Why would anyone think Apple would get rid of Lightning?
Because lightning connectors fail badly over time, USB-C is MUCH more resilient - of course Apple won't change that since it makes a bucket of cash licensing lightning connectors. {{...and cue Apple fanboys...}}
When you're a bit older someone will teach you how to look after your kit.
Why would anyone think Apple would get rid of Lightning?
Because lightning connectors fail badly over time, USB-C is MUCH more resilient - of course Apple won't change that since it makes a bucket of cash licensing lightning connectors. {{...and cue Apple fanboys...}}
Troll trope nonsense. My Apple ones are fine, and my Anker ones are even better -- kevlar and braided nylon. So your conspiracy theory doesnt make any damn sense since a company can make very durable cables if they choose. Also, can you please cite how much Apple makes on MFI licensing?
Apple should use standards and stop using proprietary and soldered components in all devices.
Funny, when Apple did exactly that (USBC) on the new MBP you haters still complained.
I love soldered components! Anything to make it smaller, faster, and better battery usage, which onboard components do. Are you complaining about soldered components in an iPhone or iPad? Why not!? Same thing.
It seems fairly clear given the direction of things that Lightning is the last port that the iPhone will ever have, and that in a few years' time Apple will ditch Lightning for no ports at all and long range wireless charging. Even then, of course, they'll leave a little connector for diagnostics like the one hidden in the strap slot of the Apple Watch, or a smart connector-type thing. But Jony Ive is going to want to seal up the body of the iPhone, leaving no unsightly ports, as soon as he has the chance.
Most of us, I suspect, don't only use a port for charging though. We frequently read here of a preference for large updates via wire rather than wifi, and many of us sync our phones (and iPads) to our computers, as well as the cloud, for reliability, and also - I think - for speed???
I would challenge that "most of us". I'm a phone nerd software dev nerd, and I no longer do wired syncs or transfers. And certainly none of my family do.
Why would anyone think Apple would get rid of Lightning?
Because lightning connectors fail badly over time, USB-C is MUCH more resilient - of course Apple won't change that since it makes a bucket of cash licensing lightning connectors. {{...and cue Apple fanboys...}}
Quit making stuff up. USB-C is still in its infancy and is only now being implemented sparingly on Windows PC's. Therefore you have ZERO clue how durable USBc is in the long run.
iHaters just like you only prove the status quo. Come back when you reach adulthood.
And have you ever had the pins of a Lightning connector wear out? I haven't. I've had the cable wear out, but that's something entirely different than having an issue with the connector.
I'll make a different argument. Do you remember the iPod 30 pin connector? ever hear a cracking noise from it? Ever notice how you could partially connect it and it won't work?
Basically the wider the connector, the more fragile it is. The USB-C and the Lightning connector are basically the same durability scale because they are roughly the same size. That said, the lightning connector is more likely to be broken off from the phone/ipad sliding off a surface (the ring vibrate has sent my iphone to the floor a few times, so I loop the lightning cable around a heavier object) where as the USB-C connector is more likely to suffer from metal fatigue since they have more leverage than the lighting connector due to having 2-3cm of the "connector" inside a plastic shell behind the metal part of the cable.
Or in other words, it's more likely that you'll break off the USB-C connector inside your device, due to this extra leverage by the USB-C cable. The lightning connector is more likely to break the connector of the cable inside the device if it's not completely plugged in. The lightning connector on the iphone has a bit of a "lip" to reduce the likeliness of this happening. The USB-C connector however is flush with the device, much like previous USB connectors. Most USB connectors are either broken on the PCB due to leverage (eg pushing a desktop or laptop up against an object that bends the cable and puts stress on the PCB) or by yanking the cable out by the wire, thus snapping the cable off at the connector, typically bending the connector inside the computer or device.
Overall, the lightning connector is less likely to leave permanent damage due to customer misuse than the USB-C connector, but we're splitting hairs on the kind of damage. It depends heavily on manufacturers of devices to not make USB-c completely flush with the device to prevent stress damage.
Why would anyone think Apple would get rid of Lightning?
Because they got rid of FireWire - also their invention and started supporting USB instead opposing many people who liked FireWire and FireWire800. Same reasons.
Why would anyone think Apple would get rid of Lightning?
