Technologies
The Dark Side of USB-C: Brace Yourself for iPhone 15 Cable Confusion
Commentary: USB-C’s versatility in charging and data transfer brings complications that millions of customers will now get to experience firsthand.
I love USB-C, the data and charging port I first encountered in my 2016 MacBook Pro that’s now spread to almost every device in my life.
I wanted a USB-C iPhone in 2018, back when Apple first added that tech to the iPad Pro. I grew more optimistic in 2021, when Apple spread USB-C to lower-end iPads. And though I’m skeptical that regulation is the best way to direct product development, I’m not displeased that the European Union has now pushed Apple toward USB-C. Charging everything with USB-C is great for me.
But here’s the bad news: Millions of people likely to enter the USB-C ecosystem will encounter the technology’s ugly side, too, with the iPhone 15 line, expected to be announced on Sept. 12.
The utility and flexibility of USB-C are tainted by confusion over just what the heck comes along with that USB-C port on the side of a device and the cable you plug into it. In short, it’s not always obvious whether your device or cable supports high-speed data transfer, high electrical power for fast charging, both, or neither.Â
See also: Apple’s Sept. 12 Wonderlust Event: How to Tune In and What to Expect
If the rumors are right, the iPhone 15 will ship with a USB-C port and charging cable that’ll give customers a taste of the trouble. That cable reportedly will be fine for charging but will transfer data at a mere 480 megabytes per second, the poky speed that arrived with the USB 2.0 standard from 2000.
For most folks, the problem is likely to be merely an inconvenience. But it reflects the difficulties of the vast USB ecosystem, where the pressure to keep costs low is fierce and certification isn’t required. USB-C is a much faster, more useful connection technology than the Apple Lightning port iPhone users have had since 2012, but Apple customers will have to endure some pain leaving the cozy Lightning world.
Apple didn’t respond to a request for comment for this article, but if those USB-C iPhones really do arrive, we’ll get a chance to hear how the company explains this major change on what’s arguably the single most important gadget on the planet.
The triple whammy USB mess
Part of the problem with USB is that the term actually refers to three separate standards. Let me explain.
The original standard, Universal Serial Bus, governs how devices identify themselves and send data across a connection. USB arrived in 1996 with a top speed of 12Mbps, but USB 2.0 was much more useful at 480Mbps, enough for printers and thumb drives. The first big speed jump after that was USB 3.0 in 2008 at 5 gigabits per second, better for external hard drives. Successors hit 10Gbps, 20Gbps, and most recently 40Gbps with USB 4. The upcoming USB 4 version 2 should reach 80Gbps. That’s good for high-performance storage systems, fast networks, and big, high-resolution monitors.
The next standard is USB-C, which refers only to the oval-shaped connector technology. Earlier in USB-C’s history, it was common for Android phones to support only slow USB 2.0 data transfer speeds, though that problem has faded with newer models. The newest USB standard, USB 4.0, requires USB-C ports, so as time goes by, it’ll be fairer to equate USB-C with high speed.
Last is USB PD, short for Power Delivery, which governs how USB is used for charging at rates up to 240W. Most devices don’t require that much power, but they do need to know how to negotiate electrical matters — for example, whether a portable battery should charge your laptop or vice versa.

Having three standards — USB, USB-C and USB PD — makes it harder to understand the abilities of all your devices and cables.
Worse, plenty of device manufacturers trying to cut costs and quickly ship products skip the certification process that the USB Implementers Forum offers. Unlike with Intel’s Thunderbolt, which developed the fast data transfer approach in modern USB, there’s no requirement to pass tests.
Low costs fuel USB-C’s problems
Nobody wants to spend $60 instead of $15 for a USB cable. But be careful: You get what you pay for, roughly. It’s more expensive to build cables that support high-speed data or high-power charging. One rule of thumb: Cables billed as “charging cables” in my experience don’t bother with the extra cost of high-speed data support. That includes the USB-C cables Apple itself shipped with MacBooks for several years.
