Why wouldn’t we? I’ve got 300, 400GB of music from my beloved private trackers (RIP WCD) but I choose iOS because of the privacy policy, longevity, and I don’t wanna have to fuck around with custom OSes to not give all my data to Google.
My shit’s loaded up with music, and I’m hoping the next gen has 2TB models.
It doesn’t NEED more than that honestly. We’re not transferring massive music libraries to our mobile devices any more.
Who’s we? Did you survey every single iPhone user? I hate it when people act like they’re the authority on any subject they are obviously clueless about.
Wtf are you talking about? The spec has a section specifically for wiring a USB 2.0 cable. Apple is one of the companies who wrote the USB spec and I’d find it pretty hard to believe they’d go against their own spec.
You must have replied to the wrong person because I’m not arguing the pixel doesn’t have 3.2. I’m saying the USB-C spec does allow for USB 2.0. The commenter I replied to is stating absolutely wrong information.
The designation C refers only to the connector’s physical configuration or form factor and should not be confused with the connector’s specific capabilities, which are designated by its transfer specifications (such as USB 3.2).
Could you elaborate? Because I’m like… 90% you’re wrong. Oc is correct. The “c” in type c referred to the connector. Just like micro-b mini-b usb A,etc. USB 3 is the speed standard. As well as 3.1 (or 3.2 gen 1 it’s called now or some other silliness), 3.2 gen 2, etc.
There are usb C cables that can do video, audio, some that have thunderbolt speeds. There are also usb c cables that only support usb 2.0. So if you can elaborate on why you believe otherwise, id appreciate it. the usb consortium has ridiculous conventions and I’m no hardware specialist. My knowledge on these is from USB consortiums training when I was a salesman.
Technically, they are. Type C is just port shape. Protocol version is a different matter, however newer versions are backwards compatible. What they are doing is not restricting functionality but to unlock fastest charging speed you have to buy approved cables. It’s sort of a gray area but luckily EU already caught them planning to do this, so work to change it is already underway.
The port on the phonePro model supports transfer speeds up to 20 or 40 gbps, it’s just the supplied charging cable that is limited to USB 2.0 speeds. If you use a thunderbolt cable you will get full speed and a full feature set.
Edit: Seems like I was wrong; only the Pro models get full speed. That’s kinda shitty, yeah. Unfortunately still in spec, as the mandate is only for the form factor, not the protocol.
I’m honestly not sure that I agree. Full speed USB 3.2/Thunderbolt cables are expensive, and 99.9 % of users will only ever use the supplied cable for charging. The ones who want to do cable transfers at high speed will probably already have the cable they need.
Limiting the speed of the *port * of the non-Pro models is worse, but likely also a cost-cutting decision that will have little impact on the vast majority of users.
It would be interesting to know how many of the competitors’ phones offer high speed data transfer through the USB port (I honestly don’t know, but would like to).
You’re likely not aware of all the facts. See, they’re required to put the USB C port in because Apple has been getting away with bullshit for decades that needs to stop. There’s zero reason for all the proprietary shit they force users to use that ends up creating millions of tons of plastic waste. So they decided to be extra massive cunts and are putting BOTH options on the phone instead of just using the one that every other phone does just fine with, creating a TON of plastic waste, and then, the kicker, forcing you to buy both cords anyhow if you want things to be fast.
Apple gets shit because they had a proprietary connector when everyone stated using mini/micro usb.
They then upgraded their proprietary connector to one that was MUCH better than the mini/micro connectors.
Now the usb-c connector is king and apple looks bad for not having the “better” connector this time.
But they aren’t forcing anyone to a NEW proprietary connector, just the one they have been using for like a decade now …
Standardizing on a GOOD connector will be nice, but it’s not like apples proprietary connector wasn’t BETTER for a long time.
Most folks don’t follow the timeline, yes apple is using a proprietary connector but it’s older than the new connector that was being used. They didn’t force you into a shittier product back then.
FYI it was newer by 2 years. I don’t think anyone is complaining about the performance of lightning over USB C, its that people want things to be standardized like everything non-apple is. Apple could have contributed to the USB C research and made a better cable that’s available to everyone, like IBM with the original USB or Phillips with HDMI.
This, Apple is shitty for not advancing a standard. Can you imagine if every appliance came with some proprietary cable so you would be incentivized to stay with one brand to minimize hassle. We’d never stand for that, but for some reason we as consumers didn’t demand standardization in this realm. It’s a fast moving industry to be sure, but I don’t really see how that precludes standardization and that is evidenced by all the non Apple equipment that has settled on USB.
