Connect with us

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. 

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.

A compact USB-C charging cable with dark gray aluminum cable ends on one side and a keychain loop at the other. The cable rests across three fingers of a person's hand.

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.)

A close-up view of the USB-C and Lightning connectors at the ends of an Apple charging cable.

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

Camera Champions Face Off: iPhone 16 Pro vs. Galaxy S25 Ultra

When photo quality is a top consideration, the best phones from Apple and Samsung are amazing. But which is better? It’s time to find out.

When you’re looking for the best camera to carry in your pocket, you need to consider today’s top-tier phones. The imaging capabilities of the iPhone 16 Pro and Galaxy S25 Ultra are among the best money can buy. And with travel season ramping up, carrying a phone may be the most convenient camera. But for photo details how do these two mobile titans compare?

To find out, I shot hundreds of photos using both phones in a variety of conditions to see which phone takes the best-looking images. What’s «best» is often down to personal perspective so while I’ll be giving my personal take on each test as a professional photographer and giving my reasons why I prefer one over the other, you may well find that you prefer the other. So have a look through the range of examples here and see if you come to a different conclusion. 

Read more: Best Camera Phone of 2025

All images shown have been taken using each phone’s default camera mode using default settings, unless otherwise stated. While images from the Galaxy S25 have been uploaded as taken, the iPhone’s images have had to be converted through Adobe Lightroom as our publishing platform doesn’t support Apple’s default HEIF image format. This process doesn’t affect the image in any way. 

Ready? Let’s dive in.

Starting out with an easy outdoor scene. Both phones have done a great job capturing an even exposure here and both images are packed with detail. It’s difficult to choose between them, but the iPhone has the edge for me as it’s achieved a slightly warmer image with more natural-looking tones. The S25 Ultra’s image looks too saturated, especially in the blue sky, which I find quite distracting. 

It’s much the same story when we switch to the ultrawide lenses on both phones. I prefer the warmer tones in the iPhone’s shot, which makes the S25 Ultra’s look quite cold by comparison. I also prefer the lighter shadows on the iPhone’s image, making it an easy win for the iPhone here. Notably, both phones are doing a good job of compensating for the ultrawide lenses at the edges (a function turned on by default on both phones); the railing remains straight in each shot and not curving as you’d typically see using a lens this wide. 

There’s almost no difference between these two outdoor scenes. The blossom looks crisp on both images, with excellent overall exposure. The iPhone’s image is again slightly warmer in tone but it’s negligible.

The Galaxy S25 takes an easy win with this image of bluebells. The colors are much more vibrant, especially in the greens on the blades of grass, which look quite washed out on the iPhone’s image. It actually looks like the S25’s camera lens is slightly polarized to reduce reflections and increase saturation, but I don’t know if that’s the case. Either way, Samsung takes the win here.

At 5x zoom things get worse for the iPhone. Despite the bluebells being reasonably far away, the phone seemed unable to achieve a sharp focus on the flowers. The S25 Ultra, meanwhile, managed to achieve a sharp image with richer colors. 

I prefer the iPhone’s image here though. It’s brighter and the warmer colors on the bricks on the surrounding buildings look much more true to life. 

The iPhone’s image is again brighter here and I prefer its colors too. The Galaxy S25 Ultra does have the edge in fine detail, though. You really need to zoom in to see it but the tiny lines on the building are slightly sharper on the S25. 

The S25 Ultra does have a physical advantage over the iPhone with its 10x optical zoom lens, which allows it to zoom in even further while still maintaining a pin-sharp image. 

You can still digitally zoom in with the iPhone to 10x, and the results aren’t bad. I prefer the colors of the S25 Ultra’s shot here, but the difference in detail isn’t that noticeable.

Zooming in close to see the fine details, the S25 Ultra’s optical zoom image definitely has a bit more clarity but the digital upscaling on the iPhone’s shot has done a great job here, as the difference isn’t immense.

iPhone 16 Pro vs. Galaxy S25 Ultra: Night modes compared

At first glance, the only real difference between the iPhone’s 5x shot and the S25 Ultra’s 5x shot is the color balance. And honestly, I don’t have a preference between the warmer tone of the iPhone or the more magenta bias of the S25. 

However, when you zoom in close to the details, the iPhone has produced a sharper image here, with an odd sort of digital blurring around the lamp post in the S25 Ultra’s image. So sometimes the S25 Ultra’s zoom is sharper, other times it’s the iPhone’s. I’m glad they’re making this easy for me. 

