Talk:Lightning (connector)

Isn't it too early?

We know basically nothing about it. 3930K (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Might be a bit early, but it's already causing controversy since it is not backwards compatible. Meaning all i-Gadget stuff will need to be replaced if you upgrade and all existing stock will probably be destroyed (if cheap) or reworked (either way, not very green)83.70.170.48 (talk) 11:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

There's still the adaptor, but the price is highway robbery (as are all apple products, tbh).

Anyways, don't we have more details? iFixit has done its teardown. I'll see if I can find anything useful in there. 3930K (talk) 21:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Gold-plated, springy contacts, all digital, is all I got from it. Shame. 3930K (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

This article has some extra info, notably that the other 4 connectors are as yet reserved (perhaps for USB3), and that Apple embed an authentication chip in the cable itself, to reduce 3rd-party interoperability. http://www.idownloadblog.com/2012/09/21/lightning-connector-chip-policies-against-third-party-alternatives/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.171.29 (talk) 14:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. 3|9|3|0|K (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no information on what the chip inserted between V+ and the connector does. It could be for authentication, or protocol sensing, or voltage regulation/conversion. We don't know. Thyl Engelhardt 213.70.217.172 (talk) 10:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Reference biased

The single reference given is biased and transmits incorrect assumptions. It is the speculation of a person not having information on the technology. He does not understand why Apple has not choosen micro USB? Well, that may be because he has no knowledge on that. There may be a fantastic reason that he just hasn't grapped yet. Or he may be right. We just don't know. I propose deleting the reference until better, less prejudicial information is available. Thyl Engelhardt 213.70.217.172 (talk) 10:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree. The first citation is more like the public opinion. 3|9|3|0|K (talk) 19:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

It appears that after it now has widely been understood that the Connector is also able to transmit HDMI signals at a very high data rate, that the "Public Opinion" has become much quiter. Thyl 213.70.217.172 (talk) 10:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Authorized Lightning connector silicon chips

According to news reports, people have removed the white covers from Apple's Lightning connectors and found a special Apple-branded silicon chip. Even when the white cover is removed, the lightning cable still works, but when that silicon chip is removed or accidentally moves around inside the Lightning connector, the iPhone stops charging and providing power to accessories which are not connected to any other power source.

Rumors then showed that Apple is forcing manufacturers of any iPhone 5 accessories or charging docks to get one of these Apple-branded silicon chips in which Apple will not provide those silicon chips to manufacturers if the manufacturers don't give a brief description of what iPhone 5 accessory or charging docks they are manufacturing or describe one that's exactly the same as another one that Apple has already provided those silicon chips for but only meant to be sold cheaper.

Should this information be added to Wikipedia?

--X686 14:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

YES. 3|9|3|0|K (talk)

Definitely, I'm surprised it isn't there already. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 12:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of this chip is discussed in the second paragraph of the "Technology" section. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

It appears a paragraph was added in the "Technology" section (15:02, 3 November 2012), refering to an arstechnica article that mentions authentication chips in Lightning cables. Every reference I've been able to find to an authentication chip all seem to trace back to "Peter from Double Helix Cables", who tore down a Lightning connector, didn't know what one of the chips was, and leapt to the unfounded conclusion that it must be an authentication chip to keep unlicensed cables off the market. (It looks like the original post is here: http://www.head-fi.org/t/628369/all-about-the-new-apple-lightning-cables-plugs-update-the-plot-thickens but I can't be sure -- and sorry, I'm not versed enough in Wikipedia syntax, yet, to put these links in proper format.) Everyone else seems to have run with this idea, focusing their articles on "why Apple is being so evil", without questioning the original presumption (perhaps because wailing and gnashing of teeth draws more clicks than actual investigation).

There's a short article here: http://www.tested.com/tech/accessories/449482-iphone-5-lightning-cable-dissected/ that seems somewhat more level-headed, and a much more lengthy discussion here: http://brockerhoff.net/blog/2012/09/23/boom-pins/ (basically, Lightning is an all-digital, adaptive interface, the chips in the connector are there to carry on a conversation with the device, when plugged in, to determine what signals need to be passed through for the task at hand, and which wires to pass them on, and then to actually do whatever is necessary with the supplied signals before sending them to the device on the far end of the cable). Is it possible that there is *also* authentication going on? Sure. It's also *possible* that it's using the cable as a signaling device to communicate with the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But there's no proof of either.