Because lightning connectors fail badly over time, USB-C is MUCH more resilient - of course Apple won't change that since it makes a bucket of cash licensing lightning connectors. {{...and cue Apple fanboys...}}
I amnot sure where you got this claim from. What I have seen is that people destroy connectors bending plug excessively and then accessory cable is designed weakly. It simply requires some reinforcement like any cable around plug and where wires have electronic contact. Many manufactures now offer nylon reinforced cables, but it would be enough to improve and standardize plug shield reinforcement. The new nylon reinfoce never fail and I haven;'t heard of device side to fail.
Bear in mind that if one thing is too strong then the orther is going to break during mishandling and it it does not matter if it is USB-C, Lightning or anything else.
Why would anyone think Apple would get rid of Lightning?
Because lightning connectors fail badly over time, USB-C is MUCH more resilient - of course Apple won't change that since it makes a bucket of cash licensing lightning connectors. {{...and cue Apple fanboys...}}
Well, USB C is new enough that I don't see how you can make such broad conclusions regarding durability. Regardless, the durability of the cable is more a function of the design and construction of the cable than it is the connector. I've had plenty of lightning cables fail, but it's always at the connection of the cable to the connector rather than with the connector itself.
Unless you can point to some specific design specification that makes one cable inherently weaker than the other I would have to dismiss your statement.
It seems fairly clear given the direction of things that Lightning is the last port that the iPhone will ever have, and that in a few years' time Apple will ditch Lightning for no ports at all and long range wireless charging. Even then, of course, they'll leave a little connector for diagnostics like the one hidden in the strap slot of the Apple Watch, or a smart connector-type thing. But Jony Ive is going to want to seal up the body of the iPhone, leaving no unsightly ports, as soon as he has the chance.
I would suspect you are correct.
Except there are still cases were the cable is required CarPlay is a prime example. I'm aware that there is a wireless protocol for CarPlay, but most manufacturers have not implemented it. Ditching the port totally would make new phones unusable with most of the existing CarPlay capable cars. Headphones are another example. They've already ditched the jack, forcing people to use the lightning port, if they remove the lightning port then you would be unable to use a phone with anything but bluetooth headphones. No Thanks
It seems fairly clear given the direction of things that Lightning is the last port that the iPhone will ever have, and that in a few years' time Apple will ditch Lightning for no ports at all and long range wireless charging. Even then, of course, they'll leave a little connector for diagnostics like the one hidden in the strap slot of the Apple Watch, or a smart connector-type thing. But Jony Ive is going to want to seal up the body of the iPhone, leaving no unsightly ports, as soon as he has the chance.
Yeah and equip us with many types of remote electromagnetic rechargers.. then we will start hearing about leukemia more frequently. Sending power over air is not the same as sending information. All is possible, but not all healthy to human.
It seems fairly clear given the direction of things that Lightning is the last port that the iPhone will ever have, and that in a few years' time Apple will ditch Lightning for no ports at all and long range wireless charging. Even then, of course, they'll leave a little connector for diagnostics like the one hidden in the strap slot of the Apple Watch, or a smart connector-type thing. But Jony Ive is going to want to seal up the body of the iPhone, leaving no unsightly ports, as soon as he has the chance.
If they have to keep the port for diagnostics, then they'll keep the same port. They aren't going to move it, change it, or otherwise.
But in a way you are correct that "Lightning is the last port iPhone will ever have". Lightning will simply remain, even long past the time where anyone uses it for actual charging.
The handful of people who still "sync" their iPhone with a computer are seemingly unaware that no one does anymore, and hasn't for years. Not since the start of iCloud, and not at all since iCloud matured into what it is today.
And this year's iPhone will be the first with inductive charging of some sort.
Regarding Apple's long-term plan of "fully wireless charging via WiFi/cellular" I see that more as revolution in battery life than a "charging" solution. Basically, the devices will always be charging, since they are always connected to either WiFi or cellular. The power draw while the device is under load will still be enough to "drain" slightly, but as soon as the device goes back to idle, it will resume topping up the battery.
Why would anyone think Apple would get rid of Lightning?
Because they got rid of FireWire - also their invention and started supporting USB instead opposing many people who liked FireWire and FireWire800. Same reasons.
Actually, they went from supporting FW400 on the origninal iPod to only supporting the 30-pin iPod Connector on all further iDevices until Lightning came along.
It seems fairly clear given the direction of things that Lightning is the last port that the iPhone will ever have, and that in a few years' time Apple will ditch Lightning for no ports at all and long range wireless charging. Even then, of course, they'll leave a little connector for diagnostics like the one hidden in the strap slot of the Apple Watch, or a smart connector-type thing. But Jony Ive is going to want to seal up the body of the iPhone, leaving no unsightly ports, as soon as he has the chance.
