7 ms·

Apple Lightning was better than micro USB, but surely not better than USB-C (a standard which apple itself helped promulgate). The king is dead. Long live the k

Apple Lightning was better than micro USB, but surely not better than USB-C (a standard which apple itself helped promulgate). The king is dead. Long live the king.

dijit 4y ago
biggest problem i have is: if there is some new better standard can we ever move to it? micro-USB would likely not have improved much without some kind of competition. a big part of why USB-C is reversible was because Apple (and others) made reversible connectors and people showed a lot of preference for that.
- mort96 4y ago
  Do we need something better or is USB-C "good enough"? Micro-USB was clearly terrible and had to be replaced that much was clear since its very introduction, but USB-C seems pretty good. I don't see it as desirable to move to something "better" in the coming decades, considering the immense cost of switching connector interface on something like this. (That cost also applies to micro-USB FWIW, micro-USB is just so bad that it's worth it.)
  - dijit 4y ago
    I can already imagine that USB-C could be superseded by something that allows surface mounting the pins (similar to magsafe 1&2? like the old pebble watches had: https://www.joom.com/sv/products/1491901009384399338-201-1-26341-1267484219 https://www.joom.com/sv/products/1491901009384399338-201-1-2... ). USB-Cs limitations (that I am already aware of) are: that it consumes a lot of internal space on devices (which we’re feeling less and less as our phones get bigger: but our watches are relegated to wireless charging with no data pins for example), that it's not clear what cable/device can do what (something original USB tried to address with "host" and "client" connector classes) and that it handles comparatively fewer insertion/removal cycles (than lightning, at least). Regardless: I’m not sure that I am ever happy saying something is “good enough” in perpetuity, even if I cant see all the potential shortcomings of device requirements right now. You are absolutely right though, the switching cost is high: and monopoly makes it higher. (FWIW I agree with the EU on this decision, I remember phones before the common charger mandate and that was a nightmare)
  - tzs 4y ago
    > Do we need something better or is USB-C "good enough"? USB-C won't be reasonably "good enough" until all I need to reasonably use USB-C devices with USB-C computers is USB-C cables. Suppose I have a computer with a USB-C port, and half a dozen USB-C peripherals that I want to connect at the same time. Before USB-C it was simple when I had way more devices than ports. I'd buy an inexpensive USB hub. The hub connected to a computer's type A port using the same kind of cable that my peripherals used to connect to the computer's A port. The hub had several type A ports that could then by used for my peripherals, using that same kind of cable. If the peripherals needed more total power than my computer's type A port could provide, I could buy an inexpensive powered hub. Now, with USB-C, the inexpensive USB-C hubs connect to the computer with a C to C cable but usually only have one (or zero) fully functional USB-C ports for peripherals. The rest are type A ports. To actually get a hub that adds multiple fully functional USB-C ports to a computer it seems the right now you have to buy an expensive Thunderbolt 3 or 4 hub. The best I've seen for inexpensive USB-C port expansion is this [1] or this [2]. The first provides 4 downstream USB-C ports, but they are data only, with no power or video support. The second is the same as the first except it also provides a fifth USB-C port that appears to be a power input only you can use with a USB charger to provide power to allow the hub to power or charge your computer. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Minisopuru-Ports-USB-Hub-Chromebook/dp/B0B3J2JS1Q https://www.amazon.com/Minisopuru-Ports-USB-Hub-Chromebook/d... [2] https://www.amazon.com/Minisopuru-Ports-USB-Hub-Chromebook/dp/B0BP81NSNZ https://www.amazon.com/Minisopuru-Ports-USB-Hub-Chromebook/d...
  - Nullabillity 4y ago
    In retrospect, there's no way that USB-C was worth it! Let's look at what it added over B… - Reversible: Useless gimmick that nobody asked for - DisplayPort alt mode: Useful in theory, but no phones support it in practice - Symmetric: Host-side USB-C never ended up being mainstream anyway (and AB ports already existed anyway) - USB3: micro-B already had the "3.0 appendage", if anything turning it internal made it easier for manufacturers to silently revert to USB2 - Power Delivery: Qualcomm QuickCharge already existed and could have been standardized without a new connector
    - mort96 4y ago
      - Reversible: Important feature everyone asked for. One of the main application for a device-side USB connector is to plug the device in to a charger at night. That usually happens in a dark room, where reversibility is incredibly important. It was literally touted as the main reason why Apple shouldn't switch to micro-USB. But more importantly, micro-USB is a garbage connector even for being non-reversible, it's harder than necessary to insert without looking, it breaks way too easily and seems to take very few connection cycles before it stops making a good connection. - DisplayPort alt mode: Every laptop uses this. It's what lets us have docks with display outputs. - Symmetric: Every laptop has host-side USB-C. - USB3: The micro-B "3.0 appendage" is ridiculous and huge, and no device which uses micro-B ended up supporting it in practice (except for I believe a couple Samsung phones?) - Power delivery: Qualcomm QuickCharge is proprietary garbage. It could have been standardized yes, but is there any reason to believe Qualcomm would have wanted that? - And it turns out it's incredibly useful to have both Power Delivery and DisplayPort and data transfer in one cable. It allows the world we currently live in where you can have one dock connected via one cable which handles video, power, USB, networking, audio, etc. (And yes, docks are generally too finicky, there's a lot to complain about in terms of implementation. But the idea is solid.)
      - cesarb 4y ago
