Apple's alleged 9-pin dock connector may be same size as Micro USB

1235

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 119
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,949member
    genan wrote: »
    Just make the devices capable of faster transfers.  Tired of the USB speeds when they keep touting Thunderbolt speeds.  I've an iMac.  Let me sync my iDevices utilizing the faster port.

    Has the signalling been shown to be the weak link? Last time I measured, the transfer speed didn't approach the max practical line limit. Thunderbolt requires a separate host chip, that separate chip is why Apple dropped Firewire from the iPod line, it's incompatible with the idea of compact devices when you have unnecessary chips. To get faster, all they need to do is support USB 3, which is on most new computers anyway.

    shidell wrote: »
    Even if it is a load of tripe, you can't possibly be happy to pay more money for yet another (different) proprietary connection.

    If it's a better connection, why not? mini-USB is largely friction based, this looks smooth with a detent on the end. I've also seen two different mini-USB connectors, four and five pin. They don't interchange.

    I would suggest the new connector is better for this use, because it's not just a cable connector, it's also a dock connector, and I would submit this would have more repeatable, more reliable connectivity than mini-USB.

    mausz wrote: »
    Did you read http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/152341/apple-adapters-for-new-9-pin-dock-to-cost-10-cables-will-be-19-report

    At least at first Apple will be the sole supplier of the new dock connector cables, of course it's a rumor, but so is the whole new dock connector

    The rumored prices are good though. With the exception of Monoprice, I've had bad luck with less expensive dock cables.

    mstone wrote: »
    If you look closely you can see there are indentations on the sides of the plug which I presume interlock with some sort of spring loaded mechanism that snaps in to securely fasten it to the device.

    When I saw those smooth notches on the edges, I too was thinking of this detent possibility.

    gazoobee wrote: »
    I think it's a brilliant design and far better than micro-A USB. It shows what just a little original thinking can do, even to a cable.
    By putting the metal on the outside they achieve the same thing as the fragile, ugly shielding on the current cables. By making it plain old male-female, instead of female/male-male/female like the current cables they make it far simpler and easier to use. By hollowing out the metal tang and putting the wires down the middle it achieves perfect shielding and excellent and exacting fit and finish. By making a window in each side for the contacts, it makes it reversible.
    This is never going to be interoperable with USB (as the article incorrectly implies) however because the whole point of the cable is actually the circuitry inside.

    Interoperable on the other end, but point is taken. I think this is to make docks better. This connector looks to be more ruggedly designed too. I don't think mini-USB is designed for daily insertions.
  • Reply 82 of 119


    Here is an off of the wall concept, that would not surprise me.  The new dock connector is a pure male connector going into a female socket, and the microusb is a female socket surrounded by a male housing that connects to a male tongue inside of a female socket right.  What if the new port had a retractable tongue.  If you plug in a dock 2 cable, the tongue gets pushed in and the dock 2 pins are activated/exposed, if you put in a micro usb cable, the tongue stays out and connected to the USB power pins.


     


    That way Apple has its custom Dock 2 connector that (hopefully) does more that plain USB, but complies with the EU rules without the complexity of an adapter.  Like I said an off of the wall concept.

  • Reply 83 of 119


    Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

    So Apple is going to invent a new, proprietary bus that this cable will use?


    It shows a USB connector on one end of it already.



     


    He means within the context of what some people are saying, which is that MicroUSB plugs will fit into and be usable in the Dock Connector 2 port.


     


    Complete nonsense, yeah. 





    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

    That might be feasible when Thunderbolt is commonplace on PCs. There are lots of iPods and iPhones that are still connected to Windows, unfortunately.


     


    So? Apple made USB+FireWire to Dock Connector cables. Why not USB 3+Thunderbolt to Dock Connector 2? 





    Originally Posted by AJMonline View Post

    What if the new port had a retractable tongue.


     


    Sounds like something that will break unnecessarily easily.

  • Reply 84 of 119

    Quote:


     

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil


    Originally Posted by AJMonline View Post

    What if the new port had a retractable tongue.


     


    Sounds like something that will break unnecessarily easily.




     


    I agree that it would not be easy to do.  Even if it did not make it into the final design, I do see this as something that Apple would of at least looked into.  Who know though, with other materials (ie not plastic, maybe liquid metal), they may have been able to get it working.  The fact that the tongue is recessed may also give it enough protection that it would work.


     


    I do agree that it is not an easy engineering solution, however that has not stopped Apple before.  It also could have been one of the things that held up the redesign from last year.  Don't forget a couple sources came out after the 4S was released that the leaked redesign was based on a real prototype.

