I see people mention this, and I don't get it. I have a bunch of el cheapo Bluetooth audio adapters (car/garage/bathroom), one Bose headset, one Jabra headset, one chi-fi headset, one JBL speaker. They just work.
Very occasionally on my Android phone I have to pull down the system tray, click the little arrow next to Bluetooth and select the device I want. But in those few ambiguous situations there is no tech apart from clairvoyance that would allow the phone to know my intentions without my input.
For example, I recently tried to switch from some airpods to a pair of Anker liberty earbuds. I have 4 devices that I regularly use the headset with, an iPhone, an iPad a macbook air and a work laptop. The airpods switch almost without any effort on my part between my personal devices, connecting automatically to whichever of the devices I am currently interacting with when I take them out. On the occasions when that doesn't happen, selecting them from the bluetooth menu connects them without issue. For my work laptop, because it's not registered with my personal accounts, the airpods don't connect automatically but after pairing them once during the initial setup, when I select them in the menu, they connect reliably and quickly.
By contrast the anker earbuds apparently are only able to store connection information for two devices at a time. While I can pair them to all 4 devices, when I take them out, they will always connect to whatever the last device they were connected to, and if I connect from the bluetooth menu/settings on the device, they will only connect to the second to last device they were connected to. For the other devices, they will attempt to connect and eventually timeout. Even though the device still has the earbuds registered, the only way to connect it to device 3 or 4 is to delete it from the device, and go through the entire re-pairing process, at which point the earbuds will stop connecting to what is now the 3rd to last device they were connected to.
The only good BT experience I've had is my Bose QC35ii headphones, which can connect to multiple devices at the same time.
If I’m on my iPad and playing something and put my AirPods Pro in my ear, sound automatically gets sent to my AirPods. The same happens with my Mac and iPhone. It doesn’t happen with the AppleTV since multiple people might be watching.
Also once I pair my headphones to one device on my account, it’s automatically paired to all of my devices. The initial pairing process for my phone and iPad is just open the case the first time and a pop up shows up.
On the other hand, if I’m on my iPad watching a movie and get a call on my phone, it switches over automatically. It then switches back when I go back to my iPad. If I take one AirPod out of my ear to gear someone, video pauses automatically on whichever device I’m using.
Then there are the little touches like being able to control headphone options like noise cancellation and special audio from my phone, iPad, or TV, seeing battery remaining and automatically being registered with Find My.
And for me apple decides to do these switches on its own without my input at times when I do not want this to happen. I have not found a way to disable this yet.
But is there ever a time that you said “I really wish I had to pair my headphones to each of my devices individually and had to adjust settings by clicking on a button on my headphones and decipher the various beeps”?
The upshot is that I suffer zero vendor lockin. I bought Airpod equivalents from Aliexpress, the FIIL T1 Lite for $35. They are little marvels of Chinese engineering that do everything I need and actually sound great - they frequently outperform $100+ earbuds both in reviews on blogs and according to casual Reddit commentary. Since I only use them when out and about, it's not possible to experience any audio quality upgrade unless I sacrifice practicality and go with some closed-back over-the-ear cans.
When you pair to one device, do they automatically pair to all of your devices?
All Apple headphones work as standard BT headphones on non Apple devices. I fail to see any “vendor” lock in.
As far as price, you can also pick up a pair of $50 Beat Flex headphones that have most of the same functionality with Apple devices.
I assure you those $35 “AirPod equivalents” don’t have the noise cancellation, spatial audio, transparency mode, or microphone quality that the AirPods Pro have.
Airpods were a neat party trick maybe... 5 years ago? Wireless audio isn't complicated nowadays though, I've tried at least a dozen Bluetooth headsets that embarrass the Airpods Pro (often at a lower price point).
The last thing I want to do is stop people from buying overpriced headphones though. If Airpods make you happy, then by all means, buy them. You're mostly paying a premium for iCloud integration though, which I'd frankly pay extra to avoid.
Shit though, if you want proof that Airpods are a downgrade from regular headphones, just compare the audio quality: https://youtu.be/N6Y_Q7RYmmY?t=360
The vendor lock-in is by definition there if there are any special Apple features. If there is no vendor lock-in, there is neither any special Apple-exclusive magic features that justify the price premium?
