My main use case for cabling outside of the home is to have the usbc charger connected to my laptop and a usbc to lightning cable connected to my phone from the laptop. A single usbc cable is of no benefit in this situation.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Other Likelihood of USB-C
- Thread starter Elshad
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My main use case for cabling outside of the home is to have the usbc charger connected to my laptop and a usbc to lightning cable connected to my phone from the laptop. A single usbc cable is of no benefit in this situation.
Standards are often a mess - it's what you get when something has to be all things to all people. Although Apple jumped the gun by a few years when they went all-USB-C on the MBP it is, unfortunately, likely to be the standard going forward.
I do hate USB-C - but mainly being forced to use it on a desktop/laptop that doesn't need to mosh charge/usb/thunderbolt/display together into one port. It makes more sense on a mobile device, and once you're resigned to the fact that Apple wants us to switch to USB-C on the Mac then it makes more sense to use the same connector on mobiles.
Im intrigued by the post you’ve quoted, but what new things are possible that lightning can’t currently do?
That's perfectly fine! As I've said a few times, it's user specific; some see a benefit, others don't.
Very true. Apple were the first to mass release a laptop which only had USB-C ports. Can't see them switching to another port for several years.
Some of the items are listed in one of my previous posts in this thread:
* Act as the primary power source for some devices (ie monitor, laptop). It forgoes the need to use a proprietry charger for a laptop, or plug in a power cable for a monitor.
* Used in place of some connectors (ie HDMI/DP cable for a monitor)
I believe lightning can be used for HDMI purposes.
Why can’t lightning act as a primary power source?
You’re correct, and I should have been more precise with my response (as they say, the devil is in the details!).
Lightning cables can be used to pass on HDMI signals, provided you have the appropriate adapter.
USB-C is different in that no adapter is required.
So I guess that's new (kind of!).
I believe (though I’m not an Apple engineer, and I don’t think an Apple engineer will wade into this thread and answer) it’s down to the amount of power that can be delivered by the cable, and amount of power consumed by the connected device.
From what I’ve read, a lightning cable is limited to 12-18W (ie 5V @2.1 or 3A, depending on which online source you choose to believe).
USB-C can deliver up to 100W (ie 20V @5A).
12-18W is fine to act as the primary power source and charge a low powered device (ie smartphone, tablet), but (typically) isn’t enough to consistently power a more power hungry device, such as a laptop or monitor.
For example, the monitor I’m typing this response on (Dell P2419h) consumes (according to the Dell datasheet) 18W at idle, with a max draw of 42W. This exceeds the power delivery capability of a lightning cable.
Last edited:
I asked the same question to every so called iPhone USB-C Supporter.
Would you want USB-C Port if Apple's USB-C Implementation requires MFi, i.e It will only work on Apple's Certified USB-C Cables?
And if you ask why iPad Pro could have a standard non MFi USB-C Port, did you take a look into how much more space on controller were used in iPad Pro for USB-C compared to iPhone.
USB-C and 5G are like the most commonly misunderstood technology of all times.
You can actually get 10Gbps with Lightning, and I would bet 20Gbps with specific Lightning Cables. The "port" in itself isn't the limitation.
So really Speed was never an augment in the first place. Apple could have shipped a USB-C iPhone that only support USB 2.0 Transfer Speed. 99% of the USB-C Supporter never thought about that. They instantly thought USB-C = Faster Speed. And before you ask, it is perfectly OK and complies with "ALL" USB Spec.
If every 950M current iPhone user signed a petition saying I am happy to pay $10 more for my next iPhone for faster lightning speed, Apple could have shipped next iPhone with 5/ 10Gbps Lightning port instantly.
And the 2nd pros being sharing cables with all other devices would relay back to the start of my post, would you still want USB-C iPhone if it had MFi?
I think Apple has been working on that with 802.11ay. Which is the 60Ghz short distance transfer that gives you 20Gbps in single stream and up to 80Gbps in Multiple Stream ( Dont expect that to ever appear on Smartphone though ) And judging from UWB Chip I think Apple is very serious with their Wireless Tech.
Since 60Ghz usage is shared with 5G mmWave I think we are still another 1 or 2 years before we see it shipped on iPhone. Especially with Tim Cook "hinting" of Global 5G roll out ( My reading of that is 5G in terms of mmWave )
Exactly! And for the Environmentalist, you are throwing away at least 1 Billion lightning cables to adopt a new "universal standard" of USB-C Cable. Seriously?
Would you want USB-C Port if Apple's USB-C Implementation requires MFi, i.e It will only work on Apple's Certified USB-C Cables?
And if you ask why iPad Pro could have a standard non MFi USB-C Port, did you take a look into how much more space on controller were used in iPad Pro for USB-C compared to iPhone.
USB-C and 5G are like the most commonly misunderstood technology of all times.
