- cross-posted to:
- hackernews@derp.foo
- technews@radiation.party
- cross-posted to:
- hackernews@derp.foo
- technews@radiation.party
Apple to Limit iPhone 15 USB-C Cables to USB 2.0 Speeds: Report::undefined
Apple to Limit iPhone 15 USB-C Cables to USB 2.0 Speeds: Report::undefined
deleted by creator
Speak for yourself, there are still many who refuse to use subscription services for music and still store it on their phones
Plex, baby! My server, my music, my streaming.
deleted by creator
thats right, they use iPods… why wouldn’t they use an iphone?
I have a few hundred gb of music on my iPhone, I just transferred it over Wi-Fi lol
Why wouldn’t we? I’ve got 300, 400GB of music from my beloved private trackers (RIP WCD) but I choose iOS because of the privacy policy, longevity, and I don’t wanna have to fuck around with custom OSes to not give all my data to Google.
My shit’s loaded up with music, and I’m hoping the next gen has 2TB models.
Lol, I’m sorry but this is just you thinking everyone is like you. Millions of people use their phones very differently.
Only the Pixel 3a. Even the Pixel 1 supported USB3.0 speeds…
This is absolutely wrong. The spec mandates that USB-C ports provides at least USB 3.1 support. Also USB-C is mandated for USB 3.1.
So to be compliant every USB-C port must support USB 3.1 at least. And you cannot support USB 3.1 with anything other than a USB-C port.
Wtf are you talking about? The spec has a section specifically for wiring a USB 2.0 cable. Apple is one of the companies who wrote the USB spec and I’d find it pretty hard to believe they’d go against their own spec.
All I can tell you is that the Pixel 7 has USB 3.2 spec.
Someone else in the thread said that the Pixel 2 (2017) also abides by USB 3.1 spec. I looked it up, apparently they weren’t lying.
Though the Google site does say:
https://support.google.com/pixelphone/answer/7106961?hl=en
Not sure if it still only accepts USB-C 2.0 cables as it’s maximum?
You must have replied to the wrong person because I’m not arguing the pixel doesn’t have 3.2. I’m saying the USB-C spec does allow for USB 2.0. The commenter I replied to is stating absolutely wrong information.
Ah my apologies
Section 2.2? https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/USB Type-C Spec R2.0 - August 2019.pdf
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
He’s right though?
USB-C does NOT in any way specify capabilities or transfer specifications. It only specifies the form factor of the plug.
The plug can be used for any number of things from USB2.0 or ThunderBolt4, to power transfer, hells, even things like analog audio can use the plug.
Is what your comment did.
The connector is a usb-c connector. That is not the standard, just the connector type friend
deleted by creator
Literally the second sentence in your own source:
Ok. Since we’re circumcising a mosquito here.
The type c designation only refers to the form factor.
That’s all.
Type c does not refer to its capabilities.
I am willing to bet you’ll find that information very early in what you linked me.
Could you elaborate? Because I’m like… 90% you’re wrong. Oc is correct. The “c” in type c referred to the connector. Just like micro-b mini-b usb A,etc. USB 3 is the speed standard. As well as 3.1 (or 3.2 gen 1 it’s called now or some other silliness), 3.2 gen 2, etc.
There are usb C cables that can do video, audio, some that have thunderbolt speeds. There are also usb c cables that only support usb 2.0. So if you can elaborate on why you believe otherwise, id appreciate it. the usb consortium has ridiculous conventions and I’m no hardware specialist. My knowledge on these is from USB consortiums training when I was a salesman.