I just can't imagine anyone wanting this? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but do people really want a thinner phone? I love my 16 Pro and plan to get the 17 Pro.
Definitely feel like thicker and longer battery is better. Heavier feels nice.
Saw another comment that said this will give Apple the opportunity to learn if people really want a thinner iPhone. I hope they learn that people don't. Curious to find out the answer.
I got this view the other day and was shocked. Went and found a browser plugin to fix it. But I wish our voices could be heard or we could give some feedback.
As a game dev who's been learning ASM recently this was very fun to read through. Wish there was a compiled ROM I could try, but I guess I have to do it myself!
For what it's worth, I was able to simply rename the ET_Fixed_Final.bin file to ET_Fixed_Final.a26 (which might not even be necessary) and drop it into the ROM folder of my Atari 2600 emulator (running via https://knulli.org/ on my Anbernic RG40XXV). It booted up just fine.
Very interesting. To me TikTok is nothing but memes and useless stuff. Whereas Instagram has been an amazing community for many of my passions. And now Threads is gaining in popularity as well (it really feels like hope scrolling in comparison to X's doom scrolling). I wish it wasn't owned by Meta, but if TikTok actually gets banned I would say good riddance. Something about Instagram/Threads is just perfect to me.
I bought my 20 month old son a balance bike for Christmas and he's already able to balance on it a month later while going down the sidewalk. Great method!
Living in Southern California, I like to go on walks with my family in the evenings or mornings, but I couldn't imagine having to take public transportation or having to walk everywhere. It seems picturesque, but it also sounds terrible in the sense that you can't just get in your car, go some place, park in a parking lot, go shopping, and then head back home, all on your own terms.
I visited London a long time ago and the public transportation is amazing and it I did want to walk to see the city, which I did. But I imagine even living there, I would want my own car to be in control of my life.
So, visiting a place is good for walking. But living in a place is not. At least that's my experience.
The best public transport in us is usually worse that bad public transport in most of eu so no wonder you felt that way. Let me tell you a counter point: in Switzerland public transport and trains are so frequent and fast due to own lanes that you don't even need to check the schedule, you just go to the station which is usually nearby and wait at max 5 mins to get into something, usually a tram, for intercity between biggest cities trains are usually coming about each 15 mins. In this regard you are more independent than with a car- you don't care about fuel, about parking, about being focused all the time on the road, you just get in and get out. Even for buying tickets they have an app where you just check-uncheck it and it calculates the fare based on gps.
also in many dense eu cities you'd probably have enough shops in sub 5 mins nearby so you can either walk there or go with a bike or take a taxi that would cost pennies for such a small distance - again, no worrying about traffic, fuel, parking and so on
I haven't owned a car for more than 15 years now. I have city year bus pass but I also frequently just walk to wherever I'm going, there's lots of paths and shortcuts for pedestrians, but if the weather is a bit rubbish, there's bus stop outside my flat that runs every 5-10 mins.
I'm a member of the mobility car share for the rare times hen I do need a car, usually to pick up or move something heavy, or take a bunch of stuff to the decheterie.
Maybe sometimes after a night on the town, I might grab a taxi home, but I do not miss having a car.
In the US the issue is the car is just too damn convenient. There are parts of LA where the busses or trains are every 10 mins or so and they interline, so you get a train or a bus every 5 mins or less. People still prefer the car because it can go everywhere on your schedule faster than a bus making stops along the way. Plus cars are much cheaper for Americans than they are for europeans.
It's made to be convenient (as long as it gets, because you get traffic and you get low density areas which are bad for walkability/pedestrians which all ppl are the moment they leave the car) while pub transport is made to be bad.
Idk about the situation in LA but if you want good ridership, 5-10 min isn't an enough condition. You need these times at all the routes in the city and those should be extensive, you need reserved lanes, priority semaphores, single ticket policy, same lvl boarding, easy connections between multiple routes and at last- you also need a mid dense walkable city, because if it's not, the moment you'll get off the transport you'll have a sh** life needing to walk a lot in unpleasant environment to reach the destination.
