Hacker News Reader

Comment by dwighttk | Hacker News Reader

There isn't much need these days to plug a phone into a Mac. If you need or want to, there are lightning to USB-C cables.

I would be surprised to see them switch anytime in the next few years. I would be less surprised if they removed lightning altogether from a new phone than if they switched from lightning to usb.

View on HN

But if you want to quick charge your iPhone X (or 8) you need USB-C. The included USB-A to Lightning cable won't do it (neither will the 5W power brick included with the iPhone X).

You'd need a lightning to USB-C cables and a USB-C PD power brick, neither are very cheap. Apple's USB-C cables start at $19 and the charger at $49!

Apple has a history of expensive accessories and cables, so it's nothing new

I've purchased a large number of USB-C cables, and the Apple one is the only one that seems to charge a macbook pro at full-speed (87watts). All the others (Anker, Amazon Basics, a few others) only charge at 30w or 60w which can leave your computer out of battery after a full day of use even when plugged in if you're doing compute-heavy things. Not saying the $19 price-tag is "fair," but at least it's a high-quality cable.

"High quality" in this case probably means that the microcontroller embedded it spits out the right sequence of bytes to make the laptop enable full-speed charging.

Surprisingly, no.

Google around for tear-downs of Apple charging gear. They usually have comparisons with tear-downs of the generic "equivalents."

It's fascinating how different the engineering is from one brand to another, and the (sometimes terrifying) shortcuts the non-Apple chargers take.

Aren’t we talking about the cables here ? I’d be curious to know what in the Apple cable is so high quality that it allows it faster speed than the other decent brands.

Otherwise my Google-fu is failing me on the USB-C charger teardown, do you remember where you saw one ?

Aren’t these actually Thunderbolt 3 cables?

No, the charging cables aren’t. They’re even only USB2 speeds for data IIRC.

Sufficiently low resistance wire; in particular, USB power over 60W needs >3A current, so a high-gauge high-resistance wire can cause voltage to drop below the minimum specs.

Since everything 60W and below uses a max of 3A, that’s the common maximum design target.

This basic anker cable seems to fit the bill:

https://www.anker.com/products/variant/powerline-3ft-usb-c-t...

it might have been rarer when the macbook pro got out, at this point I think it’s decently common.

"This cable will not charge Nexus 5X, Moto Z, OnePlus 3/3T, Huawei Mate 9, Helio X20/X25, or MacBook Pro 87W at full speed."

Guess I'm still going to Apple.

good point, I read too fast

The USB-PD spec requires active cables in order to support over 3A, which is 60W @ 20V. Any cable supporting over 60W will most likely specifically advertise itself as either a 5A or 100W cable.

This doesn't require a change of port on the phone, just a purchase of a different cable.

It's nearly as fast to just use a higher wattage charger like they ship with iPads or any number of third parties. I haven't used an iPhone charger in years.

A critical morsel of information missing here is that iPhones charge pretty quick using 12W/2.1A USB-A chargers, to the point where I’m not inclined to move to USB-C for only a few % gain in speed. Yes, it’s super slow using the included 5W charger, so I haven’t used one of those since 2013 or thereabouts, it stays in the box until resale time.

Totally agree, iPad charger ftw. My favorite (if such a thing can be said about usb charging bricks) is that it uses the same detachable power prongs as a Mac charger. So I’ve got a Mac extension cable plugged into an iPad charger and voila, extended charging cable without a usb extension killing charging speeds due to voltage drops.

The good thing is that the USB-C ecosystem is open and a wide variety of known, vetted OEMs have stepped up to serve it.

USB-C to Lightning cables are still expensive because Apple hasn't opened the connector up for MFi certification yet, but Monoprice will happily sell you a USB-C brick with upto 40W output for $15:

https://www.monoprice.com/product?c_id=116&cp_id=10851&cs_id...

I expect high powered chargers and battery packs to become more common as recently full system chips for handling USB-C PD have been released which support up to the 100W via various means. That makes it much easier to build them rather than having to rely on your own fab or reusing USB2.0 chips with some hacks.

> There isn't much need these days to plug a phone into a Mac.

Actually, I plug my phone into my MacBook for two reasons: (1) to charge it when there’s no outlet nearby and (2) to have less interference when I use it as a hotspot and to charge it at the same time.

That would be an even better reason for Apple to switch to USB C on both ends.

Some good reasons for plugging in are:

Transferring photos off the device (image capture)

Backing up to encrypted iTunes (AFAIK the only way to fully back up everything including wifi passwords and health data)

iOS development in xcode

Charging

USB tethering instead of wifi tethering

Pushing mp3 files on to the device via iTunes

iOS development and USB tethering are the only two that require plugging in. Everything else is available wirelessly (and tethering is too.)

You can debug iOS (and tvOS, since Apple TV 4K doesn’t have a USB port) apps wirelessly now.

It’s a bit laggy and buggy, though. For now hardwired debugging is more reliable.

I have tried and given up, it does not work very well at all.

Web development, too.

If you plug an iOS device into a Mac running Safari, you can do extra special things.

