Apple's USB-C Strategy: Are Customers Getting the Short End?
Written on
The Shift to USB-C
It seems that every time I think Apple might be changing for the better, I get reminded of their old habits. Rumors suggest that Apple is set to introduce USB-C for the iPhone 15, which sounds promising. However, they're reportedly planning to impose significant limitations on its use. (Why, Apple, why?)
From what I've gathered, Apple is developing its proprietary version of USB-C for the iPhone 15. This version will adhere to the EU regulations but will still implement arbitrary restrictions that only Apple could dream up. I would categorize this under:
Stop Defending Apple's Poor Design Choices
Apple has a mix of features to admire and criticize.
To paraphrase what many feel: it's frustrating.
Restriction 1: Is It Really USB-C?
The rumor mill indicates that Apple will include an authenticator chip to verify the legitimacy of USB-C cables, which may restrict their functionality if they’re not deemed genuine. This could hinder a phone's ability to charge quickly or transfer data efficiently.
This approach resembles the MFi certification program, which leads to non-approved Lightning cables displaying an annoying "This accessory is not supported" message—accompanied by Apple's trademark condescending look.
On one hand, ensuring the integrity of charging accessories before allowing a phone to accept power is sensible, as unregulated juice could cause damage. However, on the flip side, it appears to be a strategy for Apple to maintain its grip on the made-for-iPhone accessory market while technically meeting EU requirements.
“Look, EU. We’ve got USB-C. You didn’t specify how effective it must be.”
In contrast, the current iPad models do not have these limitations, leading me to believe that this move is primarily to protect Apple's lucrative iPhone accessory ecosystem.
Naturally, this raises numerous questions: How will the authenticator chip limit user options? Will we only be able to charge with specific cables? Will charging be possible, but at a much slower rate?
The video