Several of the articles get all excited that one of the chips has circuitry implementing the CRC (Cyclic Redundancy Check) protocol, going so far as to refer to this as a simplistic form of authentication. That's an absurdly far reach -- CRC is used for checksums in data transfer protocols over potentially noisy connections, to ensure the data arrives accurately (or is retransmitted as necessary to get a correct copy). Exactly what one would expect to find in a cable implementing a high-speed serial data transfer protocol. CarlRJ (talk) 00:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Digital

It is worth saying what this actually means? DanielDPeterson + talk 01:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Nine or Eight Pins

There seems to be a lot of revisions as to whether or not lightning is a nine or eight pin cable.

iOS refers to it internally as a 9pin device: http://9to5mac.com/2012/08/07/ios-6-points-to-new-9-pin-connector-is-this-the-new-smaller-dock-port/

But many sites are calling it a eight pin cable because only 8 pinouts are immediately obvious, since the gray metal serving for ground isnt necessarily obvious as a pin.

I would contend it has nine pins since the metal sheath does serve a function.

On a marginally related note, in Apple's 30-pin connector, 7 of the counted pins were used for ground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.160.5.25 (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

9 pin, the groud does count as a pin :P 3|9|3|0|K (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The current article here refers to the connector as 8-pin and some say is also biased towards USB-3 Type C connector. Editors of wikipedia seems to be favouring open standards than proprietary solutions. Lightning connectors are 9-pins, both referred to by Apple in their code and technically evaluated. The difference between 8 and 9 pin is significant because you will need 9-pins to implement USB-3 standard. Lightning is a "smart cable" which means it can dynamically reassign pin configurations. So having 9 means it is technically possible for it to support USB-3 rather than the stated or implied impossibility with 8 pins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.130.135.31 (talk) 03:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Negative spin?

On reading this, the article appears to have a bit of a negatively-biased POV. I dare not touch it as I've a COI (I work there) but could someone review it and see? I just added a needed ref for the name, is all ... - Alison ^❤ 08:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Throwing the word "indeed" in on the lone benefit cited, multiple mentions of "mixed to negative" responses and the downsides of proprietary, not a single mention of what else can be accomplished with this connector and why it is innovative aside from flip-flop-ability, sounds like an anti rant to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:149:4:401:B5FC:31D8:196F:299F (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Including a general outline of the type of reception a device or product received is usually acceptable on Wikipedia. It can however be subjective and may require a consensus to be reached on the talk page. In my opinion the reception was positive to mix as people did praise it for its smaller size as mentioned in the reception section. Perhaps you can link a few sources that state what the connector can accomplish. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 01:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

1080p HDMI video out?

http://www.panic.com/blog/2013/03/the-lightning-digital-av-adapter-surprise/

Panic tested the video out signal on the Lightning to HDMI cable and came to the concussion that it was only capable to produce an 1600x900 full screen image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.170.245.115 (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The ARM and 256 Mb can Stream and Airplay compression signal to HDMI out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.170.245.115 (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

AFAIK, It can reach full 1080p when given an H264 stream, such as video from the iPhone's camera, but if mirroring the screen output it is limited. Algr (talk)

"...Controversy in Europe" section controversy

An anonymous editor (unsigned comment added by 89.74.109.107 (talk)) wrote on my talk page that he/she strongly objected to additions I recently made to this article. Specifically to the "...controversy in Europe" section. I copy here my response in case other editors have similar concerns / questions:

The additions I made to the Lightning (connector) article are all sourced with in-line citations. Anyone reading Wikipedia can refer to the citations to determine for themselves if the statements in the article are adequately verifiable or not. Most of the added citations refer to comments made by European Commission Vice-President Antonio Tajani. I presume Mr. Tajani is a reliable and authoritative source for information on the EC but if anyone can provide citations that indicate Mr. Tajani's statements concerning Apple are incorrect, they should add those citations to the article.

Many people seem confused about the 2009 European "Common External Power Supply" (Common EPS) Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that 14 mobile phone manufacturers (including Apple) signed. Some commenters claim Apple has not complied with the conditions of the MoU because Apple phones do not come equipped with a Micro USB charging port. The MoU however does not require smartphones to be equipped with Micro-USB charging ports. The MoU only requires that smartphones sold in the EU be compatible with (be charge-able by) a common EPS - and also that anyone producing a common EPS must provide it with a cable with a Micro-USB connector. The MoU specifies the requirements of a Common EPS - including the cable and connector provided with a common EPS. As far as I know, Apple does not manufacture or sell any "Common EPS"s but they do sell phones that are compatible with all common EPSs - through the use of an adapter.

Some people who are unaware of or do not understand the requirements of the Common EPS MoU have asked the European Commission why the EC does not "force" Apple to change their phones based on the MoU requirements. But the European Commission has consistently and repeatedly responded that Apple is already compliant with the terms of the MoU signed in 2009. Because Apple phones can be charged by any Common EPS and Apple have made available suitable adapters for their phones - as allowed in the MoU.