Yeah and equip us with many types of remote electromagnetic rechargers.. then we will start hearing about leukemia more frequently. Sending power over air is not the same as sending information. All is possible, but not all healthy to human.
You're suggesting Apple will sell a leukemia-causing iphone? Without worry of lawsuits? On what planet?
A pretty good summary, but I think the video is a bit premature when it claims that USB-C is inevitable. Similar claims were made about micro-USB (that Apple would have to replace the 30-pin connector with it) and that never happened. It's always risky to say anything is inevitable when discussing Apple - they have a knack for shipping things nobody else had previously considered, despite seeming obvious in hindsight.
Because lightning connectors fail badly over time, USB-C is MUCH more resilient - of course Apple won't change that since it makes a bucket of cash licensing lightning connectors. {{...and cue Apple fanboys...}}
The video presented didn't make that claim - they indicated that both seem equally durable, and a Lightening failure is less likely to deform the port on your device.
It seems fairly clear given the direction of things that Lightning is the last port that the iPhone will ever have, and that in a few years' time Apple will ditch Lightning for no ports at all and long range wireless charging.
I hope not. I much prefer to sync/backup to iTunes via a USB cable than Wi-Fi. I'm sure I'm not the only one with this opinion.
And switching to a brand new (and therefore expensive) wireless charging device will upset those of us who plug our phones into our car USB ports so we can use navigation apps on long trips without draining the battery. It's cheap and easy to buy a few extra USB cables or to carry one around with the phone. Not so much if you're going to need to carry around a wireless charging base station.
I think all the speculation over USB-C came from a rumor that I *think* was actually about whether they'd switch the USB-A end of the Lightning cables to USB-C and got lost in translation.
Because they got rid of FireWire - also their invention and started supporting USB instead opposing many people who liked FireWire and FireWire800. Same reasons.
You could make a much stronger argument that FW was replaced with Thunderbolt, given the fact that USB ports were present before, during and after the time frame where FW was widely deployed, and TB ports were added at about the same time period where FW ports were removed.
I also like FW, and I still use it on my computers, but the fact is that FW wasn't widely used by most customers. And then there's the fact that FW800 isn't fast enough for modern storage devices (hard drives and SSDs) which can easily exceed 800Mbps. (A hard drive can go up to 150MB/s or 1.2Gbps and an SSD can exceed SATA's 6Gbps.) Given this, and the fact that the fastest theoretical FW port speed (3200bps) isn't as fast as USB 3.0 (5Gbps), and that USB can use SCSI protocols (via the UAS protocol) to gain similar efficiency, it really was a no-brainer to make that switch.
Yeah, Apple made power users like us switch, but it seems like a very clear and obvious decision, both from a technical and a business standpoint, even if some of us are forced to buy external FW adapters to support our legacy devices.
The handful of people who still "sync" their iPhone with a computer are seemingly unaware that no one does anymore, and hasn't for years. Not since the start of iCloud, and not at all since iCloud matured into what it is today.
I think you're projecting your personal usage pattern on the rest of the world.
Not everybody is so blindly trusting of Apple that they will trust them as the sole backup provider. At least not those users who are familar with Apple's history of abandoning on-line services, without regard to how it impacts customers. (Mobile Me, iDrive, iWeb, and plenty of others.)
Will iCloud remain around for as long as Apple sells products? Maybe, but I wouldn't bet my entire digital life on that assumption.
It seems fairly clear given the direction of things that Lightning is the last port that the iPhone will ever have, and that in a few years' time Apple will ditch Lightning for no ports at all and long range wireless charging. Even then, of course, they'll leave a little connector for diagnostics like the one hidden in the strap slot of the Apple Watch, or a smart connector-type thing. But Jony Ive is going to want to seal up the body of the iPhone, leaving no unsightly ports, as soon as he has the chance.
Most of us, I suspect, don't only use a port for charging though. We frequently read here of a preference for large updates via wire rather than wifi, and many of us sync our phones (and iPads) to our computers, as well as the cloud, for reliability, and also - I think - for speed???
I would challenge that "most of us". I'm a phone nerd software dev nerd, and I no longer do wired syncs or transfers. And certainly none of my family do.
