- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://lemdro.id/post/2469210 ([email protected])
You must log in or register to comment.
So they figured out that a $130 Thunderbolt 4 100W E-marker cable is better designed than a $10 USB 2 60W cable? I think they should have looked at a cheaper high-end cable, like a 240W Thunderbolt 4 cable, to see how a comparable one compares.
This was my gripe with the write up as well. Like everybody, I’m interested in the least expensive option with similar features to the $130 option. Surely there’s something in the $20-30 range they could’ve studied?
This is basically an ad for CT machines, not anything scientific.
This article starts off talking about iPhones and USB C, then proceeds to scan a Thunderbolt cable. The iPhone 15 pro tops out at USB 3, not Thunderbolt.
The connector is not the cable. They should be comparing expensive thunderbolt cables to cheap thunderbolt cables, or expensive USB 3 cables to cheap USB 3 cables.
Interesting find that the cheapest cable is actually not the worst. Too bad the USB-C spec allows such a mess of speeds and charging standards.
I wouldn’t mind the various levels of there were a simple, consistent marking standard for speed and power rating.
Same feeling honestly but don’t forget that it still would take research to buy the right one. Think about SD cards and their various speeds. You still need a chart to make an informed purchase.
They do have standard icons for them, but it’s not required to use them. Companies like Apple are a problem case there since they value a clean look over information, random Chinese brands sometimes use them.
There are like 5 speed and 5 power levels. The only alternative is all cables are stupidly short and expensive.
It’s also easy to forget that degradation on the highest spec cables is pretty severe. A 1m full spec thunderbolt 4 cable can be made dirt cheap but there extremely limited 3m cables to the point that $160 is reasonable despite it sounding silly
So I’m ignorant here, but what is the spec difference between the supplied iPhone USB-C cable and the one that comes with the newer MacBooks? I never bothered to look, but I did mark the one that came with my MacBook as I assumed it was higher rated than some other cable (although I still just charge with the MagSafe adapter anyway).
In this thread: people shitting on Apple for not implementing USB C. No one talking about how they make an impressively engineered, although very expensive, cable.
Which is what the article is actually about.
I don’t know how impressive it is unless it gets compared to a cable with similar features, of which there are many… at a fraction of the cost. So it would be excellent to see the same scans on a £30 cable to see just how over engineered the Apple cable may or may not be.
USB-C era has begun a long time ago, Apple fans waking up from their bubble
You do know that Apple was involved in the development of USB-C (about a quarter of the people working on it were from Apple) and was one of the first companies to put USB-C on a laptop (in 2015) ?
Involved doesnt mean they implemented it fully (until now).
I remember it being fully implemented on my MacBook. What exactly was missing?
iPhones.
True, because they already had a better connector for that specific use-case. But USB-C and Thunderbolt have been implemented on MacBooks for ages.
iPhones were missing (until now)
So what? They didn’t implement the port on the iPhone until recently. When did USB-C come out again? …
So? They implemented it fully on their laptops.
Oh right, i forgot Mac’s are primarily used for making phone calls, texts, are kept in pockets when traveling, and USB-C is mainstream now so charging is a breeze, but screw iphones ami’rite?
What does making phone calls have to do with anything?
And who even uses a cable to charge their phone? I can’t remember the last time I used a cable to charge my phone, it’s probably years ago.
Come on man. The talk has always been about apple not implementing the industry standard charging port on their phones. It goes back to the 30 pin days. They just want to make proprietary items for mad profits and milk it until all sheeps wake up.
Both the 30 pin connector and Lightning were much more capable than the ‘industry standard’ at the time they were introduced.
Apparently, you didn’t read the article.
The header is silly and clickbaity as fuck. If they wanted people to read the article for what it is, maybe they should rethink their practices
I didn’t read the article either. What’s it about?
Something about Apple? I guess?
They scanned a Thunderbolt cable with a USB C connector. No iPhones have a thunderbolt port. In other words, this is the cable Apple makes to support its Macs. And Apple has had C-only connectors on Macs since 2015.
Apple fans when Apple finally gets slapped for being the cunt it is:
I’ll give them props for the scans, those are cool. But c’mon, this fanboi is comparing specs of a thunderbolt 4 pro cable to a USB 2 from 1996. Granted, not much changes except speed and capacity but those two things take up a big part of this op-ed.
The whole point, as I get it, is that those fancy cables are proprietary. The tech and circuitry embedded in the TB4 cables should be in the charger, phone, computer, etc. A cable should just be a cable.
That’s not really possible. With such a wide-ranging standard as USB-C, the cable needs to report what it can support. Without E-marker chips, for example, there would be three possible results: no cable can charge quickly, every cable is thick, short, and expensive, or cables catch on fire frequently. Cheap cables that don’t support all of the extra features are just cables, but the good ones need to let the computer know what they are capable of.
