1. TechSpot is dedicated to computer enthusiasts and power users. Ask a question and give support. Join the community here.
    TechSpot is dedicated to computer enthusiasts and power users.
    Ask a question and give support.
    Join the community here, it only takes a minute.
    Dismiss Notice

Analyst says next iPhones will have Lightning ports, but cables will be USB Type-C

By midian182 ยท 25 replies
Mar 3, 2017
Post New Reply
  1. News from earlier this week suggesting Apple could replace the Lightning connector in the iPhone 8 with USB Type-C came as a surprise to many. But it seems the Wall Street Journal, which ran the report, may not have been totally accurate; there will be USB Type-C, but only on one end of the power cord – the handset itself will retain the Lightning port.

    That’s the opinion of renowned KGI Securities analyst Ming-Chi Kuo, who wrote in a note to investors that all three iPhones set to be launched this year – the flagship 8 and what are likely to be the iPhone 7s/7s Plus – “will support fast charging by the adoption of Type-C Power Delivery technology (while still retaining the Lightning port)."

    So, it seems what Apple may actually be replacing is the regular USB connector on one end of the power cable with USB Type-C. A setup that would allow owners to plug their new iPhones into the latest MacBook Pros, which sport only Type-C ports, to charge their handsets.

    Kuo’s prediction sounds much more plausible than Apple removing the Lighting port from the iPhones – and makes more sense. Apple's reversible connector only arrived back in 2012 on the iPhone 5, and the analyst notes it is smaller than USB Type-C, allowing for a slimmer phone design. Moreover, there’s also the Lightning licensing revenue to consider.

    Apple’s new iPhones are rumored to be unveiled this October, including the 5.8-inch $1000 model, which is expected to be the first to feature an OLED panel - and it will likely be a curved one.

    Permalink to story.

  2. Burty117

    Burty117 TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 3,507   +1,308

    The Wall Street Journal?! In-accurate?! OMG! Never! I can't even...

    After the whole PewDiePie thing (Which btw Pewds has put another video up explaining the complaints WSJ had made) I'm surprised they get taken seriously at all. I know lots of people don't like Pewds but there was no need for what they did.
    Reehahs, davislane1 and Greg S like this.
  3. WSJ is fake news.
    Burty117 likes this.
  4. mojorisin23

    mojorisin23 TS Booster Posts: 154   +48

    WSJ is considered one of the only trustworthy newspapers left out there...
    mbrowne5061 likes this.
  5. By whom? These guys are as fake as the others: https://www.wsj.com/articles/disney...pewdiepie-after-anti-semitic-posts-1487034533
    Burty117 likes this.
  6. mojorisin23

    mojorisin23 TS Booster Posts: 154   +48

    damnthereaper and Panda218 like this.
  7. Burty117

    Burty117 TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 3,507   +1,308

    Guessing you didn't watch the PewDiePie Video I linked then? You probably should watch it. I think you'll find it entertaining.

    WSJ Editor makes Nazi Jokes on Twitter, then tried to bring down Pewds for doing the same thing. It was 9 tiny things in his videos they tried to bring down, the only big (and Pewds himself admitted) was the sign he paid for on fiver was a bit too far.

    The other 8 things WSJ complained to YouTube about were completely insane, Even Pewds putting his arm up in a 90 degree angle they complained about. They wanted a Head Line so they went out of their way to fabricate the head line. How can you trust them after that?

    They didn't even go to PewDiePie first for comment, they went straight to YouTube and Disney to complain, that right there. That is simply not called for. That was deliberate and it got them the Head Line they were after...
    Greg S likes this.
  8. How do you know someone is suffering from cognitive dissonance? They go straight to insults:

  9. mojorisin23

    mojorisin23 TS Booster Posts: 154   +48

    yup... you got me... *nerd*(y)
  10. mojorisin23

    mojorisin23 TS Booster Posts: 154   +48

    ...And again, I'll repeat it. I can pull out something worse for every news org out there, every paper, every news tv program. ALL OF THEM. I'm just saying some are MORE trustworthy than others. This is one of those...

    60 Minutes - Check out Dan Rather's piece on G W Bush and the National Guard. Completely Inaccurate and published just before the 2004 election...

    NBC News - Brian Williams openly lying about being in a firefight among several others...

    CNN - Colluding with debate organizers to pass Clinton the debate questions...

    NY Times - Botching the story on Clinton's email investigation - among several others

    I can go on and on...
    Greg S and MoeJoe like this.
  11. WSJ is "less" fake = still fake. The fake news label isn't about incidents of select employees becoming fantasy writers, it's about the organizations' established publishing habits. Being less fake than faker outlets is a distinction without a purpose.
    Burty117 likes this.
  12. Burty117

    Burty117 TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 3,507   +1,308

    To be fair I don't think I've read anything on any of those listed. I'm from the UK and pretty bored of the crap the BBC pulls. My point still stands though, they tried to ruin someone's lively hood in order to get people onto their website, why would you trust an organisation like that? Just because others have done worse doesn't excuse WSJ from doing the same thing!

    Edit: I lie, I've definitely read some stuff off CNN before. I think it was about Memes though so it's fine.
    davislane1 likes this.
  13. mojorisin23

    mojorisin23 TS Booster Posts: 154   +48

    I hear ya... hey, I voted for Trump and think they are just holding him to the rails. As someone said, "if Trump walked on water, the media would report Trump can't swim".

    But you have to trust someone.... well maybe trust isn't the right word, but you can't shut it all out
    davislane1 likes this.
  14. The correct course of action is to trust what you can verify and dismiss what you cannot. This doesn't entail shutting things out. Trust is earned and the media has largely lost that reward.

