Compared to what? Parallel? Maybe, if you don’t need the structural rigidity. Banana plugs? Definitely. USB-C? Fuck no! But it is also older than USB-C, so that’s fair.
Lightning is rounded and thus easier to insert. It doesn’t scratch the surface of whatever you‘re trying to plug it in to and on top of that it slightly clicks into place. Just by itself, the plug is superior yes.
Phones go in pockets. Pockets have lint. Lightning ports are way easier to clean than USB-C.
iPads and Macbooks mostly stay in the house or get carried in a bag rather than a pocket. Way less lint, so the benefits of USB-C far outweigh the benefits of Lightning here.
I said easier to clean not that it catches less lint. I could even use a toothpick for my iPhone. Nothing thicker than a sim tool worked for my Oneplus and that had trouble getting it all out. Even most NEEDLES I had were too thick.
Because ports work better in some instances than others? Why don’t we just use rj45 for all our data transfer instead of USB? This has got to be one of the weirdest arguments I’ve seen around usb c v lightning.
It really isn’t. The lightning port is less than half the size of a USB C port. 6.7x1.5x6.7mm compared to 8.4x2.6x6.65mm. That’s 67.335 square millimeters vs 145.236 square millimeters. Lightning is significantly smaller.
Somewhat unpopular opinion: Lightning was by far the better connector.
Compared to what? Parallel? Maybe, if you don’t need the structural rigidity. Banana plugs? Definitely. USB-C? Fuck no! But it is also older than USB-C, so that’s fair.
Banana plugs are damn good for lab equipment.
As a speaker connector? Fuck banana plugs. Speakon is the only way.
What are you doing with your cables that “structural rigidity” is a major concern?
Use em
Lightning is rounded and thus easier to insert. It doesn’t scratch the surface of whatever you‘re trying to plug it in to and on top of that it slightly clicks into place. Just by itself, the plug is superior yes.
So why does Apple use USB-C on iPad Pro and MacBooks?
Phones go in pockets. Pockets have lint. Lightning ports are way easier to clean than USB-C.
iPads and Macbooks mostly stay in the house or get carried in a bag rather than a pocket. Way less lint, so the benefits of USB-C far outweigh the benefits of Lightning here.
How much more lint do you think will an USB-C port catch than a lightning port? Answer: Insignificantly little. You’r reaching for arguments here.
I said easier to clean not that it catches less lint. I could even use a toothpick for my iPhone. Nothing thicker than a sim tool worked for my Oneplus and that had trouble getting it all out. Even most NEEDLES I had were too thick.
Because they co-developed it and it is the better connector if you want to do anything other than charging.
Because ports work better in some instances than others? Why don’t we just use rj45 for all our data transfer instead of USB? This has got to be one of the weirdest arguments I’ve seen around usb c v lightning.
That’s a stupid comparison because of the size of RJ45 plugs.
It really isn’t. The lightning port is less than half the size of a USB C port. 6.7x1.5x6.7mm compared to 8.4x2.6x6.65mm. That’s 67.335 square millimeters vs 145.236 square millimeters. Lightning is significantly smaller.
It was the better connector of its time.
If sucking ass is a marker of excellence, sure.
The fact that only Apple was allowed to use it means it is a worse cable than any standardised cable