this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2023
900 points (94.9% liked)

Technology

59596 readers
3424 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Apple to Limit iPhone 15 USB-C Cables to USB 2.0 Speeds: Report::undefined

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] qyron@sopuli.xyz 27 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Why?

Not that I use the junk this company ships to stores but a part of me would like to hear the meeting where someone proposed this and the rationale to support it.

[–] pachrist@lemmy.world 37 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Easy. Because then it means that the easiest way to get files off your phone to your computer (definitely a Mac, right? RIGHT?) is via an iCloud subscription. Why sell a cable for $10 when you can sell a monthly subscription for $3?

[–] Rilichu@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

And this is nothing new at all for Apple. I still remember how infuriating it was having to deal with iTunes for moving files to and from my iPod Touch. Jailbreaking so I didn't have to deal with iTunes was such a relief

Android obviously having no issues with you just having direct access to the file system makes it so much easier

[–] notatoad@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

nothing about using a USB-C cable inherently means it has to support USB3.

framing it as "limits it to USB 3 Speeds" is misleading. iPhone has only ever supported USB 2, all they're doing here is continuing to not upgrade to USB 3. the meeting where somebody proposed it went like this:

hey, should we put a USB 3 chip in the new iPhone?
nah, let's just keep using the same one as the last generation

[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why pay for a better component when the sheep will gladly pay inflated prices for the same old crap?

[–] macintosh@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

How many people do you honestly think transfer data by cable? I haven't done it in years, and I have friends with iphones that don't even own a computer!

[–] mightyfoolish@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

It ruins displayport alternative mode

[–] brb@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

USB 3 is significantly faster than wifi so I frequently use it for larger file transfers. But I guess with iphone's crippled filesystem you would never have reason to transfer anything.

[–] EvokerKing@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Everybody is thinking about storage speeds but what I want to know is charging speed. We see Android phones using USBC with more then 100w that can charge to 100% in under 30 minutes. Knowing Apple it will probably be limited to like 5w so that you buy a shitty 15w wireless MagSafe charger instead that they get money from. It will probably still get to 100% in under 2 hours, but only because Apple batteries are ridiculously small (3200mah on most recent iPhones, 5000mah is the budget Android phone standard that you can find on $60 phones, some even going up to 6000mah like the Samsung m54).

[–] Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago

Minor gripe: the amp hours of the battery don't tell you anything about actual battery life. I worked for a phone manufacturer for a while and saw devices with 3000mAh batteries that couldn't last a day of idling and I saw devices with 1400mAh batteries that would go a week if you just left it sitting in on the table and didn't touch it. It's all about the efficiency of the SoC before the battery amperage comes into play

Another interesting thing is that charging speeds will vary depending more on the protocol used than the wattage of the charger. A 15w Qualcomm Quick Charge charger will charge a nearly dead phone up to 100% in about an hour, or to 78% in 20-30 minutes, but an old 5v 3Amp charger will take a good 2 hours or more to charge the same phone

My current job has me provisioning iPads into our MDM to send out to the field and holy crap am I sick of plugging 6 iPads into a mess of chargers and waiting hours for them to get up to 50%ish, so i do agree 100% that apple needs to get with the times

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Spite. They hate the fact they are made to use USB-C so they're in a strop.

[–] thewitchslayer@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'm not 100% sure this is why, because their current lighting cable only transfers at USB 2.0 speeds as well (480Mbit/s max)

[–] SmoothLiquidation@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

because their current lighting cable only transfers at USB 2.0 speeds as well

This is the main reason. People are confusing the protocol (USB 2.0/3.0) with the connector (USB C/Lightning). Apple slapping a different connector on the phone isn't changing the underlying technology inside the phone. People claiming that USB-C must mean 3.0 are just spreading FUD in order to shit on Apple again.

And, as others in this thread have pointed out, high speed transfers by cable are low priority for phone users, there are much better tools to do that, like maybe an external hard drive.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The current implementation uses the same electrical wiring as USB 2.0 and they used it because at the time USB-C 2.0 hadn't been released yet. Fair enough, but that was a decade ago, so there's no reason that they haven't upgraded in that time except they realised that it let them sell an inferior cable for more money and tell everyone it was better than USB-C standard. The thing is, if you're moving over to USB-C now anyway why not also take the opportunity to upgrade to 3.0 speeds?

It would cost them literally nothing to do that, and they're still not doing it. Well at the same time they're going on and on about how amazingly fast their wireless charger is. Seems suspicious.