Hacker News Reader

Comment by tomp | Hacker News Reader

This argument would sound less hollow if there weren’t two existing superior (from a user experience perspective) alternatives already on the market.

Apple’s Lightning (thinner than USB-C) and MagSafe (safer than USB-C for charging laptops… so glad Apple is transitioning back to it for M2 Airs)

View on HN

Lightning cables don't last. They are a complete disaster. 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.

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.

Haven’t had any terrible experiences with lightning cables. I have several cables that are from 2016/2018 that I use regularly. But then again none of my type c cables go bad either… I think it would have been safer to say “from my experience <xyz>” instead of presenting your opinion as if it were more than just an opinion. I see how friends and family members treat their cables, tugging on the phone to disconnect instead of removing the cable by hand. Or placing the charger in a way that the cable is bent up against a piece of furniture. Regarding the lightning port, it’s actually quite easy to clean, compared to ports like usb-c (I’m guessing you know why that would be). Also using lightning on a Mac doesn’t make sense and that’s probably why they don’t do it.

I was never sure if it was dust causing my phone to refuse to charge or Apple's gatekeeping "official" cables. There used to be jailbreak tweaks that would allow unauthorized cables to suddenly start working fine, but the best I could do in iOS 14 was get a cable to maintain the battery (without charging it). Perhaps Apple is shooting their own standard in the foot simply by enforcing their certification program.

That said, you're absolutely right that its limit is reached already with phones. Some old cables have two pins (presumably VDD) that are discolored from use. Would not want lightning for charging a laptop.

All these arguments are the same I use… against USB-C.

I had 2 Google Pixels before with USB-C and both died because dust would accumulate around the center thingy and it was impossible to clean. The center thingy actually became loose on my second Pixel and the connector wouldn’t hold in place anymore.

I have since switched to an iPhone and I think the lightning connector stays remarkably clean. It’s also easier to clean because it doesn’t have the center piece of USB-C connectors.

All these arguments have nothing to do with the new legislation. Should there be laws to enforce “better” options? Then phones should have mil-spec round connectors. I insist I don’t understand what problem is the law supposed to solve.

Anker lighting cables last pretty well. I agree the Apple ones don't.

> Lightning cables don't last.

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.

Lightning only ever managed to coast by because of its slim form-factor and because Apple mandated its use. It's capable of USB2.0 at most (480Mbps), whereas USB-C can do 20Gbps today and 40Gbps when using Thunderbolt.

MagSafe on phones is a total joke, and MagSafe on laptops exists _alongside_ USB-C charging.

> It's capable of USB2.0 at most (480Mbps),

the lightning connector itself is capable of USB 3.0 speeds, apple just keeps the iphone line (or the cables?) at usb 2.0 spec. The ipad pro can reach full speed.

https://apple.fandom.com/wiki/Lightning_to_USB_3_Camera_Adap...

I don’t get how they justify those speeds, especially without good wireless experience (not icloud and not airdrop)

MagSafe (aka wireless one) is okay(tho half the speed) if you ain’t got carplay.

For mac magsafe used to break every year where braided usb-c cable lasted me 3 years.

I'll add to the chorus saying lightning is terrible. I have a mix of devices using lightning and USB-C. I have had zero issues with USB-C, in fact I still charge my phone every night with the USB-C cable that came with my Pixel 1. I've never had to replace a single one, so much so that I have a nest of spare, unused, USB-C cables in a drawer. Meanwhile, lightning cables are a continuous roulette of failure - I would guess I've purchased at least a dozen replacement lightning cables over that same time period.

"thinner" is not a universally superior quality. It also means "more likely to get bent or broken" which implies "more likely to need replacing" which is one of the direct aims of this legislation.

Lightning is sturdier than USB-C too.

I have literally never seen or heard of a Lightning plug or port "getting bent or broken". However I have heard of the hidden-male-inside-of-female port of on-device USB-C ports breaking at which point your device is trash.

Well my anecdotal experience is exactly opposite yours, so let's reference the Apple product page as data instead:

"Apple’s lightning-cable product page contains over 2,300 negative reviews of the lightning cable, with an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars"

I assume that's mostly complaints about the cable insulation rather than the connector.

Lightning connectors do have the advantage you can safely stick a toothpick in them to remove lint, I don't know if lint building up inside the socket is a problem specific to lightning though.

I used both Lightning and USB-C cables, I had two Lightning cables dying from oxidation (not misuse in water or anything, normal use) and not a single USB-C problem so far.

Calling Lightning superior is blatant Apple fanboyism.

Lightning isn't as fast as USB 3.0 (which USB C cables should support), and can't supply as much power as USB-PD (which, again, works over USB C cables)

The vast majority of USB-C cables only support 480 mbps data transfer rate, for cost and because they are primarily meant for charging.

So in the 15 years since micro-USB was developed, that is just one vendor which has been able to produce something better, and it happens to be the most valuable corporation in the world with access to economics of scale that no other manufacturer could compete with. Are you saying that's a valid justification that allowing manufacturers the freedom to innovate on charging ports is more important than interoperability?

And your argument is that because innovation has, arguably, slowed (not even halted!) you are happy mandating the current standard.

It's a good thing there is so little innovation coming out of the EU or else their wreckless legislators could have actual impact.

Yes, exactly: the tiny amount of genuine innovation that exists in this particular area is not worth giving up interoperability and regressing back to the pre-micro-USB world of mostly terrible, rarely innovative proprietary connectors from every different vendor.

> their wreckless legislators could have actual impact.

I think the positive impact of the currently existing micro-USB legislation is clear if you look back at the status quo before it existed. This new legislation simply improves upon it.

Lightning is a decent cable technology from a form factor position, but it has several technology drawbacks. First each lightning device (including cables) have to pay a nontrivial royalty to apple bringing up the minimum cost of accessories. Secondly the standard is limited to relatively low power and data rates.

Notice also that nothing prevents apple from additionally shipping MagSafe on their laptops, the device just needs to be usable with a type-C charger.

They can make both. One for the standard and the other for their own. Or engineer their new port and ship an adapter/extra cable.

I don't think they can. The legislation explicitly mandates usb-c as the device port. Sure, Apple can engineer their own proprietary-to-usbc adapter and ship it with their phones, but they will no longer be allowed to use a non-usbc port on the phone itself.

From https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2021/6988... , page 6:

Device-side connector: the included devices would have to be equipped with a USB-C receptacle on the device side (as described in the European standard EN IEC 62680-1-3:2021) and, in cases of charging power lower than 60 watts, be rechargeable with cables that complied with the same standard

Then on page 8, the latest expansion of scope:

Included devices: a larger range of small and medium-sized devices with power delivery up to 100 watts would be included under the scope of the directive, including e-readers, low-powered laptops, keyboards, mice, earbuds, screens, printers, portable navigations, smartwatches, personal care devices and electronic toys

Note the personal care devices: looks like this is going to include electronic toothbrushes and electric razors.

Lightning isn’t thinner than USB-C when you compare the size of the sockets.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com