"...[MoU] 4.2.1...if a manufacturer makes available an Adaptor from the Micro-USB connector of a Common EPS to a specific non-Micro-USB socket in the Mobile Phone, it shall constitute compliance to this article" and, "...An Adaptor can also be a detachable cable."

European Commission Vice-President Antonio Tajani:[1]

"…A recent progress report provided by the MoU signatories has shown that they have met their obligations under the MoU."

Answer given by Mr Tajani on behalf of the Commission:[2]

"…The signatories of the memorandum of understanding on the harmonisation of chargers for mobile phones (MoU)(1) agreed to introduce a common charging solution based on Micro-USB technology. The MoU also allowed for the use of an adaptor and does not prescribe the conditions for its provision.

The Commission does not have evidence that Apple has breached the agreement. The iPhone 5 can be used with an adaptor allowing it to be connected to the common charger. The Commission does not interfere on the marketing strategies of the manufacturers."

Answer given by Mr Tajani on behalf of the Commission: [3]

"The latest progress report provided by the signatories of the memorandum of understanding (MoU) has shown that more than 90% of the new devices put on the market by the end of 2012 support the common charging capability. This indicates that the voluntary agreement based on the micro-USB technology has been successful in delivering benefits for citizens without any particular need for stricter legislation.

Concerning Apple’s previous and present proprietary connectors and their compatibility with the agreement, the MoU allows for the use of an adaptor without prescribing the conditions for its provision. Apple was not obliged to consult the Commission on its marketing strategies and the Commission could not interfere on these strategies provided that adaptors were made available."

In the 2013 Parliamentary proposal recently voted on, some MEPs made comments apparently indicating they would like to pass a law that would require a common charging "socket" on all mobile phones. And this may become EU law sometime in the future - at which point it will be interesting to see how Apple responds.

There is also another similar but independent "standard" being proposed for mobile phone chargers - the 2009 GSMA/OMTP "Universal Charging Solution." Some commenters may be confusing the European common EPS/MoU with this GSMA/OMTP standard / proposal. The two standards are very similar however, unlike the Common EPS MoU, the GSMA/OMTP standard does require phones to be equipped with a Micro-USB charging port. Apple, however, did not sign/support this GSMA/OMTP initiative - presumably precisely because Apple had/has no plans to change the charging port connector on its mobile phones.

Pugetbill (talk) 04:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Lightning vs USB section problems?

A new section was added to the article today / recently. "Lightning vrs USB" [sic]. I flagged it as possibly "Original Research" as It lacked sufficient in-line citations. It is written in a somewhat non-Neutral (Pro Apple / anti-USB?) manner and contained what may be factual inaccuracies. The original author also seems to be confusing "mini USB" (which is obsolete and was never a real contender for use by Apple) with "micro USB" - the current USB "standard" for mobile devices. Also the comments on the (non) "bi-directional" capabilities of USB don't sound right to me. On the one hand, I'd like to improve the section by providing in-line citations and "fixing" some of the (IMHO) problems but - I'm not sure the section is very necessary / very "encyclopedic" in the first place so I may not be able to generate the energy to fix anything soon. I did add a few citations at the beginning of the section that support the original editors' premise but... it needs a major "neutral Point of View" and "non Original Research" re-write / edit (in my opinion). Pugetbill (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

If you say that Apple did something and say that some people didn't like it, then it makes sense to explain why Apple did it anyway. Everything I wrote is from the two refs I provided, (mostly [20] I don't see refs at the end of every sentence anywhere else. I'll fix mini/micro. Given the article is called "Lightning (connector)" it really ought to have info like power capacity and unique abilities included. Algr (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I did have mini and micro mixed up. I thought micro was the rare fringe port since all my cameras and hard drives use mini. (I don't have any micro devices or cables.) The fact that there are SO MANY different physical variations of USB is frankly another good reason not to bother with it. Algr (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I do think that the section should exist (in fact, I went to the article in hopes of finding it), but it needs a lot of revision and proper citations. Especially the "Bidirectional Hosting" part, because I'm pretty sure USB On-The-Go does that. Wikipedian192 (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

How about something like this?:

Lightning vs Micro-USB

There are several reasons suggested by industry observers as to why Apple chose to develop Lightning instead of using micro-USB. Most of these center around the perceived advantages to users and to Apple of Lightning over micro-USB:

• Reversibility - The ability of a Lightning connector to be inserted into a socket in either direction (e.g. "upside down").
• Control / Authentication - Apple's ability to control 3rd party accessory quality, capabilities, and availability through Lightning licensing.
• Revenue - Apple’s ability to charge licensing fees to accessory and peripheral makers.
• Power Capacity - Conventional micro-USB cables/connectors do not support the higher electrical currents used by larger mobile devices like the iPad.
• Size/"Density" - Lightning connectors are smaller than micro USB 3.0 connectors and can support more "lines" / more data channels than the similarly-sized micro USB 2.0 connectors.
• Flexibility - With eight dynamically-assignable pins, Lightning connectors can potentially support existing and future high speed interfaces more easily than the micro USB 2.0 connector.
• Durability - The Lightning connector is predicted by some to be more mechanically robust than the micro USB connector.

