3 ms·

Lightning connector was introduced in 2012. Probably sat in the lab being developed for a year or two before publicly announced. It made it easy for someone to

Lightning connector was introduced in 2012. Probably sat in the lab being developed for a year or two before publicly announced. It made it easy for someone to plug in no matter which way the cable was seated. It also provided phones, iPads, and iPods quicker speeds. USB-C was published and finalized in August 2014.

SllX 3y ago
Lightning was a better, smaller, simpler and reversible electrical connector, but for almost all devices that ever used it (the very first iPad Pro is the exception), it unfortunately offered no improvement in USB transfer rates over 30-pin. Pour one out though. It’s still a fine connector. 11-12 years-ish ain’t too bad, shame that Apple never prioritize data transfer rates though and to be honest, still don’t seem to care that much judging by the base models.
- matthewtse 3y ago
  I loved lightning when it first came out. And, perhaps a contrary opinion, but the I still think lightning is easier to insert than usb-C. The curved edges and smaller size mean you can begin inserting it at an odd angle and finish the insertion easily. Whereas you need to insert usb-C nearly straight on for it to get in. Also because the lightning cable's male end is solid, there's no way for dust to collect in there, unlike USB-C where dust can collect inside both the cable end and the peripheral end. Though overall I would trade that for 1 fewer cable/port that I need to manage in my life.
  - quitit 3y ago
    You raise all good points, the sturdiness of lighting is understated by the industry, and this audience is perhaps not familiar enough to have that impression. As testament to the durability, the lightning connector was sufficiently durable that Apple would display the iPhone on a spike with nothing more than the lightning connector at the very tip to hold up the phone, constantly being handled and replaced by curious store visitors - this approach was also mirrored in the lightning dock design, where the phone was held in place (at an angle no less) with no other secondary support, only the singular lightning connector holding up the phone with such robustness that one could interact with the phone without concern. Lightning is and remains to be incredibly durable and sturdy, far exceeding the spec of the type-C connection standard. For a phone or accessories it's a much more pragmatic connector, and a pity to see it go. USB-C because is not engineered for this level of abuse. From a fatigue perspective USB-C is absolutely a step backwards, tongued designs are weaker, there is no getting around that. I will be interested to see how apple show USB-C iPhones in store, if they keep the lightning-plinth or utilise a design with a back support to limit the wear on the plinth's connector. -- From this point is a commentary on the politics that helped influence this change, feel free to skip it. tl,dr: The laws surrounding USB-C are short-sighted, focused on the wrong aspects of computing waste, and create a future problem. -- The dogmatic persistence in unifying the world on the cable of the day is short sighted and disappointing politicking to me. Type-C will be superseded, but getting the critical mass to transition to a new standard will be muted because manufacturers can't legally move major products to it. Legislators have created a problem for the not-too-distant future, there will be temporary harmony on type-C, and then invariably we will have country-to-country inconsistencies in legislation as newer, better, connectors emerge. It's clear to me that regulation is focusing on the wrong aspects of phone design. Instead of mandating for year on year support, long term security software updates, clean manufacturing standards, appropriate materials & labour sourcing, plus a minimum performance benchmark to prevent cheap junk phones entering the market (and thus fast-tracked to landfill) we have the introduction of laws asking what cable an Apple user pulls out of their satchel when wireless charging isn't available. The idea seems to be that now a person would have one cable instead of two(?) Here's a common example: When I signed up for my internet package, it included a free tablet computer - there was no way to opt out of receiving it, it came pre-installed with software that had known security vulnerabilities, it used microUSB, and its performance was too poor to hold any modern function. Even the person I gave it to had let me know that it was put into electronics recycling after less than a year. This product's manufacture, materials, and shipping created significantly more waste than any amount of lightning cables that a person could feasibly use in an entire lifetime. It's utter insanity that legislators haven't attempted to address the real sources of environmental damage, human rights abuses, and the very real security issue that these junk devices present. Fixation on the connector has been nothing more than political hand waving. I'm not against type-C, I prefer it, but it's clear to me that people who think this is a real issue are blindsighted.
