usb c Rumor: Apple might ditch the lightning port in favor of USB C for the next iPhone in 2019

[DrMacintosh]

2 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

What royalties?

[GoodBytes]

17 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

You don't get to use USB for free you know......

The only fee Apple pays is for the use of the USB logo as that is a trademark symbol, assuming they use it. Which they don't on the MacBook Pro's.

 

Apple (like pretty much any computer and device manufacture) is a member of USB-IF so they don't pay royalties. USB-IF is a non-profit organization.

[DrMacintosh]

1 minute ago, GoodBytes said:

The only fee Apple pays is for the use of the USB logo.

Apple (liek pretty much any computer and device manufacture) is a member of USB-IF so they don't pay royalties. USB-IF is a non-profit organization.

Apple would still need a good reason to use USB-C on the iPhone end of the cable, a reason that simply doesn't exist. 

[Trixanity]

1 minute ago, GoodBytes said:

The only fee Apple pays is for the use of the USB logo.

Apple (liek pretty much any computer and device manufacture) is a member of USB-IF so they don't pay royalties. USB-IF is a non-profit organization.

Exactly. I just wanted to highlight the BS.

It costs like $3000 for a license fee to have the logo on the box. Since Apple is a member the fee is waived. I cannot find any indication that there are royalties involved.

[DrMacintosh]

5 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

Since Apple is a member the fee is waived. I cannot find any indication that there are royalties involved.

Now that that is figured out you still have to come to grips that Apple would be making the objectively wrong decision to remove the Lighting cable. There are only downsides for everyone. Apple loses a source of income and users are forced to buy new cables. 

 

It's not happening. At the best, like I said, USB-C is going to replace the USB-A end. (which Apple already has but you have to buy it separately)

[GoodBytes]

7 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Apple would still need a good reason to use USB-C on the iPhone end of the cable, a reason that simply doesn't exist. 

Actually I am surprised that Apple didn't use their lightning connector on their MacBook Pro's instead of USB Type C. The revenue of accessories is nice piece of profits for them, if I recall correctly.

[DrMacintosh]

Just now, GoodBytes said:

Actually I am surprised that Apple didn't use their lightning connector on their MacBook Pro's. The revenue of accessories is nice piece of profits for them, if I recall correctly.

It is a large industry, yes. But they used Thunderbolt because that is simply the best connector in existence for a computer and it also happens to be USB-C complaint.

 

Lighting on the MacBook would be pretty crap if you ask me, takes too extra much space, too little data throughput, too little power delivery. Would have been a lot of compromises for basically 0 gain. 

[Trixanity]

9 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Now that that is figured out you still have to come to grips that Apple would be making the objectively wrong decision to remove the Lighting cable. There are only downsides for everyone. Apple loses a source of income and users are forced to buy new cables. 

 

It's not happening. At the best, like I said, USB-C is going to replace the USB-A end. (which Apple already has but you have to buy it separately)

Well, Apple isn't exactly averse to making the objectively wrong decisions.

[GoodBytes]

2 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

It is a large industry, yes. But they used Thunderbolt because that is simply the best connector in existence for a computer and it also happens to be USB-C complaint.

Except it isn't. But ok.

 

They could have implemented Thunderbolt in Lightning. Both are packet based protocols.

 

2 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Lighting on the MacBook would be pretty crap if you ask me, takes too extra much space, too little data throughput, too little power delivery. Would have been a lot of compromises for basically 0 gain. 

The gain is money, and seeing that all the R&D of USB Type-C is done, and that USB Type-C tech specs is all open as Apple is part of USB-IF, they could have transferred the knowledge. And that is at worst. The company is massive and have the money and people to make their own solution. I doubt the loose of a few million dollars in R&D would outweigh the millions they are making from accessories and for many years to come. Why do you think Sony loves propitiatory everything? My guess, is that Apple saw what happened with the Vita, and probably has market data that support this for them, that if you go too far, then people will leave the product in the dust.

[DrMacintosh]

3 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

Except it isn't. But ok.

On what planet is Thunderbolt not the best connector out there? It supports way more protocols and has way more bandwidth than anything I'm aware of in the consumer electronics space. 

 

 

[GoodBytes]

24 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

On what planet is Thunderbolt not the best connector out there? It supports way more protocols and has way more bandwidth than anything I'm aware of in the consumer electronics space.

