The hype around Apple’s new smartphone offerings is still palpable, with fans celebrating the new screen innovations, processing power and the ability for wireless charging. One thing Apple has been touting about its new iPhone 8, 8 Plus and X is the ability to charge really, really fast. But, like most things in this world that seem great, there’s a catch.
Apple announced that the phones can recharge up to 50 percent of battery power in 30 minutes. That seems pretty fast, right? Sure, it does.
But, what Apple omitted from that statement was that the 50 percent in 30 minutes figure comes only when using the USB-C attachment, which, of course, is sold separately.
But, remember when we said Apple would likely be relying on USB-C technology, and that USB-C is going to make data transfer and charging so much faster and could eventually be the norm? Remember when we admitted defeat (last week), saying we were wrong that Apple would use the technology in its new smartphones?
Well, we’re going to settle for “We were half-right!” here, because we celebrate the small victories in life.
Based on the fact that Apple clearly sees the power in USB-C technology and acknowledges the benefits of charging with it, but it’s keeping the Lightning port nonetheless. That means Apple is putting its proprietary design (Lightning) before the more common, third-party (albeit superior) technology in USB-C.
CNET referred to this move as “Apple’s demand to be different.” In this situation, is different good?
Also, it’s a good way for companies like Apple to make a buck on USB-C adapters, which retail from $49 to $79.
Also, given the fact that the USB-C is now standard port on MacBook products, USB-C items will need to be in higher demand.
So, for the promotional products space, clients will likely be looking for a way to charge their phones at this fast rate without needing to spend up to 80 bucks for an adapter. Providing USB-C-to-Lightning adapters could be a huge opportunity in the technology and smartphone accessories spaces.
But hey, what do we know? We’ve been (half) wrong before.