Pugetbill (talk) 17:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

To Anon editor 31.16.73.67: The power capacity you site is for the full size plug, not the micro USB socket found on most smart phones. Also, you can't delete a statement just because you disagree with the ref, you have to find a counter-ref that says the opposite. Google "Fragile USB" and "Fragile lightning" and count the relevant results. As for Non- obsolescence, the new cables make the PHONE obsolete because you can't connect the new cables to the smaller port on the phone. Algr (talk) 02:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Nunu10000: For your "Neutrality is disputed" tags, what would satisfy you that the statements are neutral? I have three references for "Fragile", one for "USB-OTG", and Google can only find one phone with a USB 3.0 port. Algr (talk) 07:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit War?

Looks like we got ourselves a real live edit war brewing. I still like the previous suggestion (see above 26 October 2013 edit, "How about something like this?:...") for a more neutral listing of "perceived advantages" (with citations) - but of course, that's my highly biased opinion.

I think it is important to remember that the list in question describes the "…perceived advantages … of Lightning over micro USB." All items in the list should therefore be "perceived advantages" - which means some, inevitably, may not be unambiguously real or clear advantages to everyone. This is why proper citations are so important. Since Apple, Inc. itself has never made a public statement regarding why it chose Lightning over micro-USB, all we as Wikipedia editors can do is cite reliable sources regarding those sources' opinions / speculations on the subject. Of course it is often difficult to determine what is a reliable source vs. just a blogger with an opinion / an "axe to grind" and I (personally) would not want to see every hare-brained "advantage" listed since some may not be based in anything resembling objective reality. But I think the above list does a reasonable job of trying to list the "perceived" advantages (in relatively neutral language) that are supportable with citations. Pugetbill (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Addition from the remover of most of the bullet points: There might be perceived advantages, but I think first and foremost an encyclopedia should focus on real(/technical) advantages and then mention the perceived ones. For every removal of a wrong bullet point I provided a source. Right now there are simply wrong statements there, eg. it claims USB can only provide 9W were as the official battery charging specification states otherwise (see edit comment/pdf). There is also stated only a few phones support USB OTG (without source), even the Nokia N8 supports that along with the Galaxy S2 upwards, Galaxy Note upwards, Nexus 5, Galaxy Nexus etc. I think the number of phones with USB OTG is higher than the number of phones with the Lightning connector. etc. This paragraph is simply bad and wrong. I can't see why there was edited an equally wrong and bad version back on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.16.73.67 (talk) 01:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Anon, get a name and post on the bottom with your sig, this makes the conversation easier for everyone. The statement you call "Wrong" is supported by multiple refs in the line above. As I said before, the FULL SIZE USB port can carry more power, but the micro port that cell phones use is limited to 9 watts. Perceived/Real are only different if you can show that the perception is wrong, and you haven't shown that. Read what I said about OTG below. It's a failed technology. Algr (talk) 05:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the current (2013 Nov 13) list - I see a few problems:

Stay consistent with the list's "title" (perceived advantages)

List only "advantages" over micro USB. Things only Lightning can do (do better/do well/do easily).

• Bi-directional hosting and Bi-directional power. Bi-directional hosting and Bi-directional power are not capabilities unique to Lightning. USB (USB On-The-Go = "USB OTG") supports bi-directional hosting and bi-directional power. Apple could have chosen to use USB micro A/B sockets on their mobile products to support bi-directional hosting and power. They did not need to develop Lightning for this capability. The fact that few phones support USB OTG is not relevant to the question of whether or not this was a "Lightning advantage" / a reason Apple chose to forgo the use of micro USB.
• Availability - Availability is not an "advantage" of Lightning. There was and is no shortage of micro USB cables, connectors, adapters, etc. in the world. The fact that there are now also plenty of Lightning accessories means that there is now no (or very little) "availability disadvantage" to Lightning. But better availability is not an "advantage" of Lightning and certainly was not an advantage when Lightning was first developed / introduced. The most one can say is that "availability" was never (much of) a disadvantage for Lightning.

Avoid Original Research

• Non-obsolescence - No citations are provided (other Wikipedia articles cannot be used as a "source" in a Wikipedia article.) The underlying sentiment may be valid (if re-constructed and appropriately cited) although I suggest it might be better to list the perceived features of Lightning that (may?/should?/do?) contribute to it's longevity / flexibility (higher density of data lines vs micro USB 2.0 and smaller size than micro USB 3.0). Everything becomes obsolete eventually so "non-obsolescence" may not be the best category title.

