> Of course lightning was better still but alas Apple wasn't going to share that with the world so we have USB C.
Apple was a major contributor to the Type C design, and learning from the limitations of lighting were reflected in its design.
Like you I really like the small profile of lightning, but the design of the Type C connector does have two important advantages thanks to its shell/shroud design:
1 - The "springy" piece that deforms is the cable not the receptacle. That means when the connection becomes flimsy this is more likely to be the replaceable cables (though some of the cables can be pricy, it's likely still cheaper than replacing the device)
2 - the shroud is ground and is longer than the pins, thus you have a ground connection before you get to any signal or power (like the longer ground pin in UK and Schuko connectors. This doesn't matter much for a USB2 cable but is a safety issue when you have 100W on the cable.
And back to Apple: much as lightning is good for them, it isn't really an instrument of MFI enforcement; they can enforce that just as well with type C. They already have type C iPads so I expect they'll gradually abandon lightning. The iPod 30-pin connector lasted about 9 years and lightning is 7 years old so this isn't unreasonable. And I believe it would make the EU happy.
> Perhaps the "benefit" you describe is only relevant because the proprietary Apple cable design is so poor?
No, the lightning connector's design is actually less prone to snapping than USB type c. Whether or not that it is an advantage is subjective, given that cables are inexpensive and the devices they're attached to generally are not.
In my opinion lightning is a vastly superior connector to USB-C. It's easier to insert and it's more robust and doesn't present issue if you do need to remove a snapped connector as was mentioned in the parent comment.
In an ideal world, Apple handed off the lightning connector off to the USB consortium and that turned into the type c connector. I don't know if there are physical limitations that would ultimately limit lightning, which has only ever gone as high as USB 3 speeds, but as far as using it on devices that I'm plugging and unplugging, it's much nicer.
As it is in the real world, it's a dead end and I am eagerly waiting to get rid of lightning so I can use one connector for all my portable devices.
> This is, after all, the company that developed the Lightening connector and sticks on its iPhones to it despite the whole industry shifting to USB-C.
There is a rumor that Apple developed USB-C and donated it to the USB-IF [1]. Apple was also one of the first users of USB-C when they introduced the 12" MacBook in 2015.
Since then they've continuously grown their adoption of USB-C, first in the MacBook Pro in 2016, then in the iMac and iMac Pro in 2017, the iPad Pro, MacBook Air and Mac Mini in 2018 and most recently in the Mac Pro in 2019. In fact nowadays the only Apple devices still not featuring USB-C are the iPhone and the (non-Pro) iPads.
There are probably good reasons why Apple hasn't replaced Lightning with USB-C for the iPhone and iPad yet. If they replace Lightning with USB-C now, the whole 3rd-party accessory ecosystem has to adapt to that. While that's probably fine, if the rumors are true that Apple plans to remove all physical ports from iPhones [2] next year, that would result in USB-C equipped iPhones/iPads only being sold for 2-3 years, before there is another interface again. So Apples thinking is probably that it's more customer friendly to stick to Lightning until they replace it with a wireless solution and I'd agree with such an assessment.
> What's Apple reasoning for not abandoning Lightning for USB-C on their phones?
I can think of 3 reasons:
1. A lightning port is slightly smaller than USB-c, so it enable Apple to keep their phone slimmer than the competition in theory.
2. Apple loves to be in control of everything. With lightning, they could make a switch to a "lightning 2.O" cable / port whenever they so pleased. With USB-C they would be restricted by the USB-IF.
3. They can sell more cable and licensing fees this way. With USB-C, everyone will be able to buy a better and cheaper cable than the Apple ones, and Apple won't receive even a cent from them.
> As for Lightning's expected lifespan, the format is estimated to be in use for the next five to ten years, almost identical to the now-defunct 30-pin standard.
Yes, it's nice that we finally have a supposedly universal plug, but we only recently got here. It may be that they simply don't think it's worth it yet to 'force' people to switch infrastructure yet. That the USB-C ecosystem is universal enough (though I'm sure them switching would push it forward).