I know my FIIL buds don't have active noise canceling. They are IEMs and give about 20 dB passive noise reduction which is more than enough. The microphone quality is decent, but for any longer calls I use my Jabra which has a proper mic.
This is ridiculous. Then no manufacturer, weather it be cars, or clothing, or industrial equipment would offer anything different than their competitors, lest it be deemed "vendor lock in".
Apple themselves designed probably half (or more) of the ARMv8 standard themselves. I assume they are pretty aware of what avenues are available to them in this case.
Standardisation, in combination with certification to use the “label”, ensures that people developing on top of their innovation do so well enough that it doesn’t damage the brand.
(Somewhat less relevant to an instruction set, and not something I particularly agree with)
Isn't this called an oxymoron?
The benefit of buying “Apple stuff” is the integration between their software and hardware ecosystem.
> For example we already have most of m1 hardware reverse engineered in Asahi - that's not going away. We've had things like air drop and earbuds charge state RE'd too. We'll get amx libraries as well soon.
You’re trying to use Apple hardware with non Apple software.
If you put Windows on an x86 Mac, do you expect the same experience (or battery life) that you get if you’re running MacOS on an x86 Max?
Bluetooth is one of the rare cases where they should have come up with something different and better.
(Just kidding, Bluetooth is an abomination and a very weak protocol)
On a Mac, my Sony headphones will fall back to the SBC codec if the mic is active. Fine for voice, but music/video/gaming sounds terrible. On Android, however, they will negotiate bi-directional AptX or some similar modern codec, so the quality is much better.
I wish my iPhone's bluetooth worked as well as my Linux laptop. I've no idea why Apple gets so much praise for it's bluetooth, it's not "the worst", but it's not very good either. Is Android really _that_ bad?
People can buy android phones if they want to. Why remove choice?
Out of curiosity, what's horrible about the USB-C standard?
How much power can it deliver?
Does it do data and if so, at what speed?
Does it support video over USB and if so, at what resolution?
2. The same or faster than Lightning
3. Either none or higher quality than Lightning
I don't need to see the specific cord - Lightning only carries USB 2.0 and compressed video streams through a weird proprietary protocol. The base spec for USB-C cables is USB 2 and low-speed charging - i.e. equivalent to Lightning for everything but video out.
The main complaint about USB-C that people have is that there's no consistent labeling for the cheap-o base-spec cables versus the ones that actually have high-speed data lanes in them. This doesn't matter for the USB-C vs. Lightning debate, since charging and data will be the same or better and video requires a special cable or adapter in either case.
But more important, markets work best when consumers have good information about what they're buying.
Lightning always works as expected. Give me a Lightning cable and a Lightning port and I know what they'll do. Comparison shopping for a Lightning cable is easy.
But making an educated decision about which USB-C cable to buy requires understanding an increasingly complex matrix. You cannot just look at a USB-C cable or port and know what it is; you've got to parse each device or cable's spec sheet (if you can find one). https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/09/breaking-down-how-us...
The possibility of lock-in to a proprietary system is one piece of information, but consumers aren't getting screwed by lock in to Lightning connectors. It's easy to find a cheap Lightning cable that performs as expected; it's easy to comparison shop for them on price.
Consumers are, however, wasting a lot of money on USB C cables that don't do what they expect because the USB-C "standards" make it extremely difficult for ordinary consumers to know what they're buying.
I was at one of my company’s sites (I work remotely) and even the IT department didn’t have a “standard” USB C cable that could do 100W power and video over USB.
I ended up ordering one from Amazon - and having it shipped to my company’s office. I work at Amazon (AWS).
My JBL speaker will only charge with a USBA -> USBC cable, but not with USBC->USBC.
I've a couple of cables that will charge headphones or other devices, but won't show data devices (like an external SSD, webcam, etc).
I've some cables that won't charge my laptop, however, other cables on the same charger do charge that same laptop.
Maybe some of these devices and cables are non-compliant, but they're what we see in the real world, regardless of what the spec says. USB-C is a mess. I still need distinct USBC cables, and need to remember which ones can charge which devices.
2. Not all USB C cables support data some or power only.
3. But USB C is suppose to be a “standard”. I can’t just assume any USB C cable is going to work with either my portable USB monitor or an iPad Pro that has a USB port
Cables and docks, once again to give opportunities to participate to as many players as possible, only have to implement few elements of the standard to be branded.
