Lightening to 30 pin adapter

[JanG]

Does anyone know what the difference is between the Apple Lightning to
30-pin Adapter 0.2M $39.97 and the Apple Lightning to 30-pin Adapter $19.97
... besides the $20 in price?

[JanG]

"JanG" <jan...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:A9-dnctQTIsDhRrN...@giganews.com...

> Does anyone know what the difference is between the Apple Lightning to
> 30-pin Adapter 0.2M $39.97 and the Apple Lightning to 30-pin Adapter
> $19.97 ... besides the $20 in price?

CORRECTION: Lightening to 30 pin CABLE, not adapter.

[nospam]

In article <7b6dnQt3g5AthBrN...@giganews.com>, JanG

<jan...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> > Does anyone know what the difference is between the Apple Lightning to
> > 30-pin Adapter 0.2M $39.97 and the Apple Lightning to 30-pin Adapter
> > $19.97 ... besides the $20 in price?
>
> CORRECTION: Lightening to 30 pin CABLE, not adapter.

there are three products:
lightning-usb cable for 20 bucks.
lightning-30 pin dock adapter for 30 bucks
lightning-30 pin dock cable for 40 bucks.

the lightning-usb cable replaces the dock cable, but for the newer
devices. use it to sync/charge/etc.

the lightning-30 pin adapters let you use older 30 pin dock cables and
accessories with newer lightning ios devices. which one to get depends
on the accessory and how it fits into the device.

for instance, if you have a case on the phone, the 30 buck adapter
won't fit unless the entire bottom is exposed. if you have a dock
accessory that supports the phone, like many speaker docks do, you may
need the cable adapter because the phone won't fit with the other
adapter, or may flex and stress the connector.

[DevilsPGD]

In the last episode of <231020121536025617%nos...@nospam.invalid>,

For me, the extra $10 was worth it as the cable will be used in a car,
having extra pieces attached to the phone will be more fragile than
putting the components up the cable slightly.

Plus, who knows what sort of case I'll end up with, if any, but I'd hate
to have a useless $30 cable.

--
The nice thing about standards, there is enough for everyone to have their own.

[Jan]

I get the $20 cable and the $30 adapter, but what does the $40 cable do
that the $20 one doesn't?

--
JanG

[nospam]

In article
<1353234924372737446.51...@news.giganews.com>, Jan

<jan...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> I get the $20 cable and the $30 adapter, but what does the $40 cable do
> that the $20 one doesn't?

the $40 cable is the $30 adapter with a short cable, for when an
adapter alone may not fit.

[DevilsPGD]

In the last episode of

<1353234924372737446.51...@news.giganews.com>, Jan

<jan...@pacbell.net> said:

>I get the $20 cable and the $30 adapter, but what does the $40 cable do
>that the $20 one doesn't?

The $40 cable connects to an existing 30-pin device/cable/connection,
similar to the $30 adapter. It's a different beast than the $20 cable.

[zulu]

"Michelle Steiner" <mich...@michelle.org> wrote in message
news:michelle-3E0743...@news.eternal-september.org...

> In article
> <1353234924372737446.51...@news.giganews.com>,
> Jan <jan...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>

>> I get the $20 cable and the $30 adapter, but what does the $40 cable do
>> that the $20 one doesn't?
>

> The $40 cable does the same thing as the $30 adapter, except that there's
> a
> 20 CM cable between the two plugs instead of both of them being on the
> same
> piece of plastic.
>

Rip-off prices!!

All made in China for some rice and a bowlfor.

--
zulu

[David Taylor]

On 24/10/2012 10:53, zulu wrote:
[]

> Rip-off prices!!
>
> All made in China for some rice and a bowlfor.

Although Amazon have interesting prices as well:

US Kindle paperwhite $119 + tax => ?
UK Kindle paperwhite £109 (inc tax) = US $174

A rip-off?
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

[zulu]

"David Taylor" <david-...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:k68tet$hqj$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 24/10/2012 10:53, zulu wrote:
> []
>> Rip-off prices!!
>>
>> All made in China for some rice and a bowlfor.
>
> Although Amazon have interesting prices as well:
>
> US Kindle paperwhite $119 + tax => ?
> UK Kindle paperwhite �109 (inc tax) = US $174
>
> A rip-off?

Absolutely!
Many things here (in the UK) are a rip-off.

