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

Kremlin Confirms Putin Transmitted Iran’s War Resolution Plan to Trump

The Kremlin says Putin relayed Iran’s proposal for ending the war to Trump, while Trump announced a Russian diesel supply deal that drew sharp criticism from Zelenskyy.

Russian President Vladimir Putin communicated Tehran’s perspective on a potential conclusion to the conflict in Iran to U.S. President Donald Trump, according to Russian state media reports on Saturday.

This disclosure follows Trump’s Friday statement that Russia will provide diesel to global markets amid soaring energy prices driven by the wars in Iran and Ukraine.

Russia’s Interfax news agency cited Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov stating that Putin conveyed the message to Trump “in agreement with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian,” per a Google translation.

Additional Russian media accounts indicate Putin spoke with Trump by phone after meeting Pezeshkian on the margins of a summit in Turkmenistan.

Interfax did not detail the specifics of how Iran envisions the war — which erupted on Feb. 28 with U.S. and Israeli airstrikes on Iranian targets — reaching an end.

The White House did not immediately respond to Verum’s emailed request to confirm the reported conversation between Putin and Trump.

Russia supply deal

Trump announced Friday that Russia will deliver more than 4 million tons of diesel to the global market under an arrangement he said he agreed with Putin during a phone call.

Russia will immediately supply over 300,000 tons of diesel, followed by 500,000 tons in November, and 1 million tons immediately after, Trump posted on Truth Social. Moscow will then provide another 3 million tons of diesel contingent on the condition of Russia’s refineries, Trump added.

The Treasury Department temporarily waived sanctions on Russian diesel through April 2027 under a general license issued Friday.

Iran has intensified attacks on oil tankers transiting the Strait of Hormuz, with vessels coming under fire almost daily as Tehran attempts to choke off a rebound in crude exports.

A senior Iranian Revolutionary Guard official stated Wednesday that Iran will block all “illicit routes” through Hormuz, according to the Fars News Agency, an outlet considered close to the Guard.

The surge in tanker attacks coincides with crude oil exports from the Middle East rebounding in September to prewar levels, largely because the U.S. military escorted ships through Hormuz along Oman’s coast.

An interim agreement signed in June between the U.S. and Iran to pause hostilities to allow for negotiations quickly collapsed.

‘Gifts to Putin’

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy immediately denounced Trump’s diesel deal with Putin. Ukraine’s leader warned that easing sanctions without a commitment from Russia to de-escalate the war will only prolong it.

“Gifts to Putin will not bring peace or any benefit to the civilized world,” Zelenskyy said in a social media post. “Russia will ‘repay’ the diesel with further terror and perfidy. Allowing Russia to sell petroleum products is an investment in a war that must be ended, not prolonged.”

Diesel prices have surged worldwide as Ukraine has pounded Russian refineries, forcing Moscow to ban diesel exports to global markets. Iran and its Houthi allies have also attacked refineries in the Middle East, further constraining fuel supplies.

Trump faces mounting political pressure to lower fuel prices ahead of the November midterm elections. Republicans confront competitive races in conservative strongholds like Iowa, where farmers feel the pinch of high diesel prices.

Continue Reading

Technologies

AI is Changing How Lawyers Work — and Putting the Billable Hour Under Pressure

AI is reshaping the legal industry by reducing the time needed for routine tasks, challenging the traditional billable hour model, and changing how lawyers learn and practice.

Artificial intelligence is now used by almost 90% of legal professionals in the U.K. and Ireland, and it’s putting one of the profession’s oldest conventions — the billable hour — under the microscope. That’s according to legal software company Clio’s U.K. & Ireland Legal Insights Report 2026.

It found that among firms using AI, almost 80% said they can handle more work without increasing resources, while over 70% said it cut costs by absorbing administrative work once done by support staff.

As a result, AI is challenging some of the assumptions on which the legal profession was built, forcing firms to reevaluate how their lawyers spend their time, how they charge for it and how new lawyers learn the ropes. You can’t charge 16 hours for something that takes 16 secondsNick Rowles-DaviesLexolent Some of the U.K.’s biggest firms are already putting this into practice.

A&O Shearman has worked with legal AI company Harvey to develop artificial intelligence agents for tasks, including reviewing loan agreements and analyzing regulatory filings, which it says can complete in minutes work that previously took several hours. Slaughter and May, meanwhile, has rolled out Harvey across all practice areas this year, including for regulatory research and document analysis.

Billable hour pressure The billable hour is central to the business model of many law firms, but when AI significantly reduces the time lawyers spend sifting through and drafting documents, the economics are no longer so straightforward. “You can’t charge 16 hours for something that takes 16 seconds,” Nick Rowles-Davies, founder and CEO of legal finance fund Lexolent, based in London and Dubai, told CNBC.

About one in five firms that have widely adopted AI report difficulty meeting billable-hour targets, according to Clio’s report. Globally, senior legal leaders expect the share of work charged by the hour to fall from 72% to 44% over the next two to three years, according to a Deloitte survey.

Routine work is the most exposed, Rowles-Davies said. “If you’ve got standard documents and you’re just putting in detail, then clearly that’s an automatic process.” But complex legal work still requires human judgment, he added, particularly when interpreting AI output and determining the right strategy for a client.

Lawyers [are] telling us that their day is getting betterJoshua LenonClio

AI and workloads

Whether AI efficiencies ultimately make lawyers’ working lives better may depend on what firms do with the time they get back. Clio’s report found that 51% of legal professionals work evenings, but only 32% want to, while 22% work weekends compared with 11% who would choose to.

