I would add though that USB-C has the ability to improve data movement and flexibility -- it's why the USB protocol has been so dominant in the PC world. And, that would bring the iPhone into better compliance with other modern computers. Increasingly the iPhone is becoming less of a phone and more of a pocket sized computer and going to USB-C would only help that along.
Wrong again. First off, Lightning uses the USB data protocol. Lightning suppports USB 3.0/3.1gen1 speeds at least (5Gbps) but that's only supported by the ports on some iPad models (Pros with Lightning port, most recent Air). All iPhones use USB 2.0 (480Mbps) still. Not sure there's any actual limitation holding Lightning to USB-C from using 3.1 gen 2 (10Gbps) speeds or if it just hasn't been implemented in the device ports.
Apple with it’s using USB-C for iPads but Lightning for others has no leg to stand on with this argument. It switched its laptops to USB-C creating huge ewaste. Apple likes to argue both sides of the coin when it comes to its costs. Very disingenuous.
It switched to USB-C for laptops because now if the cord is damaged you don’t have to replace the entire charger. Try putting a little more thought into your arguments.
right - because there was no way to make a MagSafe cord that was detachable from the power supply brick. /s
Apple with it’s using USB-C for iPads but Lightning for others has no leg to stand on with this argument. It switched its laptops to USB-C creating huge ewaste. Apple likes to argue both sides of the coin when it comes to its costs. Very disingenuous.
Apple switched iPads and laptops to USB-C because it allowed for a higher power rate... which is needed to charge larger batteries and power higher energy hungry devices.
Let's not forget that Apple uses Lightning to charge MANY other devices. Until they can all be replaced with a new port (USB-C is not that port), Lightning isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
Wrong. At the time, Apple's rationale for switching to USB-C on iPads was to allow for external drives. As far as laptops go, there was absolutely no reason they couldn't use a MagSafe connector with a thicker cable to handle the increased current (in fact, you can buy a magnetic USB C adapter that allows charging.
As far as USB C not being capable enough, name one function that the lightning has that USB C isn't capable of. (hint, there aren't any.)
Option A: USB C because, frigging DUH! Option B: No connectors at all. All wireless. There is no option C. BTW, I think that the next thing for iPhones will be all wireless. Xcode allows this option already. There are some software issues with the feature currently but Apple can correct those. For the most part it's working nicely if you have a WiFi 6 router. Of course if you are in a noisy wireless environment (like a college dorm where every room has a router) then you may still prefer wired. I hope Apple is forced to switch to USB C. I hate lighting. it's slow and harder to plug in cables that USB C.
Option B is already in place for the Watch and it seems to me that is where Apple wants to go for the iPhone anyway -- it's just a matter of time.
The Apple Watch actually does have a hidden data port - it's just never used. As far as the iPhone goes, the connector is required for car play in the overwhelming majority of cars. If Apple removed the connector they would instantly make all the new phones incompatible with CarPlay.
Finally, I've said this before and I'll say it again, anyone concerned with the environment should also look at the amount of power wasted by wireless charging. in the ideal case the iPhone might be able to reach 70% efficiency. 50% is pretty much the norm for Qi charging, less if the devices are poorly aligned. The iPhone 12 has approximately an 11wH battery. taking 60% efficiency that means about 7.5wH of wasted energy per charge or 2.7kWh per year. That's per phone. multiply by 300 million smart phones in the U.S. alone and you get a number on the order of Gigawatt hours. That's pure wasted energy.
So what advantages does Lightening offer over USB-C / thunderbolt?
likewise
So what advantages does USB-C / thunderbolt offer over Lightening?
At one point Lightening was clearly superior to USB(-A). But I suspect that the answers today will show Apple has been dragging its feet and falling behind. The question is: "Why?"
One possible answer is that Lightening gives Apple greater control over the iPhone -- you can only do those things Apple says you can do -- much like its control over Apps. One can argue that Apple should have no control -- but that comes with collateral damage.
