PSA: Apple's Lightning has 480 Mbps which is over 80 times SLOWER than USB-C at 40 Gbps! And Apple decided to use Lightning on their flagship $1100 iPhone 13 over the vastly faster better and more compatible USB C because innovation.
The 40gb/s is a Thunderbolt spec, not USBc. USB4 is has the Thunderbolt protocol as part of the USB4 specification. People can/do backup their iPhones over WiFi anyways, so having 40gb/s on a phone is in many ways silly.
While I see Apple eventually discarding the Lightning cable in favor of USBc, the port may very well disappear entirely on iPhones in another couple years. So it's a moot issue.
Disagree that lightning should remain on the iPhone. 480 mbps over lightning is far too slow. Especially since Apple is now offering the ability for the iPhone 13 Pro series to record ProRes video. That is gigabytes of data that takes forever to transfer via usb2.0 speeds.
Also, Apple just ditched lightning on the iPad mini 6 in favor of USB-C, so why not bring USB-C to the iPhone as well? Perhaps they don’t need to implement the full fat 40 gbps, but certainly at least 10 gbps of usb3.2 gen 2 is far superior to 0.480 gbps (of usb2) via lightning.
I really think Apple is going to ditch the port altogether. WiFi is more than fast enough for what folks will need to do with their data, and will improve the water resistance as well.
USB-C is a mess. Consumers don't need Charging/Data cable with all kind of specs with different speed, power, length of cable,etc. Apple's lightening cable speed may be slower but it is one standard and everyone knows what it is!.
I love how people complain that USB-C is a mess when in reality, it's not that of a mess. USB-C and USB4 already have logos denoting PD or data.
And you know, you can get a USB-C that combines both 40Gbps and 240W and it has to show that logo. Additionally, having that cable is literally backward compatible with all USB-C slots.
Hardly a mess. It's pretty simple.
Thunderbolt on the other hand is a mess. Doesn't anyone remember the sudden change of port interface after just two generations? Doesn't anyone remember how you need to have active/passive cable and how expensive they are? It goes on and on. Thunderbolt is a failed technology. Just like Firewire. Lightning is not keeping up at all so it needs to go out.
USB4 on the other hand is literally the design to uphold for decades to come... likely much longer than audio jacks due to its versatility. USB4 can replace HDMI easily. USB4 has the Alternate Mode which allows enough bandwidth for TV with 8K at 60Hz. And by then USB5 will likely support even greater bandwidth and still be compatible with old USB. USB4 can be used to plug in appliances instead of ridiculous A/C adaptors since the USB spec requires that all power USB sockets must have the ability to negotiate power delivery so imagine having a wall socket with USB4 ports with each providing up to 240W for appliances. That's HOW it should be. It will save a lot of resources. No more bulky power bricks.
"With our updated logos," he continued in a statement, "consumers can easily identify the USB4 performance and USB Power Delivery capabilities of Certified USB-C Cables
PSA: Apple's Lightning has 480 Mbps which is over 80 times SLOWER than USB-C at 40 Gbps! And Apple decided to use Lightning on their flagship $1100 iPhone 13 over the vastly faster better and more compatible USB C because innovation.
Wrong — the first iPad Pros in 2015 had USB 3.0 (5Gbps) speeds on their Lightning ports, when used with compatible hardware. So, that's not a limitation of Lightning (which is a connector, not a data protocol). USB-C is also a connector, not a data protocol, and 40Gbps is a spec of Thunderbolt 3 which is a hardware interface that happens to use USB-C as a connector.. You'd think a "developer" who "turned down a job at Apple" would know these things.
Type-C has reduced the number of connectors involved -- one -- but that has not changed the number of various functions that wired connections serve. If anything, it has made things worse, by shoehorning any and every function into using a single type of connector.
There are eight types of USB C-to-C cables,, using the same connector, and the markings the USB-IF calls for are often missing, making it difficult to discern what a particular cable is capable of. Drawing up new logos is not going to help if the cables lack the markings. Adding to the confusion is the idiocy of the marketing (USB 3.x, Gen X) that only geeks will be care to decipher.
Another piece of stupidity was not making USB 3.x data speeds the minimum requirement, which would have reduced the number of cable types, and ensured that a next-gen connection solution was fully modern. Instead, the majority of cables are only capable of USB 2.0 data speeds, and as a practical matter, used only to charge (there is a power spec -- 60W minimum), so even if a device has a fully-modern and capable port, the cable can still serve as a limitation and gimp it.
It's a fustercluck, that some may have even characterized as a "bag of hurt." The whole situation reeks of design-by-committee, by and for a bunch of geeks, not normal users.
