L4sBotApple to Limit iPhone 15 USB-C Cables to USB 2.0 Speeds: Report
cybervseasApple y u gotta be like dis
so that the losers they are selling to can feel superiour
We’re still doing this, huh? Smartphone fanboying? Pretending like one side is clearly superior? This shit is so tired.
MY TEAM >>>> YOUR TEAM
I’m pretty much convinced the other side would do the same if it could.
Nothing new at all. They’ve literally never not been cunts.
True but most of us would do the same if we worked at apple and asked for your opinion.
Because their cultists still buy their shit. They will keep doing this until people stop buying, and that won’t happen due to the cultural brainwashing that they do.
Plenty of downvotes but no one has the balls to disagree with you explicitly. They know it’s true.
Oh, I’m well aware. Calling out cultists for enabling their own bad treatment always ends with downvotes from those cultists.
coffeeCunts gonna cunt.
Worst thing is Apple fans will be calling it a feature.
aKsChUaLlYyyyyy!!! 2 is a cooler number anyway 😏
MentalEdgeTFW a wifi transfer literally loads files from your phone faster than a fucking cable.
That’s the point. Expect the iPhone 17 to be portless to the consumer.
hackitfastThere has to be a USB-C. Some people will always want wires to transfer data, even if it’s through their “wireless charger”, which is proprietary.
Dark ArcAnd some people will always want a headphone jack… oh wait…
I can’t imagine Europe wouldn’t lose their shit if Apple removed it entirely. And if Android manufacturers did that consumers would also promptly lose their shit.
Beyond the consumer, having a physical port is beneficial to Apple. Businesses use attached devices (e.g. barcode scanners, DSLR camera attachments, charging stations) all the time. It’s more common on Android phones, but I do see iPhones using these sorts of things. My local movie theater uses iPhones to scan tickets with an attached Lightning scanner, for example.
I don’t disagree that wireless charging is more convenient, but from the standpoint of being in emergency situations where a cable is needed to charge your phone, it wouldn’t be easily possible if the port is removed. People might carry around charging bricks, and while wireless charging bricks do exist they’re not commonplace and they’re certainly slower than charging by wire. I can tell you nobody will want to carry around a portable wireless charger, although MagSafe is almost already just that.
Playing devil’s advocate, it’s possible Apple does want things like portable wireless chargers to proliferate, like the one you can buy that slap onto the back of your phone. It means you’re buying more of their shit, which is something they seem to love so much. It would mean you’re buying MagSafe chargers or whatever proprietary crap they manufacture. I still do see it becoming an issue in emergency situations though, e.g. teens (a large user base of iPhones) use their phones a lot and borrow chargers from each other all the time.
Impossible? No. Unlikely? Yes, for now.
They might adopt something like pogo pins for physical connections
Do you have an example of this?
Well, as I said, the smart connector on the ipad. It is used to connect the keyboard if I’m not mistaken.
Ah I forgot about the keyboard attachments
The difference with wireless listening vs. charging is that the former doesn’t need close to 2x the power of the cable-bound method and doesn’t destroy the phone’s battery in the process, unlike the latter
Wireless listening absolutely needs more than 2x the power of wired listening. It also needs charging an entire other device. You’re right that it doesn’t affect the phone battery, though I don’t think wireless charging “destroys” it.
21CabbageConsumer demands appear to just kinda bounce off of Apple, it’s remarkable really.
I dont know anyone who transfers anything besides power to the iphone via cable. What are you doing? Syncing it with itunes?
Apple car play would be a bitch if I don’t have a port since it doesn’t have wireless carplay. And my car is a 2023
Do you suffer because of usb 2.0 speeds?
They just said that a wired port is needed which apparently needs to be said because there are so many that thinks that portless is a good idea.
Well if you don’t want to subscribe to iCloud, how can you do it except with iTunes?
To be honest I’d really want to be able to create an image of my iPhone and back it up on my kdrive (a cloud storage service).
This was my thought exactly. I would sooner transfer over Wi-Fi than cable. This is a charging port to me.