You can actually get 10Gbps with Lightning, and I would bet 20Gbps with specific Lightning Cables. The "port" in itself isn't the limitation.
So really Speed was never an augment in the first place. Apple could have shipped a USB-C iPhone that only support USB 2.0 Transfer Speed. 99% of the USB-C Supporter never thought about that. They instantly thought USB-C = Faster Speed. And before you ask, it is perfectly OK and complies with "ALL" USB Spec.
If every 950M current iPhone user signed a petition saying I am happy to pay $10 more for my next iPhone for faster lightning speed, Apple could have shipped next iPhone with 5/ 10Gbps Lightning port instantly.
And the 2nd pros being sharing cables with all other devices would relay back to the start of my post, would you still want USB-C iPhone if it had MFi?
I think Apple has been working on that with 802.11ay. Which is the 60Ghz short distance transfer that gives you 20Gbps in single stream and up to 80Gbps in Multiple Stream ( Dont expect that to ever appear on Smartphone though ) And judging from UWB Chip I think Apple is very serious with their Wireless Tech.
Since 60Ghz usage is shared with 5G mmWave I think we are still another 1 or 2 years before we see it shipped on iPhone. Especially with Tim Cook "hinting" of Global 5G roll out ( My reading of that is 5G in terms of mmWave )
Exactly! And for the Environmentalist, you are throwing away at least 1 Billion lightning cables to adopt a new "universal standard" of USB-C Cable. Seriously?
Last edited:
Yes. Unless I’m mistake, a MFi certified cable could still be used to provide connectivity to other devices, so it has more use over and above Lightning. Unless as part of the MFI process Apple only allow the cable to be used with Apple only products (which wouldn’t be beyond the realms of possibility being Apple....).
Though it’s worthwhile noting the iPad pro doesn’t require MFi certified cables, so it’d be a tad strange for the phone to need certification, but the iPad not. Again, wouldn’t put it past Apple to implement such a “feature”…
Not sure what your point is, as several Android phones are able to implement USB C in addition to other items (headphone jack, larger batteries) in a similar footprint to the iPhone
What's the point if Apple limit the cable to operate at USB2.0 speeds (so 480mpbs transfer speed)?
They don't think about (nor frankly care) because what Apple does in practice (and by extension, what us users can do) is far more important than what Apple are capable of doing in theory.
There's no point stating the lightning connector is capable of 10gbps transfer speeds if Apple doesn't implement it.
The lighting cable isn’t redundant as soon as the latest phone doesn’t come with a lightning port; the cables can be used for many years afterwards on compatible devices, or can be recycled. No need to toss usable cable to landfill.
Furthermore, using one cable to complete several tasks should (hopefully) allow less cables overall to be produced. For example, the days of electronic manufactures providing proprietary charging adapter/equipment for their products (instead relying on USB-C charging) could become a thing of the past; this could save large amounts of resources, and provide some small cost savings back to the customer.
At this stage, I personally have no need, but Samsung offers Dex, which allows the phone to act as PC, by connecting the phone to the monitor. Interesting concept.
Last edited:
Cost? They could, that is saying Apple could have provided a super battery but they wont.
The same argument as they could done so for headphone jack as well.
Cost? Apple has already produced an USB-C Cable that "only" operate at USB 2.0 speed
The point is you either want USB-C because you want a single port or cable. Which is perfectly fine, but dont try to mix the fact that 1, USB-C "will" bring higher speed, because it is not guaranteed. 2, USB-C is faster than Lightning, because it is not. Those are two different questions.
True. It's probably a combination of many things, cost being one. Guess we'll never know.
That's fair enough. I'd like USB-C to be implemented primarily to allow for one cable to be used across multiple devices, but acknowledge that others are happy to stick to lightning.
Will Apple switch? I think there's no chance it'll happen, but would be happy to be proven wrong.
Ans: use many of the same cables, adapters, headphones and other peripherals as your Mac, iPad Pro and (increasingly over the next few years) PC, Chromebook, Android device etc.
The critical point is that - love it or loathe it - USB-C across the Mac range and on the iPad Pro is a done deal.
(My New Year's resolution is to stop whining about USB-C on the Mac - its been over 3 years and at least you can buy USB=C peripherals now...).
There’s an inherent problem with going port less, there has to be a way to access the device with physical connection in case the device can’t boot into the OS for whatever reason.
I said the same thing many times, without a lightning port, How would Apple [Or the user] able to successfully reboot a phone if it needed to be serviced directly by them? (That’s rhetorical) Somebody made the point based off an article they read, that they believe that in then future, Apple will likely input the diagnostic port into the SIM card slot.
Now, believe it or not, I could see Apple doing something like this in the future, where we will eventually be with a ‘port-less iPhone’, but that time isn’t yet, but I suspect it will happen.