Perhaps, perhaps not - "many" vs. "most"? Who knows? I stand by my comment, though, about about numerous complaints about wifi updates every time there's a major iOS update, although I do them via wifi whenever I can, myself. So, er, xxxxxx-million do wireless updates, while only xxxx-million don't? Hmmm...
Why would anyone think Apple would get rid of Lightning?
Because they got rid of FireWire - also their invention and started supporting USB instead opposing many people who liked FireWire and FireWire800. Same reasons.
No, USB was there before Firewire. Firewire was replaced by Thunderbolt, which is obviously better and backwards compatible with Firewire — which begs the question, who complained?
... Thunderbolt, which is obviously better and backwards compatible with Firewire — which begs the question, who complained?
Not backward compatible, but Apple shipped an adapter. So most people were able to ignore the distinction.
Thunderbolt is, when you boil away all the fiddly details, an external PCIe bus where peripherals may be attached. The TB-FW adapter is a FW controller card (much like one you might plug into a PC's expansion slot) that uses TB to attach to the computer. This is also why TB docking stations cost so much - they need controller chips for all the devices (Ethernet, SATA, USB, audio, etc.)
... Thunderbolt, which is obviously better and backwards compatible with Firewire — which begs the question, who complained?
Not backward compatible, but Apple shipped an adapter. So most people were able to ignore the distinction.
Thunderbolt is, when you boil away all the fiddly details, an external PCIe bus where peripherals may be attached. The TB-FW adapter is a FW controller card (much like one you might plug into a PC's expansion slot) that uses TB to attach to the computer. This is also why TB docking stations cost so much - they need controller chips for all the devices (Ethernet, SATA, USB, audio, etc.)
Why is that distinction important? Either way, it works.
... Thunderbolt, which is obviously better and backwards compatible with Firewire — which begs the question, who complained?
Not backward compatible, but Apple shipped an adapter. So most people were able to ignore the distinction.
Why is that distinction important? Either way, it works.
People have also made SCSI-based Ethernet ports and video cards, but it would be an incredible stretch to claim that SCSI is somehow a replacement for having Ethernet and video ports.
I’m sure new iPhone 8 will go to launch in September 2017 with fast charging feature by the Type C power
delivery technology. Apple will ditch the Lightning cable in the iPhone 8 instead switch to
USB-C.
Don't read too much into the "Type C power delivery technology" part. Type-C power delivery tech doesn't specifically require a Type C cable.
Looking at a blow-up picture of the USB-C 3.1 female port, it looks significantly more vulnerable to getting clogged with dirt/lint/gunk than does Lightning. Plus the female USB-C 3.1 port has a tongue (clitoris?) in the middle that might be easily damaged or broken off, thus rendering the device in an irreversibly nonfunctional state as mentioned in the video. This might not be such an issue for a MacBook Pro as it could be for a smartphone that's frequently stashed in a pocket or purse. http://www.usb-c-31.com/images/345dip-products.png
I've been using an LG G5 since launch (year and a half). It's in my pocket 24/7 along with all sorts of other things. Tiny pieces of tobacco get everywhere, they always collect in the corners of pockets, and it's inevitable that at some point they'll get all over whatever you have in your pocket - not to mention pocket lint and other junk. I've dropped my phone quite a few times as well and it's held up admirably. The phone itself is only okay but for what I've put it through it's been very reliable. Suffice to say, I'm not exactly careful with it. I've never had the port get clogged up on me, not even once.
Comments
Funny, when Apple did exactly that (USBC) on the new MBP you haters still complained.
I love soldered components! Anything to make it smaller, faster, and better battery usage, which onboard components do. Are you complaining about soldered components in an iPhone or iPad? Why not!? Same thing.
Basically the wider the connector, the more fragile it is. The USB-C and the Lightning connector are basically the same durability scale because they are roughly the same size. That said, the lightning connector is more likely to be broken off from the phone/ipad sliding off a surface (the ring vibrate has sent my iphone to the floor a few times, so I loop the lightning cable around a heavier object) where as the USB-C connector is more likely to suffer from metal fatigue since they have more leverage than the lighting connector due to having 2-3cm of the "connector" inside a plastic shell behind the metal part of the cable.
