Hacker News Reader

Comment by maeln | Hacker News Reader

> 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.

View on HN

> 1. A lightning port is slightly smaller than USB-c, so it enable Apple to keep their phone slimmer than the competition in theory.

In theory sure but in practice there are thinner Android phones with USB-C connectors than any iPhone. Basically these days the thickness is purely about how good camera you want and how much battery. The usb/lightning plug is not really an issue.

For the record the thinnest iPhone is iPhone 5 at 7.6 mm and thinnest Android is Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite at 6.8mm

Also from a purely user experience point of view making the phones thinner then they mostly are now does not add anything instead just makes the experience worse as the phone will feel worse when hold (if the other dimensions and weight stay the same)

I completely agree and I really doubt that it is the real reason, but it is something that Apple might still consider.

Those are all reasonable arguments, but the argument I most believe reflects Apple's internal thinking is pretty much just "everyone already has lightning at this point, switching to USBC would make headlines in a bad way, generate a ton of lightning e-waste, and Qi is so close to wide adoption that maybe we can just jump USBC for these small devices which don't need 30watt+ of power".

The argument that its a physically smaller port feels like an "Apple circa-2016" argument, not an "Apple circa-2021" argument. They just made the iPhone 13 0.25mm thicker to fit a bigger battery (among other things); I think they've moved past the "thinner at any cost" argument (though I do believe that was an argument for lightning at one time).

"Control" is a tenuous given they've thrown USBC/Thunderbolt on everything except the iPhone. They already have a massive voice inside the USB-IF; switching the iPhone to USBC would only increase their strength among the USB community. And sure, they'd still have to be standards compliant, but I really don't think "lightning 2.0" is ever coming, period. I think they have the hard metrics to prove that 0.1% of iPhone users ever use that port for anything except charging.

And selling more cables is also tenuous. They'll sell USB-C cables anyway; I just paid them $30 or whatever for one for my laptop charger, because the two offbrand ones Best Buy sold me couldn't carry 85 watts.

The best argument I've ever heard for lightning is actually: Physically, its a MUCH sturdier connector. Just look at the inside of a USBC female port, versus lightning. There's just less stuff; USBC has a big tooth that sticks out, whereas lightning is just contacts along the outside. Lightning connectors, and cables, are much simpler, and thus less likely to experience damage over time.

So, yeah; I think they want to skip USBC and go right to Qi, basically seal up the entire outside of the phone. And I can't say I disagree; my iPhone only ever charges over Qi. But, maybe its worthwhile to just make them keep USBC around, if for no other reason than e-waste.

Lighting still has a "tooth" (actually two) on the socket side. The choice of keeping the teeth in the connector for USB-C is intentional, the idea is for the wear to be in the connector and not the device.

You also don't need a 30$ cable for 90W, any cable that is rated for 5 amps will do the job.

> wear to be in the connector and not the device.

I think this was a typo and you meant to say “cable connector (plug), not device connector (socket)”.

It’s a good design and specifically designed to avoid a USB mini A design botch in which the device side would wear out before the cable side did.

FWIW Apple is a USB member and participated in the USB-C design, including learning from lightning (which was comtemporaneously secretly under way). This is like Intel and IEEE-754

They use USB-C everywhere else, including their iPads. If it was about control, why did they abandon lightning for their iPad line, or FireWire for their computer lines?

To me, this smells like internal turf protection or politics.

I think most iPhones on offer are a fair bit thicker than their Android counterparts. Specifically, most Google Pixel and Samsung Galaxy phones are smaller than all but the Mini iPhones.

Also, Apple's own USB-C equipped iPads are slimmer than any of their phones.

Besides, what's the point of a thinner phone when you got a huge bump for the camera's. Rather it be a bit thicker so that there is more room for battery.

I personally really wish for a flag ship phone like the Galaxy S21 Ultra that doesn't have such a huge camera array.

That and the more fragile the device, the bigger the case you (should) have anyway.

I’m always amused at people who upgrade to the latest phone regularly and then keep it in a bulky case. Around iPhone 5, I switched to buying 1-year old used phones about every 2-3 years and enjoying them without a case.

Only non-minor damage I’ve suffered is I broke the volume down button (the spring behind it, really) on my Xs Max. Minor scratches I don’t care about. I’m pretty amazed at how durable the phones actually are and, if I break one now, it’s probably an $85 screen and an hour of my time or worst case a $400-600 replacement phone.

Cases are overrated. Sure, they may protect from some scratches, but they don't protect agains fall as much as people think, and I think they induce falls by making large phones even more difficult to hold. I bought a IPhone 12 pro max six months ago, never used a case, still looks like new.

