5 ms·

> profited significantly from licensing their proprietary Lightning port. How significant? Doubtful it moves the needle for Apple. People often forget Lightni

by tgma 2y ago

> profited significantly from licensing their proprietary Lightning port. How significant? Doubtful it moves the needle for Apple. People often forget Lightning is much superior to microUSB which was the alternative at the time (also mechanically superior to USB-C), and that Apple was instrumental in widespread USB-C adoption by taking a heat for the longest time on their butterfly MacBooks. And yes, while I am happy with USB-C today, I totally believe mandating it does stifle innovation. Imagine if we mandated microUSB in 2010.

randunel 2y ago
Which other company sells short USB cables for £60?
- tgma 2y ago
  Are you referring to Apple Thunderbolt cables? They are active cables with circuits in them. Otherwise, I am not sure which cable you are referring to that sells for that much. I understand as a consumer you get emotional and pissed, but even if true, that is a drop in the bucket and not "significant" profit for Apple. The true value of MFi licensing to Apple would be influencing the accessory market, not peanuts in dongle sales.
  - bmicraft 2y ago
    $5 Type c cables also have "circuits" in them. It's not that hard or expensive to implement an e-markee chip.
    - tgma 2y ago
      If you think it is the same, then you are free not to purchase the cable from Apple. Either way to claim that such cable constitutes "significant" revenue to Apple Inc. is just hyperbolic/preposterous. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBWnb0ZIlEA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBWnb0ZIlEA
      - econ 2y ago
        The revenue is in one more chain locking the user into the ecosystem. Hard to quantify.
      - randunel 2y ago
        You're taking things literally, but the point is that everything is overpriced with apple and they're getting away with it because of the cult following they've cultured and are now milking. In my previous comment, I simply picked one of the ridiculous things cult followers pay for. They're going to keep milking their followers no matter how ridiculous each point seems when someone puts it in writing. That's how "the needle moves".
        tgma 2y ago
        So you're suggesting because everything is overpriced with Apple and they are a cult leader (your opinion) the government should step in and dictate the price and behavior? Last time I checked some European countries have not only tax-free churches, they also facilitate collecting taxes and funding them. Instead of policing cults and dictating pricing, I suggest simply not purchasing what you don't like. (While we are on the subject of forcing behavior changes, let's mandate air conditioning and a singular electrical wall outlet. Why not?)
        randunel 2y ago
        My reply was to the following comment: > How significant? Doubtful it moves the needle for Apple. I made no claims about governments dictating prices anywhere. Dictating behaviour, however, is already being done in many areas, especially consumer protection, anti competitiveness and others.
        lloeki 2y ago
        https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AD5aAd8Oy84 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AD5aAd8Oy84 Maybe you could consider Apple cables to be overengineered, but I can readily understand why a cable built this way - irrespective of manufacturer - is not overpriced. And it's not just about a chip. The cable is simply factually better on every metric than the hand-soldered 4 wire el cheapo one at 15~16 min. There is no cult in that. Now if one only needs to carry USB 2.0 speeds or a limited amount of power it'd be ridiculous to buy a 100+ or even 50+ cable. That doesn't make the cable overpriced either, merely overspecced for that use case.
    - Terretta 2y ago
      It's hard to do this: https://www.lumafield.com/article/usb-c-cable-charger-head-to-head-comparison-apple-thunderbolt-amazon-basics https://www.lumafield.com/article/usb-c-cable-charger-head-t...
    - mensetmanusman 2y ago
      There are about 10 different types of usb c cables, not all of them are certified at 40 Gbit.
    - burnerthrow008 2y ago
      Not the same thing. Thunderbolt cables have amplifiers in the plugs (that’s why they get hot…)
- wqaatwt 2y ago
  So you’re saying that USB-C cables are more expensive than Lightning ones? Not that AFAIK iPhones support Thunderbolt anyway so how is this relevant?
dijit 2y ago
Agreed. Lightening was most likely a combination of: * The connection interface was superior to USB-A Micro/Mini in both size and reliability - and this was the contemporary connector in 2012. * They had undergone a physical connector change only once, and it was not received well by vendors. * USB-C was not anywhere near ready for the iPhone 5, and the 40 pin would not do well in that type of device. * USB-C and Lightening are comparable on size and reliability (saying nothing about speed) - so even after USB- started gaining adoption there was not a strong incentive to switch over. It wasn't superior. * USB-C charging only would be fine, but people would expect drivers for storage, HDMI, radio docks etc. Easy to undersell this effort in hindsight. I also doubt that it was a profit motive. let’s not forget that Apple themselves helped design USB-C and pushed for it to be the standard. I guess they couldn't wait for it to be ready, and given the iPhone 5 came out in 2012 and the first commercially successful USB-C devices came in 2016 I guess they were right.
- tgma 2y ago
  Precisely. The irony is that almost all non-MacBook computer still come with at least one USB-A port to this day. If it weren't for Apple pushing USB-C only on the MacBook, that connector's universal adoption as the primary data/video interface wouldn't have been as widespread. They legitimized the connector by forcing it on MacBook users.
- callc 2y ago
  > I also doubt that it was a profit motive. One of the most profitable companies in the world trying to build more of a moat of incompatibilities with the rest of the non-apple world with no profit or ulterior motive? /s Once a for-profit company gets large enough doing anything other than “maximize profit up to the point of illegality” becomes a Herculean task. It’s a natural consequence of capitalism, greed, and large organizations. Good on EU for being a counter-balance force
- DerekL 2y ago
  * Lightning (no e)
viraptor 2y ago
> People often forget Lightning is much superior to microUSB which was the alternative at the time At the time, yes. But not for years now. Apple could've changed the path by opening this as a standard but choose not to. > Imagine if we mandated microUSB in 2010. Apple would include an extra/expanded connector like a number of other device producers. Then they'd talk to the other large companies about moving to a new standard just like the currently introduced law proposes. This is not a "you must use usb-c" law, but rather "you must figure out how to get along" law. Also, this pretty much happened, just without regulation. EU at the time effectively said "figure it out, or else" and microUSB became a standard for years. Now they felt like they need to push harder.
- burnerthrow008 2y ago
  > Apple could've changed the path by opening this as a standard but choose not to. Sure, and Apple could have shipped a free pony to every child on earth. But expecting them to do so is childish.
  - viraptor 2y ago
    It's not for our benefit. They had a better connector and decided to keep it proprietary. If they made it an open standard, there's a chance the regulation would be enforcing lightning for everyone. They don't get to both keep it proprietary and complain about being forced to sell standard things.
- tgma 2y ago
  > This is not a "you must use usb-c" law, but rather "you must figure out how to get along" law. No, this is exactly "you must use USB-C law." Please don't reframe it as a strawman. > Apple would include an extra/expanded connector like a number of other device producers. They did mandate such thing IIRC, just not forced directly on device, which is a slightly better IMO, to mandate how something is sold rather than dictating how the device should be built.
  - viraptor 2y ago
greatgib 2y ago
So superior that I did rarely see a lightning cable that didn't had its connector broken in one or two years maximum...
- tokinonagare 2y ago
  I had to change a lightning cable once, after years of daily use, and it wasn't the connector the issue. I wonder what was the people owing the cable you saw did with them...
  - lloeki 2y ago
    Some people just butcher cables, piles of them; but that's irrespective of port technology.
- tgma 2y ago
  Mechanically broken? I have never seen a Lightning break or get too loose in years. I’ve used both connectors extensively. USB-C I’ve faced loose female connectors, broken female connector to the degree that it heated up the MacBook because it generated interrupts for kernel to handle. On the male side I’ve seen bent cables and of course even without mechanical failure there are cables that should work and just don’t for different use cases (Charge but no data. Data but no alt mode video.) We should look at data but USB-C anecdotally have been an order of magnitude worse for me and people around me.