        > USB3: The micro-B "3.0 appendage" is ridiculous and huge, and no device which uses micro-B ended up supporting it in practice (except for I believe a couple Samsung phones?) Nearly every external portable HDD I've seen has these (and comes with a corresponding short USB 3.0 micro-B to A cable).
- ThatPlayer 4y ago
  Will we want to move to it? Lightning has lasted this long in spite of a better standard, and plenty still don't want to change. Even if there was no law, and there was a new port, I can't imagine consumers caring enough to change again, or manufacturers like Apple caring enough to change seeing as their iPhones are still USB 2.0. Like a physical network effect. Samsung's Galaxy Note 3 and Galaxy S5 had a microUSB 3.0 port. They switched back to microUSB 2.0 in the Note 4. Still it doesn't prevent devices from having multiple ports. Newer tech will be picked up first by bigger devices like laptops that will be able to do USB-C and a new port at the same time. Or maybe a phone with two charging ports, the same way the ASUS ROG phone does.
  - dontlaugh 4y ago
    Lightning still has better ergonomics and sturdiness compared to USB-C.
- vbezhenar 4y ago
  I'd like some kind of dumb USB-C which is somewhat compatible with USB-C but has two or 4 wires only and simpler connector. MicroUSB is used in many devices because it's dirt cheap. USB-C is much more complex mechanically and probably will never be as dirt cheap. Of course it should be visually different. Like cable with two contacts on each side so you would understand that this cable is not going to provide full speed, but still will work and charge.
- audunw 4y ago
  > if there is some new better standard can we ever move to it? It seems inevitable that phones and most tables will move to all wireless eventually. The only thing holding it back is faster charging. The EU standard doesn't prevent Apple from moving to a wireless charging method as I've understood. The regulation only covers the case where you have cable for charging. So yes, since the new standard will likely be wireless, or semi-wireless (like MagSafe), Apple can probably move to it. My pet theory for why Apple hasn't moved to USB-C already is they didn't want to send the signal that USB-C is getting long term support on phones from them. Sticking to Lightning forces makers of peripherals to use Bluetooth or WiFi if they want a solution that works for all phones and is future-proof, and I think that's exactly what Apple wants. The problem is the transition has been delayed much longer than they hoped for, since wireless charging technology hasn't developed as fast as they hoped (see the last-minute cancellation of the AirPower charging mat for a dramatic example of their miscalculation there)
  - layer8 4y ago
    Wireless charging is significantly less efficient than wired charging. I could rather see it being outlawed for that reason at some point.
quickthrower2 4y ago
From a practical point of view does USB-C avoid the fluff problem with lighting (the yearly clearout with a toothpick!)
- amluto 4y ago
  It seems to be less of a dangerous problem. The USB-C receptacle doesn’t have moving parts (the springs that retain the cable and the flexible pins that make electrical contact). While it does have the little protrusion that has the electrical contacts in the middle, it’s less subject to wearing out or being destroyed by sideways force. In general, the USB-C receptacle seems better designed for longevity.
  - arlort 4y ago
    > In general, the USB-C receptacle seems better designed for longevity. I swear every other comment on C vs Lightning has a completely different view on which is more robust than the previous
  - mschuster91 4y ago
    > While it does have the little protrusion that has the electrical contacts in the middle, it’s less subject to wearing out or being destroyed by sideways force. ... which is pretty easy to achieve when trying to clean out a socket from pocket lint. It's better than micro and mini USB, yes, but a Lightning-style inversion would have been way more durable.
  - matchbok 4y ago
    Huh? USB-C has a tiny, fragile tongue inside that you can very easily break off. Lightning is much, much more strong.
    - amluto 4y ago
      Replying here, but you all got tricked by Apple’s misleading design. In any connector of this sort, there are two pieces: the plug on the cable and the receptacle on the phone. Lightning has a very visually appealing and physically durable plug, and that’s the part that you see. But this hides several aspects of the connector that make a poor functionality tradeoff. On a USB micro B or USB-C cable, the plug is retained in the socket by little spring-loaded clips on the plug. On micro, they’re on the outside and very obvious, and they stop working well if the plug gets a bit bent. On USB-C, they’re in the concealed portion of the plug. In both cases, they are components that can wear out, and, when they do, you replace the cable and you’re in good shape. These spring-loaded clips mate with fixed notches in the receptacle, and those notches are much longer lasting. Lightning does this the other way around. The plug has notches, and the springs are concealed in the socket. If the springs wear out, replacing the cable doesn’t help. Similarly, the electrical contacts are springy in the socket. They are very easy to damage with careless cleaning. Lightning has an additional defect involving arcing. If you look at a charging cable that’s been use for a while, you’ll see that one electrical pad on each side of the plug will be burnt. Presumably this is where the connection arcs every time it’s unplugged. I’m not sure how USB mitigates this, but it seems to be less of a problem. Maybe the contacts are simply thicker and more durable. Sure, USB-C receptacles gave a tongue, and it’s a weak point, but it’s much stronger than the 10 fragile moving parts inside a lightning receptacle.
matwood 4y ago
> but surely not better than USB-C For data transfer speeds (assuming you picked the right cable), yes. For everything else, no. IMO, Lighting is the better physical connector. The device side connector tends to be what fails with USB-C, Lighting tends to have the cable fail which is what you want in a failure. USB-C cable capability is a mess, though at least we're past USB-C cables frying devices. As far as ubiquity is concerned, depending on location, Lighting can sometimes be easier to find than USB-C. They are least equal in the US.