What are you talking about? Lightning is older than USB-c, and iPhone has had 2 connectors (30pin, Lightning) during the time where all other phones had at least three (Mini B, Micro B, C)
No? A non-iPhone user has had to replace more cables during the same time span, and that’s not even counting the proprietary cables that existed on phones in the 2007-2009 era. Thunderbolt cables are expensive, even at Monoprice they are 3-4x the cost of a USB 2.0 cable that the vast majority will never need anything better.
Many phones use USB-C with USB 2.0, or at least they used to very recently. The Samsung Galaxy S series had USB 3.0 micro B on the S5 and devolved into USB 2.0 with a USB-C connector.
Then they’re not standards compliant and they can’t claim to have usb-c on their phones. I wonder how that will work out for them?
USB-C is the physical form. Does it actually dictate USB3?
No. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB-C?wprov=sfla1
deleted by creator
Speak for yourself, there are still many who refuse to use subscription services for music and still store it on their phones
Plex, baby! My server, my music, my streaming.
deleted by creator
thats right, they use iPods… why wouldn’t they use an iphone?
I have a few hundred gb of music on my iPhone, I just transferred it over Wi-Fi lol
Why wouldn’t we? I’ve got 300, 400GB of music from my beloved private trackers (RIP WCD) but I choose iOS because of the privacy policy, longevity, and I don’t wanna have to fuck around with custom OSes to not give all my data to Google.
My shit’s loaded up with music, and I’m hoping the next gen has 2TB models.
Lol, I’m sorry but this is just you thinking everyone is like you. Millions of people use their phones very differently.
Only the Pixel 3a. Even the Pixel 1 supported USB3.0 speeds…
Who’s we? Did you survey every single iPhone user? I hate it when people act like they’re the authority on any subject they are obviously clueless about.
This is absolutely wrong. The spec mandates that USB-C ports provides at least USB 3.1 support. Also USB-C is mandated for USB 3.1.
So to be compliant every USB-C port must support USB 3.1 at least. And you cannot support USB 3.1 with anything other than a USB-C port.
Wtf are you talking about? The spec has a section specifically for wiring a USB 2.0 cable. Apple is one of the companies who wrote the USB spec and I’d find it pretty hard to believe they’d go against their own spec.
All I can tell you is that the Pixel 7 has USB 3.2 spec.
Someone else in the thread said that the Pixel 2 (2017) also abides by USB 3.1 spec. I looked it up, apparently they weren’t lying.
Though the Google site does say:
https://support.google.com/pixelphone/answer/7106961?hl=en
Not sure if it still only accepts USB-C 2.0 cables as it’s maximum?
You must have replied to the wrong person because I’m not arguing the pixel doesn’t have 3.2. I’m saying the USB-C spec does allow for USB 2.0. The commenter I replied to is stating absolutely wrong information.
Ah my apologies
Section 2.2? https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/USB Type-C Spec R2.0 - August 2019.pdf
deleted by creator
Is what your comment did.
The connector is a usb-c connector. That is not the standard, just the connector type friend
deleted by creator
Literally the second sentence in your own source:
Ok. Since we’re circumcising a mosquito here.
The type c designation only refers to the form factor.
That’s all.
Type c does not refer to its capabilities.
I am willing to bet you’ll find that information very early in what you linked me.
He’s right though?
USB-C does NOT in any way specify capabilities or transfer specifications. It only specifies the form factor of the plug.
The plug can be used for any number of things from USB2.0 or ThunderBolt4, to power transfer, hells, even things like analog audio can use the plug.
Could you elaborate? Because I’m like… 90% you’re wrong. Oc is correct. The “c” in type c referred to the connector. Just like micro-b mini-b usb A,etc. USB 3 is the speed standard. As well as 3.1 (or 3.2 gen 1 it’s called now or some other silliness), 3.2 gen 2, etc.
There are usb C cables that can do video, audio, some that have thunderbolt speeds. There are also usb c cables that only support usb 2.0. So if you can elaborate on why you believe otherwise, id appreciate it. the usb consortium has ridiculous conventions and I’m no hardware specialist. My knowledge on these is from USB consortiums training when I was a salesman.
Technically, they are. Type C is just port shape. Protocol version is a different matter, however newer versions are backwards compatible. What they are doing is not restricting functionality but to unlock fastest charging speed you have to buy approved cables. It’s sort of a gray area but luckily EU already caught them planning to do this, so work to change it is already underway.