  • Reply 85 of 119
    richlrichl Posts: 2,213member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    And for the record, when the EU creates three products that revolutionize the three separate industries in which they reside directly and hundreds of other industries by their very presence indirectly, then they can tell me or anyone else what ports we put on our devices, thank you very much. Why a government thinks it has the right, much less the proper knowledge to tell us what port we should put on our devices is beyond me.



     


    The GSM-A would like a word with you.

  • Reply 86 of 119


    Originally Posted by RichL View Post

    The GSM-A would like a word with you.


     


    Sure. But that's not ports at all… 

  • Reply 87 of 119
    richlrichl Posts: 2,213member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    Sure. But that's not ports at all… 



     


    It's very similar. Government has a responsibility to foster competition.


     


    Europe did that by mandating GSM as its 2G standard. It created a level playing field full of competition. In contrast, the US government let American telcos use any wireless standard they liked. Some of them (CDMA) were technically superior to GSM but it led to an incompatible mess where coverage and service were poor and charges were high.


     


    (It's also pretty dumb to argue on the world wide web that the EU has never created an innovative product.)

  • Reply 88 of 119
    vorsosvorsos Posts: 302member


    I have not experienced this widely-touted micro-USB "standard," since in the US there still seems to be a wide variety of uniquely shaped USB plugs for phones and cameras, none of which magically plug into each others' devices.


     



    Originally Posted by Genan View Post


    Just make the devices capable of faster transfers.  Tired of the USB speeds when they keep touting Thunderbolt speeds.  I've an iMac.  Let me sync my iDevices utilizing the faster port.



    The issue there is iOS flash memory not being fast enough to bother. Adding faster memory introduces tradeoff questions regarding battery life.

  • Reply 89 of 119


    Originally Posted by RichL View Post

    Europe did that by mandating GSM as its 2G standard. It created a level playing field full of competition. In contrast, the US government let American telcos use any wireless standard they liked. Some of them (CDMA) were technically superior to GSM but it led to an incompatible mess where coverage and service were poor and charges were high.


     


    So you'd rather be forced to use crap than to have the option of using something better. Well, that beautifully sums up what the EU is doing with ports right here, isn't it?

  • Reply 90 of 119
    Is there a reason it is not feasible to offer both now? Why not include a us USB cable and sell a thunderbolt cable? That would give the people who have computers with thunderbolt ports to take advantage of it now. It also might encourage people to upgrade to a new Mac. It might also help to speed industry adoption of thunderbolt.
  • Reply 91 of 119
    Is there a reason it is not feasible to offer both now? Why not include a us USB cable and sell a thunderbolt cable? That would give the people who have computers with thunderbolt ports to take advantage of it now. It also might encourage people to upgrade to a new Mac. It might also help to speed industry adoption of thunderbolt.

    I think that is a reasonable assumption assuming two things are feasible.

    One, the cost of putting hardware in the device for TB on all devices with this connector is feasible.

    Two, there is a benefit to syncing and/or charging that make it a viable option. Note that NAND speeds have been hanging at about 22Mbps for years now and aren't getting better with the small lithography.
  • Reply 92 of 119


    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

    Note that NAND speeds have been hanging at about 22Mbps for years now and aren't getting better with the small lithography.


     


    And this is inexcusable. The more expensive stuff has greatly increased in speed.

  • Reply 93 of 119
    john.bjohn.b Posts: 2,721member


    As long as the USB micro connector won't fit in the 9-pin Apple socket, and vice versa, it doesn't matter whether or not they have similar outside physical dimensions.

  • Reply 94 of 119
    john.bjohn.b Posts: 2,721member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RichL View Post


    It's very similar. Government has a responsibility to foster competition.


     


    Europe did that by mandating GSM as its 2G standard. It created a level playing field full of competition. In contrast, the US government let American telcos use any wireless standard they liked. Some of them (CDMA) were technically superior to GSM but it led to an incompatible mess where coverage and service were poor and charges were high.



     


    What your promoting isn't competition, at least not in the capitalist sense, it's more like a regulated oligopoly.  It takes away the opportunity of the marketplace decide winners (and losers) and puts that decision in the hands of bureaucrats or judges.


     


    Which, or be fair, the EU is apparently entitled to inflict on themselves.  Just don't expect the rest of the world to follow edicts or "mandates" from a panel of Swiss judges or Belgium bureaucrats.

