It's not moot, because it depends on other HW being able to control USB 3.0 speeds to the NAND. You can't say "the NAND can't support USB 3.0 speeds, but magically could if Apple switched to a USB-C port on the iPhone." It simply doesn't work that way.
Also, USB-C can carry TB signals, but that doesn't mean you get TB by switching to a USB-C connector.
Has any of the fans of USB-C truly thought about WHY Apple would stick with Lightning on the AppleTV and iPad?
My guess is that they know for a FACT that people would be trying to stick USB->USB-C adapers and every piece of tech crap that USB connects with.... into an iPad and AppleTV.
Some just to see if it works, others just because they're dumb.
But are they reallydumb? No. From teens to soccer moms to seniors that have better things to do with their lives, collectively the people who don't frequent tech blogs or sections of their newspaper... would just assume, "Hey! Looky there! I can plug my mouse in.... or this USB stick.... or this controller.... or hard drive... and WAH?.... it doesn't work?! It has to work! OMG! My iPad (AppleTV) must be broken!".
Off to the nearest Apple Store or a call to support, and when they find out that NO, it's ONLY to be used for certain accessories from Apple.
In that scenario... what do YOU all think would be the next step to consumer satisfaction? Yup! Class action lawsuit... BIG TIME! Not to mention bad press, lost productivity on Apple's side trying to quell people's rage...etc. etc.
If I was Apple... I'd stick to the Lightning connector too... wouldn't you if it was your company?
Has any of the fans of USB-C truly thought about WHY Apple would stick with Lightning on the AppleTV and iPad?
My guess is that they know for a FACT that people would be trying to stick USB->USB-C adapers and every piece of tech crap that USB connects with.... into an iPad and AppleTV.
Some just to see if it works, others just because they're dumb.
But are they reallydumb? No. From teens to soccer moms to seniors that have better things to do with their lives, collectively the people who don't frequent tech blogs or sections of their newspaper... would just assume, "Hey! Looky there! I can plug my mouse in.... or this USB stick.... or this controller.... or hard drive... and WAH?.... it doesn't work?! It has to work! OMG! My iPad (AppleTV) must be broken!".
Off to the nearest Apple Store or a call to support, and when they find out that NO, it's ONLY to be used for certain accessories from Apple.
In that scenario... what do YOU all think would be the next step to consumer satisfaction? Yup! Class action lawsuit... BIG TIME! Not to mention bad press, lost productivity on Apple's side trying to quell people's rage...etc. etc.
If I was Apple... I'd stick to the Lightning connector too... wouldn't you if it was your company?
Unfortunately there would be an erroneous assumption that if something has a particular port interface it will automatically work a certain way. [@]Mac_128[/@] just made such a comparison today between USB-C and Lightning.
I also think it's possible Apple has looked at the longterm development of their products and sees Lightning as the better option since it's thinner than USB-C; and I say that wanting to see USB-C replace Lightning simply because it's a better port interface.
PS: I don't think we're long now for the 3.5mm jack going away from iDevices.
{the supply chain suggested that the device would feature a USB-C connector, allowing it greater connectivity options. That speculation proved to be unfounded}
I've been tracking alleged "supply chain" allegations for some time. The accuracy of reports attributed to "supply chain" sources can only be described as dismal. In fact, they are so bad as to make one believe that "supply chain sources" are fictional, conjured up in order to avoid accountability.
Several cable makers are now offering USB-C to lightning cables, and they're not horribly expensive. I keep one in my laptop bag, along with a USB-C to Micro USB cable, so I can charge my laptop, phone, and bluetooth headset off of the same charger (my MacBook charger) and my phone and bluetooth off of my laptop, when needed.
But the pencil has a male lightning so you will need a new female port for it. Is that included? Why no female on the pencil so we can plug it in on our existing chargers?
You charge it by plugging it into the iPad. As you can see, it doesn't need to be plugged in for long. A few minutes should last a few hours.
Even though USB-C is a superior option, it's too early for them to abandon Lightning... the frustrated user backlash would be considerable. Apple doesn't shy from switching standards before their users feel ready, but this would be too much, even for them. Give it another year for USB-C to make its introduction across the entire Mac lineup and then I think it's very likely that Lightning will go the way of the dinosaur. USB-C is just better.
The problem with that is that as time goes by, we become more entrenched with Lightning.
Frankly, I don't understand what Apple did with any of this. It seems to me like when Apple released Lightning, that they could've either waited and gone with USB-C, released Lightning as an open standard, submitted Lightning for approval as USB-C, or simply gone all in on Lightning and not accept USB-C.
