parad0x

It seems pretty confusing that it doesn’t even say USB 4 considering that’s what a device manual will reference.

How many watts does a cable with the 40 Gbps logo support? Same question of transfer speeds for the 240W logo. My device says it needs USB 4, does this cable work? Does this work with thunderbolt? The logo clearly identifies one or two pieces of information, but the problem is that they’ve changed naming conventions so much, it may not be providing the information a typical consumer needs to see. At this point they should just print all the specs on the cable, like ethernet cables do.

They do have a product that exists in real life, as mentioned in the article. Based on what that looks like, I’d expect this to render to be fairly accurate. One major caveat: I expect they will be wired to your smartphone, like their more expensive product, and like headphones used to be.

A stove next to a high-capacity battery? What could go wrong.

Nothing? An induction cooktop isn’t going to create any more risk than plugging anything else in would. I’ve used butane stoves in vans with gas tanks, nothing burned or blew up.

I can list other things you’d lose access to by removing the port, but you’re asking the wrong question here. What is the benefit of removing ports altogether and why do you want that?

I’m opposed to things that take away a tangible benefit but don’t provide one in return. Why are you in favor of a port-less iPhone? I’m heavily involved in watersports, even if they remove the port, I’d still put it in a waterproof case. Slightly more water resistant and a slightly bigger battery isn’t enough of a reason to remove the port. There has to be a bonafide reason to go port-less before we can discuss if the trade-off is worth it.

The only robustly supported and revenue generating mfi programs have been propriety ports for the iPod and iPhone (30 pin and lightning). Magsafe and Bluetooth aren’t the same. Evening lightning on the iPad never really took off.

They don’t get revenue from Qi charging and they can’t collect licensing fees from magnets. The NFC portion is of relatively little value to accessory makers. The revenue generation potential of magsafe is vastly lower than lightning.

With respect to bluetooth and USB-C, they could only have MFi licensing on features that aren’t part of the standard spec. Again of limited value in comparison.

They designed an iPad mini with USB-C, they could switch an iPhone to USB-C at any major refresh (likely next year) with no design cost (they’d still have to design a new phone to accommodate a lightning port). I’d suggest that has virtually nothing do do with their intentions.

Why would you throw the wall adaptor away? It doesn’t have a lightning port on it. Apple includes a new cable with every phone right now, so you’d get a USB-C cable with the iPhone with that had a USB-C port. You wouldn’t technically be required to buy anything extra.

You’d also get one with every electronic device moving forward. You probably have a bunch of micro usb cables, new versions of those devices would come with usb-C as well under this rule. You wouldn’t have to buy as many as you think to meet your specific charging needs. You’d be awash in USB-C very quickly. (Apple would also offer an adaptor for sure)

As an aside: waste is really created when a product is produced. Eventually every electronic good produced becomes waste in some fashion or another. If universal USB-C meant that every electronic device didn’t also need to ship with a new cable, it would be an easy net win over any short term losses due to being "required" to buy additional USB-C cables.

The "little upside" for Apple is that they’ll lose MFi revenue imo. They’d have no problem switching otherwise. I don’t think they’d care about any hardship caused to consumers (nor do I think that hardship would be too great). They’d probably prefer to use one port across all their devices too.

In re-reading, I see you’re right. You didn’t mention portless. I’m not sure how that aligns with this EU requirement though. If this goes through, their only options would be USB-C or portless. Keeping lightning for power only is exactly what they are trying to get rid of.

Dongles didn’t seem to work very well when Apple replaced the 30-pin connector with Lightning.

The 30 pin cable had analog channels that a lightning dongle couldn’t replicate. Lightning and USB-C are both digital only plugs transmitting USB protocols.

I didn’t mention a portless iPhone.

"Now, their plan seems to be a silent transition to wireless until nobody uses Lightning for much besides charging anymore anyway."

They’d rather make 2% more than not. That’s absolutely why they are sticking to it.

Small caveat. I could see a future where the iPhone goes portless and the iPhone Pro gets USB-C, but there’s no real evidence Apple will drop ports from any phone.

Very few scenarios where a dongle wouldn’t work. It’s a pretty weak point, the world isn’t flooded with clamp-on lightning gamepads. A full transition to wireless actually would render the accessories obsolete, and the phones would draw more power from the outlet to charge. The only place a portless iPhone exists is in rumor land.

Apple’s new chargers are already USB-C. It’s the cables and accessories that would be obsolete, but I’d expect Apple to comply and sell a male USB-C to female Lightning dongle if this goes through.

Apple has argued that a switch to USB-C would actually be worse for the environment because it renders hundreds of millions of Lightning accessories obsolete. These arguments might be irrelevant if Apple goes portless, instead.

Those would still be rendered obsolete with a portless iPhone… With USB-C, Apple could offer a USB-C to Lightning dongle and then the accessories wouldn’t be obsolete… What direction actually sounds more like Apple?