Ignoring install base, the main advantages of Lightning are moderately more durable sockets, significantly more durable plugs, and it's a little simpler and cheaper to implement on the terminal end.
Ignoring install base, the main advantage of USB-C for phones is that Apple doesn't own it, so a lot of other companies have been using it for new designs for a while.
Standardization on one type of connector for phones from many manufacturers means consumers can switch platforms more easily, and manufacturers can stop including even the cables. Of course, this prevents further progress, as nobody is allowed to make and use a different connector. Depending on the actual wording of the proposed legislation, it could mandate USB Micro-B connectors on smart watches (many of which function as phones), which would be a huge step backwards for them.
Except for the part about watches I very much agree.
I would add though that USB-C has the ability to improve data movement and flexibility -- it's why the USB protocol has been so dominant in the PC world. And, that would bring the iPhone into better compliance with other modern computers. Increasingly the iPhone is becoming less of a phone and more of a pocket sized computer and going to USB-C would only help that along.
I think it would be a major step forward for the iPhone. (But I'll need ear plugs to drown out the screams and cries of anguish WHEN it happens.)
But, I think it is equally likely that Apple could make the iPhone completely wireless like the Apple Watch -- and that too would be a step forward (unless you have CarPlay, then you're screwed!)
Either way, I think lightening will be joining the 30 pin connector.
So once again you have nothing helpful or constructive to add....
If noting your inability to use the correct nomenclature, after I had already cautioned you is not constructive, what is?
It's Lightning, not Lightening.
That is certainly constructive, but more correctly, instructive.
I spelled that wrong intentionally just to piss you off.
I figured you might get the the hint. But you continue to clutter the forum with your angry, hate filled bullshit -- but fail to offer anything constructive.
This is so dumb. You can go find adapters that go from micro usb or sub C to lightning for around $5 each lots of places. Any law change is more likely to increase E-Waste than the current situation. It will also slow innovation. A simple and cheap adapter is the fix. Maybe ask the manufacturer to include an adapter that is quality and will protect the phone from being damaged by whatever charger is on the other end of it, would be the best, instead of making companies change their phone internals
Did the previous MoU and changes stifle innovation? No.
Neither will the outcome of this review.
However, it will help to harmonise the industry and benefit consumers.
You have a good point.
My own spin on it is: Lightening once offered advantages not available with other connectors of the time. But, technology caught up with it (and likely surpassed it) and. proprietary connectors that offer no functional advantage only waste resources.
At one point Lightening was clearly superior to USB(-A). But I suspect that the answers today will show Apple has been dragging its feet and falling behind. The question is: "Why?"
What? Lightning is a connector, and has always used a USB-A or USB-C connector at the other end.
True! But I was talking about the other end. The end that goes into the phone.
But yeh, there has been confusion in these responses whether the issue is about the brick or the cable. But since, Apple already went to USB-C at the brick end, I don't see any possible issue there -- that's now pretty much modern industry standard. I don't see anybody asking them to go back to USB-A.
This is so dumb. You can go find adapters that go from micro usb or sub C to lightning for around $5 each lots of places. Any law change is more likely to increase E-Waste than the current situation. It will also slow innovation. A simple and cheap adapter is the fix. Maybe ask the manufacturer to include an adapter that is quality and will protect the phone from being damaged by whatever charger is on the other end of it, would be the best, instead of making companies change their phone internals
Did the previous MoU and changes stifle innovation? No.
Neither will the outcome of this review.
However, it will help to harmonise the industry and benefit consumers.
You have a good point.
My own spin on it is: Lightening once offered advantages not available with other connectors of the time. But, technology caught up with it (and likely surpassed it) and. proprietary connectors that offer no functional advantage only waste resources.
No. Very few phones have that capability due to cost factors and that is one of the areas the EU wants to target.
iPhones that support wireless charging
iPhone 8 or 8 PlusiPhone XiPhone Xs or Xs MaxiPhone XRiPhone 11iPhone 11 Pro or 11 Pro MaxiPhone SE (2nd generation)iPhone 12 or 12 miniiPhone 12 Pro or 12 Pro Max
All current iPhones sold today.