Apple's high pricing + UK profiteering + our relatively lower income makes
this sort off stuff expensive.


--
zulu

[zulu]

"Michelle Steiner" <mich...@michelle.org> wrote in message

news:michelle-A88C35...@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article <GUOhs.50511$Ak.2...@fx24.am4>,

> "zulu" <zulu.romeo...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> >> I get the $20 cable and the $30 adapter, but what does the $40 cable
>> >> do that the $20 one doesn't?
>> >
>> > The $40 cable does the same thing as the $30 adapter, except that
>> > there's a 20 CM cable between the two plugs instead of both of them
>> > being on the same piece of plastic.
>> >
>>
>> Rip-off prices!!
>

> Nope; there are sophisticated electronics in the plugs of those devices.
>

Sophisticated?
Elaborate!
Chips are cheap...
(DC>DC converters cost pennies, just for example)

Citcuit?


--
zulu

[nospam]

In article <9gWhs.78606$9W6....@fx08.am4>, zulu

<zulu.romeo...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> >> >> I get the $20 cable and the $30 adapter, but what does the $40 cable
> >> >> do that the $20 one doesn't?
> >> >
> >> > The $40 cable does the same thing as the $30 adapter, except that
> >> > there's a 20 CM cable between the two plugs instead of both of them
> >> > being on the same piece of plastic.
> >>
> >> Rip-off prices!!
> >
> > Nope; there are sophisticated electronics in the plugs of those devices.
>
> Sophisticated?
> Elaborate!
> Chips are cheap...
> (DC>DC converters cost pennies, just for example)

the lightning adapter cables have a d/a converter to emulate the audio
out of an ipod/iphone as well as an authentication chip. it's more than
a straight cable.

the regular lightning cable has the authentication chip as well, plus
whatever it needs for the function it does. it doesn't need as much as
the lightning-30pin adapters, plus they could never get away with a $20
sync cable anyway.

however, the authentication chip has been cracked, so expect less
expensive knockoff cables at some point.

[zulu]

"Michelle Steiner" <mich...@michelle.org> wrote in message

news:michelle-09D04F...@news.eternal-september.org...

> In article <9gWhs.78606$9W6....@fx08.am4>,
> "zulu" <zulu.romeo...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>

>> > Nope; there are sophisticated electronics in the plugs of those
>> > devices.
>> >
>>
>> Sophisticated?
>> Elaborate!
>> Chips are cheap...
>> (DC>DC converters cost pennies, just for example)
>

> <http://www.extremetech.com/electronics/136947-apples-mega-complicated-light
> ning-connector-analyzed>
>

TY, a lot is explained.

That was en"lightning"....<g>

Quote

"Lightning Authenticator.

The upshot of all this is that Lightning connectors can be plugged in
however you like, and it does have room to grow in the future. But the
complexity of Lightning may explain the presence of the recently discovered
authentication chip inside the cable. This chip is directly in the path of
the V+ wire, which tells us that a cable without this feature likely won't
work. In other words, the market for cheap third-party Lightning cables
might be dead before it even gets started."
Unquote

Draw your own conclusions...I have.

--
zulu

[Steve Hix]

In article <9gWhs.78606$9W6....@fx08.am4>,
"zulu" <zulu.romeo...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> "Michelle Steiner" <mich...@michelle.org> wrote in message
> news:michelle-A88C35...@news.eternal-september.org...
> > In article <GUOhs.50511$Ak.2...@fx24.am4>,
> > "zulu" <zulu.romeo...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >> I get the $20 cable and the $30 adapter, but what does the $40 cable
> >> >> do that the $20 one doesn't?
> >> >
> >> > The $40 cable does the same thing as the $30 adapter, except that
> >> > there's a 20 CM cable between the two plugs instead of both of them
> >> > being on the same piece of plastic.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Rip-off prices!!
> >
> > Nope; there are sophisticated electronics in the plugs of those devices.
> >
>
> Sophisticated?
> Elaborate!
> Chips are cheap...

In large quantities, and after amortizing development and manufacturing prep
costs.

> (DC>DC converters cost pennies, just for example)

The which are made in huge amounts, and have been for quite a while.

[zulu]

"Steve Hix" <se...@NOSPAMmac.comINVALID> wrote in message
news:sehix-29F912....@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com...