The cheap thing usually isn't a factor, cars are mostly more expensive than pub transport using unless pub transport is nuked by authorities. Ppl don't use cars because these are cheap(these aren't even for many americans considering insurance, leasing, repairing and so on), they use cars because pub transport doesn't exist or because it's inconvenient to use it. Ppl always use the most convenient path. In lots of eu cities, unless you come from suburbs, pub transport will be more convenient- it'll have own lanes so no traffic, priority semaphores so almost always green, shorter paths towards destination compared to car lanes, again- saves time, easy transfers(multiple routes have stations close to each other), single ticket policy, in some cases like NL you also got bike parking nearby to cover las mile distance. This makes them easier and faster to use than cars especially considering parking space is limited and it'll take time to find a spot+traffic
If LA had Tokyo's train system (they used too), I could get from LAX to Glendale in ~45 minutes. Like an express train to DTLA and then another to Glendale. Instead, at 5pm, that same commute in a car can be 2.5hrs. Sure, it's nicer at 3am (30mins) but that's not the norm for most waking hours. Further, I could drink at my destination, like say
FWIW I found the critically acclaimed berlin ubahn to have significantly worse headways compared to most NYC subway lines, as well as not having air conditioning and becoming uncomfortably hot and humid
I used lime scooters considerably more than ubahn when I was in berlin
U-bahn is old, but new trains are slowly arriving on some lines. Anyway it is not the best part of its public transport system - I personally enjoy trams.
Well that's pretty easy, Dutch trains are unreliable.
In fact all public transport there is pretty bad. Here in Barcelona the metros come every 3 minutes during the day on each line. In Amsterdam it's more like 15.
I’m 40+ years old now and have never needed or wanted to have a driving license. I simply hated America when I had to visit and use taxi or someone else’s help to get anywhere.
In Berlin even with a child the need of a car is so rare — sometimes it’s even more pleasant to walk an hour to a museum or a club than use public transportation.
That’s strange coming from someone whose country has the famous autobahn. What if you want to get out into the countryside, where busses and trains don’t go? Don’t you need a license to rent a vehicle?
> What if you want to get out into the countryside, where busses and trains don’t go?
I don’t have any business in such countryside. What would I find there? A good beach on Baltic sea is 15 min walk door-to-water plus 2 hours on express train. The list of tourist attractions and vacation destinations accessible by train, plane and/or taxi within half a day or so is so big here that I cannot imagine going to such inaccessible place. Worst case I will pay a few hundred euro for taxi if such improbable situation occurs.
And what's going to happen long term with exploding Berlin rents? The only affordable rents will be out in the suburbs of Berlin, where you'll either have to drive in or spend 2-3x the time on a probably crowded train possibly standing room only. As in the example of Switzerland above, mass transit is a luxury for those able to pay high rents. Previously in Berlin this was subsidized by the rest of Germany and by price controls but the right-wing courts have pretty much gutted Berlin's price protections in favor of billion-euro property developers.
I lived in Germany for years without driving as well, because I could afford to live by the city center. But over half my colleagues drove because that's all they could afford to do, and you should try stepping out of your bubble and understand the pressures that force Germans to drive. They're not all just wanting to spend more time in their Audis.
First, I’m not representing all Germans here, just sharing my own experience which is a good counter-example to “life without a car is impossible”. I’m of course not arguing that car is unnecessary for everyone.
Second, don’t tell me about my “bubble”: you have no idea who I am and what I have experienced in my life. I’m very well aware of many sides of it, maybe more than you are.
Third, do you seriously want to lecture a person who is both a landlord and a tenant in Berlin about local rent controls and price development? We do have some issues here, but it is nowhere close to neither London or NYC where prices are crazy nor Moscow where commuting can be truly exhausting.
>I’m of course not arguing that car is unnecessary for everyone.
Sadly, many are. This topic often does turn into one of lifestyle judgement and it isn't very productive when arguments go from practical to personal. As if any one car-goer or bus-goer determines the fate of a city's urban planning.
Agree. Especially when you add bike-goers to the conversation it can get ugly very quickly. A parent with a stroller is the most neglected person in such talks.
I myself believe that personal cars are mobility edge cases and the world will settle on vendor-managed rental fleets eventually, where most people will occasionally use rental cars with autopilot.
Nevertheless this is not going to happen for the next 50-80 years, so we just need at least to stop promoting car-centric lifestyle and find a real compromise between cars, bikers and pedestrians.
In Switzerland, people in villages use trains to get to and from work. Quite literally, they bike to train, park bike, use train to go to work. Some ride car to train, ride train and then go to work.
It is just not true that mass transit is only for those who pay high rents. It is other way round pretty much all round world and historically - rich people were buying cars more and poor used public transport.