So, 30% of all phones sold in the EU, from Apple alone, support Qi charging.
Maybe the EU can sit on its ass for another 10 years, and just wait for the market to decide how to deal with a wireless charging standard, and then they can promulgate some other standard that is already obsolete.
I would add though that USB-C has the ability to improve data movement and flexibility -- it's why the USB protocol has been so dominant in the PC world. And, that would bring the iPhone into better compliance with other modern computers. Increasingly the iPhone is becoming less of a phone and more of a pocket sized computer and going to USB-C would only help that along.
Wrong again. First off, Lightning uses the USB data protocol. Lightning suppports USB 3.0/3.1gen1 speeds at least (5Gbps) but that's only supported by the ports on some iPad models (Pros with Lightning port, most recent Air). All iPhones use USB 2.0 (480Mbps) still. Not sure there's any actual limitation holding Lightning to USB-C from using 3.1 gen 2 (10Gbps) speeds or if it just hasn't been implemented in the device ports.
"Wrong again". USB 3.0 was released 12 years ago -- and you're suggesting it's current technology?
The EU should mandate the countless electronics that are out there from electric shavers to home electronics (like electric blinds) and anything that has a rechargeable battery be outfitted with USBc from this point forward.
Just today I was trying to find my charger for my wireless shaver. Typical AC adapter. Looking that the power requirements, there is zero reason why the manufacture just can't get rid of the charger and use USBc instead. Heck, I have USBc power receptacles in my wall now.
I would add though that USB-C has the ability to improve data movement and flexibility -- it's why the USB protocol has been so dominant in the PC world. And, that would bring the iPhone into better compliance with other modern computers. Increasingly the iPhone is becoming less of a phone and more of a pocket sized computer and going to USB-C would only help that along.
Wrong again. First off, Lightning uses the USB data protocol. Lightning suppports USB 3.0/3.1gen1 speeds at least (5Gbps) but that's only supported by the ports on some iPad models (Pros with Lightning port, most recent Air). All iPhones use USB 2.0 (480Mbps) still. Not sure there's any actual limitation holding Lightning to USB-C from using 3.1 gen 2 (10Gbps) speeds or if it just hasn't been implemented in the device ports.
"Wrong again". USB 3.0 was released 12 years ago -- and you're suggesting it's current technology?
You're the one that is wrong George.
Not the first USB name change
This isn't the first time USB names have shifted. USB 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2 were absorbed into USB 2.0. When USB 3.1 showed up, USB 3.0 suddenly became USB 3.1 Gen 1, and the newer standard received the label USB 3.1 Gen 2.
We now find ourselves in a similar spot with USB 3.2. The newest, fastest version of USB 3.2 offers a max speed of 20Gbps and is called USB 3.2 Gen 2x2. (The 2x2 means it's the second generation and has two 10Gbps lanes to achieve its maximum throughput of 20Gbps.) The older USB 3.1 has a single 10Gbps channel and is called USB 3.2 Gen 2. Then there's USB 3.0, which is now called USB 3.2 Gen 1.
Know your USB 3.2 versions
If you're on the lookout for the above USB 3.2 Gen 1 and 2 names when attempting to create the best possible connection between your devices, your work is not done. That's because there are separate marketing terms for each of the three USB 3.2 versions, which the USB-IF encourages vendors to use for their packaging. (Whether vendors follow this suggestion or use the above terms remains to be seen and requires you to know both sets of terms.) The marketing terms you'll see for USB 3.2 devices are: SuperSpeed USB, SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps and SuperSpeed USB 20Gbps.
