Hacker News Reader

Comment by msoad | Hacker News Reader

Although Lightning Cable is not the first to be bidirectional I am mad at Apple for not making Lightning an open standard.

View on HN

Lightning has one specific feature that allows it to easily be bidirectional. The pinout can be changed via software, to adapt to any occasion, and essentially manufacture a new plug with a firmware update. This means orientation doesn't matter (without duplicating pins). This is a bit harder with USB, which has specific purposes for each pin.

It's not that hard to simply swap all the pins in hardware if the connector is reversed. You don't need to able to reassign every single pin to make that possible.

Lightning is overdesigned which makes it expensive.

You could say that the previous iPod dock connector was over-designed. But it wasn't, because it survived many years and many devices, with only a handful in between (like some iPod nanos) not being amenable to it years after its creation. We do not yet know what fate awaits Lightning. The odds are certainly tilted against it. Not only is Android popular and universally using Micro-USB (unlike when the first iPhone came out and phones had all kinds of plugs), but "smart wires" are increasingly antiquated: if you want to pipe music from your phone to your car, wouldn't you rather use WiFi than a cord? Sure, you need to plug in to charge much of the time, but now you can hand the thing to someone in the backseat and let them change songs. And any dumb USB port will charge any phone these days, which is good enough.

> You could say that the previous iPod dock connector was over-designed. But it wasn't, because it survived many years and many devices

That's not the test of overdesigned. It's overdesigned if the cost doesn't provide sufficient benefit - and it clearly didn't.

It clearly didn't? I'd say the iPod dock ecosystem and all the optional cables (like VGA, HDMI, digital out etc) more than justified the cost of the 30 pin connector.

And I assume you believe the previous success of Internet Explorer demonstrated the superiority of Internet Explorer and not Windows.

The connector succeeded because the IPod was extremely popular and then Apple got to leverage network effects.

> It's overdesigned if the cost doesn't provide sufficient benefit - and it clearly didn't.

Really? The cost for a lightning to HDMI cable tends to fall in between that of an MHL to HDMI and a Slimport to HDMI adaptor.

> if you want to pipe music from your phone to your car, wouldn't you rather use WiFi than a cord?

No for several reasons (and since I haven't seen a single car with wifi music built-in, I'm going to assume you're abstracting wifi/bluetooth here into wireless):

1) Wireless drains batteries and I may not have a charger

2) Wired = charge-capable, likely charging.

3) Wireless setup requires authentication and configuration, often from the car itself. My 2012 Sienna is a great vehicle that is comfy on a road trip for 7 ppl, but it's BT implementation is a godawful nightmare. Setup is required to be initiated from the car, and can only be done through voice, and when you're not driving (even by passengers). Also, it tends to "lose" configs every once in a while. Meanwhile, the USB port just plays whatever's connected to it (we use mainly iDevices, so not sure about droids) and the in-wheel controls work fine.

No, because my car is going to LONG outlast the proprietary and most likely terrible app that my car's manufacturer would write for the current generation of one particular phone.

Cars should never under any circumstances ever have specific apps like Spotify, Pandora, and Bing. In 15 years, people are going to feel pretty stupid about owning those. The 3.5mm TRS connector, however, is a long term open standard that will still be working long after Pandora folds.

> Cars should never under any circumstances ever have specific apps like Spotify, Pandora, and Bing. In 15 years, people are going to feel pretty stupid about owning those.

Isn't that the point? Its shiny at the time you buy it, but it quickly feeds planned obscelescence, increasing your desire to replace it later. Win-win for the manufacturer.

> Not only is Android popular and universally using Micro-USB

And in a year or so, the transition to USB3, requiring a new port, will start; Lightning will handle USB3 with a different cable.

Also, of course, most modern Android devices don't have a microUSB port; they have microUSB+MHL or +SlimPort.

The iPod dock connector is actually an industry standard that Apple happened to use. They didn't create it.

Really? Could you provide a source for this? I was under the impression that the 30-pin connector was (yet another) proprietary Apple hardware standard.

I'm struggling to find any source that directly confirms it, but it's most certainly the same plug used in this standard, and the Dell Streak which conforms to it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDMI

You're saying that Apple's 30 pin connector, introduced in 2003, was a copy of a "industry standard" that was designed in 2010?

Maybe that's why you're struggling to find a source that "directly confirms it".

The standard is for the specification of the pin layout not the plug. As all the links on the wikipedia page are broken and I can't remember the name of the plug itself, we're at a loss here.

PDMI certainly seems to be a copy of the Apple 30 pin connector, but it was introduced long after it. It wasn't electrically compatible, of course. To add confusion, certain Samsung tablets used a physical PDMI interface which was not electrically compatible with either PDMI or the Apple thing.

That article actually says "PDMI aims to replace the ubiquitous iPod cradle connector".

even if that is physically the same 30 pin connector, that isn't even remotely close to being electrically the same.

PDMI has USB 3.0, displayport and high current power.

the ipod dock connector has firewire and composite video.

> Lightning is overdesigned

Overdesigned? Really? I'm not sure; it accomplishes the same thing as MHL, Slimport et al (which also tend to be expensive) and will be able to support USB3 when the time comes. It's far more futureproof than the old 30 pin thing.

It's over designed right now but its software adaptability makes it essentially future-proof. In 10-15 years it will still be useful.

It was underdesigned out of the box. From the documents I've read, USB 3.0 requires three differential pairs, whereas Apple only provides two with their proprietary connector. Plus, the built-in DRM means that it's a lot more difficult for hobbyists/experimenters to hack on it.

You're assuming that the USB3 controller would be inside the phone, it wouldn't, it'd be in the cable.

I'm sure they are doing this to preserve their patents, what is the point of an open standard if no one is allowed to use it?

I would really love to see a magnetic bi-directional cable eventually for phones/tablets. The Surface one is OK, but it doesn't snap as nicely as I think it could.

Then it's not an open one.

I don't care about open, I care about good.

> I am mad at Apple for not making Lightning an open standard.

Lightning is just Apple's marketing term for Intel's Thunderbolt interface. The standard is available from Intel, and if it were not it would be more appropriate to direct your anger at Intel.

You must have mistaken Light Peak for Lightening or Thunderbolt for Lightening. Light Peak = Thunderbolt, which competes with USB 3. Lightening is completely different.

Thunderbolt is Intel's external, hotswappable PCI-e interface found on many Apple laptops. Lightning is Apple's proprietary interface found on iOS devices. Aside from being named after different aspects of the same natural phenomenon, they have nothing in common.

Not sure how I got those so thoroughly mixed up, thanks for the clarification.

Well, being named after the same natural phenomenon is confusing enough. I often have to stop and think which is which. It's an understandable mistake.

Thunderbolt and lightning? Very very frightening.

No, that's Thunderbolt.

Thunderbolt is the PCI interface, Lightning is the alternate USB connector.

Lightning is not simply an alternate USB connector, or they never would have done it.

No, Lightning is a separate port used on iPod / iOS devices which is slower than the Thunderbolt interface.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com