The point is...

As far as I am aware, this trickery is unique to Apple.

If, as I understand it, the chip is there only to prevent cheap clones bring
made, why on earth should _we_ bear the cost?
That is adding insult to injury!
They should simply sell [1]unadulterated leads/connectors/adaptors at a
sensible price that doesn't make them _worh_ copying.

[1]
I would go so far as to say that if they (or at least some) were included in
the box in the first place, they wouldn't _need_ to go to such extreme
lengths.


--
zulu

[AaronL]

"zulu" wrote:

> As far as I am aware, this trickery is unique to Apple.
> If, as I understand it, the chip is there only to prevent cheap
clones bring
> made, why on earth should _we_ bear the cost?

You don't *have* to bear the cost, and neither does anyone else...

[David Empson]

You understand wrong. The chip _may_ have authentication features, but
there is no evidence of this yet, just wild speculation.

The closest feature to "authentication" that seems likely given evidence
so far is the chip can do a cyclic redundancy check (CRC), which is a
method of testing for errors in transferred data, so that an erroneous
packet can be discarded and retransmitted. CRCs are commonly used in
data transfer protocols (including PPP, Ethernet packets and many
others). This is not "authentication" in any meaningful sense.

The useful functions of the chip in the Lightning to USB cable are:

1. To identify the cable to the device, so it can adjust its behaviour
and pin functions according to what you plugged in.

2. To assist the device in detecting which orientation has been used
when the cable is plugged in, so the device and/or cable can reconfigure
its interface pins as required.

3. To route power to one or more pins of the interface, which can be
adjusted dynamically based on the device's requirements and cable
orientation.

> That is adding insult to injury!
> They should simply sell [1]unadulterated leads/connectors/adaptors at a
> sensible price that doesn't make them _worh_ copying.
>
> [1]
> I would go so far as to say that if they (or at least some) were included in
> the box in the first place, they wouldn't _need_ to go to such extreme
> lengths.

Each iPod, iPhone or iPad with a lightning connector comes with a single
lighting to USB cable in the box. It is necessary to recharge the
battery in the device.

The variety of adapters are not included, because Apple doesn't know
which ones each person needs, and adding all of them would increase the
cost, packaging size and weight, resulting in a signficant degree of
wasted resources and money, especially as a high proportion of those
adapters would never be used.

--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz

[Steve Hix]

In article <T_9is.28090$it2....@fx22.am4>,

It was normal behavior in the electronics industry for at least as long as I
have had insider knowledge (30+ years in various computer development
engineering departments). And it tracks pretty well with historical records
in the automotive and aviation industries.

> If, as I understand it, the chip is there only to prevent cheap clones bring
> made, why on earth should _we_ bear the cost?

The chip in question appears to be there to permit on-the-fly reconfiguration
of the signal/power pins on the connector. This lets you plug it in either way
and not have to duplicate every single signal and power lead. The Lightning
connector system is actively reconfiguring, mostly so you have less chance of
being inconvenienced in use.

It's not to screw over some third-party maker of cables.

> That is adding insult to injury!
> They should simply sell [1]unadulterated leads/connectors/adaptors at a
> sensible price that doesn't make them _worh_ copying.

That's pretty much what the (many) USB connectors do, by making the connectors
fit in only one orientation. Giving you about even odds of first trying (and
failing) to plug it in the right way in the dark.

> [1]
> I would go so far as to say that if they (or at least some) were included in
> the box in the first place, they wouldn't _need_ to go to such extreme
> lengths.

The Lightning cable does happen to ship in the box. What are you on about?

[DevilsPGD]

In the last episode of <k68tet$hqj$1...@dont-email.me>, David Taylor

<david-...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> said:

>On 24/10/2012 10:53, zulu wrote:
>[]
>> Rip-off prices!!
>>
>> All made in China for some rice and a bowlfor.
>
>Although Amazon have interesting prices as well:
>
> US Kindle paperwhite $119 + tax => ?
> UK Kindle paperwhite £109 (inc tax) = US $174
>
>A rip-off?

What's the tax included in that £109?

[DevilsPGD]

In the last episode of <slrnk8kh4d....@mbp55.local>, Lewis
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> said:

>Because that's not what the chip is there for. It's there to decide what
>the pins will be used for.

What sort of decision needs to be made when connecting to 4/5 pins of
USB?

