Well, charger cables are usually at USB 2.0 speed because USB-PD works the same, but signal integrity doesn’t matter as much, so you can make a longer, more flexible cable without using in-cable shielding…
So this is misleading, since the included cable coming in 2.0 speed (missing pins) absolutely does not mean that the iPhone USB-C port will only support 2.0.
The article states that the iPhone (the device itself) will be limited to USB 2.0 speed. Do you have information otherwise?
Also limiting the speed does not mean it will not support the additional protocols that USB-C would allow for.
I believe why people are making a fuzz over this is that people with iPhones want to be able to do large exports/backups/imports. Specifically those that use the devices professionally. In those cases you would want all the speed you can have, and this feels like an arbitrary limit set by Apple because they don’t want to fully comply. Perhaps there are good reasons due to heat issues in the storage controller.
Well, the article showed their original source, the tweet, which shows cable spec, data from a tester, and teardown ONLY. 16 pins on the male connector instead of the full 24 means USB 2.0 transfer speed is the maximum it can support, which is typical of a charger cable. (And no, this cable won’t be able to support things like DisplayPort since the 3.0 data pins are missing. )
My main point is that there is no information on the device side USB port configuration at all, therefore there is no conclusion that can be drawn about the USB-C port on the new iPhone yet, and it’s incredibly bad journalism for Extremetech to draw conclusion about device side spec from only the spec of the included charger cable.
If this is all based on just the teardown of a cable than the article is just speculation. If it really lacks all additional pins this is just malicious compliance on Apple’s part. “Oh you asked for a usb-c connector EU Commission? Here it is”.
Well, charger cables are usually at USB 2.0 speed because USB-PD works the same, but signal integrity doesn’t matter as much, so you can make a longer, more flexible cable without using in-cable shielding…
So this is misleading, since the included cable coming in 2.0 speed (missing pins) absolutely does not mean that the iPhone USB-C port will only support 2.0.
And the Apple branded super speed cable can be sold for more profit. Win!
The article states that the iPhone (the device itself) will be limited to USB 2.0 speed. Do you have information otherwise? Also limiting the speed does not mean it will not support the additional protocols that USB-C would allow for. I believe why people are making a fuzz over this is that people with iPhones want to be able to do large exports/backups/imports. Specifically those that use the devices professionally. In those cases you would want all the speed you can have, and this feels like an arbitrary limit set by Apple because they don’t want to fully comply. Perhaps there are good reasons due to heat issues in the storage controller.
Well, the article showed their original source, the tweet, which shows cable spec, data from a tester, and teardown ONLY. 16 pins on the male connector instead of the full 24 means USB 2.0 transfer speed is the maximum it can support, which is typical of a charger cable. (And no, this cable won’t be able to support things like DisplayPort since the 3.0 data pins are missing. )
My main point is that there is no information on the device side USB port configuration at all, therefore there is no conclusion that can be drawn about the USB-C port on the new iPhone yet, and it’s incredibly bad journalism for Extremetech to draw conclusion about device side spec from only the spec of the included charger cable.
If this is all based on just the teardown of a cable than the article is just speculation. If it really lacks all additional pins this is just malicious compliance on Apple’s part. “Oh you asked for a usb-c connector EU Commission? Here it is”.