-> Backing up to encrypted iTunes (AFAIK the only way to fully back up everything including wifi passwords and health data)

Nope, iCloud backup or WiFi iTunes backup can do this as well

But if you also have a ton of photos and videos in your camera roll and want to preserve those, a local iTunes backup is the only way to do that without paying for extra iCloud storage. Some people are also reluctant to store backups in the cloud in general for valid security concerns. WiFi iTunes backup has never worked properly for me even on 802.11ac, timing out and failing to complete more often than it works.

Unless you're an iOS/macOS dev -- and nearly all iOS/Mac apps are developed on Macs -- a small minority come from hackintoshes. The simulator just doesn't cut it for many apps. e.g. the camera function can't really be tested in the simulator.

Apparently you can debug ios and tvos wirelessly now.

Wireless app deployment/debugging's an option now-- sometime in the last Xcode version or two (not sure exactly when, I haven't been paying as close attention to that as I used to).

For iPhone and iPad, you still have to connect with a cable at least once to establish the connection, but the infrastructure's there to go completely wireless-- the app development workflow for Apple TV and for the watch is fully wireless (no ports to connect to on either).

Good point. I wasn't aware of this - but as you concede it's necessary to connect at least once but this is progress in the right direction.

Perhaps charging is necessary to plug iPhone in to Mac. Apparently if you plug in to the mains it will wear the battery quicker.

File transfers are outstandingly simple and fast with Airdrop, everything is synced on the cloud, there's screen recording on the phone itself and there's wireless charging.

I wonder why they even keep around that port. Couldn't they create a wireless USB dongle that simulates a wired connection for the situations that "must-have-USB-connection", like Carplay over the USB only or legacy accessories?

Then make a wireless charging cable with magnets(like with the Watch) so that you can charge when using the phone.

I am sure that there would be engineering challenges but Is there a valid reason to have to keep that port around any longer?

My 2018 Toyota Sienna requires the phone to be plugged in to the USB port on the vehicle while using Bluetooth in order to provide moving map functionality through the Scout GPS app.

Not sure if this is something Toyota could fix with Bluetooth or if they'd need to move to WiFi or something else... just tossing this out as one of the ways I use the port daily on my phone in my car.

That's why I suggested a USB dongle that you plug into your car and that dongle connects to the iPhone wirelessly but your car thinks that it's a regular USB connection.

That's actually something that I always dreamed of :) Wireless USB.

Which seems to be a real thing anyway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_USB

I always thought of Bluetooth as a form of wireless USB. It’s specifically designed to connect devices in close vicinity.

True, but modern Bluetooth is just a hacked together transfer solution that was originally intended to replace IR for office gear. I personally can’t wait until it dies. To be fair, for a lot of things, yes it’s kinda like wireless USB, for when you really look at the protocol and transfer capabilities they’re nothing alike.

As a 2018 Corolla user, it’s because Toyota’s software is just absolute garbage. I’m so glad they moved to CarPlay on the next models.

This is what I've been saying. I don't want 4 USB-C ports and a headphone jack. I want none.

I get that they might be needed for external displays or maybe for spectrum cramped offices, but what I need more than anything is more battery. I want a MBP that can actually last a 10 hour work day.

I think it may be a while before macs are charged wirelessly.

I want a power source that is wired, but I don't want / need USB-C. USB is too insecure.

Serious question, what’s your proposed alternative for a local secure data transfer/accessory connection, and how is requiring a physical connection less secure than wireless?

A power-only wired cable is more secure than a data+power wired cable.

That wasn’t the question? But thanks

Laptops are nearly at the limit for what can be brought on a plane, capacity-wise. I don’t think you’ll see that take a leap forward until laws change or batteries get much safer/more energy dense.

I might be wrong about this but last I checked new MBPs don't even have half of the maximum capacity that can be brought on a plane, because thinness curse.

Edit: checked, and this was true for the 2016/17 models. The 2018 models have 58Wh (13") and 83Wh (15") in the most expensive configuration. 2016/17 models have 49Wh and 76Wh respectively. The non-touchbar ones have 54Wh, even in the 2018 models. You can take up to 100Wh on an airplane, not counting spares. So every MBP model currently available has significantly less than the maximum allowed capacity.

So per your own data the capacities have increased year on year and are within 15% of max... pleaSe show me a laptop with a 100Wh battery that isn’t strictly because it’s a power-guzzling beast.

> File transfers are outstandingly simple and fast with Airdrop

I've run into constant problems with AirDrop. On my older MacBook Pro running 10.9 it's often visibility related. On the newer equipment problems manifest themselves as transfers that refuse to start or refuse to prompt the recipient to allow the download. Debugging it often requires rebooting the machine. And, yes, it's slower than GigE.

I find AirDrop reliability to vary wildly from machine to machine. Some devices I have it's rock solid. Others — even a brand new MacBook Pro that came in last week — can't use it at all.

I love AirDrop when it works. But it's a real disappointment when you get used to using it and suddenly it's not there.

A wireless transfer is slower than GigE? Do tell.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com