nhughes

About

Username
nhughes
Joined
Visits
117
Last Active
Roles
editor
Points
1,914
Badges
3
Posts
770

Reactions

1KLike0Dislike168Informative

  • No, Apple did not switch to USB-C on its new MacBook Pros to profit from dongle & adapter sales

    nhughesnhughes
    rogifan_new said:
    Is there a reason Apple didn't ship a USB-C to USB-A cable in the box? We got a headphone jack adapter in the iPhone 7 box. What's the difference?
    Apple hasn't said, but if I had to guess, it's probably to avoid user confusion. USB-C and Lightning are similar sizes and shapes. I could see casual users, unfamiliar with USB-C, at best being confused by the cable, and at worst trying to forcibly insert the USB-C end into their iPhone. Presumably Apple will wait until USB-C adoption is more commonplace before pulling the trigger for the iOS lineup.

    I could also see Apple switching the iPad Pro lineup to USB-C cables in the box first, but waiting another year or two on the iPhone. I already use a USB-C to Lightning cable with the 29-watt 12" MacBook power brick with my 12.9" iPad Pro, because the USB 3.1 charging is *significantly* faster than with the in-the-box power adapter. Ideally, the 2017 iPad refresh would include that 29-watt power adapter in the box, because the standard charging times for the large iPad are unacceptable.
    pscooter63ty@icloudpulseimagesStrangeDaysration alnetmageDeelron

  • Review: Using LG's UltraFine 4K Display with Apple's USB-C MacBooks is as simple as can be...

    nhughesnhughes
    Soli said:
    nhughes said:
    The only USB-C-related problem I have encountered that is not easily/cheaply resolved, with regards to connecting to/charging through a Mac, is Apple does not offer a USB-C Apple Watch charging cable.
    I expect something like this will appear for USB-C, at least to facilitate charging. You get 5 for under $5 on Amazon.


    I absolutely loathe dongles and adapters. Regarding the Apple Watch, the only time I ever charge it via my Mac is while on the road — at home, I use a dock that's plugged into the wall. So it's a limited case scenario. But Apple could solve this quite easily by selling a $20 Apple Watch to USB-C cable.

    Also, supposedly USB-C to HDMI cables are coming, as a standard for them was approved this September. 
    roundaboutnowjSnively

  • Review: Using LG's UltraFine 4K Display with Apple's USB-C MacBooks is as simple as can be...

    nhughesnhughes
    Soli said:
    bloggerblog said:
    the fact that it does not have a single USB-A in the back is an indication that we really need those dongles even at our desks.
    No you don't. If you're going to buy a new Mac and new display that only supports USB-C then spend another $5 on a cable that is USB-C. But this is all irrelevant because anyone who is bitching about USB-C coming into vogue is not going to be wanting a new Mac or display that supports only USB-C. This was never intended for people like you.
    If I were keeping this hardware, I would go all-in on USB-C at a reasonable price. Most of my accessories charge/connect through micro USB, and a name-brand micro USB to USB-C cable sells for about $13 on Amazon, while well-reviewed lesser brands are about $5. There are three spare USB-C ports on the back of the LG monitor, so I figure most people would be fine with two micro USB cables and one USB-C to Lightning cable (which Apple sells for $19). Throw in a couple of spares for using when not docked to the monitor. If you don't mind bypassing the name brand, you could get everything for under $60, easily.

    The only USB-C-related problem I have encountered that is not easily/cheaply resolved, with regards to connecting to/charging through a Mac, is Apple does not offer a USB-C Apple Watch charging cable. You could buy the official Apple Watch charging dock (which connects through Lightning) and use a USB-C to Lightning cable, but the dock is $80 and the cable is another $20. Most people, I assume, charge their watch by plugging it into the wall.
    Soliroundaboutnowchia

  • Review: Apple Watch Nike+ isn't much different from Series 2, and that's OK

    nhughesnhughes
    I'm curious how accurate you feel the GPS is. A co-worker bought the Series 2 specifically for running with. After 1 weekend of use he planned to return it based on a couple of factors. One was that he thought the GPS tracking was off. He ran without his iPhone and did his usual circuit and compared the results to a Garmin watch he has, his iPhone and at least one other GPS enabled run tracker. According to him the Apple Watch showed distance that was longer than all the others, even though the run was the same (only by about 2 tenths of a mile, and none of the other distances matched exactly either, but the Apple Watch was highest). I mentioned it's possible that with the Watch being the newest of his devices its possible it's also the most accurate. He didn't want to hear that. 

    His other "issue" was that he couldn't end his workout with sweaty fingers. I showed him that pressing both physical buttons simultaneously solved that problem. He liked it but still used the "inaccurate" GPS as his reason to return. 

    Anyway, curious as to your thoughts here, Neil (or anyone else). 
    I went into detail on GPS use in my Series 2 review. In short, I found it no more or less reliable than with my iPhone (for years now, iPhone apps like RunKeeper have shown crazy stuff like me running in the middle of the ocean). Which is to say, mobile GPS is "good enough, but not perfect."

    Apple uses some smoke and mirrors with GPS in the Series 2 watch — the Activities app, for example, never actually tells you the GPS signal strength (or whether it has a signal lock at all). This is a classic example of Apple simplifying things to make it easier on users. To power users and ultra-serious athletes, that may be a dealbreaker. For most users, it won't matter.

    http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/09/24/review-apple-watch-series-2-is-a-great-improvement-but-watchos-3-steals-the-show
    ihatescreennameslolliver

  • AppleInsider's updated commenting guidelines

    nhughesnhughes
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post



    Is this post meant as an ultimatum and warning to forum participants, or is feedback expected?



    I think it only makes sense to ban blatant spammers and threadjackers, however if unsolicited constructive criticism is no longer welcome here... that could be an issue.



    Feedback is always welcome. We're just advising commenters (both old and new) of some revisions to our comment policies. I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have.

    chiaseantheman