I would think removing the SIM card slot would be a better first move than the charging port especially since Apple has an embedded sim in all their phones now anyway.
Apple's Lightning at risk as EU votes for a common charger for all mobile devices
It's an effort to reduce e-waste, but first the European Commission would have to agree on new rules.
cnet.co
looks like apple doesn't have a choice....
Hard to say. EU laws aside I doubt they will use the USB-C connector if they don't have a requirement for the USB-C specs.
Apple forced the market to USB-C by bringing the MacBook out of retirement and giving it only a USB-C port. Apples goal wasn't USB-C specs which in and of itself is a downgrade to your standard array of ports. Their goal was it being a Thunderbolt 3 port which can meet or exceed the capabilities of your standard array of ports and USB-C with its PCIe 3.0 interface.
The iPad Pro with USB-C uses a USB 3.0 controller for USB hosting and supports power delivery. Exceeding Lightning specs requires USB-C on the iPad Pro.
Keep in mind the entire point of the 30 pin connector and the Lightning port/connector was because Apples device requirements exceeded the USB specs at the time. MFi specs for the Lightning cable was 5volt @ 2.4 amp long before USB could carry that + media. Some of you might remember PC's not being able to charge iPad's while Macs could (Android devices like the Motorola Xoom used a barrel plug and the Galaxy Nexus 10" had a proprietary USB charger and the screen alone would drain the battery while plugged in).
Don't misunderstand, I like the USB-C port. I have a lot of devices and cables using it. However to change merely for the sake of changing is pointless. Once/if they ever have a reason for the iPhone to have it they will implement it. Until then its
Apple forced the market to USB-C by bringing the MacBook out of retirement and giving it only a USB-C port. Apples goal wasn't USB-C specs which in and of itself is a downgrade to your standard array of ports. Their goal was it being a Thunderbolt 3 port which can meet or exceed the capabilities of your standard array of ports and USB-C with its PCIe 3.0 interface.
The iPad Pro with USB-C uses a USB 3.0 controller for USB hosting and supports power delivery. Exceeding Lightning specs requires USB-C on the iPad Pro.
Keep in mind the entire point of the 30 pin connector and the Lightning port/connector was because Apples device requirements exceeded the USB specs at the time. MFi specs for the Lightning cable was 5volt @ 2.4 amp long before USB could carry that + media. Some of you might remember PC's not being able to charge iPad's while Macs could (Android devices like the Motorola Xoom used a barrel plug and the Galaxy Nexus 10" had a proprietary USB charger and the screen alone would drain the battery while plugged in).
Don't misunderstand, I like the USB-C port. I have a lot of devices and cables using it. However to change merely for the sake of changing is pointless. Once/if they ever have a reason for the iPhone to have it they will implement it. Until then its
Apple's Lightning at risk as EU votes for a common charger for all mobile devices
It's an effort to reduce e-waste, but first the European Commission would have to agree on new rules.
looks like apple doesn't have a choice....
The end goal seems to be to have a common charger and ensure manufacturers don’t include a charger in each box - in an effort to reduce waste.
Apple can do that right now by removing the cable and charger from the box. They can sell their Lightning to USB-C cable and charger separately.
Will this reduce waste? Probably, but EU consumers will probably pay more because I doubt Apple will reduce the price of the iPhone.
No, it is also for mobile units to have these universal connectors, so Lightning has to go, unless Apple wants to ship a wireless charger instead, with every iPhone.
The text of the EU directive only talks about "common chargers," not connectors.
Apple simply can delete the charger from every iPhone box in the EU. They can sell separately, a USB-C charger or the upcoming small wireless charging mat that Kuo reported.
Parliament wants binding rules on common chargers to be tabled by summer | News | European Parliament
The European Parliament calls on the Commission to put forward beefed-up rules on common chargers by July 2020 at the latest.
www.europarl.europa.eu
Yes, but there's also a push for extending this to mobile devices: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/bette...s-2018-6427186/feedback/F18110_en?p_id=342389The text of the EU directive only talks about "common chargers," not connectors.
Apple simply can delete the charger from every iPhone box in the EU. They can sell separately, a USB-C charger or the upcoming small wireless charging mat that Kuo reported.
Parliament wants binding rules on common chargers to be tabled by summer | News | European Parliament
The European Parliament calls on the Commission to put forward beefed-up rules on common chargers by July 2020 at the latest.www.europarl.europa.eu
Based on that text, Apple will likely go for the option where “Alternatively, the product can be equipped with wireless charging functionality, where the compatible wireless charger is shipped separately from the product.”
I can’t imagine Apple will forego Lightning accessories in the rest of the world just for the EU.
I wouldn’t mind it since I have plenty of usb C cables back when I had a Samsung Galaxy note 8. But tbh they are going to skip usb c and go straight to wireless only. It’s only a matter of time