It only supports Thunderbolt. It is packet based, and if bandwidth allows, it can be integrated to anything that is packet based. Such as DisplayPort, USB, and technically even Ethernet. Thunderbolt requires 2x controllers, one on either ends increasing cost. In addition, Thunderbolt requires its own processor in the controller making its controller chip expensive. Thunderbolt is less secure because it has direct access to the CPU and memory via PCIe lanes. While it does have its own controller, it can easily have access to the CPU. There is little protection against that (M.2 drive also faces the same reality, however, Thunderbolt is a connector medium that anything can be connected, not just a drive, making it easy to made a module that connects to the system and attack the system that way). To fix this, Intel has added "security level" options that you can set in the system UEFI. The problem is that, what is the default configuration for OEMs... off? And if you have the option, do people set it properly to get security? It is a patch work from Intel. Nothing more. Even if it secured, anything is breakable in time.

 

So, no, it is not the best.

[Ryujin2003]

4 hours ago, Trixanity said:

I'm not sure but I think the only reason Apple would transition to USB-C is if they were limited by the connector.

 

...

 

If they're adopting USB-C as is, then I think it's a hoax. Apple needs a reason to do something. Preferably a reason that involves money or power. They don't care if it's just to improve user experience or improve the ecosystem.

 

1 hour ago, DrMacintosh said:

No they aren't. These rumor mills have been saying this for a long time. At best Apple might move to USB-C to replace the USB-A end of their lighting cables. 

 

It makes 0 business sense to switch to a standard that you have to pay royalties for when you could use your own standard that you get to charge others to use......

If Apple is indeed ditching Apple to make their own chips, than they very well may not be able to utilize Thunderbolt.

 

They (Intel) haven't allowed AMD to use it, and I doubt Apple can use it off the Intel platform.

 

I could be wrong, but is it even compatible with non Intel CPU? Want sure if it's also specific with hardware implementation

[Trixanity]

2 minutes ago, Ryujin2003 said:

 

If Apple is indeed ditching Apple to make their own chips, than they very well may not be able to utilize Thunderbolt.

 

They (Intel) haven't allowed AMD to use it, and I doubt Apple can use it off the Intel platform.

 

I could be wrong, but is it even compatible with non Intel CPU? Want sure if it's also specific with hardware implementation

I don't think there's any technical limitation. Intel has so far been the only ones making TB controllers as far as I know. That means they're only made to be compatible with Intel chips and they're also expensive. The controllers themselves are discrete so given that TB is going royalty free I don't see why a hardware vendor couldn't add a compatible TB controller to an AMD board. It takes time though and it depends on someone to make vendor agnostic controllers. Intel may have some stipulation that it not be made compatible with AMD that we don't know of or AMD may not want it in their ecosystem for whatever reason. I do think it's a price and compatibility issue right now more than anything else.

[DrMacintosh]

24 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

It only supports Thunderbolt. It is packet based, and if bandwidth allows, it can be integrated to anything that is packet based. Such as DisplayPort, USB, and technically even Ethernet. Thunderbolt requires 2x controllers, one on either ends increasing cost. In addition, Thunderbolt requires its own processor in the controller making its controller chip expensive. Thunderbolt is less secure because it has direct access to the CPU and memory via PCIe lanes. While it does have its own controller, it can easily have access to the CPU. There is little protection against that (M.2 drive also faces the same reality, however, Thunderbolt is a connector medium that anything can be connected, not just a drive, making it easy to made a module that connects to the system and attack the system that way). To fix this, Intel has added "security level" options that you can set in the system UEFI. The problem is that, what is the default configuration for OEMs... off? And if you have the option, do people set it properly to get security? It is a patch work from Intel. Nothing more. Even if it secured, anything is breakable in time.

 

So, no, it is not the best.

To say it isn’t the best is to imply that something else is. So what is it? 

 

There are are no other candidates that I am aware of that can even approach Thunderbolt in versatility and actual usefulness. 

 

Thunderbolt 3 is the best connector, change my mind. A few security concerns that have never resulted in anything I am aware of doesn’t change Thunderbolts prowes. 

[orbitalbuzzsaw]

About fucking time if you ask me.

[GoodBytes]

2 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

To say it isn’t the best is to imply that something else is. So what is it? 

USB Type-C 3.1

 

 

[DrMacintosh]

5 minutes ago, orbitalbuzzsaw said:

About fucking time if you ask me.

Lighting isn’t going anywhere 

[DrMacintosh]

10 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

USB Type-C 3.1

 

 

USB-C 3.1 is worse in every category. 