Perhaps spelling it all out in chart will help alleviate some confusion and your USB branding headache:
USB 3.2 VERSIONS
New name
Old name
Original name
SuperSpeed name
Max speed
USB 3.2 Gen 2x2
N/A
USB 3.2
SuperSpeed USB 20Gbps
20Gbps
USB 3.2 Gen 2
USB 3.1 Gen 2
USB 3.1
SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps
10Gbps
USB 3.2 Gen 1
USB 3.1 Gen 1
USB 3.0
SuperSpeed USB
5Gbps
USB 3.0 is now renamed USB 3.2 Gen1 for marketing reasons, doesn't require the Type C connector, and that is most certainly still a current standard.
For years, USB advanced at a predictable rate — USB2 was faster than USB, USB3 was faster than USB2, and now, USB4 is even on the horizon. In the last few years, the once-simple standard has broadened and become more confusing. There are now multiple types of USB3, including USB 3.0, USB 3.1 Gen 1, USB 3.1 Gen 2, USB 3.2 Gen 1×1, USB 3.2 Gen 2×1, USB 3.2 Gen 1×2, and USB 3.2 Gen 2×2. Then, on top of that, there’s the question of USB-C. How does it fit in?
D0n’t feel bad if you find this confusing. The USB-IF has done everything it possibly could have to ensure nobody can make sense of which USB standard a device supports, partly by repeatedly changing the name of previous standards as it updates brand guidance. The following table shows the relationship of USB standards to each other::
The following standards all refer to the exact same product: USB 3.2 Gen 1×1, USB 3.1 Gen 1, USB 3.0. These ports all transfer data at up to 5Gb/s. Similarly, USB 3.2 Gen 2×1 and USB 3.1 Gen 2 also refer to the exact same standard. Hardware that complies with this specification can transfer data at up to 10Gbit/s. I’m not sure if anyone is shipping USB 3.2 Gen 1×2, because it’s an odd hybrid with USB 3.0’s original encoding scheme but USB 3.1 Gen 2’s bandwidth. Finally, there’s USB 3.2 Gen 2×2, which is also it’s own specific standard without reference to previous products.
USB-C does not automatically mandate the use of any specific USB speed. USB-C is a physical cable standard that can support anything from USB2 to the latest USB 3.2 Gen 2×2 connection speeds, depending on the type of cable you own.
I find the animosity to the EU’s proposals quite extraordinary.
At home we have two very similar electric shavers with rounded three prong sockets. Their chargers have built in leads and neither fits the other shaver. I also have a Braun electric shaver which has a two prong socket. Wow! We’ve landed man on the moon but need three separate chargers for three essentially identical products.
True of my wind-up torch too which has a single pin socket … only it’s not the same sized single pin socket used by my hair clippers - so hey, another two chargers on top of the the three for the shavers.
I know the article is referring to phone/tablet/whatever chargers, but the principle is the same. I have been ranting for years that I don’t want ANY product to have a battery charger in the box. I want a standard connector and a single charger you buy which has controls to vary the charging rate, current, etc. How anyone could be against legislation to harmonise device charging and eliminate this kind of duplicated waste generation machine idiocy is beyond me.
Yes, obviously phones, tablets and the like have requirements other than simply the need for a cable to charge their battery, it must provide a data connection too but the principle is the same and cannot be beyond the collective minds of the world’s electronic engineers.
I find the animosity to the EU’s proposals quite extraordinary.
At home we have two very similar electric shavers with rounded three prong sockets. Their chargers have built in leads and neither fits the other shaver. I also have a Braun electric shaver which has a two prong socket. Wow! We’ve landed man on the moon but need three separate chargers for three essentially identical products.
True of my wind-up torch too which has a single pin socket … only it’s not the same sized single pin socket used by my hair clippers - so hey, another two chargers on top of the the three for the shavers.
I know the article is referring to phone/tablet/whatever chargers, but the principle is the same. I have been ranting for years that I don’t want ANY product to have a battery charger in the box. I want a standard connector and a single charger you buy which has controls to vary the charging rate, current, etc. How anyone could be against legislation to harmonise device charging and eliminate this kind of duplicated waste generation machine idiocy is beyond me.
