As if 99% of cables aren’t bought at dollar stores and gas stations to charge phones for 2 weeks before being lost or damaged. And none of them bother with USB logos.
All I really care about it the durability of the phone port, and usb c looks far more inherently fragile than lightning. 1/4 of the USB Cs on my MacBook Pro have issues, and my phone gets plugged and unplugged far more often, and only has one port.
I mean... That's exactly why "unlabeled" is defaulted to USB 2 speeds and less than 60W. They're already labeled correctly for this update.
I feel the same way about durability but apparently usb-c is rated to 10,000 insertions. Idk though. The lightning port has been very solid in regular use but I can't say the same about the usb-c ports I've known.
Eventually wireless charging will be the standard so it might not matter as much for phones.
I'd be curious to see how many of those cables without logos are actually USB certified as opposed to being compatible with the spec.
petrescatraian@libranet.de to 
As if 99% of cables aren’t bought at dollar stores and gas stations to charge phones for 2 weeks before being lost or damaged. And none of them bother with USB logos.
All I really care about it the durability of the phone port, and usb c looks far more inherently fragile than lightning. 1/4 of the USB Cs on my MacBook Pro have issues, and my phone gets plugged and unplugged far more often, and only has one port.
I mean... That's exactly why "unlabeled" is defaulted to USB 2 speeds and less than 60W. They're already labeled correctly for this update.
I feel the same way about durability but apparently usb-c is rated to 10,000 insertions. Idk though. The lightning port has been very solid in regular use but I can't say the same about the usb-c ports I've known.
Eventually wireless charging will be the standard so it might not matter as much for phones.
I'd be curious to see how many of those cables without logos are actually USB certified as opposed to being compatible with the spec.