 

It cant dilliver as much power, it has 10Gbps vs 40Gbps of throughout, it cannot Drive 5K displays and I belive it has a refresh rate limit for 4K displays at 30Hz?, it has 0 daisy chain support, it doesn’t connect to PCIe lanes meaning you cannot expand your computer, and finally Thunbolt 3 is compatible with USB-C and below where as USB-C 3.1 cannot support a thunderbolt 3 connection. 

 

USB-C also doesn’t have any professional accessories for use in Studios of any kind and has weak docking station support in comparison. 

[Guest]

Great news I can now connect my phone to my laptop  

[GoodBytes]

14 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

USB-C 3.1 is worse in every category. 

 

It cant dilliver as much power, it has 10Gbps vs 40Gbps of throughout, it cannot Drive 5K displays and I belive it has a refresh rate limit for 4K displays at 30Hz?, it has 0 daisy chain support, it doesn’t connect to PCIe lanes meaning you cannot expand your computer, and finally Thunbolt 3 is compatible with USB-C and below where as USB-C 3.1 cannot support a thunderbolt 3 connection. 

 

USB-C also doesn’t have any professional accessories for use in Studios of any kind and has weak docking station support in comparison. 

Speed does not make a connector "best". And power is NOT performance. I listed you a nice list of flaws, and your only complain is that it is not as fast.

USB Type-C is free compared to the cost of Thunderbolt.

 

USB Type-C Can drive any display you want, it passes DisplayPort, and so, your limit is your graphics card.

DisplayPort 1.3 support 4x monitor Daisy Chaining at 1920x1200

If you have the new DisplayPort 1.4, you can drive an 8K @ 30Hz monitor without color compression with 1 cable. 8K 60Hz with compression via DSC, again, with 1 cable.

[wasab]

32 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

USB-C 3.1 is worse in every category. 

 

It cant dilliver as much power, it has 10Gbps vs 40Gbps of throughout, it cannot Drive 5K displays and I belive it has a refresh rate limit for 4K displays at 30Hz?, it has 0 daisy chain support, it doesn’t connect to PCIe lanes meaning you cannot expand your computer, and finally Thunbolt 3 is compatible with USB-C and below where as USB-C 3.1 cannot support a thunderbolt 3 connection. 

 

USB-C also doesn’t have any professional accessories for use in Studios of any kind and has weak docking station support in comparison. 

An iPhone can't even connect to a USB drive or your PC to seamlessly transfer files. Higher throughput for what?

 

How are you going drive 4k from an iPhone if an iPhone can't even bloody transfer a file? 

 

What do you need pcie lanes on an iPhone for? You want to hook a gtx 1080 on an iPhone or something? 

L

Lighting on a Mac book means dongle and adaptor everywhere you go so enjoy the inconvenience. Nice specs on paper but in the end, not applicable in real life use.

[DrMacintosh]

26 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

USB Type-C Can drive any display you want, it passes DisplayPort, and so, your limit is your graphics card.

DisplayPort 1.3 support 4x monitor Daisy Chaining at 1920x1200

If you have the new DisplayPort 1.4, you can drive an 8K @ 30Hz monitor without color compression with 1 cable. 8K 60Hz with compression via DSC, again, with 1 cable.

All of which Thunderbolt can do and more.......Spec for spec USB-C 3.1 doesn't hold a candle to Thunderbolt and your only complaint is it might have a security vulnerability in theory, a theory that has never been tested or implemented mind you. 

 

And It's not like USB-C isn't immune to its own security problems either....

[DrMacintosh]

38 minutes ago, RorzNZ said:

Great news I can now connect my phone to my laptop  

Apple already sells lighting to USB-C cables you know...

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Apple already sells lighting to USB-C cables you know...

I didn't know

 

[GoodBytes]

20 minutes ago, wasab said:

An iPhone can't even connect to a USB drive or your PC to seamlessly transfer files. Higher throughput for what?

 

How are you going drive 4k from an iPhone if an iPhone can't even bloody transfer a file? 

 

What do you need pcie lanes on an iPhone for? You want to hook a gtx 1080 on an iPhone or something? 

L

Lighting on a Mac book means dongle and adaptor everywhere you go so enjoy the inconvenience. Nice specs on paper but in the end, not applicable in real life use.

Lighting is not Thunderbolt. Lighting is Apple propitiatory connector, Thunderbolt is Intel over-engineered communication method (which has no official conector, it needs to use an existing one that support packet transfer, such as DisplayPort or USB).

 

The lack of file transfer is iPhone block itself. The phone on USB would have the same restrictions.