Yes, obviously phones, tablets and the like have requirements other than simply the need for a cable to charge their battery, it must provide a data connection too but the principle is the same and cannot be beyond the collective minds of the world’s electronic engineers.
Bring it on.
Nobody is against what you are promoting, but for fucks sake, this has been a problem for decades with a myriad of consumer devices, and they still haven't addressed it.
My entire complaint is that the EU hasn't addressed wireless charging, and given that 100% of Apple's current iPhones are Qi compatible, since the iPhone 8, the EU is definitely behind the power curve. For that, they want to force Apple to redesign the iPhone to have the bulkier Type C connector, when Apple is almost certainly on a path to deprecate the charging connector entirely.
No. Very few phones have that capability due to cost factors and that is one of the areas the EU wants to target.
iPhones that support wireless charging
iPhone 8 or 8 PlusiPhone XiPhone Xs or Xs MaxiPhone XRiPhone 11iPhone 11 Pro or 11 Pro MaxiPhone SE (2nd generation)iPhone 12 or 12 miniiPhone 12 Pro or 12 Pro Max
All current iPhones sold today.
So, 30% of all phones sold in the EU, from Apple alone, support Qi charging.
Maybe the EU can sit on its ass for another 10 years, and just wait for the market to decide how to deal with a wireless charging standard, and then they can promulgate some other standard that is already obsolete.
Cost, cost, cost.
Energy efficiency.
Speed.
There are still way more phones in use that do not support Qi charging than do.
An obligation to use wireless charging is not going to happen with the current wireless charging options available.
No. Very few phones have that capability due to cost factors and that is one of the areas the EU wants to target.
iPhones that support wireless charging
iPhone 8 or 8 PlusiPhone XiPhone Xs or Xs MaxiPhone XRiPhone 11iPhone 11 Pro or 11 Pro MaxiPhone SE (2nd generation)iPhone 12 or 12 miniiPhone 12 Pro or 12 Pro Max
All current iPhones sold today.
So, 30% of all phones sold in the EU, from Apple alone, support Qi charging.
Maybe the EU can sit on its ass for another 10 years, and just wait for the market to decide how to deal with a wireless charging standard, and then they can promulgate some other standard that is already obsolete.
Cost, cost, cost.
Energy efficiency.
Speed.
There are still way more phones in use that do not support Qi charging than do.
An obligation to use wireless charging is not going to happen with the current wireless charging options available.
So, why isn't the EU going to just outright ban wireless charging if it has such negatives? Because in the scheme of things, all the phones in the world don't use that much energy compared to other energy uses;
Pop quiz: how much electricity (to the closest 10 kilowatt-hour) does it take to power your iPhone or Android for a year? 1 kWh? 10 kWh? Or 100 kwh? The answer: 1 kWh.
This is the amount of electricity you'd need to power ten 100-watt incandescent lightbulbs for an hour. Far from anything worth being sheepish over, 1 kwh costs about 12 cents.
What the EU is worried about is e-waste, so they should be dealing with wireless charging technology today, not waiting for the cheapest phones to gain that feature. The EU is absolutely behind the power curve on this.
And yeah, wired charging is faster than a Magsafe charger, by about a factor of two, but then again, a lot of people find the it meets there needs.
I find the animosity to the EU’s proposals quite extraordinary.
At home we have two very similar electric shavers with rounded three prong sockets. Their chargers have built in leads and neither fits the other shaver. I also have a Braun electric shaver which has a two prong socket. Wow! We’ve landed man on the moon but need three separate chargers for three essentially identical products.
True of my wind-up torch too which has a single pin socket … only it’s not the same sized single pin socket used by my hair clippers - so hey, another two chargers on top of the the three for the shavers.
I know the article is referring to phone/tablet/whatever chargers, but the principle is the same. I have been ranting for years that I don’t want ANY product to have a battery charger in the box. I want a standard connector and a single charger you buy which has controls to vary the charging rate, current, etc. How anyone could be against legislation to harmonise device charging and eliminate this kind of duplicated waste generation machine idiocy is beyond me.
