Apple doesn't have to standardize anything, that limits them because future optimizations and changes would break the standard. It takes several years for usb standards to be ratified. If apple finds a way to charge phones 2x faster but usb-c standard would be violated what should they do? How does that benefit consumers?
Lightning is objectively better. The wear and tear factor is for the cable side to be damaged but with usb-c the cable side connector is hard to damage but on the device end, the connector part that goes into the cable side female connector wears and tears. If it gets damaged you need a new device, if lightning gets damaged you need a new cable. This is one reason apple devices lasted longer than android.
Because of europe's decisions features I like are being taken away and europe can use android or subsidize the european nokia. People across an ocean with plenty of choices took away my choice so they can give the middle finger to the big bad american company.
> If apple finds a way to charge phones 2x faster but usb-c standard would be violated what should they do?
Make it work with USB-C? If your "solution" to fast-charging is "break the fucking charging protocol" then you probably shouldn't be allowed around electronics in the first place. They can charge their Macbooks with USB-C just fine, there's no reason it won't work on iPhones. Trust me. USB-C is rated up to 240w in power delivery, Apple designed half the fucking spec themselves.
> Lightning is objectively better.
You'll have to find a way to be happy being wrong about this one. For one, Lightning has MFi: Made for iPhone is a meaningless standard. Apple has not justified it in any way, and it only exists to charge manufacturers a fee for shipping iPhone-compatible hardware. This alone makes it inferior to USB-C in every way, and was the basis of the EU's objection to the Lightning protocol. It is an illegal anticompetitive standard because of arbitrary software limitations Apple imposes. If you think that's innovation, then I'm glad you're disappointed.
Lightning is a better connector, but it's strictly the worse serial protocol and cable choice. It's more expensive, less capable and ubiquitous, and doesn't diverge from the USB-C spec in any way meaningful enough to be separated. If you're any more familiar with this topic than someone who's just watched the "Apple: Explained" video then this should be glowingly obvious.
> People across an ocean with plenty of choices took away my choice so they can give the middle finger to the big bad american company.
Apple can still sell Lightning iPhones in the United States. As a matter of fact, it was Apple's decision to impliment USB-C on all iPhones going forward. Almost like, it was a smart idea with practically zero downsides or feasible implimentation issues.
Almost as if Apple will fuck over their customers at every corner in the name of profit, unless otherwise directed. Thank God for regulators, if you want to empathize Shkreli and Bankman-Fried then be my guest.
Lightning is objectively better. The wear and tear factor is for the cable side to be damaged but with usb-c the cable side connector is hard to damage but on the device end, the connector part that goes into the cable side female connector wears and tears. If it gets damaged you need a new device, if lightning gets damaged you need a new cable. This is one reason apple devices lasted longer than android.
Because of europe's decisions features I like are being taken away and europe can use android or subsidize the european nokia. People across an ocean with plenty of choices took away my choice so they can give the middle finger to the big bad american company.