Apple and Intel basically used the Thunderbolt standard to get rid of this mess. Thunderbolt 3 and 4 are forcing implementation of all the optional elements of USB to be branded. So if you want to have a sane experience with USB-C, stick to TB ports, docks and cables.
But anyway, the point isn’t whether lightning is better than USB-C. It’s about whether USB-C is good enough that we want to accept being locked to it for all time. If Apple wants to invent a better connector, they can’t, assuming this European regulation goes through.
That's a strawman. Standards evolve and new standards come along. 2G -> 3G -> 4G -> 5G. Well look at that.
> If Apple wants to invent a better connector, they can’t
Not true. If Apple is willing to share, they can invent all they want and propose a new standard.
Yes, just like 5G. Interoperability is sometimes worth the tradeoffs so a nuanced view is needed instead of a reductive "standards bad, competition good".
Then you have Google who alone introduced three incompatible messaging apps in one year. It must be part of the promotion process for Google SWEs and PMs to introduce a new messaging app.
I have a friend in Brazil is barely surviving as a farmer and has a tiny budget for a phone. He needs messaging. Which is better for him? iMessages or SMS?
Either way, it's not going to be an expensive iPhone with iMessages is it?
What happens today if I pick up any random “standard” USB-C cable and try to charge an iPad Pro 12 inch or any other iPad that has a USB-C port, try to connect it to a video source that a USB source or connect it any USB-C device?
Your phone will charge and you'll be able to transfer your 4K video. Isn't lightning still limited to USB 2 speeds? If so, then it won't be any slow.
USB-C isn't a problem for Macs and iPads that use it, so not sure why it would be a problem on the iPhone.
(I didn't understand your second question.)
I travel with this portable monitor:
You can plug it into a computer and get video and power with one USB C cable. But you have to have the “right” USB C cable. Video over USB-C is “standardized”. But not all cables support the standard.
Ironically, you can have the same issue today. Some cheap third party Lightning cables don’t support data and they don’t work if I plug up my monitor to my Mac for a third monitor using Duet (I can’t use the Mac built in capability because of an incompatibility with corporate mandated malware).
The iPad Pro should also work with my monitor. But still, you have to have the right “standard” USB C cable. You would have the same problem With a hypothetical future USB C iPhone.
I’m assuming you didn’t know about how some USB C cables don’t support all of the standards. If you didn’t know - someone who posts to HN and I assume knows more about technology than the average person - what chance does the average consumer have or the people making laws to force USB C to be the standard?
That is not meant to be an insult. I thought all USB C cables were the same until two years ago when I got my first modern MacBook for work.
I’m not saying Lightning is better than having a USB C port on the iPhone that supports the maximum power possible on the iPhone, with higher speed data rates and video over USB C. Apple agrees and that’s why almost all iPads now have USB C ports.
But that doesn’t mean that you will just be able to pick up a random USB C cable and it just works.
It supports USB3
https://www.apple.com/shop/product/MK0W2AM/A/lightning-to-us...
Of course that standard cable is not guaranteed to support data at all.
So much for a “standard”.
Because that's what the law covers. All phone *chargers* must be USB-C compatible. And they must all interoperate. You must be able to buy a phone without the charger, so you can re-use your old one.
https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/sectors/electrica...
And your quoting the law showing that the government also didn’t know enough to consider all of those questions proves how incompetent the government is at writing laws concerning technology.
> How does that help reduce ewaste if you still don’t force standardization on the type of USB C cable being sold - ie a cable that supports 100W PD, video over USB C, and data?
The vast majority of people don't need that cable. Most people plug their cable into the wall socket (oh dear another government standard!) and recharge their device.
> And your quoting the law showing that the government also didn’t know enough to consider all of those questions proves how incompetent the government is at writing laws concerning technology.
I think this is a competent start. Industry was asked by the EU to self-regulate on this, and industry failed. I'm glad the government stepped in and in a few years I'll be able to grab any random USB-C cable to charge a wide variety of devices. Progress marches on.
In general, the EU has been very successful at writing laws around technology. Look at the mobile phone networks. I can travel anywhere in Europe and it just works. And my roaming charges are also kept lower thanks to laws. Lots of great technology laws out there if you could neutrally assess things instead of always reaching for "government bad".