    I think we agree on principle but differ in application.
    Burty117 likes this.
  15. MoeJoe

    MoeJoe Banned Posts: 837   +441

    Arguing over the internet about Fake News is like the s p e c I a l Olympics ...
    mbrowne5061 likes this.
  16. hahahanoobs

    hahahanoobs TS Evangelist Posts: 2,592   +934

    Bu, but just yesterday you liked this comment....

    I'm not even an iphone fan.... but you sound like the biggest ****** in here. You make a list, and expect people to give a ****?

    davislane1 likes this.

    ^I guess when the person doing it is on your side it's different.
  17. Educational thread, this.

    How do you tell someone's ego was wounded in a previous exchange? They hold onto it for a day and bring it up again first chance they get:

    You made an a$$ of yourself in that thread, as you are here. Trillion didn't default to insults, he pointed out a verifiable fact.
    Burty117 likes this.
  18. Squid Surprise

    Squid Surprise TS Evangelist Posts: 2,569   +1,548

    I'm not going to weigh in on fake news, or the WSJ... but I DO take issue with a sign that says "Death to All Jews" being only a "bit too far".

    If it had said "Death to All Muslims" or "Death to all Blacks" people would be up in arms everywhere... Anti-Semitism has no place ANYWHERE and should not be tolerated in any way...
  19. 1. Please attribute your quotes correctly.
    2. Where's all the outrage for "death to whites" and related rhetoric?

    Re 2: you don't hear about it because it doesn't get reported. If that doesn't get reported, why should anyone care what anyone else says about Jews, Blacks, or Smurfs?

    If someone wants to be anti-whatever it is their right in this country. People who believe otherwise should move to China or North Korea. Preferably NK.
    Burty117 likes this.
  20. Burty117

    Burty117 TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 3,507   +1,308

    If you had watched the video you'd understand, it was just a dark joke. Ever played Cards Against Humanity? I'm guessing you're the ultra squidgy sensitive type eh?
    You're clearly taking it out of context (just like WSJ) and genuinely believing the crap they (WSJ) spewed, Pewds definitely isn't Anti-Semi. If you genuinely believe that, could you be any more gullible? Context Matters...
    davislane1 and Greg S like this.
  21. Squid Surprise

    Squid Surprise TS Evangelist Posts: 2,569   +1,548

    I have watched the video... and the fact that so many people don't think there is anything wrong with it shows just how deeply flawed some people are...

    While some people might have no problem seeing it as just "dark humour", others who actually ARE anit-semitic use videos and other "jokes" like these as rationales for their own bigoted and racist views. Then, when an actual hate-crime is committed, people are desentized to them and don't see them for the HORRORS they actually are.

    Context is well and good... but I repeat: A video that has a sign saying "Death to All Jews" is anti-semitic, regardless of the rationale behind it. I am actually kind of saddened by the number of people on this site who have no issues with it... Not surprised mind you... just sad...
  22. Please. By this logic we shouldn't ever say anything mean or mocking about someone or group because an extremist might take it to heart as gospel. Why, your very post should be deleted because a fascist might take it out of context and use it to justify silencing dissent.

    Do you express similar concern over the life expectancy of black men in horror films? Perhaps if that trope were condemned more often Chicago would be a safer place.
    Burty117 likes this.
  23. Squid Surprise

    Squid Surprise TS Evangelist Posts: 2,569   +1,548

    That you seriously think that your example is even remotely comparable is just sad... Freedom of speech is all well and good - but NOT hate speech... there are very good reasons for the existing laws against hate speech... try reading some history and you might understand... maybe start with 1933 Germany....
  24. This is why dissent should not be protected speech. It endangers the state and the people by undermining the authority of the elected government. This leads to senseless death and war, as the history books show.

    Anything can be justified by citing "misuse" as the reason for banishment.

    Hate speech, whether it is praised or punished, is free speech. Censoring it only makes it more powerful.

    Take for example, my following thought:

    You'll note it's the Jews who push this narrative (of censoring hate speech). Most of the rest of us couldn't care less. But, I must say, the idea of a Jewish conspiracy seems more attractive every time a non-Jew is lynched for offending Jewish sensibilities. After all, PewDiePie has cracked jokes on many groups. It wasn't until he directed them at a Jews that there was a problem.

    In a world where ideas thrive or die on their merits, the preceding paragraph could be dismissed.

    In today's world, where the mere suggestion of Jews being in error is "anti-Semitic" and evidently encourages Holocaust 2.0, one would have to be oblivious to ignore the niggling feeling in the back of the mind that too many of those dots connect.

    For instance, when's the last time someone was publicly shamed by the media for mocking Christ or Wiccans?
    Burty117 likes this.
  25. Squid Surprise

    Squid Surprise TS Evangelist Posts: 2,569   +1,548

    I'm hoping you're just being tongue-in-cheek now.... because otherwise you are actually starting to worry me...

    It's NOT just Jews who deplore anti-semitism... but obviously they take the most offense as it is directed against them... Just like there are more people than just Blacks who deplore "anti-black" actions - but naturally Black people deplore it most - it affects them the most!

    And while censorship sometimes DOES make something more powerful, it is sometimes the only option, especially since the better solution - of having as many people as possible publicly speak against hatred - doesn't seem to be happening... hey, on this thread alone I'm seeing people state that "Death to all Jews" isn't such a bad thing to put in a video!

    That you seem to be singling out Jews in your responses makes me wonder about your true beliefs... perhaps you might want to take a good hard look at yourself?

    There is a BIG difference between mockery and "Death to all....."

Add your comment to this article

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...