• Use as physical mount / dock connector - No citations provided. If properly cited, this could be listed as a "perceived" advantage of Lightning over micro USB 2.0 connectors. But, as stated, not an advantage over micro USB 3.0 connectors.

Pugetbill (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Lots of stuff here, so lets see... For using wikipedia as a source, I was rather jarred that I'd need a source to show that USB 3 exists, so maybe I shouldn't have done that. You do understand why a USB 3 dock or cable could not charge a USB 2 phone, right? I thought that was also too obvious to ref. If you involve USB 3 and USB-OTG then you are comparing four things, not just two, and you then have to emphasize that "USB 2 without OTG" is what Europe standardized on and almost all non-apple phones use. I looked around at some stores and found that basically nothing else except cell phones ever used Micro USB 2 plugs. Hard drives went directly from Mini-USB to Micro USB 3. So why invent a unique standard when Coaxial power connectors are already in widespread use?

Availability is a huge advantage of Lightning. The only reason Windows PCs exist is that they were more available than Macs. By availability, I wasn't talking about the availability of cables, but accessories that would use USB-OTG. You won't see a USB 3 dock in stores as long as such a tiny number of phones could use it. The problem is even worse for USB-OTG because the majority of people who have USB-OTG phones don't even know that their own phone could use such devices. You can't tell from looking at the phone!

It occurred to me just now that if Apple used USB-OTG instead of lightning, there would be a huge problem with people not understanding why the accessories did not work on non-Apple phones. Apple would STILL be accused of making non-standard products. USB-OTG has been around since 2001! If it isn't common by now it never will be, so the added complexity of not knowing what works with what remains an advantage of lightning, where everything lightning is compatible with everything else.

I suspect that the memory in most cell phones isn't fast enough for USB 3 to yield much of a performance boost over USB 2. This would explain why USB 3 is so rare for cell phones when it is universally adopted for hard drives. So it seems to me that cost is going to keep USB 3 out of phones for a year or two more. Sorry if all this is a bit disorganized, but I'm going to be very busy for the next few days. I'll be able to work with you by the weekend. Algr (talk) 03:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Pugetbill is asking you to avoid original research, which really means expressing any idea or fact not directly taken from a second-hand source. This is a fun discussion, but it can't go in an encyclopedia. See Wikipedia:No_original_research. --OKNoah (talk) 09:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

References

Image request to compare to micro-USB

The File:CO of Lightning and Mini-USB plugs.jpg, while very well-shot, is not a good comparison for the article, as mini-USB has been eclipsed by micro-USB in new devices. I cannot find a good high-res image of the two connectors, to scale, online, so could somebody with the cables or an adapter please post a new side-by-side comparison image? SamuelRiv (talk) 09:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

That was my mistake. I've got hold of a proper Micro-USB plug now so I'll take a photo of it when I get the chance. I think the Mini and Micro-3 plugs ought to be in there as well, as they are relevant to the article. I'll see if I can do that without it getting too cluttered. Algr (talk) 20:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Done it. Algr (talk) 02:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Yet another new USB plug?

http://www.popsci.com/article/gadgets/next-generation-usb-connector-will-plug-either-way?src=SOC&dom=fb OMG are these guys just sadists, or what? It's incompatible with everything so far, and just copies the reversible insertion of lightning. Will phones be expected to switch to this? And Popsci calls this "Truly revolutionary". Algr (talk) 02:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

"inserting the plug..."

I took away this two sentences, because at least the second one is completely wrong. The cable the same 8 connectors on each side, so it makes no difference in which orientation you plug it. I don't know what electrical equivalence means, so I put it here for discussion :) Deleted: "Inserting the plug in one orientation is not electrically equivalent to inserting it the other way around (it is not palindromic). The plug itself incorporates a processor which detects the plug's orientation and routes the electrical signals to the correct pins." Milebrega (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello there! I've just reverted this deletion, as the connector actualy behaves like described in deleted sentences. In other words, this connector isn't like having "two connectors in one", and the actual usage of pins is configured after plugging it into a mobile device, depending on the up/down orientation – as described here, for example. I've also added that article as an additional inline reference. — Dsimic (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/electronic/fischerconnectors/

  Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 13:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Lightning vs. micro USB section issues - revisited