The EU didn’t enforce a law to have an industry standard for cell phones, a private consortium of company’s did.
I’m not “moving text goalposts”. The explicit aim of the EU wanting to enforce a standard was to reduce eWaste. If you have a chord that doesn’t support data, power delivery at an appropriate wattage and video - something that the iPads that have USB C already do and the hypothetical iPhone will, you will still be throwing away cables just like I threw away all of my “standard” USB C cables that came with various devices and got some that supported 100W PD, 10 GBps data and video over USB C.
The 100 section 11 chapter GDPR that did nothing but give the world cookie pop up’s shows the incompetence of EU law makers better than anything.
> The EU didn’t enforce a law to have an industry standard for cell phones, a private consortium of company’s did.
You're wrong. I worked in the EU for mobile phone companies helping make them compliant with some EU regulations. Just for example, EU law specified an industry standard for roaming charges. Roaming charges were absurd before the law and different in every country - to the point that everyone feared answering a call while in another EU country. Sometimes companies succeed at good standards without government regulations. Sometimes they fail and the government should step in.
> I’m not “moving text goalposts”.
You did. You asked why the discussion was focused on power. I answered that. Goal achieved. That wasn't good enough for you after you learned why the discussion was focused on power. So you moved the goalposts and came up with a new complaint. That's exactly what moving the goalposts look like.
> The 100 section 11 chapter GDPR that did nothing but give the world cookie pop up’s shows the incompetence of EU law makers better than anything.
You're wrong again. I use those cookie pop-ups to refuse everything but the necessary cookies. That's not "nothing". GDPR has done so much good in protecting our privacy and forcing companies like Google and Facebook to adapt. Excellent.
You keep focusing solely on “charging” when USB C powered phones and iPads that already support USB C also carry data and in the care of the iPad data using the “standard” for video over USB C. Seeing that the EU didn’t mandate any of they shows why the government has no business involved in technical standards.
The “goal” of the EU regulation was to reduce ewaste. The proposed regulation fails because you still have to replace your cable if you want your phone to transfer data.
Google and Facebook didn’t have to adapt their business at all because of the GDPR. You want to see what an effective policy for increasing privacy looks like? One private company - Apple - introduced a pop up that gives users the ability to opt out of tracking and everyone including Facebook that lives or dies by ads announced billions in reduced revenue.
There's no reason for scare quotes, USB-C is an official standard. IEC 62680-1-3:2021 (https://webstore.iec.ch/publication/66588) is USB-C, and IEC 62680-1-2:2021 (https://webstore.iec.ch/publication/66589) is USB PD.
How much power can it deliver?
Does it support data and at what speed?
Does it support video over USB C?
If I bought a cheap USB power only 5W cable and got the hypothetical iPhone 15 Pro Max with USB C support that could charge faster with a 20W cable, do 10Gps data transfer and video over USB C, wouldn’t I still end up throwing away the USB C cable I got with the $100 Android phone contributing to eWaste? Isn’t that the entire argument about forcing Apple to support USB C?
What happens when I buy a cheap USB C cord from the convenience store? Will it support “standard USB C”.
I get you on the rest of the issues, because the simplified USB-IF branding (Hi-Speed, SuperSpeed, SuperSpeed+, etc) crucially isn't printed on the cable itself. Moreover, the constant renumbering of the standard means manufacturers often forgo the consumer-facing branding and market devices/cables with the latest standard, which means nothing regarding what capabilities a device/cable supports.
USB-IF needs to be better at enforcement, for sure. In the meantime, I just just Thunderbolt cables for everything that needs advanced capabilities and pack-ins for everything else.
- the white cord that came with my old MacBook Pro 13 inch
- the little cable that came with my Beats Flex
- the cable that came with my Anker battery.
- any random overpriced USB C cable that you pick up from the convenience store or the bodega.
Are really USB C cables and that none of them support data?
All Type-C to Type-C support 60 W power delivery (3A at up to 20V), some support 100 W (5A at up to 20V) but those can no longer be certified, and the new 240W cables must have a certain logo on them that includes 240W clearly visible (and this means these cables can only be conformant if certified). And how much power a Type-C to Type-C cable can handle is completely orthogonal to the data it can transmit.
