You’re probably right. Yes, it means you cannot do a “hard reset” and plug it into a computer to fix it, etc. But almost all people never do that anyway. The rest of my family only ever plugs their phones in for charging or headphones. Any emergencies, take it into Apple for servicing, I guess.

That's really not how it works. We’ve seen it before, when iPhones went from the “Dock connector” to Lightning. When Macs went to Firewire, and then to Thunderbolt. They will not have two ports.

And I never said USB-C will “get better.” My point is that it will be a better business decision later. When? Well, since the premise I offered is that people have Lightning already, and not USB-C and since it is well-understood that more people are getting more USB-C devices every year then clearly, over time, the cost for individuals to go to a USB-C phone will decrease over time, since they are more likely to have other USB-C devices over time.

It’s not really complicated.

And that audio port is more expensive and more prone to failure. Shrug.

I have a USB-C-to-Lightning cable. No adapter required.

In fact, I have more of those cables, than I have USB-C-to-USB-C cables. I have a bunch of USB-A-to-USB-C, but one USB-C-to-USB-C (not including my MacBook Pro power cables).

It is worth noting that Apple has many devices with USB-C.

My MacBook Pro has *only* USB-C. Newer Apple TVs (last two or three gens) have only USB-C (in addition to HDMI and power). The new iPad Pro has only USB-C.

Apple isn’t anti-USB-C. But their existing customers are mostly longtime customers who have lots of cables and chargers, and do not want to be forced to buy new stuff.

Nah. There are many Apple-certified inexpensive Lightning cables these days.

False.

Changing to USB-C would not pull in large numbers of new customers, obviously.

They removed the audio port to make it waterproof.

Who cares? You’re not a customer.

Most customers want to keep the same connector, because they already have chargers and cables, and sometimes even accessories, for it.

USB-C is better in the long run, but that doesn't make it better now.

But in saying it this way, you're attempting to imply you can provide evidence. And I am simply pointing out that there is no reason to even consider that this is a possibility. Don't tell me you will do it later, because that's irrelevant. It's no different than saying nothing at all, or even saying "I have no evidence" or "I cannot provide evidence." They are all exactly equivalent in the end, except that the other methods do not have the implication that you might actually provide the evidence, despite you not giving us a reason to believe that, so it smacks of dishonesty.

Just say nothing at all, unless you have something to contribute. You'll be better off.

I make no claims about what is not hard for others. I do assert that most people do not do it, regardless of how hard it is.

Yawn. I am uninterested of your characterizations. Either actually make an argument against what I wrote, or do not. So far, you have not.

You are not, in any way, arguing against what I wrote.

Of course they can. So? Again: this, in no way whatsoever, implies that the media is not to blame. It just means that we have the power to ignore their bad behavior. But it's still their bad behavior. They are still to blame for it. Obviously.

Until you provide evidence, I won't believe it exists.

(See how this works?)

I meant -- obviously -- there is no journalistic or democratic reason to do it. Everything has a reason.

So you have no examples, then. Good to know.

I get that, but the main point is that there's no reason to report it in the first place, because there is no evidence ... regardless of how much you think it might be in line with his character to do it.

I don't know of any broadly reported unsourced attacks on Hillary Clinton. Can you give an example? The main attacks I know of on her were based on hacked documents that the DNC and others admitted were genuine; on a report by the FBI that no one called into question on the facts (though admittedly we couldn't verify some of those facts, such as that the information Clinton mishandled was actually classified); and so on.