> So, visiting a place is good for walking. But living in a place is not. At least that's my experience.
This is a common Internet meme -- the American tourist that goes to Europe and loves their experience of walking around nice, dense cities designed at a human scale and functioning public transit. Then they return to their life of highways and parking lots and strip malls, which, to me, is dystopia.
> but I couldn't imagine having to take public transportation or having to walk everywhere
Well yes, the US transportation system is utter trash, even in California
> but it also sounds terrible in the sense that you can't just get in your car, go some place, park in a parking lot, go shopping, and then head back home, all on your own terms.
In Europe I have three supermarkets in a 800m radius around my place, the closest shopping center/mall/whatever you call it is a 30min walk away (10min by public transport, 8min by bicycle). I can walk to the closest supermarket without even leaving the private ground of my block of buildings and its park, no street to cross, no cars in sight
> I would want my own car to be in control of my life.
I'm European, spent the first 10 years of my independent adult life without a car, and have always lived in urban areas, within walking distance of supermarkets and other amenities, and with good public transport services. Yet I agree with him
When I finally did get a car, it was a massive QoL upgrade. I can go anywhere, at any time, usually considerably faster than PT, and carry an order of magnitude more than before. I didn't enjoy having to go to the supermarket multiple times a week, but I had to when I could only carry maybe 4 bags (fewer if heavy) in one trip. I still do use buses and trains where it makes sense, e.g. visiting other cities or the centre of mine
Cool, too bad it isn't sustainable. If life was about doing everything you want whenever you want and carry a lot of useless junk around without having to worry about side effects we'd have won the game by now
And the goalposts move again. We were talking about the convenience, not the sustainability. If you want to argue that the inconvenience is a necessary price for environmental sustainability, sure, that's a valid position, but don't pretend that there's no convenience cost
It's interesting that I've been downvoted to -3 for factually detailing how cars are in fact useful. Shooting the messenger won't change the facts
> I didn't enjoy having to go to the supermarket multiple times a week, but I had to when I could only carry maybe 4 bags (fewer if heavy) in one trip.
I mean, if we're talking about convenience, I started ordering my groceries online during the pandemic and I'd argue that's an even bigger QoL upgrade. You can still go for produce (or not) and the occasional thing you need immediately, but getting stuff delivered to you is generally cheaper and more convenient than owning a car. The gratification is a bit less instant, but I value my time more than that.
As for cars being faster than public transit, sure, but making cars fast often have the side effect of making other modes of transit slower, and vice versa. Buses need reserved lanes to be reliable, bikes need reserved lanes to be safe, which means less cars can go. As a pedestrian, I would get to places significantly faster if I could just jaywalk wherever I please, but naturally this would require very low speed limits. Cars also require parking lots, which make walking less efficient. Cars are only convenient for their own drivers, they are inconvenient for everybody else (including other drivers).
Agreed on supermarket delivery. I've started using it now, and probably should have done so sooner
I also actually agree on prioritizing bus and cycle lanes over car lanes. Instead of being angry at them, which unfortunately many drivers are, I choose to appreciate them as intended - i.e. if I'm going into the town centre I usually go by bus. I'd also like to see more properly-separated bike lanes. I don't blame cyclists at all who choose to ignore the painted ones and take the lane as if they're a car
However the main reason why public transport is slower isn't usually due to traffic or physical constraints, but the longer routes you have to take. Usually the planners have done their job well, and the route is near-optimal in aggregate (and therefore often useful for myself if I'm commuting or visiting the centre), but if I want to visit a friend in another part of town, I've very often got to go in to the centre and change out again. Even if there's a direct route, it can be slow due to how many stops occur (off-board ticketing/proper BRT could help with that in major areas). If I'm visiting a business in a business park/industrial estate further out, it's often a taxi or nothing
The following doesn't change much, but just to nitpick:
> As a pedestrian, I would get to places significantly faster if I could just jaywalk wherever I please, but naturally this would require very low speed limits
