Bye bye lightning.... HELLO USB-C || Long-awaited common charger for mobile devices will be a reality in 2024

[LAwLz]

15 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

They have been attempting to do this for the last 13 year...yes once it's written it's effectively written in stone because now they have to write a new ammendment if new technology comes out, but you don't want to create new technology as you aren't allowed using it until the law gets changed...but the law won't change until there is a good competitor...they have effectively given a monopoly to the USB consortium (which has what, something like a $5000/product/year fee associated to it).

 

i.e. They have now created a chicken and egg scenario.  You don't want to use a new connector (even if it makes sense/more cost effective) as it's against the law, but the law won't change until there is a new connector.

Passing a brand new bill is way harder than just changing it slightly.

Also, future ports should be developed in collaboration with the entire industry and if they are then this won't be an issue. If everyone tells the EU "we want this new port", they won't just sit on their ass for several years (which is how long it takes for new ports to get market penetration).

 

But let's be honest here, you are trying to come up with imaginary scenarios where this might potentially be an issue.

Let's stop pretending like this will stifle innovation when we haven't had any for almost a decade.

Let's stop pretending like this law can never be changed because that is only a possibility if a company tries to create their own proprietary port that nobody else will use, which is a scenario we don't want to begin with.

Let's stop focusing on the "what ifs" that will probably never happen and let's focus on the actual, real benefits that we know for a fact we will get from this.

[wanderingfool2]

18 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

But let's be honest here, you are trying to come up with imaginary scenarios where this might potentially be an issue.

Let's stop pretending like this will stifle innovation when we haven't had any for almost a decade.

Let's stop pretending like this law can never be changed because that is only a possibility if a company tries to create their own proprietary port that nobody else will use, which is a scenario we don't want to begin with.

Let's stop focusing on the "what ifs" that will probably never happen and let's focus on the actual, real benefits that we know for a fact we will get from this.

USB-C was only finalized 8 years ago, devices weren't starting to get them until about 7 years ago.

 

It's not imaginary scenarios, there are rugged devices that won't be compliant with this law; and they have some pretty good reasons to be.  There are some cheaper devices out there that can no longer be made because adding a 10+ cent cost to build cuts too much into their product (I have a waterproof bluetooth speaker that falls into this category, where their design of the charger is essentially to fuse the rubber all the way around).

 

It's not a what if scenario, the fact is this law is giving a monopoly to the USB consortium.  Like I've said, I've seen more waste coming from phones using USB-C than I have with lightning connectors at my work (where we have about a 50/50 split of iPhone/Android users)...and yet I get contact more about the phones not charging etc...which all comes back to having a plugged up USB-C port at the bottom of the phone.  USB-C is harder to also cleanout without damaging it (when there is some caked on stuff in there).  So I'm not buying this whole e-waste stuff, because all that it changes is the need for a cord.  Again, lightning cords break more often, but I prefer the cord breaking vs the phone breaking.

 

They are solving a problem with something that could be just as remedied by allowing you to recycle cords.  (Because as was shown in the Lois Rossman video you still will have chargers and devices that likely won't be properly in compliance...even my Samsung phone occasionally doesn't do the PD delivery handshake correctly and ends up slow charging).

 

Also it's a historical fact that laws like this have a habit of not getting changed...the fact that they have been attempting this for over a decade sort of proves it.  The encryption embargo is a perfect example, it took decades to ease it (despite the fact that it made computers more vulnerable at the birth of the internet)

[AlTech]

11 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

USB-C was only finalized 8 years ago, devices weren't starting to get them until about 7 years ago.

 

It's not imaginary scenarios, there are rugged devices that won't be compliant with this law; and they have some pretty good reasons to be.  There are some cheaper devices out there that can no longer be made because adding a 10+ cent cost to build cuts too much into their product (I have a waterproof bluetooth speaker that falls into this category, where their design of the charger is essentially to fuse the rubber all the way around).

Well then in one sense that's a good thing the law will prevent those kind of products from being made.

 

Products that can't survive those kind of race to the bottom products that can't handle a 10 cent cost increase will be replaced with products that can.

11 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

It's not a what if scenario, the fact is this law is giving a monopoly to the USB consortium.  Like I've said, I've seen more waste coming from phones using USB-C than I have with lightning connectors at my work (where we have about a 50/50 split of iPhone/Android users)...and yet I get contact more about the phones not charging etc...which all comes back to having a plugged up USB-C port at the bottom of the phone.  USB-C is harder to also cleanout without damaging it (when there is some caked on stuff in there).  So I'm not buying this whole e-waste stuff, because all that it changes is the need for a cord.  Again, lightning cords break more often, but I prefer the cord breaking vs the phone breaking.

The cord breaking is probably worse for the environment then the port breaking because of how difficult it probably is to recycle cables and metals and plastics within them versus ports themselves.