A Wikipedia editor (OKNoah) recently made sweeping changes to the Lightning vs. micro USB section of this article. Although some of the changes appear to be improvements (IMHO) others simply replace previous "Original Research leaning" statements and "non Neutral POV leaning" comments with new, different statements some of which appear (to me) to have similar "original research" and/or "non-neutral point of view" problems. I have restored the OR and POV flags to this section today but I did not touch any of the other changes made by OKNoah. I would refer OKNoah (and any other editors interested in improving this section) to the previous discussion (see above = "Lightning vs USB section problems?" and the subsection "Edit War"). I have previously made suggestions / proposals for improvements to this section (above) but I have declined to join the edit war that followed. The current (2014 April 24) section revision has (IMHO) many of the same flaws discussed previously and deserves deletion or some thoughtful editing / improvements.Pugetbill (talk) 19:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing my edit. I had a feeling there was a history to this section. I feel I removed most of the OR and non-neutral statements so I removed the flags. I guess one clean isn't enough so I'll try again. --OKNoah (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Just a heads up, switching it from "Lightning vs Micro-USB" to "Advantages over Micro-USB" makes the article be very one-sided. Some of the "advantages" listed for the connector are also fairly dubious (e.g. the "quality control" and "forward compatibility" ones, especially since the citations do not directly support the conclusions. I have seen plenty of third party unlicensed Lightning connectors, and your are more than capable of plugging a MiniUSB device into a USB 3.1 computer). Also, over the past month you have made 6 revisions shrinking the article by 13,007 bytes down to 16,937 bytes. That seems like a lot of revisions, considering that only one other user has made a non-minor edit in that time span. 69.17.173.158 (talk) 01:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I don't want to show pro-Apple rhetoric here. But the article should be focused on the Lighting connector. I think the section should answer "why did they use this?" not "why did they use this and should they have?" If there is really enough controversy, the that can go in it's own section. Yes, I've made a lot of revisions. The article was poor quality due to an edit war. I like to edit down wordy things, advert speak, etc. Is that a problem? I think showing specific deletions you disagree with is more helpful. --OKNoah (talk) 02:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Reception section

I removed the reception section for a few reasons. Most of the sources were used elsewhere in the article so it was redundant. A reception section is not common for technology. There is no reliable aggregator of sentiments or reviews about technology like what Rotten Tomatoes is to movies. A complaint is low adoption and compatibility, which obviously changes over time. Imagine having all technology articles contain reception sections and having them all unfavourable or mixed due to low initial adoption or compatibility. I hope it's clear this section was a remnant of an edit war and needed to go. --OKNoah (talk) 06:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not agree with the assertion that the reception section should be deleted, "[because] A reception section is not common for [a Wikipedia] technology [article]." I am not aware of a Wikipedia consensus that discourages descriptions of the public "reception" of a technology/product in a Wikipedia article about that technology/product. But if such a consensus exists I hope someone can point it out here. The reception section is actually quite useful (I believe) in this particular article because of ongoing disagreements and "edit warring" - especially in the USB comparison section. An editor [OKNoah] has stated previously (above), "If there is really enough controversy, ... that can go in it's own section." I think the "Reception" section effectively serves as that (controversy) section and does a much better job of summarizing some of the more controversial issues that were otherwise getting added and deleted and re-added and re-deleted to the article - especially to the USB comparison section (often in very unconstructive and OR and NPOV violating ways). Regarding redundancy - this changes over time as different editors add and delete different things to/from the article. Some of these things are (as proposed by me here) better covered in the "reception" section anyway so could/should be deleted from the "Comparison" section if reducing redundancy is a primary goal. But I'm not too concerned with a little redundancy in this case as I believe it makes the article more robust in the light of ongoing revisions. And the "Reception" section does/should stand on its own regardless of any future edits to the USB Comparison - or other - sections.

Here is the original section that I believe should be re-inserted into the article - as a sub-section under "History":

Reception

Lightning received mixed reactions from press and users after its release, some praising its improved functionality and smaller size compared to its predecessor, with others noting that accessories for previous iPod, iPhone and iPad models were incompatible with the new connector without the use of adapters. Still others criticized Apple's decision to create a new proprietary connector rather than incorporate the Micro-USB connector supported by most competitive low power mobile devices although some observers pointed to perceived advantages of Lightning over micro USB. Both critics and supporters pointed to the fact that Apple will likely continue to control accessory quality, availability and features as well as generate revenue through ‘Made for iPhone’ / Lightning licensing.

Apple requires all production of Lightning-based accessories to occur in Apple-approved factories which must comply with Apple's supplier code of conduct. Some critics suggested this was done so that Apple can, "continue to charge a premium on its own Lightning cables and adapters," while others suggested this was done, "to influence more companies to behave ethically on worker rights, environmental issues and more."