That's legal where I currently live (UK). Motorways are essentially the only place you're not allowed to just cross, though drivers aren't generally required to break the traffic to give you passage if you're not at a zebra crossing (or a junction, as of recent code changes). Speed limits definitely do vary based on the likelihood of pedestrians in the area, but I don't think changing the law would change much there. I mean, they'd have to fairly compensate by adding more crossings anyway, and IME those are more likely to slow down traffic due to their poorly-timed and long stops (even with sensor-assisted intelligence), whereas pedestrians making ad-hoc crossings are usually sensible enough to wait for a natural gap instead of forcing one (and those who don't would probably "jaywalk" anyway), essentially making their effect on flow near zero. Even if you do have to slow for a pedestrian, it usually is just a slight slow for under two seconds. Much quicker than a red light. Zebra crossings of course don't have lights, but you do have a hard requirement to stop as soon as a pedestrian presents themselves at the side, and remain stopped until they've completely left the road, resulting in similar interruptions rather than turn-taking in existing gaps
That's so funny, because in my mind it's the complete opposite: I feel free because I don't have the burden of keeping a vehicle-object. However, where I leave is car unfriendly. People who always late are the two friends of mine who try to use their car
(Actually I tried both lives. I used to have a car in the past. Still prefer being car free)
this is the real lie, that cars give you agency and freedom. except that you have to find a place to park, and keep the fueled, deal with minor breakdowns like punctured tires that leave you to deal with them for hours. and insurance. and a drivers license. and a place to keep them at night. the threat that they will be broken into. the constant switching back and forth between inattention and attention while driving. getting delayed by traffic. spending quite a bit of time complaining about traffic even though it is you. the inevitable collision. the abysmal process of purchasing. knowing you're are getting screwed at the repair place. having to deal with rentals when you travel. the complete loss of function when you become old or injured and cannot drive for yourself.
Yes! At least a third of the population can’t drive, because too young, too old, handicapped in some way, or too poor. And we have built an environment that requires driving. That’s pretty messed up.
Depends on where you live. In most of the US if you don't have a car you'll be spending hours a day on busses. You have no freedom - you are either sleeping or commuting or working. You can't sleep less, you can't work less. But you can commute fewer hours a day with a car.
Walkable/bikeable places exist in some cities, but are reserved for the rich.
As for the costs of owning a car - these are real, but the cost of not owning a car is much greater. As electric cars filter down to the used market cost of car ownership will also drop a fair amount.
As a gig delivery driver, I'm one of the few people who (on a social level, at least) can justify owning a car. It's immensely frustrating to get into accidents with people who don't need to be on the road, to have to wait for a spot to open up at the gas station, to have to navigate the endless parking lots... But, look, even for us, it's barely worth it. The pay is so low, and cost of ownership so high, that it's less like a job and more like a loan that you pay back in vehicle upkeep, maintenance, and depreciation (and stress, and injury, if you're unlucky). Once you're desperate enough to work one of these gigs (cough) it's almost not worth it to bother with any of that stuff. Just drive the car until it stops, sell it for parts, take the proceeds and start investing in the means to live-car free.
And mass transit you have to deal with line failures, the inability to transport more than you can reasonably carry, and the curfew created by the end-of-line time for the evening.
Which you can wait a lifetime to maybe be built in some diluted state given current pace of things, or resign and take the option the present environment favors. Hate the game, not the player.
not much different from a human in the grand sceme of things. Need to maintain energy, treat minor and major injuries, deal with insurance, keep an ID on me (which costs money to renew), and either avoid or accept the risk of night walks. Fights can break out, routes can get deterred, and Just keeping up with living expenses is hell.
Adding a 2nd mechanical maintenacnce isn't as bad as dealing with the flesh skin version.
If you consider night walks a risk you really don't live in a good area. I walk everywhere here in Barcelona day or night. Same in Amsterdam, Dublin etc.
As it is, people love to complain about buying gas. If someone were to add up the costs associated with driving, I’m sure it would be insane. And I mean all costs. Driving is subsidized to a level that is incomprehensible, and obfuscated away more than just about anything else.
People complain about gas and the weather and the baseball team and everything else and they still don't make any changes about that with their life, because its hardly significant. Gas could double people pay maybe $40 extra a week on their fillup as a result. Meanwhile rent and housing take so much more out of your pocket its hardly relevant what the price of gas is.
Having the option to walk doesn't mean that you can't drive. One can have both. Nice weather to walk in? Maybe I'll walk the 10 minutes to the shopping center. Raining a lot? Take the car.
No one is arguing that you would have to take public transportation or walk everywhere. They are just saying that it is good if where you live is walkable. I also live in Southern California and I would say that a lot of most expensive places to live are expensive because they are more walkable. You could live in downtown La Jolla or by the beach in Santa Monica and walk around. You could also own or rent a car and drive to Lake Tahoe. It's not either or.