Occam's razor suggests that simply wiring the connector's pins correctly
on both sides rather than reversing behaviour or actively negotiating
would be a simpler and saner decision.

Don't get me wrong, it might well be that there isn't any active
authentication happening here, but if so, it's an overly complicated
design for little practical benefit.

[DevilsPGD]

In the last episode of

<michelle-03312D...@news.eternal-september.org>, Michelle
Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> said:

>In article <esrl88hdv5f3qk9mu...@4ax.com>,

> DevilsPGD <booga...@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>
>> >Because that's not what the chip is there for. It's there to decide what
>> >the pins will be used for.
>>
>> What sort of decision needs to be made when connecting to 4/5 pins of
>> USB?
>

>What about HDMI or VGA? The chip determines what signals go on which pins.

The USB cable does not offer those options.

>> Occam's razor suggests that simply wiring the connector's pins correctly
>> on both sides rather than reversing behaviour or actively negotiating
>> would be a simpler and saner decision.
>

>Only if the only option were to a USB port.

If a chip-enabled cable is connected, it could still offer full
functionality. My suggestion is that if the cables aren't decided to
authenticate to lock out third-party manufacturers, the chips wouldn't
be needed and basic power+USB2 data would be supported without a chip.

Based on this, it seems likely that the basic USB cable has a chip only
to limit functionality of unlicensed third party suppliers.

[David Empson]

DevilsPGD <booga...@crazyhat.net> wrote:

> In the last episode of <k68tet$hqj$1...@dont-email.me>, David Taylor
> <david-...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> said:
>
> >On 24/10/2012 10:53, zulu wrote:
> >[]
> >> Rip-off prices!!
> >>
> >> All made in China for some rice and a bowlfor.
> >
> >Although Amazon have interesting prices as well:
> >
> > US Kindle paperwhite $119 + tax => ?
> > UK Kindle paperwhite �109 (inc tax) = US $174
> >
> >A rip-off?
>
> What's the tax included in that �109?

Should be 20% unless the VAT rate has changed again since I last looked.
That still makes it the equivalent of a US retail price of US$145 before
tax. Why the 22% markup? Are duties applicable in the UK?

Apple's prices in some countries have about a 10% markup before tax,
probably to cover the risk of currency fluctuations. There is also the
"round up to the next standard price ending in 9 unless close enough to
previous one" trick, which sometimes adds a fair chunk.

In the case of the lightning adapters in New Zealand, it has ended up
with the solid adapter being overpriced and the markup to the 20 cm
cable adapter being less of an issue.

Lighting to 30-pin adapter: US$29
Convert to NZ$: NZ$35.41
Add GST (15%): NZ$40.72
Add 10% safety martin: NZ$44.72
Round up to next standard price: NZ$49

Lightning 20 cm cable to 30-pin adapter: US$39
Convert to NZ$: NZ$47.39
Add GST (15%): NZ$54.50
Add 10% safety margin: NZ$59.95
Close enough to next standard price to not bump again: NZ$59.

End result is that the 20 cm adapter is 33% more expensive than the
solid one in the US, but only 20% more expensive in NZ.

--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz

[David Empson]

DevilsPGD <booga...@crazyhat.net> wrote:

> In the last episode of <slrnk8kh4d....@mbp55.local>, Lewis
> <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> said:
>
> >Because that's not what the chip is there for. It's there to decide what
> >the pins will be used for.
>
> What sort of decision needs to be made when connecting to 4/5 pins of
> USB?
>
> Occam's razor suggests that simply wiring the connector's pins correctly
> on both sides rather than reversing behaviour or actively negotiating
> would be a simpler and saner decision.

That isn't what they've done, based on a teardown of the USB cable. It
has a somewhat complex connection pattern between the pins on both
sides.

It goes like this, with top pins on the left and bottom on right,
numbering 1-8 from left to right on both top and bottom when looking at
the plug end on. (This is how it was described originally.)