Pugetbill (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for participating in the discussion. Do we have a source for the claim that the reception is "mixed"? We could go count articles and measure the reception, but that's OR. And if the chief complaint is compatibility, and compatibility changes over time, then should it be included in the reception section? This would give all tech a "mixed" review. I'm against adding sections just to appease edit wars, and I think the edit war is over. Let's make the article the best it can be, now. I'll compromise on a "controversy" section, which will house a rewritten European charging port section, at least. This way, we don't have to measure the overall reception. I'll try get this section going. --OKNoah (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The re-writing (for brevity?) of the European charger section has removed all mention of any controversy related to the Lightning connector. I can't tell if this was intentional or a 'baby vs. bathwater' oversight? If intentional, how is the reader now to know what "controversy" is being described? At a minimum, some summary statement of the controversy (with citation: link) should be included: Pugetbill (talk) 18:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

e.g. "...amendment does not specify if the "common charger" being proposed would be the same as the current European Common external power supply or not. Some observers believe under the new law, the use of adapters would not be allowed - which would require Apple to redesign its products and provide phones in Europe with a new charging port different from the current Lightning port. Once formally approved ..."

The wholesale deletion of the "Reception" section contents is not an improvement to the article - in my opinion - for the reasons stated previously/above. I am not aware of a Wikipedia consensus that states discussion of market reception/opinion/reaction is not permitted or is undesirable when describing the history of a commercial technology/product. In this case - in addition to providing historical "reception" info, the few short, neutral (NPOV), verifiable (NOR) statements in the reception section have also contributed to the resolution (and presumably continue to act as a prophylactic against) some of the past edit war "flash points." But this is not (only) "appeasement" because the content stands on its own - unless there is a Wikipedia consensus against "reception" discussions in general. Pugetbill (talk) 18:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I personally don't consider most of the various industry observer comments/reactions cited as rising to the level of true controversy - to be added to the European "charger" issue description in a separate "controversy" section of the article. They seem - to me - simply part of the industry/market "Reception" ("Reaction"/"Opinion"/"Comment") - a part of the "History" of the Lightning connector. But including the content and citations under a "Controversy" section - is certainly a better option than wholesale deletion. Pugetbill (talk) 18:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, the word "mixed" can be used to describe the reactions to almost anything that isn't "overwhelmingly positively" received or "overwhelmingly negatively" received. At least one of the cited references does explicitly mention a mixed ("split opinion") reaction ("Only Connect: Apple’s new Lightning connector splits opinion" (Lock, Nick) 2012-09-24, Electronics Weekly) and others can be found/added if desired ("…but it's received a bit of a mixed reaction…, "Reactions were mixed...about the new Lightning connector…"). But in this case, I think the use of "mixed" is more of a copywriting issue than an "Original Research" issue - the words "mixed reaction" could be changed without affecting the rest of the section as the citations provided seem appropriate/adequate for the statements included. But since citations are available and the section itself includes a (relatively representative?) sampling of both positive and negative reactions, the word "mixed" (or "various" or "a wide spectrum of...", etc.) does not seem inappropriate in the opening. Pugetbill (talk) 18:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Pugetbill. Could I kindly ask you to keep your comments short? We both volunteer our time here and it's valuable. No, I didn't delete any "reception" stuff from "controversies" cause it was never added. Thought you might like to add it. Yes, I just edited that for brevity. Thanks for updating it, too. You're right, maybe the "reception" stuff could go in history. Something like "some press shared negative feedback about compatibility with old peripherals, partially negated by an adapter." Sums it up. --OKNoah (talk) 08:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

References

Lightning vs microUSB: Power Capacity

I am removing the 'increased power capacity' 'advantage' of Lightning as it's completely nonsense. While there are USB standards which define the 'maximum amperage', there's a difference between what's written in a standard and what's done in practice. In practice, I have a number of devices that have no problem charging above 1.8A on a microUSB connector, as measured via multimeter at both ends of the USB cable as well as via software on the devices in question. If somebody would like to offer a rebuttal, please do so here first rather than starting an edit war, thank you. MWisBest (talk) 07:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

USB 3.0?

Does this kind of connector/cable support faster iTunes PC/Mac Backup and Sync if inserted into a USB 3.0 port, instead of USB 2.0 one? Does anyone know? How faster - 2x, 3X, more? Naki (talk) 19:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Apple has to release a Lightning cable that supports USB 3.0 first, currently they only support USB 2.0. So far, the only Lightning-equipped Apple device that is confirmed to support USB 3.0 over Lightning appears to be the iPad Pro, and that's only when using the latest Lightning SD card reader. Some speculate that the flash memory on current iPhones wouldn't be fast enough to take advantage of USB 3.0's improved data transfer rate even if Lightning supported USB 3.0 on those devices, but all Lightning devices could potentially benefit from the slightly faster charging that USB 3.0 allows when connected to a computer. I'm actually curious as to how the Lightning port accommodates USB 3.0 on the iPad Pro and was hoping to see this article updated to show a new pin-out and other relevant information. I would do it myself but I'm not sure where you would solidly source information such as that. J5689 (talk) 12:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