East hollywood probably sees the some of the most foot traffic in southern california and rents are relatively affordable by LA county standards. Chances are the working class areas in sd are similar I imagine where you see a lot of people walking, biking, or taking the bus to get to work. Of course this isn’t “urbanism” in the way that upper class people consider it, but it exists.
You may not imagine how it works but plenty of people do ride transit in southern california. LA metro ridership is like 800k people a day. A lot of neighborhoods have a lot of foot traffic in LA county at least.
Totally agree with this. I have a 9-5 that I don't hate, but I would love to just spend time with my family and focus on my hobbies. I would be beyond happy doing that for the rest of my life.
Curious what other devices people have that use USB-C? The only one I have is my Nintendo Switch. So for me, this is mostly an inconvenience having to get new cables for my phone. I'll miss Lightning.
Nearly every single device I use regularly that can be USB powered is USB C at this point. Just from looking around, my mouse, my Android phone, both my work and personal laptop, my Switch, my portable speaker, my headphones, my iPad, my Raspberry Pi, and even my Pokemon Go Ball.
At this point I actively avoid buying any devices that are not USBC because there is an alternative to any product I could want. Products shipping with micro USB in 2023 are almost always indicative of a cheap product or an old product that hasn't received any meaningful updates.
The only glaring examples are Apple phones/accessories, which I avoid, and sadly fitness devices. My water bottle and watch both have proprietary connections, I assume because a water proof USBC connection is just not feasible on small devices. Hopefully some kind of standard gets established there as I've had products that look like they have very similar connections that almost fit but they don't actually charge.
> Products shipping with micro USB in 2023 are almost always indicative of a cheap product or an old product that hasn't received any meaningful updates.
This is only somewhat true. Some products are decent quality, but they’re not really “tech” products, they just do power delivery via MicroUSB. Also there are some high end products that have not switched and are huge pain points. Like Logitech makes these very good wireless mouses that are still micro USB.
I’ve wanted a USB C iPhone for years, but will be skipping this because I’m already setup to have to support 4 different types of cable: Lightning, USB C, and Micro USB (and USB A)
For Micro USB and USB A I just have converters that I can slip onto a USB C cord which works because I have to use them less frequently, but I have high quality Lightning cables.
Plus all the other stuff I have that I’d have to buy a new version of to fully get rid of Lightning: 2 Apple TV remotes, AirPods Max, at least a new AirPod Pro charging case and my basic iPad.
It sucks. I’ve wanted this for a while but it’s probably going to be at least 3 more years before I get to demote Lightning to the same category as USB A and Micro USB
I just wish Apple had sucked it up and done this sooner before they got forced to. I really do think the strategy was to eventually have at least the non Pro iPhones go completely portless.
My USBC mouse is Logitech. It's the sideways mouse that is supposed to help with carpal tunnel and it's been fantastic after I got used to it. I'm actually surprised that they have any current mice that are not USBC.
Is it an older model that is popular that they just aren't changing because people are still buying them? If you're willing to try something new you might be surprised by the improvements they have in their latest lines.
My headphones, laptop (MacBook), work laptop (also MacBook), Nintendo Switch, external hard drives, and external battery all use USB-C. None of these were intentional switches for me, just the default option. At this point, my phone is the only cable I have that isn’t USB-C, so this will be super convenient.
My partner’s phone (an Android) is already on USB-C, so this will also let us share cables, which is a huge plus.
You didn't need an adapter, just a cable. In recent years, that cable came included with the iPhone. And it's the same cable used for charging the phone.
It doesn't matter whether the adapter is stubby or long (like a non-adapting cable), it still cost like $20 for no reason, despite being "such a well integrated ecosystem"
When it came to apple, that kind of stuff has always been pure puffery and marketing anyway. "Their hardware is the best" people would say, while their computers sat at 100% fan, choking under the strain of running basic apps with no real cooling, while the user worked around a stuck "C" key and being careful with their inflating battery.
At this point I don't have any portable electronics which do not use USB C (kind of by design, I have so many USB C cables and almost no microUSB left and don't want to buy more of the latter) and only have a handful of things in general which still use MicroUSB.
So, my phone, tablet, steam deck, power bank, bluetooth-to-wired audio adapter, all use USB C. Same with any of the laptops I'm looking at getting. Thus, all I ever need to carry is a power brick, a USB C hub, a C-to-C cable and an A-to-C cable and it'll be sufficient for everything.