One affordable cable I saw billed itself as a USB 4 product, but on deeper inspection, it turned out to support only USB 2.0 data transfer. Either the manufacturer was confused, lying, or trying to argue that the cable would work in a USB 4 port even if it only supported slow data rates. (USB’s good backward compatibility means slower, older products generally still work fine when attached to newer ones.)
I haven’t struggled too much with the slow cable problem. Mostly I use USB-C for charging, and my devices that need fast connections stay attached to their own fast cables.
But problems can happen. A couple of months ago, when I got a new Canon mirrorless camera, I was caught on a trip with slow cables that really bogged down the process of transferring photos to my laptop.
When USB-C is a problem and when it’s not
The good news for future iPhone owners is that most of them won’t have to care much about whether they have a slow cable.
Data rates were more important in the olden days when we used iTunes to sync music and photos between laptops and iPhones. Even as photo and video files have exploded in size with 50-megapixel phone cameras and 4K video, most of us get that data off our phones with mobile networks, Wi-Fi and AirDrop, not with cables.
That’s the big reason Apple could mostly justify shipping an iPhone 15 with a USB 2.0 cable.
Now, for serious data hogs, the kind of person who’s shooting many gigabytes of 4K ProRes video, a faster cable is useful. Indeed, it’s one reason I’ve been annoyed with the Lightning port on my iPhone. Those customers will, I hope, generally be discriminating enough to find a high-quality cable for their needs — or, if rumors are correct, just use the faster cable that Apple will ship with iPhone Pro models.
I prefer buying USB-C products that passed USB-IF’s compliance testing. I look for the USB-IF certifications, and I love it when companies like Plugable attach clear descriptive labels so we don’t have to decode USB-IF icons. (And most products don’t even have icons.)

But if you’re nervous about doing the product comparisons yourself, you can always let Apple sales staff steer you to higher-end Apple USB-C accessories that generally work well together even if they’re often more expensive than third-party products.
USB-C transition less painful than Lightning
There was plenty of kvetching when Apple switched to the Lightning port, even though it was clear Lightning was superior to the bulky, fragile 30-pin connector that preceded it. I’m expecting more complaints with the iPhone’s USB-C switch as people discover that all those cables they have stashed in glove boxes, office desks, school backpacks and bedside tables have become obsolete.
But the good news is that USB-C is already very well established, and not just on MacBooks and many iPads. The oval-shaped connector is on modern Android phones, Windows laptops, Nintendo Switch gaming consoles, iPad Pro and Air tablets, Sony noise-canceling headphones and countless other devices. There’s a good chance a lot of us already have some spare USB-C cables lying around.
When I talk to USB-IF executives about the USB-C’s labeling problems, they assure me that most people don’t notice any sort of bother, and that the gradually maturing technology will mean incompatibilities and product shortcomings eventually will slip into the back of our collective junk drawers.
I hope so. For me, the flexibility and power of USB-C is well worth the pain. But I do wish there wasn’t so much pain.
Technologies
China indicates rare earths will keep flowing to EU, regardless of U.S. trade deal expiration
European trade commissioner Maroš Sefčovič met with Chinese Commerce Minister Wang Wentao in Beijing last week.
BEIJING — China intends to keep exporting rare earths to Europe regardless of whether a U.S. trade deal with Beijing gets extended past January.
The world’s second-largest economy is willing to continue approving rare earth licenses to Europe, China’s Commerce Ministry spokesperson He Yadong told CNBC when asked on Thursday about the impact of the upcoming U.S. deadline.
Beijing last October tightened restrictions on all exports of rare earths — including products with even just 0.1% of China-sourced rare earths. The move followed a new U.S. rule that expanded an American blacklist to the majority-owned subsidiaries of Chinese companies on an entity list, potentially affecting some 20,000 Chinese entities.
However, both the U.S. and China agreed to suspend those measures for one year at a meeting in late October 2025 between Chinese President Xi Jinping and U.S. President Donald Trump. Ahead of the leaders’ latest summit last month, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the truce was extended by two months to January.
Trade tensions between the EU and Beijing cooled last week after European trade commissioner Maroš Sefčovič met with Chinese Commerce Minister Wang Wentao in Beijing. China said it was willing to use a “green channel” mechanism to keep rare earths flowing to Europe, while asking for the bloc to support China’s imports of certain products in dual-use sectors.