On the iPad Pro 12", the Lightning port has pins on two sides instead of one, and the USB 3 capable connectors apparently use pins on both sides of the tip. So they are doubling the number of available pins. Pretty clever way to expand things without having to lose any backward compatibility. As of the iPhone 7, they still haven't expanded this to any other iOS device (not even the 9.7" iPad Pro has a "double sided" Lightning port). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saliance (talk • contribs) 10:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

There is almost no documentation about how USB 3.0 works with Lightning ports. And I was missing a pinout too! This comment section was the only source I found about it using the normally connected opposite pins to squeeze in more data lanes. Kwinzman (talk) 02:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Lightning versus predecessor 4EXM?

I would like to understand how an 8-pin connection can replace the prior 4EXM (30 pin, old IPhone) connection. If nothing is lost, thats's fine. But if some signal is now not externally available, please let us know. GioCM (talk) 18:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I know that the 30 pin cable could output analog audio and video. Lightning can't do this, so the lighting-HDMI adaptor is basically a video card that replicates some of the circuitry inside the phone. Lighting-30pin adaptors have D/A converters for the audio, and (I think) don't support video out. Algr (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Does Lightning support analog (audio)?

Looking at this Lightning to 3.5 mm Headphone Jack Adapter, it seems unlikely that there is an DAC inside of the dongle (because of the small size and low price). That would mean that the iPhone can output analog audio through the Lightning port. Does anyone know if this is true or not? Lonaowna (talk) 13:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay I just found out that the Lightning to 30-pin Adapter does have a built-in DAC.[4] I guess that means that the Lightning port is purely digital. So the Lightning to 3.5mm jack must have a really tiny DAC! Lonaowna (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

"The optional supplemental standard USB On-The-Go allows USB devices to do this." To what does "this" refer? There were many subjects in the preceding sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.149.19.235 (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Different connector types for Lighting

This article needs to describe the differences in connector standards introduced by Apple, like C48, C94, etc, and how they support (or not) fast charging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastpo (talk • contribs) 18:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed!

C48 is apparently the connector originally used for Lightning-to-USB A charge cables, and it apparently came in several variants: C48A, C48B, and C48C. I don't know how the variants differ from one another.

In 2019, for new designs, the C48 connectors were replaced with the new C89 connector for USB A cables. The differences are somewhat mysterious. I've found ads for Lightning / USB A cables which claim, "C89 terminal is more durable and stable than original C48." That might be due to use of rhodium + ruthenium instead of gold plating. In this illustration of the two connectors it appears that C48 contacts are gold-plated, and the C89 contacts are plated with a white metal, presumably rhodium and ruthenium.

Rhodium is harder than gold, so that might make the C89 connectors more durable than the C48 connectors. Rhodium is also far more expensive than gold, but ruthenium is less expensive than gold, so I don't know now the new plating affects costs. I also don't know what other differences there might be between the new and old connectors.

There's also a new C94 connector for Lightning-to-USB C cables.

There were also old C12 and C68 Lightning connectors which were replaced in 2019 by C79 and C78 Lightning connectors, respectively. C68 was apparently for audio. I don't know how they differ from one another. NCdave (talk) 06:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Reference point #5

Hi, sorry if I'm doing this wrong, and I have an account, but in a hurry and wanted to point out the error in the link at reference #5 In the 1st paragraph under history, near the top, it ends with: "... and the iPad Mini (1st generation) were added as Lightning devices in October 2012.[4][5]" Link under references #5 says: "iPad mini Technical Specifications" - and links to: https://www.apple.com/ipad-mini/specs But a quick search (ctrl-f, latest Firefox on latest Ubuntu 20.04 LTS - after I looked through the page) for "lightening" returned no results, and the diagram seems to indicate there's a USB port, and about half way down under "Charging and Expansion" there is nothing like lightening, and only USB-C for Charging, DisplayPort, and USB 3.1 Gen 1 (up to 5 Gb/s) Sorry my last entry was probably years ago, I hope this helps, and I didn't do anything too wrong. Andrew - I'm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:UnRheal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7F13:FE00:E60A:9BC9:DDB8:D61F (talk) 14:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Copyright

The article currently reads: Apple is the sole proprietor of the trademark and copyrights for the designs and specifications of the Lightning connector. It doesn't seem likely that copyright is impacted here as technical specifications are not usefully protected by copyright. On the other hand it seems very likely that there are patents involved. The section needs sources to verify the actual situation. Hairy Dude (talk) 12:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)