Yes, obviously phones, tablets and the like have requirements other than simply the need for a cable to charge their battery, it must provide a data connection too but the principle is the same and cannot be beyond the collective minds of the world’s electronic engineers.
Bring it on.
Nobody is against what you are promoting, but for fucks sake, this has been a problem for decades with a myriad of consumer devices, and they still haven't addressed it.
My entire complaint is that the EU hasn't addressed wireless charging, and given that 100% of Apple's current iPhones are Qi compatible, since the iPhone 8, the EU is definitely behind the power curve. For that, they want to force Apple to redesign the iPhone to have the bulkier Type C connector, when Apple is almost certainly on a path to deprecate the charging connector entirely.
Maybe the EU should actually listen to Apple.
I hope not. Fuck wireless charging, I'd pay extra for an iPhone that didn't have it and used the saved space for extra battery.
No. Very few phones have that capability due to cost factors and that is one of the areas the EU wants to target.
iPhones that support wireless charging
iPhone 8 or 8 PlusiPhone XiPhone Xs or Xs MaxiPhone XRiPhone 11iPhone 11 Pro or 11 Pro MaxiPhone SE (2nd generation)iPhone 12 or 12 miniiPhone 12 Pro or 12 Pro Max
All current iPhones sold today.
So, 30% of all phones sold in the EU, from Apple alone, support Qi charging.
Maybe the EU can sit on its ass for another 10 years, and just wait for the market to decide how to deal with a wireless charging standard, and then they can promulgate some other standard that is already obsolete.
Cost, cost, cost.
Energy efficiency.
Speed.
There are still way more phones in use that do not support Qi charging than do.
An obligation to use wireless charging is not going to happen with the current wireless charging options available.
So, why isn't the EU going to just outright ban wireless charging if it has such negatives? Because in the scheme of things, all the phones in the world don't use that much energy compared to other energy uses;
Pop quiz: how much electricity (to the closest 10 kilowatt-hour) does it take to power your iPhone or Android for a year? 1 kWh? 10 kWh? Or 100 kwh? The answer: 1 kWh.
This is the amount of electricity you'd need to power ten 100-watt incandescent lightbulbs for an hour. Far from anything worth being sheepish over, 1 kwh costs about 12 cents.
What the EU is worried about is e-waste, so they should be dealing with wireless charging technology today, not waiting for the cheapest phones to gain that feature. The EU is absolutely behind the power curve on this.
And yeah, wired charging is faster than a Magsafe charger, by about a factor of two, but then again, a lot of people find the it meets there needs.
Because there are many factors involved here and they are all detailed in the impact assessment which you clearly haven't read.
I hope you realise why incandescent bulbs were banned in the EU how much more energy would be used (over that of a cable) if the industry was forced to use wireless charging.
Wireless charging won't cut down on e-waste. They are still chargers and have cables.
The EU's push to a common charger began around 13 years ago. At point, companies including Apple, signed a voluntary memorandum of understanding, agreeing to work on harmonizing chargers.
This failed to happen, so the EU believes that if companies won't make the move themselves, they will have to be required to.
What about enforcing RECYCLING laws, instead of stifling INNOVATION, EU?
I would add though that USB-C has the ability to improve data movement and flexibility -- it's why the USB protocol has been so dominant in the PC world. And, that would bring the iPhone into better compliance with other modern computers. Increasingly the iPhone is becoming less of a phone and more of a pocket sized computer and going to USB-C would only help that along.
Wrong again. First off, Lightning uses the USB data protocol. Lightning suppports USB 3.0/3.1gen1 speeds at least (5Gbps) but that's only supported by the ports on some iPad models (Pros with Lightning port, most recent Air). All iPhones use USB 2.0 (480Mbps) still. Not sure there's any actual limitation holding Lightning to USB-C from using 3.1 gen 2 (10Gbps) speeds or if it just hasn't been implemented in the device ports.
