3 ms·
Why would they move quickly from a cable connector that has a massive installed base and that works well for most people (or, as you put it, "nonsense") to one
by otterley 5y ago
Why would they move quickly from a cable connector that has a massive installed base and that works well for most people (or, as you put it, "nonsense") to one that doesn't have nearly as much market penetration?
- Rebelgecko 5y agoIn the past, Apple was happy to make forwardlooking decisions regardless of today's market penetration (remember the floppy to CD uproar? And the removal of DVD drives?). It's kinda humorous that today my MacBook Pro's plug-in accessories (dongles, chargers, headphones, etc) work better with my Android phone than they would if I was totally bought into Apple's ecosystem
- Jcowell 5y agoIf you were to buy an iPhone today you would get a USB-C cable to Lightning. Your iPad would be USB-C. The only independent device not pluggable would be the Apple Watch which has no purpose being plugged in anyway I believe.
- Rebelgecko 5y agoCool, I didn't know that. Does the USB-lightning cable work for plugging in things like M+K and video out?
- Jcowell 5y agoYes I see no reason for it not to. It’s all still USB in the end.
- artursapek 5y agoThe market would follow their move pretty damn fast.
- skohan 5y agoUSBC is becoming standard pretty quickly isn't it? Most major Android smartphones are already using it. I even recently bought a small electric fan which is powered by USBC.
- thefz 5y ago> a cable connector that has a massive installed base and that works well for most people You are confusing Apple users with the whole population. USB-C is ubiquitous and I have seen many new and not so new edvices implementing it, yet I have to lay my hands on a Lightning device, let alone having a Lightning - enabled personal computer.