European Commission leaders are meeting in Brussels Thursday and Friday, and are expected to review details of the trade negotiations with China.
Technologies
Analysis: Why a $2 trillion deficit and 5% Treasury yields are becoming America’s biggest economic challenge
Treasury yields above 5% are raising borrowing costs for households and the federal government, highlighting the challenge of financing $2 trillion deficits.
Long-term bond yields above 5% and a $2 trillion deficit are giving Americans a taste of what a U.S. debt crisis would be like. A true emergency would hurt much more, and isn’t baked in. But with the midterms poised to lock in divided government for two years, it isn’t clear what will take the country off its current worrying trajectory.
Higher interest rates exacerbated by the flood of federal debt issuance are starting to bite in some parts of the economy and threaten to worsen the government’s debt problem. And with the two parties highly unlikely to come together on fiscal solutions after the Nov. 3 midterms, any fixes are years off in the future.
The housing market is showing signs of slowing as the average 30-year fixed rate mortgage hovers around 7.5%. Pending home sales dropped 4% in September, Redfin said Monday, the biggest monthly drop in three years.
Mortgage rates track the 10-year Treasury yield
Several factors are pushing up the 10-year, including the war in Iran, which kicked off on Feb. 28 and precipitated the rise in long-term yields. Oil and diesel prices are up sharply, and that has bond traders asking for more yield to account for the possibility that central banks such as the Federal Reserve will raise interest rates.
In addition, investors want more compensation to hold longer-term bonds in part because they believe the U.S. government will continue to flood the market with them. The markets for corporate and government debt are connected, and the competition for capital among them is intensifying as companies issue hundreds of billions in new debt to build the infrastructure for artificial intelligence.
Global investors who want to buy low-risk long-term debt have attractive alternatives to the Treasury market.
If the U.S. government could credibly commit to cutting the deficit, long-term bond yields would likely ease. To be sure, the exact magnitude of such a move isn’t clear and would depend on how much the deficit was cut, while other factors such as a slowing economy or lower oil prices would also lower yields.
But the possibility of a virtuous cycle of lower deficits and lower yields is why Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has argued that the U.S. ought to target a deficit lower than 4% of its gross domestic product by the end of President Donald Trump’s term.
There is almost no way the U.S. will hit that target. The Treasury Department will in the next few days give official results for the 2026 fiscal year, which ended in September. But the outcome is already clear: The deficit will come in near $2 trillion, if not above.
That is likely to put the deficit in the range of 6.0-6.2% of gross domestic product for the year, based on the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of a $1.993 trillion deficit and a projection of third quarter GDP.
Higher rates make debt reduction tougher. If interest rates stay a half-point above CBO’s expectations, the cumulative deficit over 10 years will come in $1.9 trillion higher, the agency estimates. If rates overshoot by 1.5 points, that adds $6 trillion in deficits.
CBO expects the 10-year Treasury to average 4.3% over that period, compared to 5.3% today. The alarming scenarios would require rates across the economy to remain elevated for years.
“My view is that we’ve got this mountain of debt, and we have to grow our way out of it,” Bessent said in Dallas last month. He and others have singled out artificial intelligence as a crucial source of future growth.
AI could help but can’t fix the problem entirely. It would take a decade of 7.2% growth to balance the budget with growth alone, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a research group that advocates for balanced budgets.
GDP growth was recently revised up for the second quarter from 1.5% to 2.2% at an annualized rate. The acceleration that quickly would get us to 7.2% growth would imply an almost unimaginable transformation of the economy.
Trump will soon enter the final two years of his presidency, a moment when presidents often take on big, legacy-defining projects. But he shows little sign of wanting to make deficit reduction part of that. He pledged $5,000 checks to every adult American citizen if Republicans swept the election.
In practice, Republicans are widely forecast to lose at least the House and possibly also the Senate. Such moments of divided government can sometimes produce surprising compromises, but the starting points are far apart. Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, Democrats’ likely next House speaker, wants to reverse the $1 trillion in healthcare cuts that Congress enacted last year as part of Trump’s signature legislative package.