Apple Lightning was better than micro USB, but surely not better than USB-C (a standard which apple itself helped promulgate). The king is dead. Long live the king.

dijit 4y ago

biggest problem i have is: if there is some new better standard can we ever move to it? micro-USB would likely not have improved much without some kind of competition. a big part of why USB-C is reversible was because Apple (and others) made reversible connectors and people showed a lot of preference for that.

mort96 4y ago
Do we need something better or is USB-C "good enough"? Micro-USB was clearly terrible and had to be replaced that much was clear since its very introduction, but USB-C seems pretty good. I don't see it as desirable to move to something "better" in the coming decades, considering the immense cost of switching connector interface on something like this. (That cost also applies to micro-USB FWIW, micro-USB is just so bad that it's worth it.)
- dijit 4y ago
  I can already imagine that USB-C could be superseded by something that allows surface mounting the pins (similar to magsafe 1&2? like the old pebble watches had: https://www.joom.com/sv/products/1491901009384399338-201-1-26341-1267484219 https://www.joom.com/sv/products/1491901009384399338-201-1-2... ). USB-Cs limitations (that I am already aware of) are: that it consumes a lot of internal space on devices (which we’re feeling less and less as our phones get bigger: but our watches are relegated to wireless charging with no data pins for example), that it's not clear what cable/device can do what (something original USB tried to address with "host" and "client" connector classes) and that it handles comparatively fewer insertion/removal cycles (than lightning, at least). Regardless: I’m not sure that I am ever happy saying something is “good enough” in perpetuity, even if I cant see all the potential shortcomings of device requirements right now. You are absolutely right though, the switching cost is high: and monopoly makes it higher. (FWIW I agree with the EU on this decision, I remember phones before the common charger mandate and that was a nightmare)
- tzs 4y ago
  > Do we need something better or is USB-C "good enough"? USB-C won't be reasonably "good enough" until all I need to reasonably use USB-C devices with USB-C computers is USB-C cables. Suppose I have a computer with a USB-C port, and half a dozen USB-C peripherals that I want to connect at the same time. Before USB-C it was simple when I had way more devices than ports. I'd buy an inexpensive USB hub. The hub connected to a computer's type A port using the same kind of cable that my peripherals used to connect to the computer's A port. The hub had several type A ports that could then by used for my peripherals, using that same kind of cable. If the peripherals needed more total power than my computer's type A port could provide, I could buy an inexpensive powered hub. Now, with USB-C, the inexpensive USB-C hubs connect to the computer with a C to C cable but usually only have one (or zero) fully functional USB-C ports for peripherals. The rest are type A ports. To actually get a hub that adds multiple fully functional USB-C ports to a computer it seems the right now you have to buy an expensive Thunderbolt 3 or 4 hub. The best I've seen for inexpensive USB-C port expansion is this [1] or this [2]. The first provides 4 downstream USB-C ports, but they are data only, with no power or video support. The second is the same as the first except it also provides a fifth USB-C port that appears to be a power input only you can use with a USB charger to provide power to allow the hub to power or charge your computer. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Minisopuru-Ports-USB-Hub-Chromebook/dp/B0B3J2JS1Q https://www.amazon.com/Minisopuru-Ports-USB-Hub-Chromebook/d... [2] https://www.amazon.com/Minisopuru-Ports-USB-Hub-Chromebook/dp/B0BP81NSNZ https://www.amazon.com/Minisopuru-Ports-USB-Hub-Chromebook/d...
- Nullabillity 4y ago
  In retrospect, there's no way that USB-C was worth it! Let's look at what it added over B… - Reversible: Useless gimmick that nobody asked for - DisplayPort alt mode: Useful in theory, but no phones support it in practice - Symmetric: Host-side USB-C never ended up being mainstream anyway (and AB ports already existed anyway) - USB3: micro-B already had the "3.0 appendage", if anything turning it internal made it easier for manufacturers to silently revert to USB2 - Power Delivery: Qualcomm QuickCharge already existed and could have been standardized without a new connector
