What I don't understand from Apple - they have already made the move to USB-C with laptops (ditching the Magsafe - that was way more practical than the USB-C connector), why resisting this much for the iPhone/iPad/etc? I understand that they have additional revenue streams by licensing lighting to accessories manufactures, but still...
> I understand that they have additional revenue streams by licensing lighting to accessories manufactures, but still...
Bingo. It's not the charging, it's the port itself. But the fee and lock-in also apply to data-using accessories.
Wired iPhone headphones aren't compatible with other phones, for example, and if you've purchased (e.g.) an expensive FLIR phone-mounted thermal camera, then you're less likely to jump to the Android/USB-C ecosystem at your next phone upgrade.
I don't think it's fees. Relative to what they earn directly from customers, fees are a pittance. I figure they have exactly two reasons, both plausible, to be reluctant to switch the phone over to USB-C.
The first is size -- lightning is thinner than USB. But other phones have USB-C, so this is probably not that big a hassle.
The second is their customers. For every customer that wants USB-C on their new phone, a dozen more want all their existing accessories and cables to continue to work when they upgrade their phone.
I always enjoy seeing the “Apple doesn’t want to give up the money” takes.
How much money does Apple make from their licensing? Point me to even one estimate that shows me the money that Apple makes on the Lightning port licensing, and what fraction of its overall profit, loss, or even revenue, that the Lightning licensing comprises.
I like the theory that Apple is trying to keep Lightning on their phones until they can make an entirely wireless iPhone happen, but the failure of AirPower [1] was likely a factor in delaying this transition further than planned.
Apple's argument behind keeping the lightning connector is that it offers a superior standard of waterproofing than the USB-C can provide. The iPad and MacBook, to my knowledge, don't make any claims about being waterproof.
(Not to say anything about the veracity of the waterproof argument, just that they make it)
A surprise for me was that lightning is only USB2 and one-sided, so at any moment it is plugged half of the pins is unused. Additionally it has exposed wires, in case of charger failure, USB-C provides a better protection.
The exposed wires make lightning easier to plug into a phone than USB-C: you don’t have to line up the lightning connector with its port as precisely as you do USB-C because the connector is slightly smaller than the port, whereas it is almost flush in USB-C.
Some Lightning devices use both sides to get USB3 speeds. I really have no idea why Apple have left other devices at USB2 performance. It doesn't make an awful lot of sense to me.
Because what's their incentive to do better? Most people only use the port for charging, which has no data speed, and the number of people who sync via wire is lower than ever and declining. USB2 was good enough for a long time, and it's not like it changed.
I expect Apple to do away with the lightning port eventually and just ship MagSafe (the phone kind) chargers with their phones for a completely wireless phone with no holes at all. We aren’t there yet (many people still like wired headphone solutions vs Bluetooth), but maybe in 2-3 years?
At the same time, it is starting to look like USB-C is still not going to be more robust than Lightning connectors. A vast improvement on micro USB, to be sure, but still. Recall that Lightning came out 12 years ago, and the alternative was micro-USB. It's so much better that we can actually debate it relative to USB-C today, which is high praise.
The thinnest smartphones on the market currently are all USB-C phones so that does not really seem to be an issue. These are a good 2mm thinner then the thinnest iPhone ever made.
I completely missed that part. What I don't understand is then why Apple doesn't open source their solution if they think they are superior and they care about the environment. Same with lighting.
The problem is that for security with electricity the bits that provide the electric current should be female terminals (protected) while the ones that receive it male (you can touch them). Apple doesn't follow this and you can easily touch the charged ports of the charged device, which is not a problem since it's very low voltage, but in USB-C connectors that can reach up to 240Watts so that's a no-go.
They didn't move, they added an option to select: USB-C or Magsafe-2 (it is incompatible with original Magsafe BTW), both work fine.
I've actually switched to Macs already when USB-C was introduced (late 2016), so I totally missed the original Magsafe. I recently got a new Macbook Pro 16, which has Magsafe-2. I never used it before and for my use-case I don't see much use for it now either. At least at home and in the office I have external displays, which with single USB-C cable get the signal and charge the Mac. Before it was definitely better than any other laptop charging connector, but advantages USB-C provides overwhelm Magsafe use for me.
Good point. I forgot they still charged over USB-C as well.
I need to work, not infrequently, from the dining table with a laptop plugged into the wall. I have two large boisterous dogs and two not-so-large but still boisterous children. They occasionally tear around the house, and the dogs have snagged a cord and destroyed a laptop by pulling it off the table back in the old pre-magsafe days. Magsafe prevented damage to multiple laptops for me.
While I love the single-cable docking angle of USB-C, I'd give it up for magnets if I needed to. For my thinkpad, I actually have one of those magnetic USB-C cables to use at that table.
To clarify: Magsafe 2 was introduced in 2012. You missed the original Magsafe _and_ Magsafe 2. Old adapters (but not the oldest) will work with the latest Macbooks.