    - matthewtse 3y ago
      Ah yes, sturdiness is another magical quality of lightning that is under-appreciated. I've never had a lightning cable end break, or a lightning port wear out, the device is long obsoleted by that point. Another problem I had with USB-C, is that just because it fits physically, doesn't actually mean it will work since what's inside the cable can be dramatically different. In my personal life: - the Nintendo Switch uses a proprietary USB-C interface for the power brick, they somehow feed ethernet internet through it - thunderbolt docks need thunderbolt USB-C cables. And there's thunderbolt 2,3,4. - my magsafe phone charger uses a USB-C end, but needs to be plugged into a special power brick to get full power This is actually... somewhat worse because now I have multiple USB-C cables that all have a different purpose that I can't tell apart from a glance (because the connectors are all the same!)
      - quitit 3y ago
        This isn't spoken about so much, but you raise a long-standing complaint about the C type connector. Not all cables allow all functions, some devices require higher bandwidth, some require more power. Typical examples are displays, storage and external hardware such as GPUs. Apple do label their type-C cables with the logo of the standard it supports, but for most consumers they're not going to be immediately familiar with this approach, especially as lightning just works for anything that it can be plugged into. This is a bit of a dated article, but the points it makes still largely stand - people are going to run into some of these problems and not understand why they're happening. Imagine a scenario where you can plug a vacuum into a power socket, only to discover that it doesn't work - your first assumption will be that the vacuum is broken, and not an obscure standards mismatch. https://www.howtogeek.com/353410/3-problems-with-usb-c-you-need-to-know/ https://www.howtogeek.com/353410/3-problems-with-usb-c-you-n...
    - gnicholas 3y ago
      > I will be interested to see how apple show USB-C iPhones in store, if they keep the lightning-plinth or utilise a design with a back support to limit the wear on the plinth's connector. I imagine they will use MagSafe mounts and anti-theft tethers, which they've been rolling out over the last few years.
- someonehere 3y ago
  According to this https://www.cultofmac.com/790897/today-in-apple-history-lightning-replaces-30-pin-dock-connector/ https://www.cultofmac.com/790897/today-in-apple-history-ligh... it was supposed to be USB 3.0 but there was only one device that utilized USB3.0 speeds: "Apple’s connector supported USB 3.0 host, but the only accessory that fully supported this feature was the camera adapter that includes a USB-A port. Most Lightning cables to this day support only USB 2.0, with a maximum data transfer speed of 60MBps." I seem to recall when lightning was announced, someone (probably Steve) said it was faster than the 30 pin. Then again Steve was known to blow smoke of products (remember, FaceTime was open source according to Steve when announced).
  - lxgr 3y ago
    Lightning supports two data lanes, so it's theoretically capable of USB 3 speeds. However, that would have required active/negotiating Lightning-to-USB-3 cables or adapters, since USB 3 requires three lanes, i.e. one more (two for SuperSpeed connections, and one for legacy USB 2.0 high speed connections), and the adapter/cable would have to figure out which one the connected host wants to speak and wire accordingly. At least one iPad does support USB 3 speeds over Lightning, but only in the other direction, i.e. when acting as an USB host using the "Lightning to USB camera adapter", which was really a generic USB host adapter and supported many more types of devices like audio interfaces, hard drives etc. – I suspect that adapter must be doing just that.
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      > the adapter/cable would have to figure out which one the connected host wants to speak and wire accordingly There are two straightforward ways to avoid that and allow passive adapters/cables. 1. Use the two "Identification/control" pins to run the low speed lane. 2. Use both sides when supporting USB 3.