> There's a long history of Apple using proprietary connectors to achieve performance specifications above what the currently available standardized connectors could provide.
Lightning was good when it came out (compared to the various micro-USB options), but it's not held up. Even Apple knows this and they've moved away from it on their iPads.
This has absolutely zero to do with the plug design of Lightning. There are crap cables for USB-A, USB-C, USB Micro, 3.5" audio, and any other standard you want to find that don't last.
> And that's not even considering how a little bit of dust can prevent your device from charging at all, and lightning ports are a complete dust magnet.
By what magic do you believe that lightning ports collect pocket lint that USB-C is immune to?
> But the best argument against "what about lightning?" is the fact that Apple themselves don't use it on their higher powered devices like macs, and use USB-C instead.
Nobody is making this point. They're saying the sheer existence of the Lightning plug lit a fire under the USB-IF to finish and greenlight USB-C. If Apple hadn't started producing Lightning devices, it's entirely possible we'd still be dealing with USB Micro.
That said, I'll happily die on the hill that the Lightning plug design is almost unilaterally superior to the USB-C plug design.
> I'm really surprised Apple don't do this just for user friendliness.
I can't stand proprietary connectors as much as the next person, but there's no denying that their Lightning connector is much much better than any USB. It's reversible for one (size and robustness aside).
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.
I disagree and think the USB-C connector is better designed.
Exposing electrical contacts to the environment like on the Lightning connector is bad for several reasons, including increased risk of static electricity damage and wear on the exposed electrical contacts. Apple has gone to great lengths to reduce or eliminate the static electricity risk by integrating a special IC into the cable. The contact wear issue has not been addressed by them. Many of the cables I have show signs of eroded contacts and I think that is the main reason why some cables of mine have failed.
The USB-C connector surrounds the contacts with a mechanical shield that protects them from fingers or anything else. This is a standard connector design that has been used on pretty much every connector. It is boring, but it works.
The Lightning is great engineering, but is ultimately let down by the radical design IMHO.
BTW, I am also an electrical engineer that has designed MFI accessories and uses iPhones.
The Lightning cables are a waste because they have one use only, on a few devices by a single manufacturer only. Type C is widely adopted, including by the same manufacturer that does Lightning. It's a no-brainer and thankfully finally someone had the guts to force Apple. We also have the EU to thank for the fact that non-Apple devices all use one or two standards ( micro usb or type c for newer ones) and not the bazillion others we had before.
Type C will not be the last cable we see, but even if it staves off a new standard for only 5 years, it will be massively effective at reducing cable waste. Again, maybe you don't see the benefits if you're fully-entrenched in Apple's ecosystem. As someone who only has one or two of their peripherals, Lightning is the worst part of their products. Even for people in the Apple ecosystem, switching from Lightning to USB-C likely wouldn't require any new cables - anyone who owns a recent Macbook or iPad likely already owns a USB-C cable, if not having the one from their Switch/headphones/game controller/DAC/monitor. Lightning is just another thing, and it's existence becomes increasingly annoying the further you exist from Apple's ecosystem. It only becomes infuriating when you realize that Apple's omission of USB-C is entirely arbitrary and not held up by technical limitation.
> I also learned the hard way that you can’t just pickup a USB-C cable and expect USB 3.1 or greater transfer rates.
Apple designed the Thunderbolt spec with their own two hands to ensure this isn't an issue. Increasing the upper bounds of transfer speed won't ruin the iPhone experience any more than it ruined the Macbook experience.
> More accurately, this is the hope.
The hope is that the world's largest companies would treat their consumers with a modicum of respect instead of telling me to buy my mom an iPhone or to buy another e-waste cable for an accessory I can barely justify using. Apple has always been on the forefront of technical adoption - their refusal to abandon Lightning is product negligence, plain and simple. It's so obvious that European legislators can see it without even being told the technical benefits. We're out of hope, our only recourse is literally taking Apple to court and fining them obscene amounts of money until they listen. This has started in Europe (where consumer protection is strong) but eventually America will start raising their eyebrows too. The defense for Apple's market position becomes weaker every day.