It would actually be a lot safer if the charging port was only able to supply power. People plug their shit into random cables all the time and it’s been a vector for compromise.
healsThat’s a good point though the port is also needed to pair an iPhone or iPad to a Mac/PC (the famous ‘Trust This Device’ screen can only be triggered if a device tries to access the phones data via USB) which is required to do any backups / music or picture syncs in the first place. ,nd it’s also necessary if youre a developer as - even at USB2.0 speeds that people complain about here - it is still faster to test and debug applications than via wireless.
USB 3.0 is way faster than WiFi and some phones even gave 3.1
… iPhone has USB 2.0
Yes, I know that,
The comment above implied that faster USB support isn’t needed because WiFi is faster anyways (obviously wrong).
I don’t think they intended to imply that faster USB support _isn’t needed _, but rather they are making a mockery of how absolutely absurd this reality is.
That is possible.
MinekPo1 [it/she]And if USB SS+ (aka USB 3.1 gen 2 aka USB 3.2 gen 2×1) with 10 Gb/s is not enough for you, the newest iteration of the USB standard USB 4.0 version 2.0 has USB4 gen 4 at 80 Gb/s
That’s his point.
Then they’re not standards compliant and they can’t claim to have usb-c on their phones. I wonder how that will work out for them?
USB-C is the physical form. Does it actually dictate USB3?
No. Type C is just a shape. Pixels have had 2.0 transfer speeds too. This really isn’t anything out of the ordinary. It doesn’t NEED more than that honestly. We’re not transferring massive music libraries to our mobile devices any more.
Only the Pixel 3a. Even the Pixel 1 supported USB3.0 speeds…
Speak for yourself, there are still many who refuse to use subscription services for music and still store it on their phones
Something tells me those people don’t generally use iPhones.
thats right, they use iPods… why wouldn’t they use an iphone?
I have a few hundred gb of music on my iPhone, I just transferred it over Wi-Fi lol
Why wouldn’t we? I’ve got 300, 400GB of music from my beloved private trackers (RIP WCD) but I choose iOS because of the privacy policy, longevity, and I don’t wanna have to fuck around with custom OSes to not give all my data to Google.
My shit’s loaded up with music, and I’m hoping the next gen has 2TB models.
OrbituaryPlex, baby! My server, my music, my streaming.
Lol, I’m sorry but this is just you thinking everyone is like you. Millions of people use their phones very differently.
No. Type C is just a shape.
Tell me you know nothing about how hardware standards work without telling me you know nothing about how hardware standards work
Is what your comment did.
The connector is a usb-c connector. That is not the standard, just the connector type friend
Lol ok, I can see that I need to bring some corroborating data here: there’s a lot more to it than connector shape and pinout. The official spec (PDF warning) is nearly 400 pages long.
Saying something confidently doesn’t make it true.
Ok. Since we’re circumcising a mosquito here.
The type c designation only refers to the form factor.
That’s all.
Type c does not refer to its capabilities.
I am willing to bet you’ll find that information very early in what you linked me.
Literally the second sentence in your own source:
The designation C refers only to the connector’s physical configuration or form factor and should not be confused with the connector’s specific capabilities, which are designated by its transfer specifications (such as USB 3.2).
He’s right though?
USB-C does NOT in any way specify capabilities or transfer specifications. It only specifies the form factor of the plug.
The plug can be used for any number of things from USB2.0 or ThunderBolt4, to power transfer, hells, even things like analog audio can use the plug.
Could you elaborate? Because I’m like… 90% you’re wrong. Oc is correct. The “c” in type c referred to the connector. Just like micro-b mini-b usb A,etc. USB 3 is the speed standard. As well as 3.1 (or 3.2 gen 1 it’s called now or some other silliness), 3.2 gen 2, etc.
There are usb C cables that can do video, audio, some that have thunderbolt speeds. There are also usb c cables that only support usb 2.0. So if you can elaborate on why you believe otherwise, id appreciate it. the usb consortium has ridiculous conventions and I’m no hardware specialist. My knowledge on these is from USB consortiums training when I was a salesman.
This is absolutely wrong. The spec mandates that USB-C ports provides at least USB 3.1 support. Also USB-C is mandated for USB 3.1.
So to be compliant every USB-C port must support USB 3.1 at least. And you cannot support USB 3.1 with anything other than a USB-C port.