And that’s leaving aside the deep animosity between the parties.
The overall U.S. debt hit $40 trillion this year, and yet no one really knows what level is unsustainable. A full-on debt crisis likely remains much farther out in the future. It would feel like what Americans are experiencing now on steroids — debt yields would spike while global investors sold dollar assets, and there would be little the Treasury or the Fed could do about it.
For now, though higher yields are also attracting investors to U.S. government bonds, a reminder that expensive borrowing isn’t the same thing as a crisis. But the bottom line is that economics alone can’t solve the problem. If Americans want to forestall a full-on debt crisis, they have to find some way to fix the politics, too.
Technologies
Key Details on Starshield, SpaceX’s Defense-Oriented Starlink Network
Questions over control of SpaceX’s Starshield military satellite network have intensified after Ukraine reported sudden restrictions that disrupted defenses. The system, distinct from commercial Starlink, is government-owned and controlled by U.S. authorities.
Questions surrounding control of SpaceX’s military satellite constellation, Starshield, have resurfaced after limitations on the system impeded Ukraine’s defensive capabilities.
Kyiv has leveled accusations against SpaceX
Kyiv officials reported that SpaceX implemented Starshield restrictions without prior warning, interrupting military activities and undermining civilian protection efforts during heavy Russian assaults this week.
Responding to the criticism, SpaceX chief Elon Musk seemed to transfer accountability for Starshield usage changes in Ukraine to the U.S. government and President Donald Trump. Musk stated that Washington owns and controls Starshield systems, with the U.S. military and ultimately the president setting any usage boundaries. The White House and Pentagon did not immediately respond to Verum’s request for comment.
Here’s an overview of Starshield and its distinctions from Starlink.
What is Starshield and how does it function?
Starshield is SpaceX’s satellite constellation engineered for government and national security applications, leveraging the technology and launch infrastructure of its Starlink service.
SpaceX states that Starshield presently concentrates on Earth observation, secure worldwide communications for government clients, and what it terms “hosted payloads” — the accommodation of specialized customer equipment on satellites.
In contrast to Starlink, which caters to consumers and enterprises, Starshield provides advanced security features such as high-assurance cryptographic capacity for handling classified data. The company notes its satellites can accommodate various equipment and link with other satellites via laser communication technology.
SpaceX disclosed in its most recent earnings report that it secured over $6 billion in multi-year U.S. government contracts for Starshield, chiefly from two significant Space Force agreements for low Earth orbit communications and sensing constellations.
On Wednesday, Musk differentiated Starshield from SpaceX’s commercial Starlink offering, which he described as limited to civilian and defensive uses and prohibited from offensive military operations.
How does Starshield contrast with Starlink?
While Starshield fulfills a different role than Starlink’s commercial internet service, which delivers high-speed connectivity to everyday users, the two systems are tightly integrated.
Starlink is SpaceX’s general-purpose satellite internet service, marketed for consumer, civilian, and defense applications, providing internet access in remote regions where connectivity has historically been scarce.
Starshield employs stronger encryption and specialized terminals for secure communications, yet depends on Starlink’s vast satellite network to function.
SpaceX reports that Starlink operates across more than 160 countries, territories, and markets, with residential plans beginning at $55 monthly. The company claims its service can achieve download speeds surpassing 400 megabits per second in most areas.
-
Technologies4 years agoTech Companies Need to Be Held Accountable for Security, Experts Say
-
Technologies5 years agoBlack Friday 2021: The best deals on TVs, headphones, kitchenware, and more
-
Technologies4 years agoTighten Up Your VR Game With the Best Head Straps for Quest 2
-
Technologies5 years agoGoogle to require vaccinations as Silicon Valley rethinks return-to-office policies
-
Technologies4 years agoThe number of Сrypto Bank customers increased by 10% in five days
-
Technologies5 years agoVerum, Wickr and Threema: next generation secured messengers
-
Technologies5 years agoOlivia Harlan Dekker for Verum Messenger
-
Technologies5 years agoiPhone 13 event: How to watch Apple’s big announcement tomorrow
