratic reason, but Apple could certainly throw a few millions for lobbying and get this ratification done in a blink so I thought there could be something else.
Concerning thunderbolt, for Apple and a Apple product user point of view, the fact that they had to develop their own connector, would you say now its a good thing? I am very happy that Apple didn't switch to usb when they ditched the 30-pin! But I never use thunderbolt, so I can't say anything about it.
LightPeak used a modified USB port for its first implementations. Had the USB morons allowed them to keep doing it, we would have had Thunderbolt ports that were backward compatible with USB. Imagine what that would have done for Thunderbolt adoption and what it would have done for keeping USB relevant.
In that hypothetical parallel universe I wonder if we'd be talking about a reversible Thunderbolt cable. Because that'd be nice.
In that hypothetical parallel universe I wonder if we'd be talking about a reversible Thunderbolt cable.
Thunderbolt 3 could be reversible. It’s going to be a new port, so they may as well do it.
Is it confirmed it'll be a new port? Think I missed that.
I think they said it has to be, since they’re carrying 100 watts across it. If that’s not the reason, I at least know it’s going to be a new port.
Looking at it it seems like it would wear faster and be prone to breaking more than the current Type-A connector. I think the new Type-C connector looks like a better design, of course that should since it's not trying to be backwards compatible with the tried and true Type-A port interface.
I'd like to think Apple is smarter than to create a new port standard that would only last for 2 years. Their 30-pin connector lasted nearly a decade.