Instead, they helped support USB-C, and have continued to release new products with Lightning.
I don't see how anybody wins in any of this, especially Apple.
Probably<grin>, but don't view my comment as the typical trolls (that's the one less than positive comment I can think of for this lovely new device - I could gush on and on about it, so a little thing like this, it's nothing), just think it would be nice to have that, but as someone's already said, if it can draw power, a simple USB-USBC converter will do the trick very nicely.
Makes no sense to charge from Apple TV. I don't know about you, but my Apple TV's are hidden out of sight. For example Velcro behind a tv that's up in a corner of the bedroom. Another Velcro behind a dresser.
I'm going to assume there will be 3rd party route docks you can get for it. Our use any of the lighting cables you have already to charge up.
I also think it's possible Apple has looked at the longterm development of their products and sees Lightning as the better option since it's thinner than USB-C; and I say that wanting to see USB-C replace Lightning simply because it's a better port interface.
PS: I don't think we're long now for the 3.5mm jack going away from iDevices.
Apple has three ways to get audio out (not including wireless): analog via 3.5mm jack, optical via 3.5mm jack, and digital via Lightning connector.
If Apple were to pick one method, I'd guess it would be Lightning. Optical is now gone from ATV4, and I think you're correct that the 3.5mm jack will go, too, for multiple reasons. Apple does not hesitate to abandon legacy methods, so this makes sense. If you need analog or optical output, I'm sure some MFI manufacturer will produce a dongle to get you what you want.
I don't remember if a teardown has identified the Lightning IC, but perhaps it is a lot more versatile than just digital audio and Apple Pencil pairing.
I think it's intended for a quick charge of a dead pencil, so you can continue working. For a full charge, someone will sell a "Pencil Holder" (dock).
That someone might be Apple themselves. They've done so in the past with other docks. I'm guessing, a pencil dock isn't high priority on their to do list.
Kudos to Apple for legitimizing the Surface, now these clunky devices from Microsoft will never go away. Only in America, where you can buy a pencil for $100!
It's not moot, because it depends on other HW being able to control USB 3.0 speeds to the NAND. You can't say "the NAND can't support USB 3.0 speeds, but magically could if Apple switched to a USB-C port on the iPhone." It simply doesn't work that way.
You are criticizing things I did not say. I never said an iPad Pro will get USB 3.0 speeds as a result of a USB-C connector. And we don't know what the actual speed of the NAND is. Your argument is with someone else here.
Your original message, that I replied to simply said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismY
You know that USB-C is just a port interface standard, right? There is no reason why you can't get USB 3.0 speeds through a Lightning interface.
Well, we don't know whether or not you can get USB 3.0 speeds through Lightening. And this has nothing whatsoever to do with the speed of the NAND flash in an iPad Pro. It has to do with the limits of Lightening itself which, being a proprietary technology, is not going to be known to anybody who is legally allowed to post it here.
So far, the fastest Lightening peripheral (as far as I know) is the HDMI video adapter. Basic HDMI goes up to 4Gbps, but it is not at all clear how much actual bandwidth is required to connect that adapter to an iDevice. I seem to remember reading that it uses compression on the video, which would bring that requirement much lower.
In other words, we don't know what the maximum theoretical throughput across a Lightening connector is. We can make some guesses, but we just do not know.
The reason I said the question is moot is because even if the interface has no problem with the bit-rate, nobody other than Apple can actually create a Lightening device with a USB3.0 profile. They need to design the device-side of the connection, they need to specify the protocol, and they need to standardize the ID that cables will use to be recognized as USB 3.0. This is something that no company other than Apple can do.
Forget about USB-C to lightning cables. Where can I purchase a thunderbolt to lightning cable? At Thunderbolt speeds, syncing a 128 GB device should take less than a minute!
I am being facetious, but why isn't Apple working on giving us something like this. It would make data transfer so MUCH nicer and I would be willing to pay a premium price in order to do so.
Not moving to the much faster USB-C on the new IPad Pro was a silly choice that will ultimately hobble it as a professional tool. As someone who owns a 128 GB iPad Air 2, the restore process, as well as just transferring large photo and video files over the USB 2.0 based lightning connector, is painfully, annoyingly slow. It's the only thing I don't like about my Air 2, frankly.