"Wrong again". USB 3.0 was released 12 years ago -- and you're suggesting it's current technology?
You're the one that is wrong George.
Not the first USB name change
This isn't the first time USB names have shifted. USB 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2 were absorbed into USB 2.0. When USB 3.1 showed up, USB 3.0 suddenly became USB 3.1 Gen 1, and the newer standard received the label USB 3.1 Gen 2.
We now find ourselves in a similar spot with USB 3.2. The newest, fastest version of USB 3.2 offers a max speed of 20Gbps and is called USB 3.2 Gen 2x2. (The 2x2 means it's the second generation and has two 10Gbps lanes to achieve its maximum throughput of 20Gbps.) The older USB 3.1 has a single 10Gbps channel and is called USB 3.2 Gen 2. Then there's USB 3.0, which is now called USB 3.2 Gen 1.
Know your USB 3.2 versions
If you're on the lookout for the above USB 3.2 Gen 1 and 2 names when attempting to create the best possible connection between your devices, your work is not done. That's because there are separate marketing terms for each of the three USB 3.2 versions, which the USB-IF encourages vendors to use for their packaging. (Whether vendors follow this suggestion or use the above terms remains to be seen and requires you to know both sets of terms.) The marketing terms you'll see for USB 3.2 devices are: SuperSpeed USB, SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps and SuperSpeed USB 20Gbps.
Perhaps spelling it all out in chart will help alleviate some confusion and your USB branding headache:
USB 3.2 VERSIONS
New name
Old name
Original name
SuperSpeed name
Max speed
USB 3.2 Gen 2x2
N/A
USB 3.2
SuperSpeed USB 20Gbps
20Gbps
USB 3.2 Gen 2
USB 3.1 Gen 2
USB 3.1
SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps
10Gbps
USB 3.2 Gen 1
USB 3.1 Gen 1
USB 3.0
SuperSpeed USB
5Gbps
USB 3.0 is now renamed USB 3.2 Gen1 for marketing reasons, doesn't require the Type C connector, and that is most certainly still a current standard.
For years, USB advanced at a predictable rate — USB2 was faster than USB, USB3 was faster than USB2, and now, USB4 is even on the horizon. In the last few years, the once-simple standard has broadened and become more confusing. There are now multiple types of USB3, including USB 3.0, USB 3.1 Gen 1, USB 3.1 Gen 2, USB 3.2 Gen 1×1, USB 3.2 Gen 2×1, USB 3.2 Gen 1×2, and USB 3.2 Gen 2×2. Then, on top of that, there’s the question of USB-C. How does it fit in?
D0n’t feel bad if you find this confusing. The USB-IF has done everything it possibly could have to ensure nobody can make sense of which USB standard a device supports, partly by repeatedly changing the name of previous standards as it updates brand guidance. The following table shows the relationship of USB standards to each other::
The following standards all refer to the exact same product: USB 3.2 Gen 1×1, USB 3.1 Gen 1, USB 3.0. These ports all transfer data at up to 5Gb/s. Similarly, USB 3.2 Gen 2×1 and USB 3.1 Gen 2 also refer to the exact same standard. Hardware that complies with this specification can transfer data at up to 10Gbit/s. I’m not sure if anyone is shipping USB 3.2 Gen 1×2, because it’s an odd hybrid with USB 3.0’s original encoding scheme but USB 3.1 Gen 2’s bandwidth. Finally, there’s USB 3.2 Gen 2×2, which is also it’s own specific standard without reference to previous products.
USB-C does not automatically mandate the use of any specific USB speed. USB-C is a physical cable standard that can support anything from USB2 to the latest USB 3.2 Gen 2×2 connection speeds, depending on the type of cable you own.
Comments
Wrong. At the time, Apple's rationale for switching to USB-C on iPads was to allow for external drives. As far as laptops go, there was absolutely no reason they couldn't use a MagSafe connector with a thicker cable to handle the increased current (in fact, you can buy a magnetic USB C adapter that allows charging.