  - mort96 4y ago
    - Reversible: Important feature everyone asked for. One of the main application for a device-side USB connector is to plug the device in to a charger at night. That usually happens in a dark room, where reversibility is incredibly important. It was literally touted as the main reason why Apple shouldn't switch to micro-USB. But more importantly, micro-USB is a garbage connector even for being non-reversible, it's harder than necessary to insert without looking, it breaks way too easily and seems to take very few connection cycles before it stops making a good connection. - DisplayPort alt mode: Every laptop uses this. It's what lets us have docks with display outputs. - Symmetric: Every laptop has host-side USB-C. - USB3: The micro-B "3.0 appendage" is ridiculous and huge, and no device which uses micro-B ended up supporting it in practice (except for I believe a couple Samsung phones?) - Power delivery: Qualcomm QuickCharge is proprietary garbage. It could have been standardized yes, but is there any reason to believe Qualcomm would have wanted that? - And it turns out it's incredibly useful to have both Power Delivery and DisplayPort and data transfer in one cable. It allows the world we currently live in where you can have one dock connected via one cable which handles video, power, USB, networking, audio, etc. (And yes, docks are generally too finicky, there's a lot to complain about in terms of implementation. But the idea is solid.)
    - cesarb 4y ago
      > USB3: The micro-B "3.0 appendage" is ridiculous and huge, and no device which uses micro-B ended up supporting it in practice (except for I believe a couple Samsung phones?) Nearly every external portable HDD I've seen has these (and comes with a corresponding short USB 3.0 micro-B to A cable).
ThatPlayer 4y ago
Will we want to move to it? Lightning has lasted this long in spite of a better standard, and plenty still don't want to change. Even if there was no law, and there was a new port, I can't imagine consumers caring enough to change again, or manufacturers like Apple caring enough to change seeing as their iPhones are still USB 2.0. Like a physical network effect. Samsung's Galaxy Note 3 and Galaxy S5 had a microUSB 3.0 port. They switched back to microUSB 2.0 in the Note 4. Still it doesn't prevent devices from having multiple ports. Newer tech will be picked up first by bigger devices like laptops that will be able to do USB-C and a new port at the same time. Or maybe a phone with two charging ports, the same way the ASUS ROG phone does.
- dontlaugh 4y ago
  Lightning still has better ergonomics and sturdiness compared to USB-C.
vbezhenar 4y ago
I'd like some kind of dumb USB-C which is somewhat compatible with USB-C but has two or 4 wires only and simpler connector. MicroUSB is used in many devices because it's dirt cheap. USB-C is much more complex mechanically and probably will never be as dirt cheap. Of course it should be visually different. Like cable with two contacts on each side so you would understand that this cable is not going to provide full speed, but still will work and charge.
audunw 4y ago
> if there is some new better standard can we ever move to it? It seems inevitable that phones and most tables will move to all wireless eventually. The only thing holding it back is faster charging. The EU standard doesn't prevent Apple from moving to a wireless charging method as I've understood. The regulation only covers the case where you have cable for charging. So yes, since the new standard will likely be wireless, or semi-wireless (like MagSafe), Apple can probably move to it. My pet theory for why Apple hasn't moved to USB-C already is they didn't want to send the signal that USB-C is getting long term support on phones from them. Sticking to Lightning forces makers of peripherals to use Bluetooth or WiFi if they want a solution that works for all phones and is future-proof, and I think that's exactly what Apple wants. The problem is the transition has been delayed much longer than they hoped for, since wireless charging technology hasn't developed as fast as they hoped (see the last-minute cancellation of the AirPower charging mat for a dramatic example of their miscalculation there)
- layer8 4y ago
  Wireless charging is significantly less efficient than wired charging. I could rather see it being outlawed for that reason at some point.