1 - 8 and shell (USB V- in the lightning to USB cable)
2 - 2 (USB D+ in the lighting to USB cable)
3 - 3 (USB D- in the lightning to USB cable)
4 - 1
5 - 4
6 - 6
7 - 7
8 - 5

If the pins on the bottom are instead numbered in the opposite order,
this is the pinout:

1 - 1 and shell (USB V- in the lightning to USB cable)
2 - 7 (USB D+ in the lighting to USB cable)
3 - 6 (USB D- in the lightning to USB cable)
4 - 8
5 - 5
6 - 3
7 - 2
8 - 4

Using this numbering sheme, it is clear that pins 1 and 5 are unchanged
if you flip the plug over, but the other six pins end up in different
places, e.g. the USB data lines will end up either on pins 2 and 3 or on
pins 6 and 7 depending on the plug orienation. Therefore the device
needs to adapt to their position depending on the orientation of the
plug.

The above arrangement is only known to apply to the USB cable. A
different pinout could be used for the lighting to dock adapters and
other peripherals. I expect that pin 1 is consistently the ground
reference, and pin 5 is probably wired the same way on all connectors:
it may be used for the ID protocol, with another pin used temporarily to
detect orientation.

> Don't get me wrong, it might well be that there isn't any active
> authentication happening here, but if so, it's an overly complicated
> design for little practical benefit.

If pins 1 and 5 are the only ones with fixed purposes, then in
principle, future plugs could separate the top and bottom pins, turning
it into a 16-pin plug, with at least 12 dynamically configured pins.

If the sides were independent, dynamic configuration would be required,
so I think Apple is getting in early and implementing it now, while 8
pins are sufficient for current devices and peripherals.

--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz

[DevilsPGD]

In the last episode of <slrnk8mv06....@mbp55.local>, Lewis
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> said:

>In message <esrl88hdv5f3qk9mu...@4ax.com>

> DevilsPGD <booga...@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>> In the last episode of <slrnk8kh4d....@mbp55.local>, Lewis
>> <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> said:
>
>>>Because that's not what the chip is there for. It's there to decide what
>>>the pins will be used for.
>
>> What sort of decision needs to be made when connecting to 4/5 pins of
>> USB?
>

>Please takes a few minutes to read something, anything, about the
>lightning connector.
>
>Here's a couple fo highlights:
>
>1) reversible
>2) dynamic pin assignments
>3) supports HDMI (which USB does no)

And? None of that makes any difference; the device electronics can be
prepared for one single "default" connection and only needs specific
instructions when changing from that default.

[DevilsPGD]

In the last episode of <slrnk8ru6l....@mbp55.local>, Lewis
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> said:

>In message <7ckr88hkngnomt4u8...@4ax.com>

> DevilsPGD <booga...@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>> And? None of that makes any difference; the device electronics can be
>> prepared for one single "default" connection and only needs specific
>> instructions when changing from that default.
>

>REVERSIBLE. So no.

The lightning connector has 8 pins (plus a ground), only 4 are needed
for USB. Give a bit of thought to how one might implement a single
reversible connector without a processor. (hint: You wire pins 1-4 to
8-5 and have the phone ignore them without an identification chip
handshake)

This would allow full compatibility with the existing lightning
functionality, including a reversible connection for HDMI and other
advanced functionality, without requiring any additional chips or
functionality for the most basic thing: Charging.

OTOH, if they're seeing a significant number of warranty claims that
show damage from poorly designed third party chargers, perhaps verifying
the cables are real and having the cable designed to shut down if
incorrect voltages are received isn't a horrible idea.

Still, I'd rather see the engineering (and ultimately the brains) exist
in the $700 phone than the cat-chewable cable.

[DevilsPGD]

In the last episode of <slrnk8u9sv....@mbp55.local>, Lewis
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> said:

>In message <n9vr889phgq2ujjvc...@4ax.com>

> DevilsPGD <booga...@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>> In the last episode of <slrnk8ru6l....@mbp55.local>, Lewis
>> <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> said:
>
>>>In message <7ckr88hkngnomt4u8...@4ax.com>
>>> DevilsPGD <booga...@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>>>> And? None of that makes any difference; the device electronics can be
>>>> prepared for one single "default" connection and only needs specific
>>>> instructions when changing from that default.
>>>
>>>REVERSIBLE. So no.
>
>> The lightning connector has 8 pins (plus a ground), only 4 are needed
>> for USB. Give a bit of thought to how one might implement a single
>> reversible connector without a processor. (hint: You wire pins 1-4 to
>> 8-5 and have the phone ignore them without an identification chip
>> handshake)
>

>That would work if all you wanted was a reversible USB plug. It would
>not work for any other purpose since you've just used up all your pins.

