Comment by cdchn 10 months ago
I think a big part of the reason (maybe the only reason?) they went to USB-C is because they were legally compelled to by European regulations, not sure if they can then about-face on that just by removing the port.
They didn't switch normal iPads until 2022.
I really don't understand the argument that it was inevitable when they spent more than five years shipping lightning on phones and most iPads and USB-C on laptops. Maybe they would have switched on their own, maybe not. But they were clearly not just moving USB-C through their product line piece by piece, or everything would have had it many years earlier.
Apple started shipping exclusively USB-C cables/chargers with iPhones with the 11 in 2019. There's certainly a case to be made that they should have done that earlier (iPhone X or even back with the iPhone 7).
It is perhaps worth noting that the USB-IF and Apple had a "complex" relationship for many years, and to this day Apple still doesn't sell a single 1st party device or cable which is USB certified.
>Apple started shipping exclusively USB-C cables/chargers with iPhones with the 11 in 2019.
Did they? I thought they only moved to USB-C with the iPhone 15 in 2023. Thats what Wikipedia shows me as well.
Edit: Oh you mean the _charger_ was USB-C with a USB-C to Lightning cable. The actual phone didn't get a USB-C port until iPhone 15.
There are really only six options:
1. Keep using Lightning
2. Update Lightning
3. Switch to another proprietary connector
4. Switch to a standard but non-USB-C connector
5. Switch to full wireless
6. Switch to USB-C
(1) Makes no sense, they were going to switch to something eventually. If anyone doubts that and thinks Lightning was going to stick around forever, they don't live in the real world. It's so far from reasonable it's not worth considering. Lighting is worse than USB-C for data rates and power, it was outdated years before they made the switch.
(2) Could have made sense but they would have done it earlier if it was in their plans. They could have done that around '20-'21 and given a "Look, see, our new connector is 10x faster than USB-C and fast charges in half the time!" But it would have to match or beat USB-C to make any sense. Maintaining compatibility does means people still get to use old cables with slower charging and data rates for a while until those cables break or get lost, and it means the new cable can still be used with old devices (but will drop to whatever data and power rates they support). It also means Apple has to have, for the iPhone only, an extra team maintaining an extra connector type not used by anything else.
(3) Same issue as (2), but this one has to beat USB-C. And switching to a different proprietary connector means their customers now need at least 3 cables (4 for Apple Watch users, but those folks have to have at least 2 cables anyways since that one is wireless charging only). Users would need Lighting for accessors/peripherals, USB-C for iPad, MBP, and <new proprietary> for a new iPhone. That would go over well.
(4) Same problems as (2) and (3) but at least it's standard. It also has to beat USB-C and what connector would they use that's standard, popular, and not USB-C?
(5) Not viable for the phones. Too many consumers expect their phones to connect, physically, to cars and headsets. Without a 3.5 mm jack that leaves the Lightning, and now USB-C, connector. With cars, unless you have wireless CarPlay (newer cars only) you're SOL for CarPlay, and it's a downgrade to lose that and end up with just audio over Bluetooth. This hurts them substantially in the market and is non-viable. In 5 years, may be a different story.
(6) They already switched to USB-C on pretty much everything else. It opens up every USB-C peripheral (most of Apple's own are already wireless, with Lightning or USB-C to charge, increasingly USB-C). It's the standard connector. It offers fast charging and higher data rates. They already have licenses and contracts in place to use it. They don't have to dedicate an engineering team to support a one-off variant.
(6) is the most sensible option followed by (2). (2) should have happened years ago if it was in their plans. The regulations may have moved up the timeline, but it didn't change what was going to happen.
So what's your argument, which of the non-USB-C options do you think was on Apple's agenda before the regulators came calling? Given that they'd already switched almost every other device in their lineup to USB-C, what was Apple going to do with the iPhone?
> (6) is the most sensible option followed by (2). (2) should have happened years ago if it was in their plans. The regulations may have moved up the timeline, but it didn't change what was going to happen.
It did happen. They added USB 3 5Gbps speed to the lightning port on the 2015 iPad Pro, requiring the lightning to usb 3 camera connector kit.
In 2019, they bundled usb-c to lightning cabling and a usb-c charger with the iPhone 11 and 11 pro. The hardware was updated to support USB-PD, and the USB-C to Lightning cables increased the max wattage over the USB-A variants from 18W to 30W.
But outside pro usage, the port doesn't need USB 3 speeds - in fact, unless they purchased an external hard disk I don't believe most people own a cable capable of USB 3 data speeds. The biggest benefit is Amazon gets to sell a charging cable that costs a few cents less to produce.
Well they're not going to switch just for the sake of switching. USB-C has no capabilities that they care about compared to lightning (for phones), that's why they didn't change for so many years. It's just more compatible, and they didn't care about being compatible.
I think your argument against 1 is flawed, because I can say the same thing about USB-C, that they won't use it forever.
Or in other words, I pick (1b), they likely, not for sure but likely, would have kept using lighting until the same year they end up switching away from USB-C, whenever that may be.
In the future we might see (4) or (5). I note that you also think (5) might happen in a while, so your reasoning is compatible with (1) in the short term followed by (5) in the longer term.
The problem is that other than faster charging, the vast majority of people would not see USB-C as an upgrade, and instead a play to make them buy new cables and chargers. Even though Apple had switched over to exclusively bundling USB-C to lightning cables with the iPhone 11 (2019) and usb-c to MagSafe for Apple Watch Series 7 (2021), a USB-C port on the device does not in itself provide a clear advantage for migration - Apple switching could just be seen as a play to get everyone to buy new cables and chargers.
Even after the switch to USB-C, it blows my relatives' minds when I explained you could plug a USB flash drive into the phone directly. It is just a charging hole for most.
My hypothesis is that they were already planning to go to USB-C on the pro models last year an then trickle it down to the base model 1-2 years following - the SoC was updated with USB 3 features like 10 Gbps data transfer and DP alt mode, and they had software features like capturing 4k video directly to a connected external SSD. The base 15 was left on an older SoC due to cost/yields at TSMC.
Europe may have moved them to upgrade the base model 1-2 years earlier. However, by doing such a migration "begrudgingly" Apple got to use Europe as a little bit of a scapegoat in the press. The forced migration is the answer to the upset questions about the migrating generating a lot of e-waste in terms of obsolete cable and accessories, and in the consumer cost of upgrading a decade of old chargers and lightning cables around their homes, vehicles, offices, etc.
> think a big part of the reason (maybe the only reason?) they went to USB-C is because they were legally compelled to by European regulations
It wasn't the only reason, it was inevitable even without the regulations. They'd already switched their laptops to USB-C in 2015 (?), and the iPad in 2018. The phones and some accessories (keyboards, mice, charging cases for AirPods and such) were the last remaining Lightning devices. All the regulations did, if anything, was set a deadline that was probably internal no more than one or two years past when they made the switch.