It means that USB-C is not thick and that the 3.5mm headphone jack is thicker. 3.5mm is the thickest port would remain the thickest port even with usb-c on board.
It means that USB-C is not thick and that the 3.5mm headphone jack is thicker. 3.5mm is the thickest port would remain the thickest port even with usb-c on board.
Right, but Soli clearly indicated that if they do remove the 3.5 mm jack, then USB-C, if thicker than lighting, would become the limiting factor. (or delimiting, I guess).
Right, but Soli clearly indicated that if they do remove the 3.5 mm jack, then USB-C, if thicker than lighting, would become the limiting factor. (or delimiting, I guess).
I don't see them ditching Lightening that soon, especially since the iOS devices aren't really meant to be used in a way USB-C would take full advantage of. They only just introduced the Lightning Headphone/Audio specs in December, not that it couldn't change to USB. However, I feel like Apple at some point is going to ditch the 150 year old technology that is the headphone jack, and replace it with wireless, and digital. In fact, I'm surprised they didn't do it on the Retina MacBook -- I would much rather have two USB-C ports on the Mac, than a headphone jack. But I wonder if they would replace it with a Lightning port, so the iPhone headphones will work on the computers as well? Lightning isn't a full-on USB-C port, but it would certainly serve the purpose of at least limited connectivity if someone needed it.
It means that USB-C is not thick and that the 3.5mm headphone jack is thicker. 3.5mm is the thickest port would remain the thickest port even with usb-c on board.
You overlook the possibility that Apple would come up with a thinner headphone jack, requiring use of an adapter with all third party headphones...
I don't see them ditching Lightening that soon, especially since the iOS devices aren't really meant to be used in a way USB-C would take full advantage of. They only just introduced the Lightning Headphone/Audio specs in December, not that it couldn't change to USB. However, I feel like Apple at some point is going to ditch the 150 year old technology that is the headphone jack, and replace it with wireless, and digital. In fact, I'm surprised they didn't do it on the Retina MacBook -- I would much rather have two USB-C ports on the Mac, than a headphone jack. But I wonder if they would replace it with a Lightning port, so the iPhone headphones will work on the computers as well? Lightning isn't a full-on USB-C port, but it would certainly serve the purpose of at least limited connectivity if someone needed it.
Wireless headphones are still kind of flaky, especially when it comes to latency. A lot of users would be annoyed at having to charge yet another device every day (or more than once a day.)
Apple is still working on getting to 1K display! The + has 1K but the 4.7" is using 720p or 3/4K display.
4K display for iPhone will be in 10 years if not longer!
Apple just does what to change display resolutions since iPhone 4!
326ppi is the standard since 2010?
A display's optimal resolution should be based on its size and normal viewing distance. It is pointless to keep increasing resolution beyond what the human eye can see under normal usage. That's a sleazy marketing tactic common among Android OEMs, not Apple.
Right, but Soli clearly indicated that if they do remove the 3.5 mm jack, then USB-C, if thicker than lighting, would become the limiting factor. (or delimiting, I guess).
Literally everything is a limiting factor if you look it that way.
It means that USB-C is not thick and that the 3.5mm headphone jack is thicker. 3.5mm is the thickest port would remain the thickest port even with usb-c on board.
Re-read your first post, yes, I see it now. Regardless, do you really want to have a phone as thick as a lightning connector?
Quote:
Originally Posted by joelsalt
And why wouldn't you?
While you could argue that everything will be solved eventually there are compromises that being thin makes including battery life. You could argue the 6+ but realize that it has a massive battery for an iPhone, it is nearly twice the size as the 5s's and 50% more than the 6.
Re-read your first post, yes, I see it now. Regardless, do you really want to have a phone as thick as a lightning connector?
I'm too tired to look up that particular argumentative fallacy, so I'll just explain it. What Apple may or may not do has nothing to do with my wants. This is a thread about an even thinner iPhone in 2016, so I was looking at the what could hold it back in terms of components that are static. Right now, the camera module is thick, hence the "nub" but even that could be made smaller. What you can't make smaller are the 3.5mm headphone jack and and whatever dimensions USB-C and Lightning ports are. Sure, all these could be made with smaller versions, but we're talking about these particular port interfaces. Finally, if you look at the female components for these port interfaces, they are much thicker than simply the thickness of the male plug portion, which means that also has to be taken into consideration along with the components and casing over it which means it will never be as thin as the male plug. As I stated as soon as I say USB-C, I would like Apple to adopt that and drop Lightning, if possible.
I can see Apple dropping the 3.5mm headphone be jack as they have specified audio through lightning in the context of MFi. Then, a usual transition period with adapters might come, followed by improved Bluetooth headphones. It would be similar to the concept of the MacBook with one USB port.
I'm surprised they even bothered with lighting, considering USB-C was almost right behind it. Was it that necessary to scrap the 30 pin before USB-C?
Lightning was launched in an Apple product in 2012. USB-IF doesn't even look to have started with USB-C until 2013, probably after taking a good long look at Lightning, and it didn't hit a product until this year.
Lightning was launched in an Apple product in 2012. USB-IF doesn't even look to have started with USB-C until 2013, probably after taking a good long look at Lightning, and it didn't hit a product until this year.
Didn't Apple actually join the group that develops USB after introducing lightning, and wasn't the USB-C considered a first impact of this takin cues from lightning?
Didn't Apple actually join the group that develops USB after introducing lightning, and wasn't the USB-C considered a first impact of this takin cues from lightning?
