We’ve known that the iPhone is switching to USB-C for a while now, but there was always a possibility that Apple would stick with Lightning for one more year. Based on the latest leaked images, however, Apple is all-in on USB-C for the iPhone 15 and iPhone 15 Pro models, with USB-C parts for the iPhone 15, iPhone 15 Plus, and iPhone 15 Pro Max all shown in a leaked image by X user fix Apple.

With the switch to USB-C, nearly all of Apple’s devices will have adopted the new standard, with only AirPods, Mac accessories, and the iPhone SE remaining aside from older iPhones and the 9th-gen iPad.

  • Dandroid
    link
    fedilink
    111 months ago

    The power numbers I mentioned above would just cause modern phones to die slightly slower. But that’s the minimum required for USB 2.0, and that was the rumored amount that Apple was going to allow without an MFI chip. But other users seem pretty confident that it won’t matter because Apple won’t be able to find a loophole there.

    • @flashgnash@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      111 months ago

      Still potentially the difference between being stranded without a phone and managing to trickle charge it over a long period of time while it’s off

      • Dandroid
        link
        fedilink
        211 months ago

        True. But I still think this would be a huge oversight, as it would completely go against the spirit of this regulation. It should be easy to keep this hole closed and a huge slam dunk if they can do it. If the EU whiffs on this, I definitely won’t consider it a win. All it will do is make Apple users upset that they can’t really use all the cables that they already own for non-apple devices. This will cause some families to purge every cable in their house and replace them with MFI cables, resulting in a ton of money for Apple, a ton of money spent by consumers, and a ton of e-waste. Is all that worth it when they could have just kept the loophole closed? An argument could be made, but I wouldn’t change my mind on it, especially when it would have been so easy for the EU to do it right in the first place.

        But again this argument is kind of moot, because other users are confident that the alleged loophole doesn’t even exist.

        • @flashgnash@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          111 months ago

          We’ll see I suppose

          Also my argument is not that it won’t suck if they find a loophole but it’s still better than what we’ve got right now