I've said this over and over and over, but I'll do it one more time
since you keep trimming it. In fact, I'll even type this one slowly: I'm
just talking about the USB/lightning cable. The one default connection
type, that can be assumed if no chip is present to set up something
else.

And frankly, I don't really even care about USB data, I'd really just
like to see reasonably priced charging options as soon as possible and
in a variety of form factors (ElevationDock, Dock+, etc), since almost
everything else can be done wirelessly anyway at this point.

I'm not suggesting any changes for any other types of data, having a
smarter cable implementation is a necessity to make anything that needs
more than 4+ground work and make it reversible, at least as long as the
reversibility logic is in the cable (although this too could be moved to
the phone, but I can understand the desire to keep it at the cable level
both to conserve valuable space within the portable devices and to
increase future expandability)

Let me be clear, I have a lot of technical appreciation for both the
implementation and the day to day functionality of the cable. I wish
that Micro-USB's developers had built this connector first, and that it
weren't proprietary to Apple because I'd gladly replace every single USB
device I have, now, with this connector if that were an option. Plugging
my iPhone 5 in is such a joy vs my Kindle, Nexus 7, iPad, or various
other gizmos, it really is significant in a way that is difficult to
describe but easy to appreciate in real life. It's not just that it's
reversible, but also the fact that it's got sufficient dimension and
shape that you don't have to line it up perfectly and the connector
shape itself directs it to the right place.

[DevilsPGD]

In the last episode of <slrnk8ulrb....@mbp55.local>, Lewis
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> said:

>In message <aeiu8893rfco7vtgb...@4ax.com>

>So? You've assined ALL THE PINS simply for USB. There is no way, now, to
>do any sort of checking to dynamically reassign pins based on the type
>of connector.

Check the +5V for an in-line authentication chip. Like is done *RIGHT*
*NOW*. This already exists. If it exists, use this +5V for power, and
use the other connectors as specified.

My proposed implementation is that if the authentication chip doesn't
exist, then pick a standard/default pinout which matches the most common
usage scenario, the cable included by default in every box.

>> I'm not suggesting any changes for any other types of data, having a
>> smarter cable implementation is a necessity to make anything that needs
>> more than 4+ground work and make it reversible, at least as long as the
>> reversibility logic is in the cable (although this too could be moved to
>> the phone, but I can understand the desire to keep it at the cable level
>> both to conserve valuable space within the portable devices and to
>> increase future expandability)
>

>You really do not understand, do you? If you assign all the pins then
>you don't have any pins available to check the type of cable you have.

There isn't a dedicated pin for such things now. The presence of +5V on
pin 1 would be the indication that this is a dumb cable, the lack of
immediately available +5V would indicate it's a smart cable with a chip
and that a handshake should be initiated.

Take a look at
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/09/teardown-revives-hopes-that-lightning-might-be-usb-3-0-compatible/
to see the pinout, there isn't a dedicated "identify this cable" pin
now, so a system that doesn't require one doesn't seem to be that scary.

http://www.head-fi.org/t/628369/all-about-the-new-apple-lightning-cables-plugs-update-the-plot-thickens
talks about how there already is no +5V on any pin until the handshake,
so again, I'm talking about the current system, with a simple addition
that without an authentication chip, +5V can be provided immediately to
indicate "I'm a boring 'ol USB cable that does nothing fancy at all"

>Your idea is simply a reversible USB connector that can only ever be a
>reversible USB connector.

For this particular cable, yes. Since the cables themselves don't change
behaviours, this isn't a problem. When the port (which does change
behaviours) detects a different cable, it can still flip to the
appropriate behaviour.

[zulu]

"DevilsPGD" <booga...@crazyhat.net> wrote in message
news:aeiu8893rfco7vtgb...@4ax.com...

..until the Lightning 2 comes out!
How long do you give it?
(I do hope they have the brains to colour code or otherwise identify the
various iterations which _will_ come one day.