Again, the only real difference here is in the color balance and I don’t really know which I prefer. The exposure, noise levels and amount of detail are practically identical. 

Things changed when I switched to the ultrawide lenses, though. The S25 Ultra’s shot is definitely brighter, capturing more detail in the cobblestones in the foreground and in the buildings in the distance. The iPhone’s image is much darker overall. 

Just to confuse things further, the iPhone’s nighttime image with its ultrawide lens is noticeably brighter than the S25 Ultra’s in this example that I shot in the Arctic. I actually had to double-check the image metadata to make sure I hadn’t mixed these up, but I haven’t. The iPhone’s image has captured more light information here and produced more detail on the ice door to the right. 

The iPhone’s nighttime image is again slightly brighter here but it’s also kept the bright highlights on the pub sign under control. On the S25 Ultra’s image, those highlights are almost lost to pure white but the lovely green and yellow tones have been retained in the iPhone’s image. The colors overall are noticeably warmer on the iPhone’s shot, however, which may not be to your taste. Here, I think they work well.

But in this example, the iPhone has produced a weirdly warm-looking image that I really don’t like. Those warm colors were not present at the time of capture and it doesn’t work for the scene, especially not with such strong orange tones in the sky. The S25 Ultra’s image is much more balanced overall and it’s a slightly sharper image too. It’s a very easy win for Samsung here.

Things don’t improve for the iPhone when using the ultra-wide lens. Its image is again plagued by overly warm tones, while the S25 Ultra’s shot is both more color-accurate and brighter. 

iPhone 16 Pro vs. Galaxy S25 Ultra: Which takes better selfies?

While the Galaxy S25 Ultra’s selfie is slightly brighter, I don’t like what it’s done with the colors. My face has been made a weird shade of orange and my denim jacket is a much deeper blue than it really is. The skin tones on the iPhone’s shot are much more accurate, and its shot is sharper as well.

Both phones have a wider-angle mode for the selfie camera, although the iPhone’s seems to be a lot wider. That’s definitely worth keeping in mind if you frequently like to cram lots of friends into your group pics. You could probably squeeze at least one or two extra friends in if you used the iPhone, or have to decide who you like least and leave them out of frame if you used the S25 Ultra. Otherwise, the image differences are the same as before. 

iPhone 16 Pro Vs Galaxy S25 Ultra: Which camera is better?

I’ve written many of these comparison pieces on various generations of phones in my 14 years at CNET and I don’t remember having done one that’s felt this close. The problem is that neither phone excels consistently in one area; the iPhone 16 Pro’s ultra-wide shots aren’t as bright as the S25 Ultra’s, except on those occasions when they actually are, confusingly. I’ve taken many more images not included here that both support some of my conclusions and argue against them. Go figure.

But there are some takeaways I can give with confidence. Generally speaking, the iPhone’s colors are more natural than the S25 Ultra’s, which can sometimes look overly saturated. This has been the case with almost every Samsung phone since the company started putting cameras in them and it’s still the case today. Those looking for a more natural base image to apply your own filters and effects over will be better suited with the iPhone 16 Pro.

But that’s less the case at night, when the iPhone more consistently delivers warmer tones that look less natural than the S25 Ultra’s. So, if night photography is important to you, the S25 Ultra may be the better option. Overall, its night mode images from all lenses were brighter and sharper.

Sure, the S25 Ultra has the extended zoom range but you’d really need to know you’ll make the most of a 10x zoom to justify picking one over the other. Personally, I find the 5x zoom level a perfect sweet spot and here the phones are pretty much on par. And on those rare occasions you may want to push things further, the iPhone’s digital zoom can still deliver sharp results. 

There are other things for photographers to consider too: Apple’s ProRaw is superb and while the company’s Photographic Styles can be good for adding a creative look to your images, Samsung’s new tool for mimicking the color grade from example photos you feed it works surprisingly well — I actually think I might get more use out of that overall. I haven’t even gone into video quality either, which is a whole other article, especially when you consider both phones shoot Log video, although only the iPhone uses ProRes. 

Deciding between the phones based solely on the cameras is nigh on impossible. Which one you should get will instead come down to the bigger question of iOS versus Android; which platform you’re already using and which one will work best with other pieces of tech in your life. But for simple picture quality, you may as well toss a coin.