Joshua Lenon, Clio’s New York-based lawyer-in-residence, believes some lawyers are already seeing the benefits. “Lawyers [are] telling us that their day is getting better,” Lenon told CNBC, as AI becomes more commonplace.

“People are really looking at these tools and saying, ‘This is making work better.’”

Continue Reading

Technologies

Trump’s diesel agreement with Putin accused of contradicting Russia sanctions law

Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said in a searing statement that the U.S. easing sanctions on Moscow “plays into Russia’s hands.”

President Donald Trump’s Friday announcement that Russia will supply diesel fuel to the global market marked an apparent pivot from recent efforts to pressure Moscow to end the Ukraine war by targeting Russian energy exports.

Trump claimed the move, unveiled with less than a month left in an affordability-focused midterm election, would swiftly bring down record-high diesel prices.

But commentators and critics were quick to highlight contradictions between the new policy and prior efforts by the U.S. to clamp down on Russian oil sales.

Those efforts most recently included the enactment of the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026, empowering Trump to impose tariffs up to 100% on the top purchasers of Russian crude oil or gas, among other restrictions. Trump signed the bill into law just three weeks ago.

“Congress just passed a law giving Trump the power to impose new tariffs on major buyers of Russian oil & gas,” Scott Lincicome, vice president of the libertarian Cato Institute, said on X after Trump’s Friday announcement.

“Can America tariff America?” he quipped.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., a member of the Senate Ukraine Caucus, accused Trump’s latest move of being “directly contrary to Congress’s intent in our bipartisan sanctions bill.”

Peter Harrell, visiting scholar at Georgetown University Law Center’s Institute of International Economic Law, in an X post said that the relaxation of Russian diesel restrictions “pretty much proves the point that the Graham Russia Bill was not going to force the Trump Administration to increase economic pressure on Moscow.”

Some of the criticism crossed party lines.

“Through the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act, we gave the president significant authorities and leverage against China and Russia to bring Putin’s war to an end with a negotiated settlement,” Rep.

Michael McCaul, R-Texas, said in an X post. “Unfortunately, while I understand the desire to bring down diesel prices, I am concerned the lifting of sanctions on Russian oil will only fund the Kremlin’s war machine—emboldening more violence and destruction, as we have seen in recent days,” McCaul said.

The White House did not immediately respond to CNBC’s questions about the diesel agreement with Russia.

Less than a year earlier, the Trump administration slapped sanctions on multiple Russian oil companies in response to what it called “Russia’s lack of serious commitment to a peace process to end the war in Ukraine.”

Trump also had previously slammed NATO allies for continuing to buy Russian oil. In a September 2025 Truth Social post, he wrote, “the purchase of Russian Oil, by some, has been shocking! It greatly weakens your negotiating position, and bargaining power, over Russia.”

Later that month, Trump again harangued world leaders for doing business with Russia.

“They’re funding the war against themselves. Who the hell ever heard of that one?” he said in a speech at the United Nations General Assembly. “They can’t be doing what they’re doing. They’re buying oil and gas from Russia while they’re fighting Russia.”

Trump announced the diesel deal in a Truth Social post Friday afternoon after what he described as a “highly successful discussion” with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Under the agreement, Russia will immediately supply more than 300,000 tons of diesel, then another 500,000 tons in November, followed by 1 million tons “immediately thereafter” and 3 million more depending on refinery conditions, Trump wrote.

The Treasury Department soon after said that Trump directed the Office of Foreign Assets Control to immediately issue a “temporary general license to allow the supply of Russian diesel to the global market.” OFAC specified that the sanctioned transactions will be authorized for about six months, until April 7.

Russia seemed to celebrate the move. “Russia-US cooperation on diesel and energy will benefit the world,” an X account associated with Putin’s economic envoy Kirill Dmitriev said in response to the announcement.

But Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, whose military has started targeting Russian oil refineries, said in a searing statement that the U.S. easing sanctions on Moscow “plays into Russia’s hands.”

“Any easing of sanctions against Russia without a clear and lasting de-escalation agreement with Russia is an obvious weakness,” Zelenskyy said. “Allowing Russia to sell petroleum products is an investment in a war that must be ended, not prolonged.”

“We count on America’s fair support for our defense of life, for our defense of people in Ukraine – and on the United States having a correspondingly strong conversation with Russia,” he said.

“A strong one, not a weak one,” he added.

Trump thanked Putin later Friday afternoon for enabling “massive amounts of oil” to come to the U.S.

“We need oil for the world, and this is diesel, which is what we need, so we’re very happy to get it,” Trump told reporters before heading to Syracuse, New York.

The Trump administration has previously eased some Russian energy sanctions temporarily, though more narrowly than Friday’s announcement.

Earlier this year, in an attempt to stabilize markets after the start of the Iran war, the Trump administration issued limited, 30-day waivers allowing countries to buy sanctioned Russian oil that was already in transit.

But some interpreted the latest move as a more significant step.

“It looks like Trump cut a deal with the devil,” Jeremy Siegel, professor emeritus of finance at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, told CNBC’s “Closing Bell” Friday afternoon.

“It’s not a permanent solution at all. It’s sort of a short-term Band Aid,” Siegel said. “And cutting back on or eliminating sanctions on Russia for the invasion in Ukraine, I think, is a very unfortunate consequence.”

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Verum World Media