It seems obvious to me, after a long history of bad USB connector designs, that USB-C was a direct result of seeing Lightning. As for Apple being involved in its development, I've heard that rumour, but I've seen no evidence to support it.
Comments
Spec checklists! /s
I don't know what that means.
It means that USB-C is not thick and that the 3.5mm headphone jack is thicker. 3.5mm is the thickest port would remain the thickest port even with usb-c on board.
It means that USB-C is not thick and that the 3.5mm headphone jack is thicker. 3.5mm is the thickest port would remain the thickest port even with usb-c on board.
Right, but Soli clearly indicated that if they do remove the 3.5 mm jack, then USB-C, if thicker than lighting, would become the limiting factor. (or delimiting, I guess).
Right, but Soli clearly indicated that if they do remove the 3.5 mm jack, then USB-C, if thicker than lighting, would become the limiting factor. (or delimiting, I guess).
I don't see them ditching Lightening that soon, especially since the iOS devices aren't really meant to be used in a way USB-C would take full advantage of. They only just introduced the Lightning Headphone/Audio specs in December, not that it couldn't change to USB. However, I feel like Apple at some point is going to ditch the 150 year old technology that is the headphone jack, and replace it with wireless, and digital. In fact, I'm surprised they didn't do it on the Retina MacBook -- I would much rather have two USB-C ports on the Mac, than a headphone jack. But I wonder if they would replace it with a Lightning port, so the iPhone headphones will work on the computers as well? Lightning isn't a full-on USB-C port, but it would certainly serve the purpose of at least limited connectivity if someone needed it.
It means that USB-C is not thick and that the 3.5mm headphone jack is thicker. 3.5mm is the thickest port would remain the thickest port even with usb-c on board.
You overlook the possibility that Apple would come up with a thinner headphone jack, requiring use of an adapter with all third party headphones...
I don't see them ditching Lightening that soon, especially since the iOS devices aren't really meant to be used in a way USB-C would take full advantage of. They only just introduced the Lightning Headphone/Audio specs in December, not that it couldn't change to USB. However, I feel like Apple at some point is going to ditch the 150 year old technology that is the headphone jack, and replace it with wireless, and digital. In fact, I'm surprised they didn't do it on the Retina MacBook -- I would much rather have two USB-C ports on the Mac, than a headphone jack. But I wonder if they would replace it with a Lightning port, so the iPhone headphones will work on the computers as well? Lightning isn't a full-on USB-C port, but it would certainly serve the purpose of at least limited connectivity if someone needed it.
Wireless headphones are still kind of flaky, especially when it comes to latency. A lot of users would be annoyed at having to charge yet another device every day (or more than once a day.)
Apple is still working on getting to 1K display! The + has 1K but the 4.7" is using 720p or 3/4K display.
4K display for iPhone will be in 10 years if not longer!
Apple just does what to change display resolutions since iPhone 4!
326ppi is the standard since 2010?
A display's optimal resolution should be based on its size and normal viewing distance. It is pointless to keep increasing resolution beyond what the human eye can see under normal usage. That's a sleazy marketing tactic common among Android OEMs, not Apple.
Round icons? What a stupid addition to the concept drawing.
Round icons? What a stupid addition to the concept drawing.
Shh!
Samsung may not have heard about that 'shape' yet...
Right, but Soli clearly indicated that if they do remove the 3.5 mm jack, then USB-C, if thicker than lighting, would become the limiting factor. (or delimiting, I guess).
Literally everything is a limiting factor if you look it that way.
:no:
I couldn't have been any more clear.
Literally everything is a limiting factor if you look it that way.
And why wouldn't you?
I couldn't have been any more clear.
Re-read your first post, yes, I see it now. Regardless, do you really want to have a phone as thick as a lightning connector?
And why wouldn't you?
While you could argue that everything will be solved eventually there are compromises that being thin makes including battery life. You could argue the 6+ but realize that it has a massive battery for an iPhone, it is nearly twice the size as the 5s's and 50% more than the 6.
I'm too tired to look up that particular argumentative fallacy, so I'll just explain it. What Apple may or may not do has nothing to do with my wants. This is a thread about an even thinner iPhone in 2016, so I was looking at the what could hold it back in terms of components that are static. Right now, the camera module is thick, hence the "nub" but even that could be made smaller. What you can't make smaller are the 3.5mm headphone jack and and whatever dimensions USB-C and Lightning ports are. Sure, all these could be made with smaller versions, but we're talking about these particular port interfaces. Finally, if you look at the female components for these port interfaces, they are much thicker than simply the thickness of the male plug portion, which means that also has to be taken into consideration along with the components and casing over it which means it will never be as thin as the male plug. As I stated as soon as I say USB-C, I would like Apple to adopt that and drop Lightning, if possible.
As I stated as soon as I say USB-C, I would like Apple to adopt that and drop Lightning, if possible.
I'm surprised they even bothered with lighting, considering USB-C was almost right behind it. Was it that necessary to scrap the 30 pin before USB-C?
Then, a usual transition period with adapters might come, followed by improved Bluetooth headphones. It would be similar to the concept of the MacBook with one USB port.
Lightning was launched in an Apple product in 2012. USB-IF doesn't even look to have started with USB-C until 2013, probably after taking a good long look at Lightning, and it didn't hit a product until this year.
Didn't Apple actually join the group that develops USB after introducing lightning, and wasn't the USB-C considered a first impact of this takin cues from lightning?
It seems obvious to me, after a long history of bad USB connector designs, that USB-C was a direct result of seeing Lightning. As for Apple being involved in its development, I've heard that rumour, but I've seen no evidence to support it.