• boonhet@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      • suction@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

        • boonhet@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

    • lol3droflxp@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because they co-developed it and it is the better connector if you want to do anything other than charging.

    • snowe@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

        • snowe@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.