Lightning was both way better than the 30 pin connector, and better the micro or mini USB.
It’s pretty obvious (to me) that Apple was going to go USB C on the iPhone, but that they didn’t like the precedent of being told to do so ( they had already done it on the iPad).
It's somewhat the reverse, in a way. Apple, and other companies, clearly would benefit from a once and always connector that far exceeds the demands of whatever USB will need in the future...
... except Lightning is the production version of an early rejected Type C prototype. It was rejected because external facing pins are a common and well known fault point in connector designs.
Those external pins on Lightning plug tabs are the most common failure point of their cables.
Lightning has always been in this weird place, and it tracks that it'll likely end in a weird place.
- it was badly needed when it was introduced, because the 30-pin connector was massive and came with a bunch of trade-offs around water ingress
- the prevailing standard at the time, micro-USB, was both a poor user experience (directional connector without enough to distinguish up from down) and had reliability issues (the clips on the connector would wear with time), two issues Lightning solved several years before USB-C was available on the market
But since Apple took a bunch of blow-back from users on changing from the 30-pin connector ecosystem, they promised that Lightning would last at least a decade (whether that choice helped or hurt electronic waste, I'm not sure). So even though USB-C has been at a good point for consumer adoption for 3-4 years, Apple has drug their feet. I think they'll be switching to USB-C with the next phone redesign, regardless of what the EU may regulate, just because it's "good enough" relative to Lightning (my only issue is that the device side of USB-C has a "tongue" that can break off, while that task is on the more-easily-replaceable cable side for Lightning).
But they didn't keep their 30pin thing around for a long time. There was a huge number of people who got devices with that connector and got fd by Apple. The longer Apple waits with USB C the worse it will be. I have the feeling they want to get rid of the connecter all together but couldn't get it to work yet.
Lightning was a way to lock down who can make 3rd party devices. Apple doesn't care if you can connect something both ways. Look at what they did with mag safe, every one loved it, yet they canned it.
> perhaps does not because lightning's connector has preferable RF sensitivity profile
Given that literally every other smartphone on the market has a USB-C port, i'd say this is not the reason why Apple used a non-standard connector, failing (voluntarily) to comply with European interoperability laws/standards.
Counter-counterpoint: When Apple introduced the Lightning connector in 2012, they described it as their connector "for the next decade".[0] Their switch from Lightning to USB-C on the iPhone came just over ten years after that announcement. Perhaps it was EU regulation, or perhaps it was Apple wanting to make good on a ten-year-old promise of connector continuity.
I'm honestly annoyed by this, Lightning is a strictly better connector from a mechanical perspective, and that affects my life 100x more than any theoretical speed improvements
The latching mechanism is simpler, more robust gives better tactile feedback to confirm connection, the port itself lends itself to easier cleaning...
I'm almost certain Apple is moving to USB C not to appease the totally toothless EU, but because it's just gotten cheaper for them at this point. They're making the phone worse to save money.
Apple was a major contributor to the Type C design, and learning from the limitations of lighting were reflected in its design.
Like you I really like the small profile of lightning, but the design of the Type C connector does have two important advantages thanks to its shell/shroud design:
1 - The "springy" piece that deforms is the cable not the receptacle. That means when the connection becomes flimsy this is more likely to be the replaceable cables (though some of the cables can be pricy, it's likely still cheaper than replacing the device)
2 - the shroud is ground and is longer than the pins, thus you have a ground connection before you get to any signal or power (like the longer ground pin in UK and Schuko connectors. This doesn't matter much for a USB2 cable but is a safety issue when you have 100W on the cable.
And back to Apple: much as lightning is good for them, it isn't really an instrument of MFI enforcement; they can enforce that just as well with type C. They already have type C iPads so I expect they'll gradually abandon lightning. The iPod 30-pin connector lasted about 9 years and lightning is 7 years old so this isn't unreasonable. And I believe it would make the EU happy.
reply