Or in other words, it's more likely that you'll break off the USB-C connector inside your device, due to this extra leverage by the USB-C cable. The lightning connector is more likely to break the connector of the cable inside the device if it's not completely plugged in. The lightning connector on the iphone has a bit of a "lip" to reduce the likeliness of this happening. The USB-C connector however is flush with the device, much like previous USB connectors. Most USB connectors are either broken on the PCB due to leverage (eg pushing a desktop or laptop up against an object that bends the cable and puts stress on the PCB) or by yanking the cable out by the wire, thus snapping the cable off at the connector, typically bending the connector inside the computer or device.
Overall, the lightning connector is less likely to leave permanent damage due to customer misuse than the USB-C connector, but we're splitting hairs on the kind of damage. It depends heavily on manufacturers of devices to not make USB-c completely flush with the device to prevent stress damage.
Bear in mind that if one thing is too strong then the orther is going to break during mishandling and it it does not matter if it is USB-C, Lightning or anything else.
Unless you can point to some specific design specification that makes one cable inherently weaker than the other I would have to dismiss your statement.
Except there are still cases were the cable is required CarPlay is a prime example. I'm aware that there is a wireless protocol for CarPlay, but most manufacturers have not implemented it. Ditching the port totally would make new phones unusable with most of the existing CarPlay capable cars. Headphones are another example. They've already ditched the jack, forcing people to use the lightning port, if they remove the lightning port then you would be unable to use a phone with anything but bluetooth headphones. No Thanks
But in a way you are correct that "Lightning is the last port iPhone will ever have". Lightning will simply remain, even long past the time where anyone uses it for actual charging.
The handful of people who still "sync" their iPhone with a computer are seemingly unaware that no one does anymore, and hasn't for years. Not since the start of iCloud, and not at all since iCloud matured into what it is today.
And this year's iPhone will be the first with inductive charging of some sort.
Regarding Apple's long-term plan of "fully wireless charging via WiFi/cellular" I see that more as revolution in battery life than a "charging" solution. Basically, the devices will always be charging, since they are always connected to either WiFi or cellular. The power draw while the device is under load will still be enough to "drain" slightly, but as soon as the device goes back to idle, it will resume topping up the battery.
The video presented didn't make that claim - they indicated that both seem equally durable, and a Lightening failure is less likely to deform the port on your device.
I hope not. I much prefer to sync/backup to iTunes via a USB cable than Wi-Fi. I'm sure I'm not the only one with this opinion.
And switching to a brand new (and therefore expensive) wireless charging device will upset those of us who plug our phones into our car USB ports so we can use navigation apps on long trips without draining the battery. It's cheap and easy to buy a few extra USB cables or to carry one around with the phone. Not so much if you're going to need to carry around a wireless charging base station.
That makes a lot more sense to me too.
You could make a much stronger argument that FW was replaced with Thunderbolt, given the fact that USB ports were present before, during and after the time frame where FW was widely deployed, and TB ports were added at about the same time period where FW ports were removed.
I also like FW, and I still use it on my computers, but the fact is that FW wasn't widely used by most customers. And then there's the fact that FW800 isn't fast enough for modern storage devices (hard drives and SSDs) which can easily exceed 800Mbps. (A hard drive can go up to 150MB/s or 1.2Gbps and an SSD can exceed SATA's 6Gbps.) Given this, and the fact that the fastest theoretical FW port speed (3200bps) isn't as fast as USB 3.0 (5Gbps), and that USB can use SCSI protocols (via the UAS protocol) to gain similar efficiency, it really was a no-brainer to make that switch.
Yeah, Apple made power users like us switch, but it seems like a very clear and obvious decision, both from a technical and a business standpoint, even if some of us are forced to buy external FW adapters to support our legacy devices.
I think you're projecting your personal usage pattern on the rest of the world.
Not everybody is so blindly trusting of Apple that they will trust them as the sole backup provider. At least not those users who are familar with Apple's history of abandoning on-line services, without regard to how it impacts customers. (Mobile Me, iDrive, iWeb, and plenty of others.)
Will iCloud remain around for as long as Apple sells products? Maybe, but I wouldn't bet my entire digital life on that assumption.
complaints about wifi updates every time there's a major iOS update, although I do them via wifi whenever I can, myself.
So, er, xxxxxx-million do wireless updates, while only xxxx-million don't? Hmmm...
Thunderbolt is, when you boil away all the fiddly details, an external PCIe bus where peripherals may be attached. The TB-FW adapter is a FW controller card (much like one you might plug into a PC's expansion slot) that uses TB to attach to the computer. This is also why TB docking stations cost so much - they need controller chips for all the devices (Ethernet, SATA, USB, audio, etc.)