Hacker News Reader

Comment by krinchan | Hacker News Reader

Actually it isn't precisely Apple's fault. It's the USB-IFs fault.

USB 3.1 in general is a mess. The spec allows for Alternate Modes, where the port is hardwired on the Motherboard to be able to be switched to deliver DisplayPort, HDMI, MHL, Thunderbolt, and damn near anything else you can figure out how to mux over the port's pins and cheaply demux on the other end of the cable. The best part is no one will actually list what Alternate Modes their laptop or motherboard supports. So if I want a laptop that supports, DisplayPort Alternate Mode with dual monitors, I'm opening support tickets with manufacturers asking "Does your USB-C port run this?"

Apple and Intel simply followed along what with what was already a mess.

View on HN

Apple is lauded for making confusing technology simple. It's not Apple's fault, it's Apple's missed opportunity and it's our high expectations of Apple that are being eroded.

This! Thing is that situation with ports and adapters has never been worse, but Apple came there, wanted to be first again that will pull the plug on old technology and embrace the new one! But their execution was a miss. But anyway, my predictions are that from 2017. every Apple machine, wether it's computer or iPhone or iPad, will go down the USB-C route. Most probably next iPhone would use USB-C. And I just hope 2016. will be the year that was bad, and won't happen again. Since some Apple's small decisions were completely off, and we as costumers (or fans), are not used to it.

> Apple came there, wanted to be first again

Interesting point. Got me thinking about how the iPod was not the first MP3 player, and how the iPhone was not the first smartphone. I believe the philosophy was "don't be the first; be the first to get it right."

It's a little disappointing that they haven't been so magical lately.

It is, but you know, magic couldn't last forever, and we all knew it, since Jobds left us. It was just the matter of year. But I believe that these new MBP will be amazing and beautiful machines in next iteration. Some bad decision and bad timing led to disappointments but as long as they learn something from it, it's all good.

Apple has never gone with an open standard when a proprietary closed standard would do.

More likely than using any sort of standard port would be Apple inventing yet another new proprietary port.

Apple has never gone with an open standard when a proprietary closed standard would do.

False. USB 1.

Yup. Or...y'know...FireWire. Also known as IEEE 1394.

I remember overhearing a Best Buy employee describe the FireWire port on the back of an iMac as a Sony proprietary camera connector. Not sure why I didn't correct him.

Apple rarely goes proprietary with their ports. The original 30-pin iPod port. Lightning. ADB in the mists of time.

All of which were I believe better than what was available.

MagSafe 1 and 2.

They are better, but we also have a situation where the only port on an Apple device is proprietary with the latest iPhone.

Lightning was better-ish, but we also knew USB-C was on the horizon. I don't think that one is defensible.

Lightning came out in September 2012 [1]. USB-C was ratified in August 2014 [2].

If we put the iPhone 6S model aside (because the -S models generally do not adopt a significant change in features), the only model released since USB-C is the iPhone 7.

Given the short lifecycle of phones, adopting lightning rather than postponing until USB-C has given several generations of phones with a superior connection.

Should the iPhone 7 have adopted USB-C instead of lightning? Perhaps, but USB-C support isn't exactly widespread (and it might in fact be Apple which ends up pushing USB-C support to the point of widespread adoption).

Is the lightning connection superior to USB-C?

Well, it's size is smaller: 6.7mm x 1.5mm (vs 8.4mm x 2.6mm for USB-C); a 42% reduction in height, and a 20% reduction in width.

For devices like mobile phones, I can see how the size of connector can be more important than bandwidth or compatibility. I'd like lightning to be a standard, but it's definitely an improvement over micro-USB, and in terms of size, it's better than USB-C.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_(connector)

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_Type-C

USB-C was on the horizon, but it was still years away when Lightning came out. I really think that Lightning forced the USB-IF's hand a bit and made sure that USB-C was a reality. Without a working example of how a reversible connection worked in the field, the USB-IF might still be waiting to push out USB-C.

Judging from the fact that people on this page are complaining about USB-C cables/adapters not working, and the non-compliant USB-C cable fiasco (e.g. OnePlus), I'd say it isn't that clear. For better or worse, you know exactly what you'll be getting with Lightning. The Lightning connectors are also mechanically very robust.

Of course, the one huge flaw is that now their phones and laptops use different connectors.

If my memory serves, lightning was introduced in late 2012 with the iPhone 5. I'm not sure we can really say that lightning was "on the horizon" that long ago. I would say lightning was "on the horizon" in late 2014, when in early 2015 we saw USB-C come to notable devices such as the Chromebook Pixel and 12" MacBook.

I'm pretty sure if you stick to apple hardware, things just work. So in a sense their technology is simple for those who stay in the ecosystem.

But don't dare buy a low-cost adapter from eBay or be damned for 10 generation.

So yeah it's a closed environment but is it so far worst than the jungle outside?

Yup. And they could have started by shipping a more compatible USB-C cable, instead of shipping a USB 2.0 one.

Well, it is partly Apple's fault in that they chose to go completely type c only, and that they chose not to provide the right sets of clearly marked and explained adapters that would be guaranteed to work with their hardware.

The whole ongoing Thunderbolt display fiasco where there are two different kinds of adapter from USB-C to mini-DisplayPort, each of which supports a non-overlapping set of monitors, is almost entirely Apple's fault though. They were the ones who decided to push Thunderbolt monitors using the mini-DP connectors, then chose to make and sell an adapter that didn't support actual DisplayPort.

So the alternate modes are required for proper operation? Or will it fall back to a standard mode and still work?

That's not how alternate modes work -- there isn't really a "standard" mode. When you plug in a Type C cable the two devices negotiate (via a combination of passives and some active negotiation) what protocols you want to use. Yes protocols with an "s." Power and, say USB 3.1 v2, or power and TB3 or HDMI or whatever.

Among the problems is you can have a cable that can't support a particular alternate modes, or can't support adequate power. The USB-IF hasn't defined a set of standard icons (not that there's much room for them -- they'd be microscopic).

Also the MacBook Retina has USB 3.1 v1 so supports just ordinary USB 3.0 & HDMI. The MacBook Pro supports several more alternate modes.

At least to Apple's credit, AFAICT all four USB ports are identical. Even that isn't required by the spec.

I read that the 2 ports on the left and right are actually slightly different. I don't recall exactly what it was but I think it was something about Thunderbolt 3 because of a lack of sufficient PCI-E lanes for all four ports.

Official Apple comment:

  The two right-hand ports deliver Thunderbolt 3 functionality, but have reduced PCI Express bandwidth [1]

The full Thunderbolt 3 speed is 40MBPs (use the left-side ports to achieve that).

I can't find any official document which clearly states the speed of the reduced-functionality ports, but Apple also state this:

  All late-2016 MacBook Pro models deliver USB 3.1 Gen 2 (10 Gbps) performance on all Thunderbolt 3 ports [1]

So there may be a 4x speed differential, depending which port you plug into.

[1] https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT207256

Interesting. Sounds like they prioritized standardizing the connector but not the rest of the details.

Perhaps in the scope of large scale manufacturing, having multiple (redundant) connector styles is a low hanging fruit for cost reduction.

But it seems that there would be increased user confusion and technical support required. Very strange.

  > "they prioritized standardizing the connector but not the rest of the details"

In this case, "they" are the "USB Implementors Forum (USB-IF)" [1], rather than Apple. It's the USB-IF who agreed the standardisation of spec, but permitted the potential for "alternative mode".

Apple might have taken advantage of it, but it's the USB-IF who decided to make the standard rather more variable.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_Implementers_Forum

Reply on news.ycombinator.com