As far as USB C not being capable enough, name one function that the lightning has that USB C isn't capable of. (hint, there aren't any.)
My bad - they did indeed include a USB C charger for this single model, but not for the 11 nor for any of the iPhone 12 models.
The Apple Watch actually does have a hidden data port - it's just never used. As far as the iPhone goes, the connector is required for car play in the overwhelming majority of cars. If Apple removed the connector they would instantly make all the new phones incompatible with CarPlay.
Finally, I've said this before and I'll say it again, anyone concerned with the environment should also look at the amount of power wasted by wireless charging. in the ideal case the iPhone might be able to reach 70% efficiency. 50% is pretty much the norm for Qi charging, less if the devices are poorly aligned. The iPhone 12 has approximately an 11wH battery. taking 60% efficiency that means about 7.5wH of wasted energy per charge or 2.7kWh per year. That's per phone. multiply by 300 million smart phones in the U.S. alone and you get a number on the order of Gigawatt hours. That's pure wasted energy.
All current iPhones sold today.
So, 30% of all phones sold in the EU, from Apple alone, support Qi charging.
Maybe the EU can sit on its ass for another 10 years, and just wait for the market to decide how to deal with a wireless charging standard, and then they can promulgate some other standard that is already obsolete.
"Wrong again". USB 3.0 was released 12 years ago -- and you're suggesting it's current technology?
Just today I was trying to find my charger for my wireless shaver. Typical AC adapter. Looking that the power requirements, there is zero reason why the manufacture just can't get rid of the charger and use USBc instead. Heck, I have USBc power receptacles in my wall now.
USB 3.0 is now renamed USB 3.2 Gen1 for marketing reasons, doesn't require the Type C connector, and that is most certainly still a current standard.
Here's another link with a great chart;
https://www.extremetech.com/computing/197145-reversible-usb-type-c-finally-on-its-way-alongside-usb-3-1s-10gbit-performance
At home we have two very similar electric shavers with rounded three prong sockets. Their chargers have built in leads and neither fits the other shaver. I also have a Braun electric shaver which has a two prong socket. Wow! We’ve landed man on the moon but need three separate chargers for three essentially identical products.
True of my wind-up torch too which has a single pin socket … only it’s not the same sized single pin socket used by my hair clippers - so hey, another two chargers on top of the the three for the shavers.
I know the article is referring to phone/tablet/whatever chargers, but the principle is the same. I have been ranting for years that I don’t want ANY product to have a battery charger in the box. I want a standard connector and a single charger you buy which has controls to vary the charging rate, current, etc. How anyone could be against legislation to harmonise device charging and eliminate this kind of duplicated waste generation machine idiocy is beyond me.
Yes, obviously phones, tablets and the like have requirements other than simply the need for a cable to charge their battery, it must provide a data connection too but the principle is the same and cannot be beyond the collective minds of the world’s electronic engineers.
Bring it on.
My entire complaint is that the EU hasn't addressed wireless charging, and given that 100% of Apple's current iPhones are Qi compatible, since the iPhone 8, the EU is definitely behind the power curve. For that, they want to force Apple to redesign the iPhone to have the bulkier Type C connector, when Apple is almost certainly on a path to deprecate the charging connector entirely.
Maybe the EU should actually listen to Apple.
Energy efficiency.
Speed.
There are still way more phones in use that do not support Qi charging than do.
An obligation to use wireless charging is not going to happen with the current wireless charging options available.
What the EU is worried about is e-waste, so they should be dealing with wireless charging technology today, not waiting for the cheapest phones to gain that feature. The EU is absolutely behind the power curve on this.
And yeah, wired charging is faster than a Magsafe charger, by about a factor of two, but then again, a lot of people find the it meets there needs.
I hope you realise why incandescent bulbs were banned in the EU how much more energy would be used (over that of a cable) if the industry was forced to use wireless charging.
Wireless charging won't cut down on e-waste. They are still chargers and have cables.