I mean its gpod enough,no? Tp be able to force apple to not use proprietary charging. And i assume data will also be a thing on their products, whether or not it uses the full speed capabilities of usb c dpesnt seem to matter.
Last I read was that apple was going to throttle their usb-c ports being used with non-apple blessed cables. And those cables are supposed to be pretty spendy, as they’re going to be “apple taxed”, <cough> I mean certified as apple is calling it. I hope the EU puts the smack down on them for trying to create such a loophole in interoperability requirements.
Sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen. It’s pretty much the definition of unfair competition, I mean Apple makes cables and artificially hampers competitors cables unless they pay some money?
Maybe the fines are too low so far if they test us like that.
“USB-C” really only means “that flat oval shaped connector” and absolutely nothing more. The plug and cable and connected devices define what USB standard is used. You can deliver anything from “charging only USB 2.0 low power” to USB 4 with 240 W charging and 80Gbps data transfer including 8K@60 DisplayPort tunneling via USB-C.
Yes, USB-C only describes the physical connector, but unless Apple somehow insists on giving users a more shitty experience when using USB-C they are kind of forced to support a reasonable standard for data transfer and charging. We probably won’t get 240W charging or anything close, but we also won’t see a degradation compared to lightning.
I mean its gpod enough,no? Tp be able to force apple to not use proprietary charging. And i assume data will also be a thing on their products, whether or not it uses the full speed capabilities of usb c dpesnt seem to matter.
Last I read was that apple was going to throttle their usb-c ports being used with non-apple blessed cables. And those cables are supposed to be pretty spendy, as they’re going to be “apple taxed”, <cough> I mean certified as apple is calling it. I hope the EU puts the smack down on them for trying to create such a loophole in interoperability requirements.
deleted by creator
Sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen. It’s pretty much the definition of unfair competition, I mean Apple makes cables and artificially hampers competitors cables unless they pay some money?
Maybe the fines are too low so far if they test us like that.
That reeks of anti-trust, so much so I think the US would even jump in on that action.
“USB-C” really only means “that flat oval shaped connector” and absolutely nothing more. The plug and cable and connected devices define what USB standard is used. You can deliver anything from “charging only USB 2.0 low power” to USB 4 with 240 W charging and 80Gbps data transfer including 8K@60 DisplayPort tunneling via USB-C.
Still better than: “Can you borrow me your charging cable? Oh, you got USB-C. Well shit!”
What annoys me is when people say “Do you have an iPhone charger?” when really they mean a cable.
Almost as bad as people calling USB-B a “printer cable”.
I use USB-B all the time (fightsticks) and still call them printer cables lmao
Yes, USB-C only describes the physical connector, but unless Apple somehow insists on giving users a more shitty experience when using USB-C they are kind of forced to support a reasonable standard for data transfer and charging. We probably won’t get 240W charging or anything close, but we also won’t see a degradation compared to lightning.