--
zulu

[Steve Hix]

In article <OVOjs.134134$Sr2....@fx01.am4>,

"zulu" <zulu.romeo...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >
> > Let me be clear, I have a lot of technical appreciation for both the
> > implementation and the day to day functionality of the cable. I wish
> > that Micro-USB's developers had built this connector first, and that it
> > weren't proprietary to Apple because I'd gladly replace every single USB
> > device I have, now, with this connector if that were an option. Plugging
> > my iPhone 5 in is such a joy vs my Kindle, Nexus 7, iPad, or various
> > other gizmos, it really is significant in a way that is difficult to
> > describe but easy to appreciate in real life. It's not just that it's
> > reversible, but also the fact that it's got sufficient dimension and
> > shape that you don't have to line it up perfectly and the connector
> > shape itself directs it to the right place.
>

> ..until the Lightning 2 comes out!
> How long do you give it?

Given that the 30-pin dock connector has been around since 2003, and since 2004
since FireWire was phased out of it except for charging, maybe 'til 2022 or so.

Pretty long in computer interface terms.

> (I do hope they have the brains to colour code or otherwise identify the
> various iterations which _will_ come one day.

Why would you expect them to do otherwise?

[DevilsPGD]

In the last episode of <OVOjs.134134$Sr2....@fx01.am4>, "zulu"

<zulu.romeo...@ntlworld.com> said:

>..until the Lightning 2 comes out!
>How long do you give it?
>(I do hope they have the brains to colour code or otherwise identify the
>various iterations which _will_ come one day.

5-10 years. Possibly more, unless wireless charging becomes mainstream
in which case it may be the last port. Possibly less, if optical
connections take off.

Imagine a device that charges wirelessly, and uses a magnetic lock to
hold an optical cable in place? Or heck, at that point it's probably
practical to just ditch the wired connector entirely and deal with
device recoveries at authorized service centers. At that point, lose the
headphone jack and the entire thing could be water, dust and dirt
resistant.

[zulu]

"DevilsPGD" <booga...@crazyhat.net> wrote in message

news:u49098lfagd6cu2lm...@4ax.com...

I'd rather have a fully functional USB socket!

[Todd Allcock]

At 30 Oct 2012 04:28:28 +0000 Lewis wrote:
> In message <aeiu8893rfco7vtgb...@4ax.com>

> So? You've assined ALL THE PINS simply for USB. There is no way, now, to
> do any sort of checking to dynamically reassign pins based on the type
> of connector.
>

> > I'm not suggesting any changes for any other types of data, having a
> > smarter cable implementation is a necessity to make anything that
needs
> > more than 4+ground work and make it reversible, at least as long as
the
> > reversibility logic is in the cable (although this too could be moved
to
> > the phone, but I can understand the desire to keep it at the cable
level
> > both to conserve valuable space within the portable devices and to
> > increase future expandability)
>

> You really do not understand, do you? If you assign all the pins then
> you don't have any pins available to check the type of cable you have.

> Your idea is simply a reversible USB connector that can only ever be a
> reversible USB connector.

There are 8 contacts on the device, but 16 pins in the cable connector,
with several (3? I forget) repeated on each side. DevilsPGD was
suggesting the repeated pins default to charge and sync, (if the number
of repeated pins allowed) on "unchipped" cables, allowing for cheaper
"basic" cables.

> > Let me be clear, I have a lot of technical appreciation for both the
> > implementation and the day to day functionality of the cable.
>

> But no understanding about how it works.

He has demonstrated plenty of understanding about how it works. There
are already duplicated pins on both sides of the cables (VDC+ and ground,
particularly, which is all a charger needs.)

Call me old school, but cables should be dumb, and the devices should
have the smarts. One thing microUSB got right, was the cable is designed
to break far more easily than the port it plugs into, on the theory you'd
rather lost a cable than break a device. (miniUSB, sadly, didn't have
this philosophy, and the miniUSB pet was a fragile POS.)

> >I wish that Micro-USB's developers had built this connector first, and
> >that it weren't proprietary to Apple because I'd gladly replace every
> >single USB device I have, now, with this connector if that were an
> >option. Plugging my iPhone 5 in is such a joy vs my Kindle, Nexus 7,
> >iPad, or various other gizmos, it really is significant in a way that
> >is difficult to describe but easy to appreciate in real life. It's not
> >just that it's reversible, but also the fact that it's got sufficient
> >dimension and shape that you don't have to line it up perfectly and the
> >connector shape itself directs it to the right place.
>

> Micro and mini USB are *terrible* connectors, it's a shame so many
> devices use them.