quickthrower2 4y ago

From a practical point of view does USB-C avoid the fluff problem with lighting (the yearly clearout with a toothpick!)

amluto 4y ago
It seems to be less of a dangerous problem. The USB-C receptacle doesn’t have moving parts (the springs that retain the cable and the flexible pins that make electrical contact). While it does have the little protrusion that has the electrical contacts in the middle, it’s less subject to wearing out or being destroyed by sideways force. In general, the USB-C receptacle seems better designed for longevity.
- arlort 4y ago
  > In general, the USB-C receptacle seems better designed for longevity. I swear every other comment on C vs Lightning has a completely different view on which is more robust than the previous
- mschuster91 4y ago
  > While it does have the little protrusion that has the electrical contacts in the middle, it’s less subject to wearing out or being destroyed by sideways force. ... which is pretty easy to achieve when trying to clean out a socket from pocket lint. It's better than micro and mini USB, yes, but a Lightning-style inversion would have been way more durable.
- matchbok 4y ago
  Huh? USB-C has a tiny, fragile tongue inside that you can very easily break off. Lightning is much, much more strong.
  - amluto 4y ago
    Replying here, but you all got tricked by Apple’s misleading design. In any connector of this sort, there are two pieces: the plug on the cable and the receptacle on the phone. Lightning has a very visually appealing and physically durable plug, and that’s the part that you see. But this hides several aspects of the connector that make a poor functionality tradeoff. On a USB micro B or USB-C cable, the plug is retained in the socket by little spring-loaded clips on the plug. On micro, they’re on the outside and very obvious, and they stop working well if the plug gets a bit bent. On USB-C, they’re in the concealed portion of the plug. In both cases, they are components that can wear out, and, when they do, you replace the cable and you’re in good shape. These spring-loaded clips mate with fixed notches in the receptacle, and those notches are much longer lasting. Lightning does this the other way around. The plug has notches, and the springs are concealed in the socket. If the springs wear out, replacing the cable doesn’t help. Similarly, the electrical contacts are springy in the socket. They are very easy to damage with careless cleaning. Lightning has an additional defect involving arcing. If you look at a charging cable that’s been use for a while, you’ll see that one electrical pad on each side of the plug will be burnt. Presumably this is where the connection arcs every time it’s unplugged. I’m not sure how USB mitigates this, but it seems to be less of a problem. Maybe the contacts are simply thicker and more durable. Sure, USB-C receptacles gave a tongue, and it’s a weak point, but it’s much stronger than the 10 fragile moving parts inside a lightning receptacle.

matwood 4y ago

> but surely not better than USB-C For data transfer speeds (assuming you picked the right cable), yes. For everything else, no. IMO, Lighting is the better physical connector. The device side connector tends to be what fails with USB-C, Lighting tends to have the cable fail which is what you want in a failure. USB-C cable capability is a mess, though at least we're past USB-C cables frying devices. As far as ubiquity is concerned, depending on location, Lighting can sometimes be easier to find than USB-C. They are least equal in the US.