Everything else I have is micro USB: my phone, my ereader (PocketBook), my reMarkable tablet, my bluetooth headset, my bike GPS, the lights of my bike, my portable batteries.
I fear the day I will have to replace all of those with USB-C because, currently, I can travel with only one small charger (as long as I don’t take my laptop).
I do not follow your reasoning. There are extremely small C chargers and if the replacement is gradual, you could also just carry C male-micro USB male cable(s) and micro USB female to C male adapters. Such adapters adhere to the specification, it's C female to legacy USB which is not.
I have phone, tablet, headphones, laptop, steam deck, graphics tablet, art light box, and various battery chargers and camera lights & accessories that all use usb C. Kindle and Fitbit is about the only thing I use that's not USBC I think.
At this point basically every gadget in my house not made by Apple, and even then most of the gadgets made by Apple.
MacBook, iPad, Studio Display, Switch, Sony headphones, Kindle, my wife’s Pixel phone, Steam Deck, Raspberry Pi. The only micro USB devices I have are some old portable chargers. The only Lightning devices I have are my phone, my AirPods and, for some reason that still escapes me, the external trackpad Apple sells.
If the only USB-C gadget you have is the Switch you must not have bought many gadgets in the past five years. Which actually isn’t a bad thing, good on you.
My Kindle Oasis and my Bose QC35 are my next most often charged things after my iPhone, and they’re both micro USB and only three years old. The only USB-C device I own is a kitchen scale. I have more mini USB and full-size USB-B things!
MacBook Pro, wireless mouse, an audio mixer I think, a couple other things. I still use a lot more USB-A/B but it's creeping up there. I probably won't upgrade this generation but the switch is in the category of utterly inevitable and mostly will mean I have to buy some adapters and maybe a couple cables by the time it happens.
Isn't the Switch some "almost USB-C but not quite" thing? I remember issues with that.
Most everything is moving towards USB-C but it's slow; I want Milwaukee and them to have more USB-C charging devices for the smaller battery charged things.
Usb c devices i own: Apple MacBook laptop, Lenovo laptop, Sony headphones, Bose headphones, bike lights, headlamp, probably more. Lightning is the odd one out for me.
iPad, MacBooks, Chromebooks, Nintendo Switch, and basically every IoT gadget and other toy that used to use Micro-USB, for the last couple years they've all been USB-C. Even the cheapo stuff. I was ecstatic to throw away all but one (just in case) Micro USB cable I had. I won't jump for joy getting rid of Lightning cables, but OTOH I won't miss them either.
For me it's Steam Deck, Soundcore Headphones, Phone (I use android), Laptop and Pill Dispenser (a medical device). It's nice just to grab my high speed steam deck charging brick and a spare USB-C to keep all that stuff in charging rotation overnight when out of the house.
I don't necessarily "miss" lightning but it was a superior design. With USB-C the cables are female so you're more likely to break off the connector on the device instead of the cable, which is cheap and easy to replace. Lightning didn't have that problem.
I disagree. In my experience of having both of these for a number of years I never had to replace a USB-C cable because it was broken. I had to replace the lighting cable more than I can count.
Laptops (Work MacBook and a Thinkpad) and i do not use the magic thingy for charging. My phone and my switch. And i used those things on travels surprisingly often.
Do you use lightning for charging your phone when traveling and mag save for your macbook?
Multiple different wireless headphones. Wireless keyboard. Wireless mouse. Game controllers. A non-Apple phone. Multiple laptops. E-reader. A rechargeable flashlight. A rechargeable lantern. External battery pack.
For me I’ve got my Nintendo Switch, headphones, soon my new phone, and a vape that all charge on USB-C. I’m excited to have one cable to rule them all, personally.
Most things I have and still use, use usbc for charging or power. Or lightning.
Peripherals, usb-a is still what you usually get, just going by what’s common on store shelves. Just got a new kit at work a few weeks ago—all these brand-new devices are made to plug into A, even if the other end is usb-c. They come with A-to-c cables, or else are A-only. In the former case, I can at least fix it by just using c cables I already have.
But, overall, the peripheral world as most people experience it is still A-first. C options are usually more expensive, may be part of why.
I have none at all. So I'm not so happy about this. It means I will have to throw away lots of good lightning cables I've amassed over the years. Thanks EU, I guess.