According to Apple:
The A9X chip is capable of processing data so quickly, it demanded a new memory architecture. iPad Pro features a revamped storage controller that helps deliver performance better than some desktop computers. This increases read and write speeds, so you can quickly open even the largest files. Like the big 4K movie you just edited or all the RAW images you imported from your HD camera.
Has any of the fans of USB-C truly thought about WHY Apple would stick with Lightning on the AppleTV and iPad?
My guess is that they know for a FACT that people would be trying to stick USB->USB-C adapers and every piece of tech crap that USB connects with.... into an iPad and AppleTV.
Some just to see if it works, others just because they're dumb.
But are they reallydumb? No. From teens to soccer moms to seniors that have better things to do with their lives, collectively the people who don't frequent tech blogs or sections of their newspaper... would just assume, "Hey! Looky there! I can plug my mouse in.... or this USB stick.... or this controller.... or hard drive... and WAH?.... it doesn't work?! It has to work! OMG! My iPad (AppleTV) must be broken!".
Off to the nearest Apple Store or a call to support, and when they find out that NO, it's ONLY to be used for certain accessories from Apple.
In that scenario... what do YOU all think would be the next step to consumer satisfaction? Yup! Class action lawsuit... BIG TIME! Not to mention bad press, lost productivity on Apple's side trying to quell people's rage...etc. etc.
If I was Apple... I'd stick to the Lightning connector too... wouldn't you if it was your company?
Except AppleTV does have a USB C port, making things even more complicated.
I think the lightning connector is awesome. Does USB C let you plug in at either orientation?
Using mini USB is a huge step back as I've been spoiled by the simplicity of Lightning.
ALSO:
The power port behind the AppleTV is ugly. Why didn't they use a lightning port instead? Or is that asking for too much??
Apple has three ways to get audio out (not including wireless): analog via 3.5mm jack, optical via 3.5mm jack, and digital via Lightning connector.
If Apple were to pick one method, I'd guess it would be Lightning. Optical is now gone from ATV4, and I think you're correct that the 3.5mm jack will go, too, for multiple reasons. Apple does not hesitate to abandon legacy methods, so this makes sense. If you need analog or optical output, I'm sure some MFI manufacturer will produce a dongle to get you what you want.
I don't remember if a teardown has identified the Lightning IC, but perhaps it is a lot more versatile than just digital audio and Apple Pencil pairing.
Edit: some clarification
Someone mentioned audio out from the remote. I was also wondering about this. I haven't seen any mention from Apple about it. Would be nice to hook up some headphones to it.
The problem with that is that as time goes by, we become more entrenched with Lightning.
Frankly, I don't understand what Apple did with any of this. It seems to me like when Apple released Lightning, that they could've either waited and gone with USB-C, released Lightning as an open standard, submitted Lightning for approval as USB-C, or simply gone all in on Lightning and not accept USB-C.
Instead, they helped support USB-C, and have continued to release new products with Lightning.
I don't see how anybody wins in any of this, especially Apple.
I don't get it either and I would hate for them to ditch Lightning since the cables and ports are so cool.
Maybe they'll announce Lightning 2?
I would also like to see a lightning connector a quarter of the size in the future, especially for headphones. Would save tons of space on iPhones and have an aesthetic closer to the little 3.5" headphone pins.
I don't get it either and I would hate for them to ditch Lightning since the cables and ports are so cool.
USB-C is better in nearly all ways, except for overall size, and that's not by much.
Maybe they'll announce Lightning 2?
A port interface? I sure hope not. They can do all the single stuff internally on a chip without having to alter a single thing about the Lightning connector.
I would also like to see a lightning connector a quarter of the size in the future, especially for headphones. Would save tons of space on iPhones and have an aesthetic closer to the little 3.5" headphone pins.
I'd say that if cabled headphones used Lightning (at the current size) it would be fine. They would save space by not having that 3.5mm diameter × 11.0mm length jack, which obviously takes up even more space internally to the device. Perhaps it would be an inconvenience for those that want to charge whilst listening to music with wired headphones, but that's probably less than Optical Audio crowd for the Apple TV.
I would like Apple to simply make the jump to BT headphones that are included with iPhone, and perhaps they can charge via the iPhone with Lightning and be used that way, too. Of course, that assumes that the cost for BT headphones are low enough that they could be given with each purchase.
