This fake Lightning-to-USB cable actually works, gets torn apart
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
1. squallz506 (banned) (Posts: 1075; Member since: 19 Oct 2011)
Light years measure distance not time. Smh
2. baldilocks (Posts: 424; Member since: 14 Dec 2008)
Actually a light year is a measure of both distance and time.... smh
4. squallz506 (banned) (Posts: 1075; Member since: 19 Oct 2011)
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 (Posts: 969; Member since: 05 Nov 2010)
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 (Posts: 354; Member since: 28 Jul 2010)
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 (Posts: 1793; Member since: 08 Jun 2012)
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.
19. jackhuny (Posts: 10; Member since: 30 Oct 2012)
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 (Posts: 309; Member since: 11 May 2010)
Light travels different speeds through different mediums and gravitational fields.
21. alexinamerica (Posts: 1; Member since: 03 Dec 2012)
Pure BS. The speed of light is constant through any medium
24. Dr_Ivo_Kintobor (Posts: 1; Member since: 16 Dec 2012)
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 (Posts: 307; Member since: 16 Jan 2012)
He is indicating the distance between build quality with the statement. Reading comprehension goes a long way.
5. squallz506 (banned) (Posts: 1075; Member since: 19 Oct 2011)
"USB cables is light years behind that of the original"
sounds like the author was using time to me.
6. dragonscourgex (Posts: 307; Member since: 16 Jan 2012)
If that's what you believe. It's not worth arguing over.
10. Aeires (unregistered)
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?
23. tobystokes (Posts: 1; Member since: 11 Dec 2012)
You could 'behind' in either time or position, but both are metaphorical in regards to build quality.
7. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5152; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
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 (Posts: 930; Member since: 23 Dec 2011)
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 (Posts: 420; Member since: 23 Feb 2012)
A lightning cable from a known manufacturer is nice, these chinese knock-offs may spoil your phone.
14. cdgoin (Posts: 354; Member since: 28 Jul 2010)
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 (Posts: 608; Member since: 16 Sep 2012)
Chinese firms are more efficient than Apple. apple can't even get things done on time.