SllX 3y ago

Lightning was a better, smaller, simpler and reversible electrical connector, but for almost all devices that ever used it (the very first iPad Pro is the exception), it unfortunately offered no improvement in USB transfer rates over 30-pin. Pour one out though. It’s still a fine connector. 11-12 years-ish ain’t too bad, shame that Apple never prioritize data transfer rates though and to be honest, still don’t seem to care that much judging by the base models.

matthewtse 3y ago
I loved lightning when it first came out. And, perhaps a contrary opinion, but the I still think lightning is easier to insert than usb-C. The curved edges and smaller size mean you can begin inserting it at an odd angle and finish the insertion easily. Whereas you need to insert usb-C nearly straight on for it to get in. Also because the lightning cable's male end is solid, there's no way for dust to collect in there, unlike USB-C where dust can collect inside both the cable end and the peripheral end. Though overall I would trade that for 1 fewer cable/port that I need to manage in my life.
- quitit 3y ago
  You raise all good points, the sturdiness of lighting is understated by the industry, and this audience is perhaps not familiar enough to have that impression. As testament to the durability, the lightning connector was sufficiently durable that Apple would display the iPhone on a spike with nothing more than the lightning connector at the very tip to hold up the phone, constantly being handled and replaced by curious store visitors - this approach was also mirrored in the lightning dock design, where the phone was held in place (at an angle no less) with no other secondary support, only the singular lightning connector holding up the phone with such robustness that one could interact with the phone without concern. Lightning is and remains to be incredibly durable and sturdy, far exceeding the spec of the type-C connection standard. For a phone or accessories it's a much more pragmatic connector, and a pity to see it go. USB-C because is not engineered for this level of abuse. From a fatigue perspective USB-C is absolutely a step backwards, tongued designs are weaker, there is no getting around that. I will be interested to see how apple show USB-C iPhones in store, if they keep the lightning-plinth or utilise a design with a back support to limit the wear on the plinth's connector. -- From this point is a commentary on the politics that helped influence this change, feel free to skip it. tl,dr: The laws surrounding USB-C are short-sighted, focused on the wrong aspects of computing waste, and create a future problem. -- The dogmatic persistence in unifying the world on the cable of the day is short sighted and disappointing politicking to me. Type-C will be superseded, but getting the critical mass to transition to a new standard will be muted because manufacturers can't legally move major products to it. Legislators have created a problem for the not-too-distant future, there will be temporary harmony on type-C, and then invariably we will have country-to-country inconsistencies in legislation as newer, better, connectors emerge. It's clear to me that regulation is focusing on the wrong aspects of phone design. Instead of mandating for year on year support, long term security software updates, clean manufacturing standards, appropriate materials & labour sourcing, plus a minimum performance benchmark to prevent cheap junk phones entering the market (and thus fast-tracked to landfill) we have the introduction of laws asking what cable an Apple user pulls out of their satchel when wireless charging isn't available. The idea seems to be that now a person would have one cable instead of two(?) Here's a common example: When I signed up for my internet package, it included a free tablet computer - there was no way to opt out of receiving it, it came pre-installed with software that had known security vulnerabilities, it used microUSB, and its performance was too poor to hold any modern function. Even the person I gave it to had let me know that it was put into electronics recycling after less than a year. This product's manufacture, materials, and shipping created significantly more waste than any amount of lightning cables that a person could feasibly use in an entire lifetime. It's utter insanity that legislators haven't attempted to address the real sources of environmental damage, human rights abuses, and the very real security issue that these junk devices present. Fixation on the connector has been nothing more than political hand waving. I'm not against type-C, I prefer it, but it's clear to me that people who think this is a real issue are blindsighted.
  - matthewtse 3y ago
    Ah yes, sturdiness is another magical quality of lightning that is under-appreciated. I've never had a lightning cable end break, or a lightning port wear out, the device is long obsoleted by that point. Another problem I had with USB-C, is that just because it fits physically, doesn't actually mean it will work since what's inside the cable can be dramatically different. In my personal life: - the Nintendo Switch uses a proprietary USB-C interface for the power brick, they somehow feed ethernet internet through it - thunderbolt docks need thunderbolt USB-C cables. And there's thunderbolt 2,3,4. - my magsafe phone charger uses a USB-C end, but needs to be plugged into a special power brick to get full power This is actually... somewhat worse because now I have multiple USB-C cables that all have a different purpose that I can't tell apart from a glance (because the connectors are all the same!)
    - quitit 3y ago
      This isn't spoken about so much, but you raise a long-standing complaint about the C type connector. Not all cables allow all functions, some devices require higher bandwidth, some require more power. Typical examples are displays, storage and external hardware such as GPUs. Apple do label their type-C cables with the logo of the standard it supports, but for most consumers they're not going to be immediately familiar with this approach, especially as lightning just works for anything that it can be plugged into. This is a bit of a dated article, but the points it makes still largely stand - people are going to run into some of these problems and not understand why they're happening. Imagine a scenario where you can plug a vacuum into a power socket, only to discover that it doesn't work - your first assumption will be that the vacuum is broken, and not an obscure standards mismatch. https://www.howtogeek.com/353410/3-problems-with-usb-c-you-need-to-know/ https://www.howtogeek.com/353410/3-problems-with-usb-c-you-n...
  - gnicholas 3y ago
    > I will be interested to see how apple show USB-C iPhones in store, if they keep the lightning-plinth or utilise a design with a back support to limit the wear on the plinth's connector. I imagine they will use MagSafe mounts and anti-theft tethers, which they've been rolling out over the last few years.
someonehere 3y ago
According to this https://www.cultofmac.com/790897/today-in-apple-history-lightning-replaces-30-pin-dock-connector/ https://www.cultofmac.com/790897/today-in-apple-history-ligh... it was supposed to be USB 3.0 but there was only one device that utilized USB3.0 speeds: "Apple’s connector supported USB 3.0 host, but the only accessory that fully supported this feature was the camera adapter that includes a USB-A port. Most Lightning cables to this day support only USB 2.0, with a maximum data transfer speed of 60MBps." I seem to recall when lightning was announced, someone (probably Steve) said it was faster than the 30 pin. Then again Steve was known to blow smoke of products (remember, FaceTime was open source according to Steve when announced).
- lxgr 3y ago
  Lightning supports two data lanes, so it's theoretically capable of USB 3 speeds. However, that would have required active/negotiating Lightning-to-USB-3 cables or adapters, since USB 3 requires three lanes, i.e. one more (two for SuperSpeed connections, and one for legacy USB 2.0 high speed connections), and the adapter/cable would have to figure out which one the connected host wants to speak and wire accordingly. At least one iPad does support USB 3 speeds over Lightning, but only in the other direction, i.e. when acting as an USB host using the "Lightning to USB camera adapter", which was really a generic USB host adapter and supported many more types of devices like audio interfaces, hard drives etc. – I suspect that adapter must be doing just that.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    > the adapter/cable would have to figure out which one the connected host wants to speak and wire accordingly There are two straightforward ways to avoid that and allow passive adapters/cables. 1. Use the two "Identification/control" pins to run the low speed lane. 2. Use both sides when supporting USB 3.