Nat that's a messy solution. They should have thought up an mag-inductive method of placing the remote down on the Apple TV during standby whereby the Apple TV would only charge it when it reached a certain level of battery to extent the life of the internal battery for a long time. All the user would need to do is get in the habit of leaving their remote on the Apple TV and Apple could take care of the rest.
terrible idea, especially since the ATV doesn't use IR and could be behind a door. I for one do not wish to place the remote near my tv which is far away. I'd prefer to plug it into a cable I already have beer the sofa, which has the added bonus of also letting me use it while charging.
Comments
Also, USB-C can carry TB signals, but that doesn't mean you get TB by switching to a USB-C connector.
My guess is that they know for a FACT that people would be trying to stick USB->USB-C adapers and every piece of tech crap that USB connects with.... into an iPad and AppleTV.
Some just to see if it works, others just because they're dumb.
But are they reallydumb? No. From teens to soccer moms to seniors that have better things to do with their lives, collectively the people who don't frequent tech blogs or sections of their newspaper... would just assume, "Hey! Looky there! I can plug my mouse in.... or this USB stick.... or this controller.... or hard drive... and WAH?.... it doesn't work?! It has to work! OMG! My iPad (AppleTV) must be broken!".
Off to the nearest Apple Store or a call to support, and when they find out that NO, it's ONLY to be used for certain accessories from Apple.
In that scenario... what do YOU all think would be the next step to consumer satisfaction? Yup! Class action lawsuit... BIG TIME! Not to mention bad press, lost productivity on Apple's side trying to quell people's rage...etc. etc.
If I was Apple... I'd stick to the Lightning connector too... wouldn't you if it was your company?
Unfortunately there would be an erroneous assumption that if something has a particular port interface it will automatically work a certain way. [@]Mac_128[/@] just made such a comparison today between USB-C and Lightning.
I also think it's possible Apple has looked at the longterm development of their products and sees Lightning as the better option since it's thinner than USB-C; and I say that wanting to see USB-C replace Lightning simply because it's a better port interface.
PS: I don't think we're long now for the 3.5mm jack going away from iDevices.
I've been tracking alleged "supply chain" allegations for some time. The accuracy of reports attributed to "supply chain" sources can only be described as dismal. In fact, they are so bad as to make one believe that "supply chain sources" are fictional, conjured up in order to avoid accountability.
You charge it by plugging it into the iPad. As you can see, it doesn't need to be plugged in for long. A few minutes should last a few hours.
Even though USB-C is a superior option, it's too early for them to abandon Lightning... the frustrated user backlash would be considerable. Apple doesn't shy from switching standards before their users feel ready, but this would be too much, even for them. Give it another year for USB-C to make its introduction across the entire Mac lineup and then I think it's very likely that Lightning will go the way of the dinosaur. USB-C is just better.
The problem with that is that as time goes by, we become more entrenched with Lightning.
Frankly, I don't understand what Apple did with any of this. It seems to me like when Apple released Lightning, that they could've either waited and gone with USB-C, released Lightning as an open standard, submitted Lightning for approval as USB-C, or simply gone all in on Lightning and not accept USB-C.
Instead, they helped support USB-C, and have continued to release new products with Lightning.
I don't see how anybody wins in any of this, especially Apple.
Makes no sense to charge from Apple TV. I don't know about you, but my Apple TV's are hidden out of sight. For example Velcro behind a tv that's up in a corner of the bedroom. Another Velcro behind a dresser.
I'm going to assume there will be 3rd party route docks you can get for it. Our use any of the lighting cables you have already to charge up.
I also think it's possible Apple has looked at the longterm development of their products and sees Lightning as the better option since it's thinner than USB-C; and I say that wanting to see USB-C replace Lightning simply because it's a better port interface.
PS: I don't think we're long now for the 3.5mm jack going away from iDevices.
Apple has three ways to get audio out (not including wireless): analog via 3.5mm jack, optical via 3.5mm jack, and digital via Lightning connector.
If Apple were to pick one method, I'd guess it would be Lightning. Optical is now gone from ATV4, and I think you're correct that the 3.5mm jack will go, too, for multiple reasons. Apple does not hesitate to abandon legacy methods, so this makes sense. If you need analog or optical output, I'm sure some MFI manufacturer will produce a dongle to get you what you want.
I don't remember if a teardown has identified the Lightning IC, but perhaps it is a lot more versatile than just digital audio and Apple Pencil pairing.
Edit: some clarification
I think it's intended for a quick charge of a dead pencil, so you can continue working. For a full charge, someone will sell a "Pencil Holder" (dock).
That someone might be Apple themselves. They've done so in the past with other docks. I'm guessing, a pencil dock isn't high priority on their to do list.
