silvrsvt Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 I want to know why that thing had 30 pins in the first place. I mean, typically, it's converted to a standard 9 or 11 connector USB cable. So what's the point of the extra 19-23 pins? http://pinouts.ru/PortableDevices/ipod_pinout.shtml Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 And there you have it. Steve Jobs' horror of cords coupled with his impatience and his love for proprietary solutions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 (edited) Doesn't look like anything a decent multiplexer or four couldn't streamline. (I haven't said "multiplexer" since the fall semester of 2002. Wow.) Edited July 26, 2012 by papilgee4evaeva Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 What blows me away about that connector is that it's got several analog outputs (S-video & 4 audio channels). Given Steve's willingness to dictate to his vendors, why not completely eschew 4-channel analog audio and analog video and tell vendors they'll be receiving digital data over USB? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Wait... analog (component) video output only means that the iPhone is still behind as far as HD out. With fewer pins, I don't think there's a way that the iPhone 5 port can accommodate it. Unless they *gasp* actually include a second port. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Even more annoying: I'm sure the iPhone 5 port will not have analog outs, which means 100% digital output, which means "Could use USB 3.0 but won't" USB 3.0 supports HD video, multi channel stereo sound, human interface devices and data transfer, and can perform all those tasks simultaneously with no shortage of bandwidth to spare. Presumably the primary reason for continuing to use a proprietary connector is to have that much additional control over vendors (e.g.: 'we don't like the way your product looks, therefore we're not going to license the connector') Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BORG Posted July 26, 2012 Author Share Posted July 26, 2012 (edited) That's right, Presumably the primary reason for continuing to use a proprietary connector is to have that much additional control over vendors (e.g.: 'we don't like the way your product looks, therefore we're not going to license the connector') "Presumably" fits your entire line of reasoning Richard. Edited July 26, 2012 by BORG 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Right. Apple went with a proprietary connector out of the goodness of their heart, and not out of an attempt to leverage their monopoly position for revenue enhancement. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sullynd Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Remember, the iPod Connector is pretty old - it started out as a firewire only cable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Remember, the iPod Connector is pretty old - it started out as a firewire only cable. Well, firewire and a bunch of analog signals and some proprietary controller pins so you didn't need all those extra ports (which makes a certain kind of sense). Also, how great was FireWire? That really was SCSI 2.0; except it was passed by a broadly accepted industry standard even more quickly than UATA IDE passed SCSI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blazerdude20 Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Word is they're planning to come out with an adapter. I'd bet that, in typical Apple fashion, that adapter will be upwards of $20 because of who sells it. They likely will need to provide the adaptor for free in Europe. They signed an agreement in 2009 to have all of their phones charge via micro-usb even if that means providing an adaptor. Not like you can't find an online retailer who will sell it dirt cheap, monoprice anyone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noah Harbinger Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Right. Apple went with a proprietary connector out of the goodness of their heart, and not out of an attempt to leverage their monopoly position for revenue enhancement. And of course Apple NEVER does anything because they think it's better, it's ALWAYS out of monopolistic desires. The 30-pin connector debuted in 2003, when Apple's share-price was $10, and people still thought the ZEN was the future. The proprietary dock connector is a simple interface that supports supports a multitude of methods of interfacing with the various devices, including driverless analog connections that haven't changed since before the iPhone even debuted. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Nothing simple about that interface. It's Steve's horror of multiple cords coupled with Apple's typically bad approach to device connectivity (let's *not* use USB 2.0, let's use our own custom hodgepodge, even though USB 2.0 provides all this functionality) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noah Harbinger Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Nothing simple about that interface. It's Steve's horror of multiple cords coupled with Apple's typically bad approach to device connectivity (let's *not* use USB 2.0, let's use our own custom hodgepodge, even though USB 2.0 provides all this functionality) Well I'll confess, I have a horror of cords as well. But your insistent that there's no benefit to providing a half-dozen interfaces through one connector that is universal across a decade's worth of devices is baffling to me. Just insisting that "USB does it all" doesn't make it so - there are clearly many things the connecter facilitates that USB doesn't and can't do as easily. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Well I'll confess, I have a horror of cords as well. But your insistent that there's no benefit to providing a half-dozen interfaces through one connector that is universal across a decade's worth of devices is baffling to me. Just insisting that "USB does it all" doesn't make it so - there are clearly many things the connecter facilitates that USB doesn't and can't do as easily. Such as? No, really, please enlighten me. I'm not trying to be snarky about Apple (for once in my life). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sullynd Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Such as? Does something like this exist for USB? By plugging one cord into my phone I can charge and control my iPhone, in addition to having the audio routed to the input jack on my stereo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 You could do that with USB. In fact, if you had the right vehicle, you could do it without a second cord. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 a half-dozen interfaces through one connector that is universal USB provides audio, video, human interface, charging, and data transfer through a single bus, simultaneously. Just like that 30 pin connector. True, it does not provide analog out, but one can argue that any device capable of receiving 4-channel analog stereo or analog video is sophisticated enough to add a single chip to convert digital signal equivalents via USB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 (edited) Does something like this exist for USB? By plugging one cord into my phone I can charge and control my iPhone, in addition to having the audio routed to the input jack on my stereo. That's two cords. Not to mention "buttons." More to your point, though, I just tested it out now. I can hook up my Droid 4 to my car stereo via USB and control all the audio via the stereo's controls. And it will charge the phone all the while.. Which is what Richard just said before I could reply... You could do that with USB. In fact, if you had the right vehicle, you could do it without a second cord. Edited July 28, 2012 by papilgee4evaeva Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sullynd Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 (edited) For a stereo or car with USB, sure. My car does not do that. It's one cord, I plug it into my iPhone, and the audio goes through it to the headphone type input jack on my stereo. Can you do that with USB? How many cars had USB inputs in 2003? Edited July 28, 2012 by sullynd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 (edited) No one was criticizing the inclusion of the *industry standard* 1/8" stereo jack. And the other service provided, the charger/controller, can be provided by USB. Edited July 28, 2012 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sullynd Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 No one was criticizing the inclusion of the *industry standard* 1/8" stereo jack. And the other service provided, the charger/controller, can be provided by USB. Do USB cables allow the analog audio to go through the cable? No? Is there an equivalent solution for USB? Not "could" but does it exist? If I were to go out and buy an Android phone, is there an adapter which will allow me to hook it up to my radio, charge, and control the device, without the need to use the headphone jack on the phone as well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Do USB cables allow the analog audio to go through the cable? No? You still have two cables!! So what if the second cable plugs into that hub thingy instead of plugging into the Apple device. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sullynd Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 You still have two cables!! So what if the second cable plugs into that hub thingy instead of plugging into the Apple device. The "hub thingy" stays plugged in all the time. The Cable to the Aux input on my stereo stays connected all the time. It is at the bottom of my console, and stays out of the way. When I get in the car I plug in ONE cable. When I pick up my phone I get the drag from ONE cable, located on the bottom of the phone, not two cables, with one at the top, and one at the bottom. There is a significant difference between two cables going into the phone and one. Does such a thing exist for USB? I'm honestly more curious than anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 There are no shortage of USB devices that will control your music player and charge it via the cigarette lighter, but they broadcast a signal on FM instead of having an audio out: http://www.chinatown007.com/fm-transmitters-c-9.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.