USB does allow conforming passive cables that only have USB 2.0 lines, which can support any of the voltages. These can often be differentiated from the cables that support USB 3.x/USB4 by way of the cable being surprising thin, but this becomes harder if it supports more than the minimum 60W.
Passive cables that support USB 3.x can vary in the maximum speed they support, which will also impact some alternate modes. If you want to ensure video support on a passive cable, your best option would be looking for a 0.8m or shorter passive cable that says 40Gbps, as those will all support the maximum currently allowed display-port bandwidth over type-c. [1] But all passive cables that include the USB 3.0 wires should support the lower Displayport 1.x alternative modes.
However, to reduce confusion in the future, USB-IF have recently revamped the rules for certified Type-C to Type-C cables. Cables must be marked with a logo that indicates 60W or 240W. If the cable supports 3.x or newer, it will also marked the max supported speed in Gbps as part of that logo. Failure to use the right logo for what your cable supports will result in failed certification.
Users are expected to assume that that any cable that does not specify wattage only supports 60W (since all USB C-to-C cables support that, except the optically isolated ones, which cannot be mistaken for a normal cable). Users are expected to assume passive cables do not support USB 3.0 data at all unless marked with: 1) a speed in Gbps, 2) a bare SuperSpeed logo (implies a max of 10 Gbps [2]) or 3) marked as Thunderbolt 3 (20 Gbps [3] unless a speed is otherwise shown).
Users are presumably expected to assume that active cables only support 5Gbps unless otherwise marked, and won't support any alternative modes (unless otherwise marked) if not marked as 40 Gbps, in which case DP2.0 alternate mode should work (but I'm not sure that display port 1.x modes are guaranteed to work).
Active cables are also where many problems lie especially as they don't always look different from passive cables. Active cables can mostly only support alternate modes that they were explicitly designed to support which for some is none at all. For example Active gen1 or Gen2 cables don't support USB4 at all. Active Thunderbolt 3 gen3 cables can be used for USB4 by some USB4 devices but this is an optional feature, so not all USB devices and hosts will support this.
Footnotes: [1] In theory, such cables should be able to handle DP 2.0 at UHBR 20 (80 Gbps) transfers, since they can reverse the 40Gbps return communication lanes, going from 40Gbps bidirectional to 80Gbps monodirectional. However VESA has not yet standardized that as an option. [2] Since these would probably be gen1 with 5Gbps per lane, and all typeC cables have two lanes in each direction. [3] Thunderbolt 3 implies gen 2, which as 10Gbps per lane, times two lanes in C-to-C cables.
A simplistic interpretation:
Because the consortium wanted to get everyone on board, they allow pretty much any part of the spec to not be complied with. In theory there are various profiles the should be adopted but in practice that hasn’t happened.
What happens when I plug in a c-type plug? You just can’t say… and I mean you REALLY just can’t say. Will high power delivery and hdmi work (I’m looking at you broken Nintendo switch usb-c implementation), will you get thunderbolt packets wrapped over usb 3.2? Will you even get high speed? Is the cable active or passive? Will this cable give me high speed data? Will this >3ft cable give me high speed charging or just silently stay at 5v and ~1amp because the resistance on the middle pin is too high on that particular cable.
To placate many vendors who wanted to because to produce cheap crap and flood online stores, many parts of the spec do this all without active protocol handshaking and simply fail silently.
At least for phone charging, I find it worse than lightning. It's way too loose (whereas lightning is snug), and I'm always worried about the plastic bit sticking out on the female side is going to break.
- were power only up to 100W. But couldn’t do data.
- could do power up to 60W and data at USB2 speeds. But they couldn’t do video over USB-C. I have a USB-C powered portable display that can do power and video directly from my laptop.
- a USB-C cable that can do power, video, and data. But I’m still not sure how much data and power it can deliver.
- a few smaller USB-C cables that came with my Beats headphones and my Anker battery. I don’t know what they can do.
I finally threw away all of my cables besides my MagSafe cable and standardized on these for mobile devices (cheaper and not as thick).
But these are truly “universal”.
This is the same reason that Apple wasn’t saddled with the horrible PC “standards” before USB became ubiquitous.
Not to mention even today, Bluetooth is a shit show outside of the Apple ecosystem as far as handoff an ease of pairing.