This fake Lightning-to-USB cable actually works, gets torn apart
Share:
As you might expect, the build quality of these counterfeit Lightning-to-USB cables is light years behind that of the original. However, the folks at Toxic Cables – the ones who got to take a knock-off apart, say that the particular kind they ordered actually worked just fine: their device would connect to a computer, sync and charge without any problems. The only issue with the cable was the presence of noise in the connection due to the lack of any shielding whatsoever. Something had to give in order to make the accessory so cheap.
But just because this particular Lightning-to-USB cable worked, there is no guarantee that other fakes will. Keep that in mind if you ever plan on buying a knock-off.
source: Toxic Cables via Apple Insider
 |  |
Share:
Acer won't go directly against Microsoft's Surface for now, might release 
Malware on Android: is it really the problem security companies tout it 
24 Comments
2. baldilocks posted on 31 Oct 2012, 10:26 3 14
Actually a light year is a measure of both distance and time.... smh
4. squallz506 posted on 31 Oct 2012, 10:34 9 4
no, you are wrong. a light year is the distance it takes light one year to travel. it is a measure of distance as a function of the speed of light.
12. skymitch89 posted on 31 Oct 2012, 11:38 4 3
Actually, baldilocks is right, it is a measure of distance and time. The distance is how far light can travel in 1 year, the time is 1 year.
13. cdgoin posted on 31 Oct 2012, 12:04 5 0
The article used it right BTW.. "They are light years behind", means they are a long distance behind.. in either time or distance. Because if you are a long distance behind, it will take you a long time to move up that distance.
16. g2a5b0e posted on 31 Oct 2012, 13:29 4 1
Stop trying to sound smart here. Ever pick up a physics book? Anyone who has studied even a small amount of physics knows that a light-year is a measure of distance. How is it even possible that it measures both? I know Wiki isn't the foremost authority on anything, but look it up elsewhere before you speak out of turn. You don't need me to tell you this, but you are definitely right on this, squallz506. However, in regards to how it's referenced in the article, he could have meant it either way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-year
19. jackhuny posted on 31 Oct 2012, 19:06 0 0
No, if you exceed the speed of light, the distance is still the same 1 light time away, but time will be different.
17. WirelessCon posted on 31 Oct 2012, 16:22 1 1
Light travels different speeds through different mediums and gravitational fields.
21. alexinamerica posted on 03 Dec 2012, 12:40 0 0
Pure BS. The speed of light is constant through any medium
22. ash29 posted on 03 Dec 2012, 13:19 0 0
RIP physics.
24. Dr_Ivo_Kintobor posted on 16 Dec 2012, 11:57 0 0
actually, it's not... that's why "c" is the speed of light in a vaccum...
in a lab, scientests have slowed light down to approximately 37 mph
i'd post a link, but i can't due to being a new register... but if you want the article, do a google search for "slow speed of light" the first link should be to a harvard news article.
3. dragonscourgex posted on 31 Oct 2012, 10:26 9 0
He is indicating the distance between build quality with the statement. Reading comprehension goes a long way.
5. squallz506 posted on 31 Oct 2012, 10:35 0 4
"USB cables is light years behind that of the original"
sounds like the author was using time to me.
6. dragonscourgex posted on 31 Oct 2012, 10:46 4 0
If that's what you believe. It's not worth arguing over.
10. Aeires (unregistered) posted on 31 Oct 2012, 11:30 4 0
You've come a long way with your defense of a light year.
What that a statement of time, distance, or just a common term?
11. cfprelude posted on 31 Oct 2012, 11:37 0 0
how do i "like" this 900 times :)
23. tobystokes posted on 11 Dec 2012, 12:35 0 0
You could 'behind' in either time or position, but both are metaphorical in regards to build quality.
7. Droid_X_Doug posted on 31 Oct 2012, 10:56 1 0
From what I have read, the 'security' chip is more of a data accuracy chip (as in Cyclic Redundancy Check, or CRC). The CRC algorithm is well-known (1980s?), so there shouldn't be any barriers to developing third-party products.
Lack of shielding is a problem, however. Expect the accessory companies to offer shielded versions before late-November, just in time for holiday shopping.
8. jmoita2 posted on 31 Oct 2012, 11:11 3 0
It's shameful that Apple has to charge 19.00 for a cable that costs 1.75 to manufacture, in the average. No wonder cheaper alternatives are highly sought after.
I guess the milking of Apple fans must go on...
9. Cyan3boN posted on 31 Oct 2012, 11:29 0 2
A lightning cable from a known manufacturer is nice, these chinese knock-offs may spoil your phone.
14. cdgoin posted on 31 Oct 2012, 12:06 1 0
Is it lame that a "cable" has to have a chip in it..? It doesn't do anything more noticeable. than protect Apple from making people make cables for its hardware. This is why I hate Apple.
20. someones4 posted on 31 Oct 2012, 21:59 2 0
Chinese firms are more efficient than Apple. apple can't even get things done on time.