I used a cheap silicone case because of the glass (iPhone 8). Without it, the phone just slide on almost anything.

The bump looks so bad haha. I've never found anyone that agrees

Yeah I'd much prefer a phone that's what, 1mm thicker? Maybe 2 at a push

IMHO, the camera bumps are also just ugly. That is mitigated by protective cases, but still thicker phones would be more robust and have place for larger batteries. That being said, modern day phones all look the same anyway, once they are in a non-transparent case.

I use a case solely so the phone lies flat on the table. They should arrange the battery to be thick enough to be the same height as the lens array.

> keep their phone slimmer than the competition in theory.

This always struck me as a solution looking for a problem. Are modern phones really that chunky that we have to sacrifice functionality to shave a few fractions of a mm?

The real problem right now should be the weight, the trend is going in the wrong direction.

Just curious, for which use cases is weight a significant problem? Even the heaviest phones - rugged or foldables - seem to hover around 300g.

That shouldn't be at all tiring unless you are holding them for literal hours nonstop, or unless you're a small child - and in both scenarios it's good to be encouraged to put the phone down after a while.

While reading in my bed my phone has fallen on my nose while more than once. Anyway, my usual official answer is long commute to work.

Weight is important for some people like me. I'm not anything special or have disabilities, but I really prefer lightweight smartphones. Heavier smartphones (say > 200g) significantly increases tiring on single hand use. Weight balance is also important. I'm Japanese and I can confirm some similar people exists but seems to not majority. Maybe who use smartphone in both hand never care about weight.

On Macs they now have Thunderbolt over USB-C e.g. the port works for both standards.

Moving to USB-C doesn't mean anything from licensing or certification fees. USB-C offers ways of cable authentication, so nothing needs to change there. There is nothing that USB-IF restricts that would get in the way of certification or licensing.

The lightning cable is not required for the MFi program, you can certify lots of things for MFi. Not sure why they couldn't expand the program to USB-C cables. They might do it already, honestly.

> With USB-C they would be restricted by the USB-IF.

Apple will still find a way to do what they want, especially given they play a non-trivial role in the USB-IF and provided significant resources towards developing USB-C in the first place.

I would like USB-C on my iPhone, but I think the biggest reason why Apple hasn't done it is just because of momentum, and that it _is_ a switch from the current situation.

I mean, technically, they can keep using the same connector (usb-c) but make extensive change to the underlying protocol making it required to buy an "Apple cable" for anything else than charging and maybe still respecting the U.E law.

Can't one make similar arguments for cars for types of gasoline(beyond premium gas) and the gas pump/tank receptacle design?

Similar-ish but the waste aspect isn't there: each car does not come with its own gas station and most people do not own multiple redundant gas stations already.

You're begging the question. What you said is true but only because of regulation.

>https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/80.22

>(f) Every retailer and wholesale purchaser-consumer shall equip all gasoline pumps from which gasoline is dispensed into motor vehicles with a nozzle spout that meets all the following specifications:

>(1) The outside diameter of the terminal end shall not be greater than 0.840 inches (2.134 centimeters).

>(2) The terminal end shall have a straight section of at least 2.5 inches (6.34 centimeters).

>(3) The retaining spring shall terminate at least 3.0 inches (7.6 centimeters) from the terminal end.

If these regulations weren't present, Ford could have it's own gas stations and gasoline that were incompatible with GM's and so on.

They do so — for example hose pipe diameter is regulated so you can’t accidentally put regular fuel into a diesel car (sadly, not the opposite though).

Actually the opposite. The Unleaded nozzle is thinner (and the reason was to avoid leaded fuel that would damage the catalyzer)

Where reason 2 and 3 are specifically why I understand why any regulatory body would do something about it.

Reason 1 I can kind of understand (if valid).

You also don't have the issue of an errant foot or chair wheel squishing the connector flat and ruining it.

How have you been able to flatten a USB cable with your foot?

I'm a heavy bastard.

I suppose in places where people wear shoes indoors it's more plausible. As a Swede, I was imagining someone squashing it barefoot.

You mean with a lightning connector or a usb-c one ? In my experience, lightning connector were much more easy to break than usb-c one, since there is no actual protection/shielding to the actual pads/connector. It is so easy to snap the connector part of a lightning port.

Apple is a little bit like Oracle, in that, they think the world thinks as they do. EG, employees are a bit zealous.

So I suggest

4. They think lightning may become a real standard, everyone will adopt it, with licensing fees.

This argument does not make any sense , it's not even standard across all the iPads. They haven't done anything to make it a standard.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com