  • Reply 95 of 119
    kpomkpom Posts: 617member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Inkling View Post



    The same can be said of Apple products that favor thinness over a decent battery life. I've not upgraded to a MacBook Air, in part, because the battery life in the 11" model is way too short--barely better than what I get with the original battery in my six-year-old MacBook.

    All that thinness makes no sense, since users will be carrying their MBA about in a padded case that's at least two inches think. Another half-inch thickness could probably give users twice the battery life.


     


    Another half inch of thickness and it would be a MacBook Pro. The 13" MacBook Air gets battery life comparable to other Ultrabooks. The 11" isn't bad considering how small it is. I have never placed my MacBook Are in a 2" thick padded case. I have a neoprene sleeve for it that fits tightly, and the end result is still thinner than the MacBook Pro. It fits nicely into a pocket of a suitcase or even the front pocket of my regular notebook case (so I can get two notebooks into the same case).

  • Reply 96 of 119
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,949member
    john.b wrote: »
    What your promoting isn't competition, at least not in the capitalist sense, it's more like a regulated oligopoly.  It takes away the opportunity of the marketplace decide winners (and losers) and puts that decision in the hands of bureaucrats or judges.

    Which, or be fair, the EU is apparently entitled to inflict on themselves.  Just don't expect the rest of the world to follow edicts or "mandates" from a panel of Swiss judges or Belgium bureaucrats.

    In the case of GSM, it's the opposite of what you allege. A few more regulations made the cellular market considerably more competitive. In the US, you had to buy your device from your carrier, and you couldn't take said device to a different carrier should the relationship go south, you had to buy a new device. In the EU, you just get a new SIM card and you're on a different carrier.

    To pretend the US carrier market isn't an oligopoly is to live in a fantasy, I think it's clear the US carrier market is worse.
  • Reply 97 of 119
    richlrichl Posts: 2,213member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by John.B View Post


     


    What your promoting isn't competition, at least not in the capitalist sense, it's more like a regulated oligopoly.  It takes away the opportunity of the marketplace decide winners (and losers) and puts that decision in the hands of bureaucrats or judges.


     


    Which, or be fair, the EU is apparently entitled to inflict on themselves.  Just don't expect the rest of the world to follow edicts or "mandates" from a panel of Swiss judges or Belgium bureaucrats.



     


    Forget your ideological views for a moment and look at the facts. In the 10-15 years after GSM was mandated in Europe, Europe had the cheapest and best cellular networks in the world (bar maybe Japan). It also became the home of the most successful companies in the industry - Nokia, Ericsson, Vodafone, etc. It took the US a long time to catch up. 


     


    It certainly wasn't an oligopoly. GSM is an open standard. Anyone could license it and contribute to it. Competition was fierce from all sides of the industry.


     


    Do you think that it's wrong that the US has a standard for power sockets? How dare the bureaucrats and judges tell us what to do!


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    So you'd rather be forced to use crap than to have the option of using something better. Well, that beautifully sums up what the EU is doing with ports right here, isn't it?



     


    It's a trade-off. Long term competition vs. short-term technical gain. Qualcomm's version of CDMA was technically superior to GSM but the costs were terrible once Qualcomm had locked you in. That cost was passed onto the customer.  

  • Reply 98 of 119


    Originally Posted by RichL View Post

    …Europe had the cheapest and best cellular networks in the world (bar maybe Japan).


     


    Japan, which uses both CDMA and GSM.


     



     It also became the home of the most successful companies in the industry - Nokia, Ericsson, Vodafone, etc.




    Yes, the ones whose success is written in history. And nowhere else.


     



    Competition was fierce from all sides of the industry.



     


    Except the side that, you know, wanted to use better technology. Because they weren't allowed to.

  • Reply 99 of 119
    richlrichl Posts: 2,213member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    Japan, which uses both CDMA and GSM.


     



     


    Correct. Great technology but one company had a virtual monopoly (60%+ marketshare) for a long time. Prices in Japan were high and things such as number porting were completely unknown. The market has changed a lot in the past five years. Japan is no longer a world leader.


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

    Yes, the ones whose success is written in history. And nowhere else.


     



     


    That's the price of competition - companies rise and fall. Only monopolies have any kind of staying power.


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

    Except the side that, you know, wanted to use better technology. Because they weren't allowed to.


     



     


    But what was the price that the US paid for CDMA? High prices, poor service, hidden fees and long contracts. Was a slight technical edge worth all of the downsides?

  • Reply 100 of 119
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    And this is inexcusable. The more expensive stuff has greatly increased in speed.

    I've never seen such NAND. Can you show me?
Sign In or Register to comment.