11 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

 

They are solving a problem with something that could be just as remedied by allowing you to recycle cords. 

Part of the justification for this law is also that iPhones using different connectors to Android phones makes it harder for consumers to switch between them and encourages/forces customers to stick within their brand or ecosystem (whether that is Apple iPhones or Android phones) rather than letting them change when it's in their best interest.

 

If they both use the same charge port then customers don't need to worry about switching all their accessories and cables if they want to change phone.

11 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

(Because as was shown in the Lois Rossman video you still will have chargers and devices that likely won't be properly in compliance...even my Samsung phone occasionally doesn't do the PD delivery handshake correctly and ends up slow charging).

 

Also it's a historical fact that laws like this have a habit of not getting changed...the fact that they have been attempting this for over a decade sort of proves it.

They were hoping Apple would voluntarily do this without needing legislation to force them to do this. But they were wrong and Apple didn't want to so they decided to force them to do it anyways.

11 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

The encryption embargo is a perfect example, it took decades to ease it (despite the fact that it made computers more vulnerable at the birth of the internet)

 

[Dracarris]

8 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

versus ports themselves.

Yeah good luck replacing ports, especially phones and smaller devices.

[Blademaster91]

2 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

Yeah good luck replacing ports, especially phones and smaller devices.

Replacing a port isn't that difficult on a phone, especially when Android manufacturers aren't software blocking you from fixing a phone.

But breaking the port is being unreasonably rough on the connector, I've never broken a USB-C port and haven't had any problems with dirt or lint.

[Dracarris]

17 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

Replacing a port isn't that difficult on a phone, especially when Android manufacturers aren't software blocking you from fixing a phone.

In a single sentence you manage to show off twice that you again have no clue what you are talking about. I'll not even bother commenting on the blind Apple hatred.

[Blademaster91]

10 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

Clearly, you had no idea that most USB C on phones are indeed USB 2.0. Learn about some of these things before commenting on it. And nowhere in the law it states the minimum protocol that needs to be supported. Just that it needs to be USB C.

In that regard, Apple already follows USB-PD standard, while others still have their proprietary fast charging standards (although i believe Google is enforcing PD on newer phones iirc).

 

Also, if you didn't know, which I'm pretty sure you did not, Lightning has the capability to be upgraded to USB 3.0 speeds (as seen on the first iPad Pro). And as a charger, I do find Lightning superior, due to its smaller size, and solid block of metal construction, but of course USB C was the one that was co-developed and hence I accept that it is the industry standard.

Well you didn't even look up that most phones are using USB-C with 3.0 speeds, examples are the Samsung S series, Google Pixel 6a and 6, also Sony phones use 3.0 or better speeds.

The issue with the lightning cable is it doesn't deliver enough power, USB-C can provide up to 240W, and I don't see how it matters that a lightning cable can be upgraded to USB 3.0 speeds, apple didn't and it seems to be on purpose so you pay for the cloud service as using USB 2.0 speeds on a phone would be inconvenient.

10 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

Are you like a 14-year-old kid who can't afford to get an iPhone? Can you not think with logic? Do you think its feasible and cost effective to make two separate iPhone PCB board designs for the US and rest of the world. The eSIM only move from Apple was only to force the industry to adopt eSIM and free that massive amount of space that can be utilized for so many other things on a smartphone. Just like floppy drives, CD drives, headphone jack, etc. Except getting rid of physical SIM and having legislation to make eSIM transfers easy cross devices (already easy with iPhones) will actually lead to a better future 

You sound like a spoiled 14 year old that thinks anyone who doesn't have an iPhone is poor.

And it would be completely feasible for a multi-trillion dollar company to have two PCB designs, instead of stuffing a chunk of plastic into a $1000+ phone and calling that good enough lol.

Also please think about what removing the e-SIM would do, instead of just bringing up Apple marketing nonsense. You have no idea how anti-consumer phone carriers in North America are, removing the SIM card would only mean devices are locked to the carrier, buying a unlocked phone wouldn't be an option so consumers would be forced to pay more for a phone through the phone carrier.

It wouldn't be any different than the removal of the headphone jack in phones which Android manufacturers followed, leaving people with less choices and forced to buy BT headphones with sealed in batteries which means more e-waste. Removing useful features isn't about a better future, if you really think that then you're fanboying for a company, its about profit margins, also because companies haven't made a good use of space by removing the headphone jack or micro SD card slot, or the SIM card slot from phones.

