71–80 of 525 posts
I'll miss lightning when it's gone if only because it was the most satisfying and secure feeling cable connection I've ever used. USB-C has some slack built into it by design but it just makes it feel lower quality.
Yeah USB C is nice but .. it is wiggly compared to lightning or USB A.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Locking onto USB-C now could be a very "640k ought to be enough for everybody" moment. I agree in general; but at some point don't we hit diminishing returns? If I were to say, "18.4 exabytes of RAM ought to be enough for everybody", that'd be basically correct, even future-proofing for the craziest sci-fi holodeck use cases we can imagine, right?
I agree in general; but at some point don't we hit diminishing returns? If I were to say, "18.4 exabytes of RAM ought to be enough for everybody", that'd be basically correct, even future-proofing for the craziest sci-fi holodeck use cases we can imagine, right? But the legislation doesn't lock into something that might happen in the future. It locks the future to what we have today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As far as I remember, this piece of legislation has been floating around since USB mini. We have now gone through 2 revisions to a connector that is now reversible and can carry video. Locking onto USB-C now could be a very "640k ought to be enough for everybody" moment. And if Apple was going to switch to USB C anyways, whats the point of this legislation?
> Locking onto USB-C now could be a very "640k ought to be enough for everybody" moment. I agree in general; but at some point don't we hit diminishing returns? If I were to say, "18.4 exabytes of RAM ought to be enough for everybody", that'd be basically correct, even future-proofing for the craziest sci-fi holodeck use cases we can imagine, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Locking onto USB-C now could be a very "640k ought to be enough for everybody" moment. I agree in general; but at some point don't we hit diminishing returns? If I were to say, "18.4 exabytes of RAM ought to be enough for everybody", that'd be basically correct, even future-proofing for the craziest sci-fi holodeck use cases we can imagine, right?
How do you know? Have you seen the future? As much as I am for interoperability, a legislation directing a specific technology is one way how we end up with ridiculous standards. Remember, we still have laws on where we can or cannot tie a horse in town on the books a century after they were irrelevant. Laws move in centuries, while technology moves in years. They are not compliant with each other.
[0] One of the reasons that the loss of the headphone jack is so exasperating, is that's an example of an ideal universal connector; it solved the problem so well, there was little reason to improve on it, either in quality or function.
Forcing people to throw away most of a decade's worth of already purchased cables and accessories does seem like an odd way to cut down on ewaste given the fact that Apple already switched the chargers themselves to USB-C.
I guess my lightning compatible alarm clock/docking station can go live on a nice farm with my long gone 30 pin alarm clock/dock, where they can both run and play.
I can't see a single reason why iPhone shouldn't use usb-c at the moment except to build Apple's own walled garden to charge a surplus against its customer.
Because lightning was available long before USB-C and there's no reason that hundreds of millions of customers should have to switch to new cables and throw billions of old chargers, wires, and accessories into landfills? When USB-C is superior for using on phones, then I'm OK with it. But right now it's just exchanging one plug for another because a bunch of bureaucrats say so. Does this mean in 20 years we'll still…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? The resolution states that the commission should make sure the standard can be updated as technology develops: "[...] the Commission, without hampering innovation, should ensure that the legislative framework for a common charger will be scrutinised regularly in order to take into account technical progress; reiterates the importance of research and innovation in this domain to improve existing technologies and…
Because gov't moves as fast as innovation /s
The days where you needed special proprietary software to access any part of your phone if you connected it with to a computer using its special cable?
I remember losing plenty of sms history and contacts when changing phones because the dedicated phone software was too old to run on my windows, and the dodgy program I found on the internet wouldn't work with my specific model.
I also remember how in these heady days of unbridled innovation my girlfriend saved her sms's by writing them down on paper. And this was a fairly sensible solution to the innovation rich state of the market, where every manufacturer and close to every individual model, was its own silo.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an instance where I oppose the idea in the abstract, but support it in the specifics: USB-C has finally achieved a degree of "good enough" (naming/labeling issues notwithstanding) to be the ideal universal connector. But: imagine what we might have gotten stuck with if this law had been implemented 10-20 years ago.
While this resolution isn't actually a law, it does call for the commission to ensure standards get updated as technology develops, so I'm not seeing why we should imagine us being extra stuck with some old technology.
I'm not deadset against this sort of thing, and I think we could do a lot worse than USB-C as the new universal connector (at least for the next decade or so), but given past attempts at regulating tech (cookie banners), I think it's a legitimate concern.
Standardization is like a dream to me, and every time it advances I feel ecstatic. However, it's important to note that standardization must not get in the way of change. Unification does not mean that we can't, in a unified manner, continue to upgrade. At this point in time, this is especially critical to keep in mind, as USB-C is physically flawed - it often becomes loose to the point of losing connection, or even…
We had the 30 pin dock connector on iPods and iPhones for eleven years and now lightning for eight. Forcing people to throw away most of a decade's worth of already purchased cables and accessories does seem like an odd way to cut down on ewaste given the fact that Apple already switched the chargers themselves to USB-C. I guess my lightning compatible alarm clock/docking station can go live on a nice farm with my lo…