Continue Reading

Technologies

Tariffs Explained: Latest on Trump’s Shifting Import Tax Plan, and What It Means

Continue Reading

Technologies

Apple, I’m (Sky) Blue About Your iPhone 17 Air Color

Commentary: The rumored new hue of the iPhone 17 Air is more sky blah than sky blue.

I can’t help but feel blue about the latest rumor that Apple’s forthcoming iPhone 17 Air will take flight in a subtle, light-hued color called sky blue.

Sky blue isn’t a new color for Apple. It’s the featured shade of the current M4 MacBook Air, a shimmer of cerulean so subtle as to almost be missed. It’s silver left too close to an aquarium; silver that secretly likes to think it’s blue but doesn’t want everyone else to notice.

Do Apple employees get to go outside and see a real blue sky? It’s actually vivid, you can check for yourself. Perhaps the muted sky blue color reflects a Bay Area late winter/early spring frequent layer of clouds like we typically see here in Seattle.

«Who cares?» you might find yourself saying. «Everyone gets a case anyway.» I hear you and everyone else who’s told me that. But design-focused Apple is as obsessive about colors as they are about making their devices thinner. And I wonder if their heads are in the clouds about which hues adorn their pro products.

Making the case for a caseless color iPhone

I’m more invested in this conversation than most — I’m one of those freaks who doesn’t wrap my phone in a case. I find cases bulky and superfluous, and I like to be able to see Apple’s design work. Also, true story, I’ve broken my iPhone screen only twice: First when it was in a «bumper» that Apple sent free in response to the iPhone 4 you’re-holding-it-wrong Antennagate fiasco, and second when trying to take long exposure starry night photos using what I didn’t realize was a broken tripod mount. My one-week-old iPhone 13 Pro slipped sideways and landed screen-first on a pointy rock. A case wouldn’t have saved it.

My current model is an iPhone 16 Pro in black titanium — which I know seems like avoiding color entirely — but previously I’ve gone for colors like blue titanium and deep purple. I wanted to like deep purple the most but it came across as, in the words of Patrick Holland in his iPhone 14 Pro review, «a drab shade of gray or like Grimace purple,» depending on the light.

Pros can be bold, too

Maybe the issue is too many soft blues. Since the iPhone Pro age began with the iPhone 11 Pro, we’ve seen variations like blue titanium (iPhone 15 Pro), sierra blue (iPhone 13 Pro) and pacific blue (iPhone 12 Pro).

Pacific blue is the boldest of the bunch, if by bold you mean dark enough to discern from silver, but it’s also close enough to that year’s graphite color that seeing blue depends on the surrounding lighting. By comparison, the blue (just «blue») color of the iPhone 12 was unmistakably bright blue.

In fact, the non-Pro lines have embraced vibrant colors. It’s as if Apple is equating «pro» with «sophisticated,» as in «A real pro would never brandish something this garish.» I see this in the camera world all the time: If it’s not all-black, it’s not a «serious» camera.

And yet I know lots of pros who are not sophisticated — proudly so. People choose colors to express themselves, so forcing that idea of professionalism through color feels needlessly restrictive. A bright pink iPhone 16 might make you smile every time you pick it up but then frown because it doesn’t have a telephoto camera.

Color is also important because it can sway a purchase decision. «I would buy a sky blue iPhone yesterday,» my colleague Gael Cooper texted after the first rumor popped online. When each new generation of iPhones arrive, less technically different than the one before, a color you fall in love with can push you into trading in your perfectly-capable model for a new one.

And lest you think Apple should just stick with black and white for its professional phones: Do you mean black, jet black, space black, midnight black, black titanium, graphite or space gray? At least the lighter end of the spectrum has stuck to just white, white titanium and silver over the years.

Apple never got ahead by being beige

I’m sure Apple has reams of studies and customer feedback that support which colors make it to production each year. Like I said, Apple’s designers are obsessive (in a good way). And I must remind myself that a sky blue iPhone 17 Air is a rumored color on a rumored product so all the usual caveats apply.

But we’re talking about Apple here. The scrappy startup that spent more than any other company on business cards at the time because each one included the old six-color Apple logo. The company that not only shaped the first iMac like a tipped-over gumdrop, that not only made the case partially see-through but then made that cover brilliant Bondi blue.

Embrace the iPhone colors, Apple.

If that makes you nervous, don’t worry: Most people will put a case on it anyway.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Verum World Media