Kudos to Apple for legitimizing the Surface, now these clunky devices from Microsoft will never go away. Only in America, where you can buy a pencil for $100!
It's not moot, because it depends on other HW being able to control USB 3.0 speeds to the NAND. You can't say "the NAND can't support USB 3.0 speeds, but magically could if Apple switched to a USB-C port on the iPhone." It simply doesn't work that way.
You are criticizing things I did not say. I never said an iPad Pro will get USB 3.0 speeds as a result of a USB-C connector. And we don't know what the actual speed of the NAND is. Your argument is with someone else here.
Your original message, that I replied to simply said:
You know that USB-C is just a port interface standard, right? There is no reason why you can't get USB 3.0 speeds through a Lightning interface.
Well, we don't know whether or not you can get USB 3.0 speeds through Lightening. And this has nothing whatsoever to do with the speed of the NAND flash in an iPad Pro. It has to do with the limits of Lightening itself which, being a proprietary technology, is not going to be known to anybody who is legally allowed to post it here.
So far, the fastest Lightening peripheral (as far as I know) is the HDMI video adapter. Basic HDMI goes up to 4Gbps, but it is not at all clear how much actual bandwidth is required to connect that adapter to an iDevice. I seem to remember reading that it uses compression on the video, which would bring that requirement much lower.
In other words, we don't know what the maximum theoretical throughput across a Lightening connector is. We can make some guesses, but we just do not know.
The reason I said the question is moot is because even if the interface has no problem with the bit-rate, nobody other than Apple can actually create a Lightening device with a USB3.0 profile. They need to design the device-side of the connection, they need to specify the protocol, and they need to standardize the ID that cables will use to be recognized as USB 3.0. This is something that no company other than Apple can do.
I am being facetious, but why isn't Apple working on giving us something like this. It would make data transfer so MUCH nicer and I would be willing to pay a premium price in order to do so.
Not moving to the much faster USB-C on the new IPad Pro was a silly choice that will ultimately hobble it as a professional tool. As someone who owns a 128 GB iPad Air 2, the restore process, as well as just transferring large photo and video files over the USB 2.0 based lightning connector, is painfully, annoyingly slow. It's the only thing I don't like about my Air 2, frankly.
According to Apple:
The A9X chip is capable of processing data so quickly, it demanded a new memory architecture. iPad Pro features a revamped storage controller that helps deliver performance better than some desktop computers. This increases read and write speeds, so you can quickly open even the largest files. Like the big 4K movie you just edited or all the RAW images you imported from your HD camera.
Except AppleTV does have a USB C port, making things even more complicated.
I think the lightning connector is awesome. Does USB C let you plug in at either orientation?
Using mini USB is a huge step back as I've been spoiled by the simplicity of Lightning.
ALSO:
The power port behind the AppleTV is ugly. Why didn't they use a lightning port instead? Or is that asking for too much??
Someone mentioned audio out from the remote. I was also wondering about this. I haven't seen any mention from Apple about it. Would be nice to hook up some headphones to it.
I don't get it either and I would hate for them to ditch Lightning since the cables and ports are so cool.
Maybe they'll announce Lightning 2?
I would also like to see a lightning connector a quarter of the size in the future, especially for headphones. Would save tons of space on iPhones and have an aesthetic closer to the little 3.5" headphone pins.
USB-C's big innovation is working the same with either side facing up.
That's because the PSU is inside the Apple TV.
USB-C is better in nearly all ways, except for overall size, and that's not by much.
A port interface? I sure hope not. They can do all the single stuff internally on a chip without having to alter a single thing about the Lightning connector.
I'd say that if cabled headphones used Lightning (at the current size) it would be fine. They would save space by not having that 3.5mm diameter × 11.0mm length jack, which obviously takes up even more space internally to the device. Perhaps it would be an inconvenience for those that want to charge whilst listening to music with wired headphones, but that's probably less than Optical Audio crowd for the Apple TV.
I would like Apple to simply make the jump to BT headphones that are included with iPhone, and perhaps they can charge via the iPhone with Lightning and be used that way, too. Of course, that assumes that the cost for BT headphones are low enough that they could be given with each purchase.
terrible idea, especially since the ATV doesn't use IR and could be behind a door. I for one do not wish to place the remote near my tv which is far away. I'd prefer to plug it into a cable I already have beer the sofa, which has the added bonus of also letting me use it while charging.
once every three months.