[Auracle]

Lightning is capable of faster speeds. They just (probably rightly) decided it wasn’t worth the cost to put that in their phones when basically nobody transfers data on their phone using a cable. I believe one iPad had it before they switched to usb-c.

Obviously HN readers are the exception.

[Moldoteck]

So why they did replace lightning in ipads and didn't use it for macbooks to create a full lightning ecosystem? Suggestion: because it is not capable and they know that lightning is nothing more than a cash cow for overpriced accessories

[Auracle]

Or because they knew their "power-users," as in people with laptops and iPad Pros, would prefer USB-C. They probably wanted to keep control over accessories on the iPhone not only for straight up financial reasons, but also to make sure "it just works."

Anyways, USB-C is obviously technically more advanced - but it doesn't really matter for phones much, does it? Most people only ever transfer data on their phones from/to the cloud.

[Moldoteck]

It does matter. Much faster charging, much faster transfer for prores 4k videos. The fact that a lot are using cloud doesn't mean few use cable for data transfer

[neoromantique]

>basically nobody transfers data on their phone using a cable.

Maybe because it takes an eternity to do so?

[Auracle]

Even on Android phones, but I thought my meaning was clear. A lot of people don't even have a PC in their house anymore.