10 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

What is this nonsense anti Apple rambling, ffs

 

One, I can use any brick with my iPhone/iPad and it does not give me any warning. What you are talking about is cheap incorrect cables, which ALL phones should give a warning about. Apple already uses an open standard USB PD for fast charging on all devices. Meaning you can actually already use your MacBook charger to charge your iPads and future iPhones at full speed. I cannot say the same with Android and Windows devices. USB C is still a glorified mess on non-Apple land (try plugging in USB C power to laptops in store, probably only half of them will be able to charge)

 

Apple has never been anti USB C. Literally they were the first ones to mass adopt and force people into USB C ecosystem with their Macs and iPads. With changing iPhones, they would be dropping support of vast lightning eco system - which is the problem. They had faced such a backlash when they changed from 30 pin to Lightning. 

 

I'm sure switch to USB C on iPhones was somewhere there in Apple's horizon, and they just didn't know how to change. With this I guess, they are forced to, so they can just blame it on the EU

 

 

Also, post 2024, you all can say goodbye to getting charger bricks and cables with all new phones, tablets, laptops etc. Better get yourself a new good quality USB C cables capable of 100W and a GaN charger for future

The warning doesn't appear if you buy expensive lighting cables, moving to USB-C as a standard fixes that, as you could use whatever USB-C cable you want, no need for overpriced proprietary cables.

Apple has been against USB-C, they have switched the macbooks and ipads over to USB-C, the only device that hasn't is the iphone, so they've been aganist USB-C and they should've switched years ago to avoid the mess of people having to replace cables and chargers.

Also not knowing how to change would be a terrible excuse, as again they switched macbooks and ipads to USB-C, they could've changed the iphone to USB-C years ago.

[wanderingfool2]

1 hour ago, AluminiumTech said:

The cord breaking is probably worse for the environment then the port breaking because of how difficult it probably is to recycle cables and metals and plastics within them versus ports themselves.

...a $135 repair cost, where a decent amount of users thinks that the phone is just broken (instead of pins inside broken).  I've also seen a crimped USB-C cable that ruined a few phone ports

 

Cables are easy enough to environmentally recycle...phones, even when they are recycled often end up in just being scrap somewhere else.  If you collect enough cables, the simplest way is to just melt down everything (and capture the fumes, or potentially if the rubber melts, collecting the plastic as well).

 

1 hour ago, AluminiumTech said:

Part of the justification for this law is also that iPhones using different connectors to Android phones makes it harder for consumers to switch between them and encourages/forces customers to stick within their brand or ecosystem (whether that is Apple iPhones or Android phones) rather than letting them change when it's in their best interest.

Phones, while not coming with chargers do still come with the cable...so it's not like you can use the excuse that it prevents the switch.  What prevents the switch is all the other stuff like RCS support etc.  The cable though is not really the limiting factor...you can even charge android phones with the iPhone charger....actually the fact that phones still comes with the cable kind of defeats their purpose because then you still end up with all that e-waste that they are claiming to try preventing.

 

1 hour ago, AluminiumTech said:

If they both use the same charge port then customers don't need to worry about switching all their accessories and cables if they want to change phone.

Yes...yes they do.  Aside from the fact that most accessories are now wireless, the fact is this doesn't guarantee proper USB 2.0/3.0/4.0 support...just the charging.  Things like headphone adapters will still be buggy sometimes.

 

1 hour ago, AluminiumTech said:

Well then in one sense that's a good thing the law will prevent those kind of products from being made.

 

Products that can't survive those kind of race to the bottom products that can't handle a 10 cent cost increase will be replaced with products that can.

So what's your justification for forcing some of the rugged devices to support it?  There are really only two options for them.  Support both (which means additional cost, and not just connector cost be development and more circuitry), the other option is only supporting USB-C...which for some rugged devices will mean they are now returned broken more often.  Again, I've seen some rugged android phones before that have seen their fair share of abuse (and a lot of the time they would have just a metal pin-out for the USB port so that it prevents water intrusion, and prevents the damage of the ports when it's undoubtedly hit while plugged in)

[AlTech]

45 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

...a $135 repair cost

A type C port doesn't cost $135.

45 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

where a decent amount of users thinks that the phone is just broken (instead of pins inside broken).

Which is why we need to educate consumers better instead of turning electronic devices into proprietary black boxes like Applewants them to be.

45 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

I've also seen a crimped USB-C cable that ruined a few phone ports

Badly maintained USB-C cables isn't an excuse to not use USB-C though.

45 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Cables are easy enough to environmentally recycle...phones, even when they are recycled often end up in just being scrap somewhere else.  If you collect enough cables, the simplest way is to just melt down everything (and capture the fumes, or potentially if the rubber melts, collecting the plastic as well).

Separating the plastic from the metal is not easy.

45 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Phones, while not coming with chargers do still come with the cable...so it's not like you can use the excuse that it prevents the switch. 

That doesn't mean a customer won't have tons of lightning cables in use in their house and work etc and in a customer's mind this could stop them from switching to an Android phone (or vice versa with USB-C cables instead of lightning cables).

45 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

What prevents the switch is all the other stuff like RCS support etc.

And tbh the EU should tackle that at some point becauss Apple is abusing their position in that respect.

45 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

The cable though is not really the limiting factor...you can even charge android phones with the iPhone charger....actually the fact that phones still comes with the cable kind of defeats their purpose because then you still end up with all that e-waste that they are claiming to try preventing.

If all phones have the same charge cable then 1) it paves the way to no longer need to include charge cables in the box

2) it makes it easier to switch because people won't need to replace all their lightning cables with USB-C cables or vice versa.

45 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Yes...yes they do.  Aside from the fact that most accessories are now wireless, the fact is this doesn't guarantee proper USB 2.0/3.0/4.0 support...just the charging.

.

Why wouldn't it? USB is USB. You don't have USB sticks that only work on Windows and don't work on macOS or Linux. So why wouldn't that be the same for other USB-C accessories so long as the port supports the spec the accessory requires?

 

I'm not suggesting that if iPhones had a USB-C port but no alt mode that plugging in a hdmi cable into a USB-C hub with a HDMI port would work.

45 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

  Things like headphone adapters will still be buggy sometimes.

Not really IMO.

45 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

So what's your justification for forcing some of the rugged devices to support it?

The fact that all phones should use the same charge port?

 

It's fairly self evident to me that we need a single standard. We already have one but it wasn't enforced prior to this and so Apple decided it didn't care.

45 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

  There are really only two options for them.  Support both (which means additional cost, and not just connector cost be development and more circuitry), the other option is only supporting USB-C...which for some rugged devices will mean they are now returned broken more often.

I doubt it would lead to higher return rates but if it does then I would still say the benefits outweigh the issues with it.

45 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Again, I've seen some rugged android phones before that have seen their fair share of abuse (and a lot of the time they would have just a metal pin-out for the USB port so that it prevents water intrusion, and prevents the damage of the ports when it's undoubtedly hit while plugged in)

 

[Thaldor]

Nothing really new under the sun. Same was done around 2010 with Micro-USB as a test for few years and no one except Apple had anything bad to say about it and even Apple was quiet after they get to go with whatever they wanted as long as they sold adapter for Micro-USB, only really big negative voices against it were consumer groups whining about it's seeming voluntary nature (adapters) and that it didn't affect anything else than phones. Since 2014 it's been pushed and the majority of the industry choose USB-C as the standard, notice a lot of this has been done with the industry not just some old guys in a office deciding blindly what to choose, same as the option that is still hanging about the fast charging protocol for which USB-PD has been chosen because majority of the industry already supports it, AFAIK only OPPO (including OnePlus if someone didn't know) and MediaTek (Huawei) don't support USB-PD at all, everyone else including Apple have some support for USB-PD.

 

And from that we get to the second point of mine that is support. The key isn't that does the devices support the whole and all features of the USB-C but they need to have USB-C port for charging. They can support just the bare minimum that is 5V 0.5A if they want to and make some proprietary things to allow better charging but they need to have that USB-C port and the minimum compatibility. Does it suck? Yeah, but at least we have one more measure of who to trust with device reviews with do or do they not blame companies for being greedy and having just the bare minimum USB-C support with requirements to buy their chargers.

 

I haven't checked the final papers but I would believe there still is the quite clear part about this been temporary, at maximum after 5 years there will be open industry review about is the USB-C still the best choice for the common charger and if not there will be changes. They will be also open for suggestions if industry review is needed earlier in case something really huge comes up.

 

Most likely after early whining from a certain company no one has anything to say. After all the same thing was done with Micro-USB and apparently hardly anyone even noticed it being an actual thing in phones, except that almost every manufacturer moved to use Micro-USB with Mini-USB and proprietary connectors pretty much dying out. Micro-USB adventure didn't even affect the innovation at all, it was just few years and after that didn't take too long for USB-C to emerge but Micro-USB continued to be the port used even without anybody forcing it.

[Donut417]

On 10/4/2022 at 1:03 PM, darknessblade said:

charger for them all. No need to find a adapter just because your DC5.5-2.1mm charger does not work with your new laptop that uses DC5.5-2.5mm. With USB-C, there is no need for these issues anymore.

Except Louis Rossmann had a video showing USB C devices that refused to charge on certain chargers and such. So while it will help to an extent, you still may have to hunt for certain chargers and such. 

 

 

[divito]

1 hour ago, Donut417 said:

Except Louis Rossmann had a video showing USB C devices that refused to charge on certain chargers and such. So while it will help to an extent, you still may have to hunt for certain chargers and such. 

 

 

Except what he showed has existed in other standards as well, just to a slightly different extent given the different generation of power requirements. I'm actually surprised that he was unaware of this part of power delivery (and how certain chargers or devices accept power).

To me, this idea of a standard was always more to do with the connector/cable than with power requirements. Having a random, general USB charger and then being able to use a USB-C cable instead needing to keep an assortment of a lightning, or micro, etc... is just simpler.

I find it hard to believe that anyone thought just any charger would work with the same connector. This being a standard might actually trickle down to the companies making the chargers and the devices so there is more flexibility and intelligence built in to be more universal.

[RedRound2]

On 10/5/2022 at 4:21 PM, Dracarris said:

Hm true it only states the physical connector. Could even be charing only with no USB whatsoever or as you mentioned only the legacy USB 2.0 with the other data pins left unsued.

It makes sense tbh why they do it. USB C is a complex connector compared to anything we had in the past. The PCB tracks required need to be tiny and you need to add two 5.1K pulldown resistors at the CC pins at minimum even if its only for power. If you want anymore more, shit gets really complicated real fast.

18 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

Well you didn't even look up that most phones are using USB-C with 3.0 speeds, examples are the Samsung S series, Google Pixel 6a and 6, also Sony phones use 3.0 or better speeds.

Oh, so you chose the flagships as an example - you know like the four phones available out thousands in the market. And those flagships don't even represent the phones that most people have. Pixels and Sony's are pretty much nonexistent. Samsung S series is a tiny fraction of entire phone ecosystem.

 

The thing is there isn't really ever a need to use USB 3.0 on a phone. And this legislation does absolutely nothing in regard to that. Yet you keep saying something about Lightning being USB 2.0, when most android phones are still in USB 2.0

18 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

The issue with the lightning cable is it doesn't deliver enough power, USB-C can provide up to 240W, and I don't see how it matters that a lightning cable can be upgraded to USB 3.0 speeds, apple didn't and it seems to be on purpose so you pay for the cloud service as using USB 2.0 speeds on a phone would be inconvenient.

Why does Lightning need to provide power? When is an iPhone charging another device? 

Sure, Apple wanted people to use cloud, even though AirDrop has nothing to do with cloud. You make some random ass assumptions to somehow fit your narrative, wont you. Its pathetic.

 

TBC, I'm all in for USB C. But your reasons for hating Lightning is pretty much off mark

18 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

You sound like a spoiled 14 year old that thinks anyone who doesn't have an iPhone is poor.

When someone keeps whining about Apple in all threads for all the wrong reasons and exhibits pretty much 0 knowledge about Apple, that's fair thing to assume

18 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

And it would be completely feasible for a multi-trillion dollar company to have two PCB designs, instead of stuffing a chunk of plastic into a $1000+ phone and calling that good enough lol.

No. If you ever wonder why, you are not successful, it's this thinking exactly. Again, you exhibit 0 knowledge about manufacturing, supply chain, logistics, replacement, tracking, etc. And why would they make a separate version of iPhone 14 exclusive for the US that has say a better battery life, or etc. All it would do is create confusion and create a grey market where people will sell eSIM only phones for higher price in other countries due to whatever extra features it has. Again, think for like 2 seconds more - and if you dont get it, give yourself 5 seconds more.

18 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

Also please think about what removing the e-SIM would do, instead of just bringing up Apple marketing nonsense. You have no idea how anti-consumer phone carriers in North America are, removing the SIM card would only mean devices are locked to the carrier, buying a unlocked phone wouldn't be an option so consumers would be forced to pay more for a phone through the phone carrier.

Lol, what. If you ever bought from a US carrier it was already locked, with or without e-sim. Again, you are demonstrating 0 knowledge. And this isnt exclusive with iPhones.

 

e-SIM allows you to switch carriers and store profiles (up to 8) in your one device. Making switching between them an ease. For example, in my country both my major carriers have e-SIM and there's usually and intense competition as well, so data plans can get cheaper any time and I can switch between them easily.

 

I never have to keep around a tiny plastic bag with SIM cards that I will most likely always forget where it is - and I actually have the option to check which carriers are better for range in certain areas without carrying around SIM cards and SIM ejector tool like a maniac

 

Another advantage, T-mobile offers a free trail with e-SIM, so you can literally download their app, register and be ready to test out T-mobile network in no time.

 

All in all, e-SIM is a good thing. Yes, it is true is some places carriers make it difficult to change. But just like how most countries had legislation to force MNP or mobile number portability, if carriers don't concede, legislation is on the way.

 

Oh, and did I mention how it frees a ton of space inside for more useful things like a bigger battery?

18 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

It wouldn't be any different than the removal of the headphone jack in phones which Android manufacturers followed, leaving people with less choices and forced to buy BT headphones with sealed in batteries which means more e-waste.

Umm, how is e-SIM causing more waste. If anything, it causes less waste because THERE ISNT A PHYSICAL PLASTIC CARD THAT YOU NEED TO insert in.

 

It takes you 1 sec to think through your comebacks, yet you choose not to because your hate for Apple is more important than your own critical thinking skills

18 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

Removing useful features isn't about a better future, if you really think that then you're fanboying for a company, its about profit margins, also because companies haven't made a good use of space by removing the headphone jack or micro SD card slot, or the SIM card slot from phones.

How is Apple benefiting in anyway with e-SIM. I'll wait for your explanation

18 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

The warning doesn't appear if you buy expensive lighting cables, moving to USB-C as a standard fixes that, as you could use whatever USB-C cable you want, no need for overpriced proprietary cables.

What expensive lightning cable. I got a lightning cable for like 5 USD and it works fine with my iPhone 12. 

Moving to USB C does not fix people buying shit USB C cables. Are you really going to ignore the fact that most cheap USB C cables on the market are fake? This is a problem that will get solved over time, but currently you cannot just willy nilly buy any USB C cable and expect it to work. 

 

Also, there are USB C cables that can only do slow 10W charging and not the max 65W and 100W it needs to be

18 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

Apple has been against USB-C, they have switched the macbooks and ipads over to USB-C, the only device that hasn't is the iphone, so they've been aganist USB-C and they should've switched years ago to avoid the mess of people having to replace cables and chargers.

Also not knowing how to change would be a terrible excuse, as again they switched macbooks and ipads to USB-C, they could've changed the iphone to USB-C years ago.

Macbooks had magsafe, which never had an ecosystem. iPads are relatively few compared to iPhones, so they could do it easily. I get it you think Apple is evil and not popular, but iPhones are the most popular single smartphones in world selling in millions every month. There is a vast ecosystem of iPhones from cars to audio, to extra peripherals, etc. Many people also have multiple lightning cables everywhere - and all of them will be no doubt dumped once USB C iPhones hits in - including the one I bought that I mentioned before

 

Similarly, its another reason why they haven't changed the Mac mini form factor even if they could've long ago - since there are so many server racks designed for the current form factor.

 

Look, I don't mind having a conversation with someone who truly believes all this nonsense. But if you can't accept some facts like USB C can be USB 2.0, and that somehow e-SIM create more waste and Apple is profiting from it, there are fake USB C cables all around, then I'm sorry further conversations with you is just a pure waste of my time and nothing good would ever come out of it.

[wanderingfool2]

7 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

Which is why we need to educate consumers better instead of turning electronic devices into proprietary black boxes like Applewants them to be.

Badly maintained USB-C cables isn't an excuse to not use USB-C though.

Have you ever met a standard user before?  Cables get abused, cables get run over, people see their phone gets plugged in and stops charging and they think it's broken (and a vast majority if faced bringing their phone in to get it repaired likely will just drop the money for a new phone).

 

The fact is I'd rather a cord that will break instead of a cable that if damaged unknowingly can cause permanent damage to the phone being used.

 

7 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

A type C port doesn't cost $135.

It is when its an out of warranty and a company phone that by policy needs to be a 1st party repair (as it has potentially business information on it).  S10 will cost you $135 for a broken charge port.  Even if you ignore that though, purchasing the USB-C port is still at least $10, to get someone with knowledge to install it as well, it will be min $30 repair...my guess would be $70 repair.

 

7 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

Separating the plastic from the metal is not easy.

It's actually pretty simple when done at scale.  You can pretty much melt away the plastics/rubbers in the process of melting the metal.

 

7 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

Why wouldn't it? USB is USB. You don't have USB sticks that only work on Windows and don't work on macOS or Linux. So why wouldn't that be the same for other USB-C accessories so long as the port supports the spec the accessory requires?

That's the most laughable statement.  Having a USB port does not mean it's magically going to be USB standards.  Did you even bother thinking about what I said.

 

USB-C does NOT have to be the newest USB communication standards.  All this says is that it has to support USB-C and USB-PD (100W version).  USB-C on iPhone could very well be only supporting USB 2.0 data rates.  It's not going to really make support for faster charging, because as Samsung found out faster charging isn't always better.

 

iPhone already supports USB-PD as an fyi as well, so effectively they are just targeting the lightning cable...which I do think is the better design (in terms of longevity of device) and easier user experience.  The only thing that it's missing is the data rates, but that's due to Apples unwillingness to actually implement a higher USB standard than 2.0 (as the lightning connector is capable of 3.0).  This won't magically be changed though by this legislation...only if Apple decides to do it.

 

 

Again, all this does is forced lightning cables to not exist, while giving an effective full monopoly to the USB consortium (which USB-C already has plenty of cases of creating ewaste).  Like seriously, they claim it's to prevent e-waste but again I do think lightning likely causes less phones ending up in landfill.

 

This is also going to force some of the rugged phones to now have accessible USB-C plugs, which will have a negative effect on their ability to remain rugged.

8 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

Not really IMO.

There are USB-C to 3.5mm jacks that don't work.

 

8 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

I doubt it would lead to higher return rates but if it does then I would still say the benefits outweigh the issues with it.

It will make it less rugged or have to change how they overall function.  They are effectively forcing companies to make worse design choices in some cases.

[darknessblade]

7 hours ago, Donut417 said:

Except Louis Rossmann had a video showing USB C devices that refused to charge on certain chargers and such. So while it will help to an extent, you still may have to hunt for certain chargers and such. 

 

 

Look at his followup video, there he explains the issue lies with the PUMP, that it is missing 2 5K resistors.

 

And companies just using usb for ease of use, not telling users what exact issues you may encounter with some chargers/ devices. especially as the pump itself DID NOT include a charger

[Stahlmann]

It's a good thing that Apple opens up their walls a bit. The fact that everything they do it poprietary for the sake of it is just stupid. You cannot buy an apple device, you're buying an ecosystem. 

 

Personally i couldn't care less about phone connectors though. The type-C port on my S9 is dead, showing that even a better connector is still a point of failure. I use wireless charging and bluetooth headphones. I'll gladly buy a wireless-only phone and i don't see what people see in these devices that somehow makes them evil. (probably mostly butthurt audiophiles that claim their wired earphones are soooo much better than a good pair of wireless ones...)

[Dracarris]

6 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

Lol, what. If you ever bought from a US carrier it was already locked, with or without e-sim. Again, you are demonstrating 0 knowledge. And this isnt exclusive with iPhones.

JFC when was the last carrier-locked smartphone sold, even in the US? Hasn't this abomination gone the way of the Dodo a long time ago, exactly as it should be?

 

I don't think I need to point out that eSIM and carrier locked phones have zero to do with each other and it simply was yet another demonstration of @Blademaster91 lack of knowledge (or ignorance?).

[Donut417]

7 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

JFC when was the last carrier-locked smartphone sold, even in the US? Hasn't this abomination gone the way of the Dodo a long time ago, exactly as it should be?

Last I seen they still exist. While contracts died long ago, you can finance your device thru the carrier, so they require you to pay off the device to have it unlocked. Some times they have other requirements as well. If you want an unlocked device you generally dont buy from the carrier. 

[Donut417]

5 hours ago, darknessblade said:

And companies just using usb for ease of use, not telling users what exact issues you may encounter with some chargers/ devices. especially as the pump itself DID NOT include a charger

Thats my point. Mandating the connector isnt going to solve the issue. Where you might have to have multiple chargers in the first place. Its like how the Nintendo Switch can be fried with using 3rd party chargers, so you are still forced to buy a Nintendo branded or Nintendo blessed charger to ensure you Switch wont be killed. This mandate solves nothing in reality. Because at the end of the day you are still going to have to ensure that you carry potentially multiple chargers to ensure that you can charge all your devices. 

[Dracarris]

4 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Last I seen they still exist. While contracts died long ago, you can finance your device thru the carrier, so they require you to pay off the device to have it unlocked. Some times they have other requirements as well. If you want an unlocked device you generally dont buy from the carrier. 

The way I know these kinds of contracts is that they just put a down payment into your contract. So you pay the subscription contract for at least 24months or so and another 20$ or so for the phone for the same period. What you do with your phone and with which carrier you use it is irrelevant. The carrier gets a fixed amount of money anyhow.

[Donut417]

31 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

The way I know these kinds of contracts is that they just put a down payment into your contract. So you pay the subscription contract for at least 24months or so and another 20$ or so for the phone for the same period. What you do with your phone and with which carrier you use it is irrelevant. The carrier gets a fixed amount of money anyhow.

You missed the point however. What I said is the phone is locked until the device is paid off. They are not going to let you take the device to another carrier if you owe on it. Also it’s not a contact. Because you can leave at any time, you just have to pay off the device. 
 

Even then most providers have other policies that govern unlocking. I recall TMobile requiring you to have the device active with service on their network for a period of time and paid off. 
 

The fact is if you buy a device from a carrier you have to play by their rules. If you don’t like their rules then you buy unlocked devices some where else. 

[Dracarris]

3 hours ago, Donut417 said:

You missed the point however. What I said is the phone is locked until the device is paid off. They are not going to let you take the device to another carrier if you owe on it. Also it’s not a contact. Because you can leave at any time, you just have to pay off the device. 
 

Even then most providers have other policies that govern unlocking. I recall TMobile requiring you to have the device active with service on their network for a period of time and paid off. 
 

The fact is if you buy a device from a carrier you have to play by their rules. If you don’t like their rules then you buy unlocked devices some where else. 

I don't really think you read my last reply properly. I said there is a contract on both the services and the phone/down payment. You'll pay for at least 24 months for both the phone and the services.

 

There is no leaving earlier.

 

So the carrier receives x amount of money no matter what you do with the device or service. In fact I had such a contract myself back in 2016 and there was no lock on the device whatsoever. You can sell the device to someone else and get a different phone for yourself but you'll still have to pay the monthly rates until the phone is paid off. It's simply like financing a device from a retailer at better rates due to the linked subscription with which they usually make quite some cash.

 

I'm surprised modern phone firmware even still supports this nonsense carrier locking, this for once is sth that should be banned by EU or similar entities.

[wanderingfool2]

9 hours ago, darknessblade said:

Look at his followup video, there he explains the issue lies with the PUMP, that it is missing 2 5K resistors.

 

And companies just using usb for ease of use, not telling users what exact issues you may encounter with some chargers/ devices. especially as the pump itself DID NOT include a charger

You are seeing the tree while standing in the forest.  He tested 3 chargers, 2 of which didn't work for the pump....but 1 of the chargers didn't work on the battery as well...so it's not just the pump.

 

I'm betting as well, the pump use to be an USB micro or USB mini connector...but was switched to the USB-C connector...which the issue then becomes it requires more things, such as the 2 5K resistors...so someone likely made the change without thinking...after all if you wanted to get the official standard you have to drop money to buy the official documentations, and then do additional R&D to figure out what the standard is asking to be fully compliant.

 

Even when these laws are produced, I bet you will still get products like this simply because it saves them money overall.

 

7 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

The fact that everything they do it poprietary for the sake of it is just stupid

When lightning was released it was miles ahead of any connector on the market in terms of robustness/reliability.  I don't think the lightning connector was necessarily made purely for proprietary purposes but rather there wasn't a solution, and they stuck with it because overall their solution is "better" in the aspects they want (i.e. cord breaking instead of the phone).

 

8 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

Personally i couldn't care less about phone connectors though. The type-C port on my S9 is dead, showing that even a better connector is still a point of failure.

This is a point that I've been trying to make that people seem to ignore, the lightning connector is more robust from a design point of view on the phone side.  The C port on phones are technically the male end on the USB standard...so if you have a cord that is say slightly crimped (so you don't notice) or there is gunk stuck in the port or cord the chances of breaking the port on your phone is very likely.  The male portion sticking up in the USB-C can also make it difficult to spot caked on debris at the bottom...so users who try plugging in their chargers and it doesn't go in all the way might not see a small lint ball at the bottom...so try forcing it in harder...putting strain on the solder joints.

 

Overall for charging, type-C is just inherently worse of a design (and iPhones power delivery I'm betting has less to do with wanting to charge faster and more to do with battery preservation)...because again, you have some companies who had the super fast charging that are now walking back and lowering the charging rates on newer devices.  It just doesn't make practical sense.

 

16 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

I'm surprised modern phone firmware even still supports this nonsense carrier locking, this for once is sth that should be banned by EU or similar entities.

Carriers can make it a pain, but by law they have to unlock your phone.  Whether you can get out of a contract is a different matter...but you can at least  unlock your phone.

 

Actually, overall I'm not totally against being "locked" into a contract...as that is a way they can guarantee a customer or a period of time so that they could offer a better rate for the longer you lock in.  I noticed in Canada when the CRTC brought in regulations where you were able to break the contract (at just the cost of device balance) I was no longer able to get really good deals for extended lock-in (instead I was getting deals that would be almost the pricing of a 1 year plan).

[Dracarris]

33 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Actually, overall I'm not totally against being "locked" into a contract...as that is a way they can guarantee a customer or a period of time so that they could offer a better rate for the longer you lock in.

Yeah sure I'll happily sign a 24-month contract for a subscription. I just don't get what that has to do with the phone. I'll pay anyway for the service and there is no way to cancel that contract before the 24 months run out. So why the heck lock the device, what advantage does this even get the carrier?

[wanderingfool2]

7 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

Yeah sure I'll happily sign a 24-month contract for a subscription. I just don't get what that has to do with the phone. I'll pay anyway for the service and there is no way to cancel that contract before the 24 months run out. So why the heck lock the device, what advantage does this even get the carrier?

Well initially it was to lock people into the plans even beyond their time.  A scummy tactic but likely worked

 

At a certain point it I think became about "security" of the device.  If someone signs up to get a phone but the credit card was fake then they are out the phone.  At least if the device was locked, they could detect it on their network and know who just purchased a stolen phone (so to that extent they can "recover" it).  I actually know one person who got caught like that, where they have purchased a stolen phone; and used it on the same network so was contacted why he was in possession of a stolen phone.

 

Other options was because they wanted to make sure to recoup the entire cost prior to the person leaving (and cancelling their card).  Prior to the regulation of long term contracts, I was able to get a phone for only an additional $10/month on a 2 year contract.  (Phone was valued at $700 at the time, so I was happy doing that).  If I had cancelled it half way through they would have to sue essentially to recoup the cost of the phone.

 

The final reason I think, they get to put their own apps and get tracking on it.  So they make more money from you if you stay on their plan for as long as possible.