by tgma 2y ago

randunel 2y ago

Which other company sells short USB cables for £60?

tgma 2y ago
Are you referring to Apple Thunderbolt cables? They are active cables with circuits in them. Otherwise, I am not sure which cable you are referring to that sells for that much. I understand as a consumer you get emotional and pissed, but even if true, that is a drop in the bucket and not "significant" profit for Apple. The true value of MFi licensing to Apple would be influencing the accessory market, not peanuts in dongle sales.
- bmicraft 2y ago
  $5 Type c cables also have "circuits" in them. It's not that hard or expensive to implement an e-markee chip.
  - tgma 2y ago
    If you think it is the same, then you are free not to purchase the cable from Apple. Either way to claim that such cable constitutes "significant" revenue to Apple Inc. is just hyperbolic/preposterous. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBWnb0ZIlEA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBWnb0ZIlEA
    - econ 2y ago
      The revenue is in one more chain locking the user into the ecosystem. Hard to quantify.
    - randunel 2y ago
      You're taking things literally, but the point is that everything is overpriced with apple and they're getting away with it because of the cult following they've cultured and are now milking. In my previous comment, I simply picked one of the ridiculous things cult followers pay for. They're going to keep milking their followers no matter how ridiculous each point seems when someone puts it in writing. That's how "the needle moves".
      - tgma 2y ago
        So you're suggesting because everything is overpriced with Apple and they are a cult leader (your opinion) the government should step in and dictate the price and behavior? Last time I checked some European countries have not only tax-free churches, they also facilitate collecting taxes and funding them. Instead of policing cults and dictating pricing, I suggest simply not purchasing what you don't like. (While we are on the subject of forcing behavior changes, let's mandate air conditioning and a singular electrical wall outlet. Why not?)
        randunel 2y ago
        My reply was to the following comment: > How significant? Doubtful it moves the needle for Apple. I made no claims about governments dictating prices anywhere. Dictating behaviour, however, is already being done in many areas, especially consumer protection, anti competitiveness and others.
      - lloeki 2y ago
        https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AD5aAd8Oy84 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AD5aAd8Oy84 Maybe you could consider Apple cables to be overengineered, but I can readily understand why a cable built this way - irrespective of manufacturer - is not overpriced. And it's not just about a chip. The cable is simply factually better on every metric than the hand-soldered 4 wire el cheapo one at 15~16 min. There is no cult in that. Now if one only needs to carry USB 2.0 speeds or a limited amount of power it'd be ridiculous to buy a 100+ or even 50+ cable. That doesn't make the cable overpriced either, merely overspecced for that use case.
  - Terretta 2y ago
    It's hard to do this: https://www.lumafield.com/article/usb-c-cable-charger-head-to-head-comparison-apple-thunderbolt-amazon-basics https://www.lumafield.com/article/usb-c-cable-charger-head-t...
  - mensetmanusman 2y ago
    There are about 10 different types of usb c cables, not all of them are certified at 40 Gbit.
  - burnerthrow008 2y ago
    Not the same thing. Thunderbolt cables have amplifiers in the plugs (that’s why they get hot…)
wqaatwt 2y ago
So you’re saying that USB-C cables are more expensive than Lightning ones? Not that AFAIK iPhones support Thunderbolt anyway so how is this relevant?