I’m still not sure how USB 4 is any different than what I have on my 2017 15” MacBook Pro- USB 3 plus Thunderbolt 3.
You have Thunderbolt 3. Thunderbolt 3 supports USB 3.x among many other things. If you haven't gotten that far, it doesn't really matter what USB 4 adds for you.
So... USB-Cs (plural) are supposed to reduce the number of charging cables and related waste... how?
By providing common cables/connectivity that are interchangeable between numerous data protocols as well as charging? Are you serious?
But the cables aren't common or interchangeable — that's precisely the clusterfuck situation here: does a given cable support power delivery? at which wattage? Does it support USB 2.0 speeds? 3.1? 3.1 gen 2? With power delivery? Which generation of DisplayPort?
At least we can (usually) tell if it supports Thunderbolt from the TB logo on the connector, but beyond that…
So... USB-Cs (plural) are supposed to reduce the number of charging cables and related waste... how?
By providing common cables/connectivity that are interchangeable between numerous data protocols as well as charging? Are you serious?
But the cables aren't common or interchangeable — that's precisely the clusterfuck situation here: does a given cable support power delivery? at which wattage? Does it support USB 2.0 speeds? 3.1? 3.1 gen 2? With power delivery? Which generation of DisplayPort?
At least we can (usually) tell if it supports Thunderbolt from the TB logo on the connector, but beyond that…
That's the entire point of having logos. Also, all USB-C cables deliver power at 7.5W minimum but PD has 100W support. There is PD logo on non-Apple cables. Apple apparently did not put that logo which is annoying.
PSA: Apple's Lightning has 480 Mbps which is over 80 times SLOWER than USB-C at 40 Gbps! And Apple decided to use Lightning on their flagship $1100 iPhone 13 over the vastly faster better and more compatible USB C because innovation.
Wrong — the first iPad Pros in 2015 had USB 3.0 (5Gbps) speeds on their Lightning ports, when used with compatible hardware. So, that's not a limitation of Lightning (which is a connector, not a data protocol). USB-C is also a connector, not a data protocol, and 40Gbps is a spec of Thunderbolt 3 which is a hardware interface that happens to use USB-C as a connector.. You'd think a "developer" who "turned down a job at Apple" would know these things.
Nope: "The iPad Pro, released in 2015, features the first Lightning connector supporting USB 3.0 host.[8] The only accessory that supports USB 3.0 is the new camera adapter. Normal USB-A - Lightning cables are still USB 2.0." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_(connector)
Even if you could somehow get USB 3.0 speed over lightning, that's 5 Gbps vs 40 Gbps for USB C. That's 8 times slower than USB C. Not 8%. 8 TIMES SLOWER. There is no excuse that you or anyone else can cobble together for putting an obsolete Lightning port on an iPhone 13 Pro.
Dust and water resistance is no problem for the millions of other smart phones that have USB C. It is not a problem for the iPads which have it either.
Comments
And you know, you can get a USB-C that combines both 40Gbps and 240W and it has to show that logo. Additionally, having that cable is literally backward compatible with all USB-C slots.
Hardly a mess. It's pretty simple.
Thunderbolt on the other hand is a mess. Doesn't anyone remember the sudden change of port interface after just two generations? Doesn't anyone remember how you need to have active/passive cable and how expensive they are? It goes on and on. Thunderbolt is a failed technology. Just like Firewire. Lightning is not keeping up at all so it needs to go out.
USB4 on the other hand is literally the design to uphold for decades to come... likely much longer than audio jacks due to its versatility. USB4 can replace HDMI easily. USB4 has the Alternate Mode which allows enough bandwidth for TV with 8K at 60Hz. And by then USB5 will likely support even greater bandwidth and still be compatible with old USB. USB4 can be used to plug in appliances instead of ridiculous A/C adaptors since the USB spec requires that all power USB sockets must have the ability to negotiate power delivery so imagine having a wall socket with USB4 ports with each providing up to 240W for appliances. That's HOW it should be. It will save a lot of resources. No more bulky power bricks.
At least we can (usually) tell if it supports Thunderbolt from the TB logo on the connector, but beyond that…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_(connector)
Even if you could somehow get USB 3.0 speed over lightning, that's 5 Gbps vs 40 Gbps for USB C. That's 8 times slower than USB C. Not 8%. 8 TIMES SLOWER.
There is no excuse that you or anyone else can cobble together for putting an obsolete Lightning port on an iPhone 13 Pro.
Dust and water resistance is no problem for the millions of other smart phones that have USB C. It is not a problem for the iPads which have it either.