Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ERRORMONSTER t1_irpnjso wrote

I still stand by that Apple won't actually put USB-C on their devices. They'll either force them to charge wirelessly or design a new lightning hyper-charge capable cable that can do 101 watts.

Either of these will exempt them from the EU law and allow for proprietary charging methods (proprietary wireless charging protocol or the lightning 101W connector)

Edit: you're welcome to be mad about it, but like... read the text of the law then point out where I'm wrong and where Apple will happily give up their $4 per lightning connector royalty fee

1

DanielPhermous t1_irq37cu wrote

Charging is not the only issue, though. People need to get tremendously huge video files off their phones these days.

3

ERRORMONSTER t1_irq55gv wrote

As long as it doesn't charge by cable, then they can freely use a lightning cable to transfer files. That just makes the second option more likely.

Or honestly, gigabit is pretty standard now for wireless

2

DanielPhermous t1_irqabf9 wrote

Gigabit is pretty standard in the US, probably mostly among computer geeks like us. It is not standard everywhere in the world, nor among the non-computer savvy.

2

ERRORMONSTER t1_irr626i wrote

Same goes for USB-C, honestly. Gigabit is more accessible since it's been a standard for longer.

0

[deleted] t1_irqwyq1 wrote

>People need to get tremendously huge video files off their phones these days.

I don't know of anyone doing this manually anymore, it's all done through the cloud.

1

DanielPhermous t1_irqymxo wrote

It's a niche. People who take photos in HDR and video in 4K 60fps or whatever it goes up to. Anything short of a cable is just too damned slow.

But Apple has an iPhone Pro and this is a pro use, so we need the port to support it.

0

Barroux t1_irqimie wrote

Apple would still get their MFi program money if they switch to USB-C. Apple can't switch to another physical cable, it would need to be USB-C. USB-C is better anyway.

3

ERRORMONSTER t1_irr5tgm wrote

I agree that it's better. My point is not that lighting is good or better than usb-c but that Apple is greedy and will not take this lying down.

2

Obliterators t1_irqm677 wrote

>They'll either force them to charge wirelessly or design a new lightning hyper-charge capable cable that can do 101 watts.

>Either of these will exempt them from the EU law and allow for proprietary charging methods (proprietary wireless charging protocol or the lightning 101W connector)

>Edit: you're welcome to be mad about it, but like... read the text of the law then point out where I'm wrong and where Apple will happily give up their $4 per lightning connector royalty fee

Did you read the text? There is no 101W exemption in the directive.

>In so far as they are capable of being recharged by means of wired charging, —, shall: be equipped with the USB Type-C receptacle... > In so far as they are capable of being recharged by means of wired charging at voltages higher than 5 Volts, currents higher than 3 Amperes or powers higher than 15 Watts, —, shall: incorporate the USB Power Delivery...

The lawmakers acknowledge in the text that Type-C and USB PD have room to grow and that the newly updated USB PD already does 240W, that why they didn't write such exemptions.

1

ERRORMONSTER t1_irr657q wrote

That's true; I was getting the 100W limit from the press release but that's not actually in the text anywhere. I wonder why they would put it in the release then

2