dijit 2y ago

Agreed. Lightening was most likely a combination of: * The connection interface was superior to USB-A Micro/Mini in both size and reliability - and this was the contemporary connector in 2012. * They had undergone a physical connector change only once, and it was not received well by vendors. * USB-C was not anywhere near ready for the iPhone 5, and the 40 pin would not do well in that type of device. * USB-C and Lightening are comparable on size and reliability (saying nothing about speed) - so even after USB- started gaining adoption there was not a strong incentive to switch over. It wasn't superior. * USB-C charging only would be fine, but people would expect drivers for storage, HDMI, radio docks etc. Easy to undersell this effort in hindsight. I also doubt that it was a profit motive. let’s not forget that Apple themselves helped design USB-C and pushed for it to be the standard. I guess they couldn't wait for it to be ready, and given the iPhone 5 came out in 2012 and the first commercially successful USB-C devices came in 2016 I guess they were right.

tgma 2y ago
Precisely. The irony is that almost all non-MacBook computer still come with at least one USB-A port to this day. If it weren't for Apple pushing USB-C only on the MacBook, that connector's universal adoption as the primary data/video interface wouldn't have been as widespread. They legitimized the connector by forcing it on MacBook users.
callc 2y ago
> I also doubt that it was a profit motive. One of the most profitable companies in the world trying to build more of a moat of incompatibilities with the rest of the non-apple world with no profit or ulterior motive? /s Once a for-profit company gets large enough doing anything other than “maximize profit up to the point of illegality” becomes a Herculean task. It’s a natural consequence of capitalism, greed, and large organizations. Good on EU for being a counter-balance force
DerekL 2y ago
* Lightning (no e)

viraptor 2y ago

> People often forget Lightning is much superior to microUSB which was the alternative at the time At the time, yes. But not for years now. Apple could've changed the path by opening this as a standard but choose not to. > Imagine if we mandated microUSB in 2010. Apple would include an extra/expanded connector like a number of other device producers. Then they'd talk to the other large companies about moving to a new standard just like the currently introduced law proposes. This is not a "you must use usb-c" law, but rather "you must figure out how to get along" law. Also, this pretty much happened, just without regulation. EU at the time effectively said "figure it out, or else" and microUSB became a standard for years. Now they felt like they need to push harder.

burnerthrow008 2y ago
> Apple could've changed the path by opening this as a standard but choose not to. Sure, and Apple could have shipped a free pony to every child on earth. But expecting them to do so is childish.
- viraptor 2y ago
  It's not for our benefit. They had a better connector and decided to keep it proprietary. If they made it an open standard, there's a chance the regulation would be enforcing lightning for everyone. They don't get to both keep it proprietary and complain about being forced to sell standard things.
tgma 2y ago
> This is not a "you must use usb-c" law, but rather "you must figure out how to get along" law. No, this is exactly "you must use USB-C law." Please don't reframe it as a strawman. > Apple would include an extra/expanded connector like a number of other device producers. They did mandate such thing IIRC, just not forced directly on device, which is a slightly better IMO, to mandate how something is sold rather than dictating how the device should be built.
- viraptor 2y ago

greatgib 2y ago

So superior that I did rarely see a lightning cable that didn't had its connector broken in one or two years maximum...

tokinonagare 2y ago
I had to change a lightning cable once, after years of daily use, and it wasn't the connector the issue. I wonder what was the people owing the cable you saw did with them...
- lloeki 2y ago
  Some people just butcher cables, piles of them; but that's irrespective of port technology.
tgma 2y ago
Mechanically broken? I have never seen a Lightning break or get too loose in years. I’ve used both connectors extensively. USB-C I’ve faced loose female connectors, broken female connector to the degree that it heated up the MacBook because it generated interrupts for kernel to handle. On the male side I’ve seen bent cables and of course even without mechanical failure there are cables that should work and just don’t for different use cases (Charge but no data. Data but no alt mode video.) We should look at data but USB-C anecdotally have been an order of magnitude worse for me and people around me.