The port on the phone Pro model supports transfer speeds up to 20 or 40 gbps, it’s just the supplied charging cable that is limited to USB 2.0 speeds. If you use a thunderbolt cable you will get full speed and a full feature set.
Edit: Seems like I was wrong; only the Pro models get full speed. That’s kinda shitty, yeah. Unfortunately still in spec, as the mandate is only for the form factor, not the protocol.
That’s not what the article says.
But that’s just stupid.
I’m honestly not sure that I agree. Full speed USB 3.2/Thunderbolt cables are expensive, and 99.9 % of users will only ever use the supplied cable for charging. The ones who want to do cable transfers at high speed will probably already have the cable they need.
Limiting the speed of the *port * of the non-Pro models is worse, but likely also a cost-cutting decision that will have little impact on the vast majority of users.
It would be interesting to know how many of the competitors’ phones offer high speed data transfer through the USB port (I honestly don’t know, but would like to).
Right but USB 3.1 is a commodity now and most android phones support it. It doesn’t need to be 20/40gbps. Even 5gbps would be decent for most people.
Boo this man. How would limiting the speed of the port affect cost at all?
It’s probably not an arbitrary explicit limitation just for the sake of it, they’re likely using a cheaper component for the port.
Because they can continue to use the old controller, just wired a little differently
You’re likely not aware of all the facts. See, they’re required to put the USB C port in because Apple has been getting away with bullshit for decades that needs to stop. There’s zero reason for all the proprietary shit they force users to use that ends up creating millions of tons of plastic waste. So they decided to be extra massive cunts and are putting BOTH options on the phone instead of just using the one that every other phone does just fine with, creating a TON of plastic waste, and then, the kicker, forcing you to buy both cords anyhow if you want things to be fast.
Getting away with it? You know lightning came out like 4 years before USB-C, right?
Apple gets shit because they had a proprietary connector when everyone stated using mini/micro usb.
They then upgraded their proprietary connector to one that was MUCH better than the mini/micro connectors.
Now the usb-c connector is king and apple looks bad for not having the “better” connector this time.
But they aren’t forcing anyone to a NEW proprietary connector, just the one they have been using for like a decade now …
Standardizing on a GOOD connector will be nice, but it’s not like apples proprietary connector wasn’t BETTER for a long time.
Most folks don’t follow the timeline, yes apple is using a proprietary connector but it’s older than the new connector that was being used. They didn’t force you into a shittier product back then.
FYI it was newer by 2 years. I don’t think anyone is complaining about the performance of lightning over USB C, its that people want things to be standardized like everything non-apple is. Apple could have contributed to the USB C research and made a better cable that’s available to everyone, like IBM with the original USB or Phillips with HDMI.
iPhones for the lightning port in 2012 and I think the first usb c android was 2015ish
My point is that 11 years later people act as if this lightning port was thrust upon them RATHER than getting usb c.
They’ve been using the same connector for more than a decade now, that’s all.
Your points about apple opting to go their own route is salient and stands and I agree whole heartedly.
Apple did contribute to USB C during development.
This, Apple is shitty for not advancing a standard. Can you imagine if every appliance came with some proprietary cable so you would be incentivized to stay with one brand to minimize hassle. We’d never stand for that, but for some reason we as consumers didn’t demand standardization in this realm. It’s a fast moving industry to be sure, but I don’t really see how that precludes standardization and that is evidenced by all the non Apple equipment that has settled on USB.
Irrelevant. It was always an issue, with everything they do.
What are you talking about? Lightning is older than USB-c, and iPhone has had 2 connectors (30pin, Lightning) during the time where all other phones had at least three (Mini B, Micro B, C)
Proving my point to?
No? A non-iPhone user has had to replace more cables during the same time span, and that’s not even counting the proprietary cables that existed on phones in the 2007-2009 era. Thunderbolt cables are expensive, even at Monoprice they are 3-4x the cost of a USB 2.0 cable that the vast majority will never need anything better.
While we haven’t yet seen the new phones, this is extremely unlikely. Since when does Apple have the reputation of adding ports?
I had read somewhere that they’re just continuing to use an older controller to save a few Pennie’s and reduce architectural changes
I’m only going off what this guy is guessing, but I don’t think they would do that either.
USB-c has absolutely nothing to do with speed. It’s solely the port shape.
Most USB-c cables today are usb2.0
Many phones use USB-C with USB 2.0, or at least they used to very recently. The Samsung Galaxy S series had USB 3.0 micro B on the S5 and devolved into USB 2.0 with a USB-C connector.
That’s not true. The standard is just the port, not what the port can do.