While true, I'll take one standard, if difficult, connector over fifteen
different proprietary "easyl ones.

[Alan Browne]

On 2012.10.30 15:46 , DevilsPGD wrote:

> 5-10 years. Possibly more, unless wireless charging becomes mainstream
> in which case it may be the last port.

Wireless charging should be banned except for areas where there is high
risk of explosion, corrosion or for medical use (subcutaneous charging).

Wireless for convenience is a stupid, criminal waste of energy.

--
"There were, unfortunately, no great principles on which parties
were divided – politics became a mere struggle for office."
-Sir John A. Macdonald

[DevilsPGD]

In the last episode of <DtqdnZU1qbh53A3N...@giganews.com>,

Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> said:

>On 2012.10.30 15:46 , DevilsPGD wrote:
>
>> 5-10 years. Possibly more, unless wireless charging becomes mainstream
>> in which case it may be the last port.
>
>Wireless charging should be banned except for areas where there is high
>risk of explosion, corrosion or for medical use (subcutaneous charging).

Why?

>Wireless for convenience is a stupid, criminal waste of energy.

Efficiency will increase as time goes on. It may not match wired in all
cases, but given the loses to long-distance transmission of wired energy
and the aversion to moving electricity production near where consumption
happens, I have trouble getting too upset, especially if it means
potentially making devices waterproof.

[DevilsPGD]

In the last episode of <UEWjs.66001$lz1....@fx28.am4>, "zulu"

<zulu.romeo...@ntlworld.com> said:

>I'd rather have a fully functional USB socket!

Me too, but I'd rather have that in the Lightning form-factor than any
USB standard I've seen yet. Doubly so because it could handle USB 3.

[David Empson]

Todd Allcock <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:

> At 30 Oct 2012 04:28:28 +0000 Lewis wrote:
> > In message <aeiu8893rfco7vtgb...@4ax.com>
> > DevilsPGD <booga...@crazyhat.net> wrote:
> > > I'm not suggesting any changes for any other types of data, having a
> > > smarter cable implementation is a necessity to make anything that
> > > needs more than 4+ground work and make it reversible, at least as long
> > > as the reversibility logic is in the cable (although this too could be
> > > moved to the phone, but I can understand the desire to keep it at the
> > > cable level both to conserve valuable space within the portable
> > > devices and to increase future expandability)
> >
> > You really do not understand, do you? If you assign all the pins then
> > you don't have any pins available to check the type of cable you have.
> > Your idea is simply a reversible USB connector that can only ever be a
> > reversible USB connector.
>
> There are 8 contacts on the device, but 16 pins in the cable connector,
> with several (3? I forget) repeated on each side.

All 8 pins are mapped through to both sides, but with a complex
arrangement. See my earlier post for details. The signals going to pins
1 and 5 (numbering left to right on the top looking end-on at the
lightning plug) end up in the same place no matter which way you connect
the plug. The others move around.

> DevilsPGD was suggesting the repeated pins default to charge and sync, (if
> the number of repeated pins allowed) on "unchipped" cables, allowing for
> cheaper "basic" cables.

On the point of "cheaper" cables, it is worth noting that Apple's
standard US price for the lightning to USB cable is exactly the same as
Apple's standard US price for the dock to USB cable: both are US$19 at
the Apple Store.

Apple's prices in other countries may vary due to exchange rates having
shifted between the introduction of those two cables, and Apple not
adjusting the price of the older one. For example, in New Zealand the
lightning to USB cable is NZ$29 but the dock to USB one is NZ$36.

Third party dock cables are considerably cheaper of course. Are there
any certified third party dock cables?

There aren't any certified third party lightning cables yet, and no
evidence whether the cloned ones actually work, discussions about price
of them now seems rather premature.

> > > Let me be clear, I have a lot of technical appreciation for both the
> > > implementation and the day to day functionality of the cable.
> >
> > But no understanding about how it works.
>
> He has demonstrated plenty of understanding about how it works. There
> are already duplicated pins on both sides of the cables (VDC+ and ground,
> particularly, which is all a charger needs.)

The lightning to USB cable doesn't have a dedicated VDC+ pin on the
lightning connector. The only pins that go through from USB to the
lightning connector are ground, Data+ and Data-. Of those, only ground
doesn't move if you reverse the cable.

Power must be routed dynamically, and may go to more than one pin.

--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz