Apple prepares for thinner iPhones with slim headphone plug patent

245

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 92
    wizard69 wrote: »
    Not exactly something I would want to see in an iPhone. If you are hell bent on going to something non standard you might as well go with a thin flat design similar to Lightening. Further Apple will have to work real hard to make such a connector an industry standard, people are pretty emotional about head phones.

    It's a perfect opportunity to sell $5 adapters for $25.
  • Reply 22 of 92

    The elephant in the room is the new keyboard connector for the iPad Pro. Data/headphones could be moved to the lightning port and charging could be accomplished via a magnetic connector similar to this new port. OR, the other way around.

  • Reply 23 of 92
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,117member
    cropr wrote: »
    A new standard might be welcome, but it cannot be not based on a patent.  Patents lead to higher product costs, so one can expect that the new head phones will be more expensive.  This is OK for the > 100$ models, but nor the cheaper ones

    Patents don't lead to higher product costs. They don't lead to any increase in costs. It would be depend on what Apple is intending to do with this, assuming they're intending to use it at all.

    Apple has co e up with more than a few new connectors, and has, in the last ten years and more, entered them to the standards committees, where they've been accepted. Apple then asked no money for third party implementation on other manufacturers devices. If they want this to become a standard, they would do it here too.
  • Reply 24 of 92
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,117member
    The only thing about this that others here have noticed as well, is how older plugs would be handled. Apple would need a dongle with a 3.5 or 2.5mm jack on one end, and this plug on the other. It would need to be a dongle, because a solid part would stick out too much, and would be subjected to too much leverage, and so would break easily.

    I do think that Apple, and others, are too obsessed with thinness. The phones this year are ever so slightly thicker. I see no problem with that, but most people seem to think that thinner, no matter what the product, is always a good thing.
  • Reply 25 of 92
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,117member
    I thought Apple was getting away from directional connectors, as evidenced by the lightning connector ! *rolls eyes*

    Actually, while that doesn't make me happier, it isn't that bad either. Unlike a plug that needs to be inserted one way only, or, even two ways, and is entirely flat, this retains a rounded shape, and tip. That means that while it won't be as easy to insert, it won't be too much more difficult either. Take the plug, and roll it as you insert it, and it will right itself within no more than a half turn, and go in.
  • Reply 26 of 92
    This might solve a short term problem in making the connector thinner. I like the idea of a magnetic connection to the phone. My teenage daughter constantly ruins headphones by just grabbing the wire and pulling it.

    The next standard in headphones however should be a digital connection. The analog connection hasn't evolved at all in decades. All of the devices it connects to require a digital to analog conversion. It's time to for a new standard. The sound quality would be much better. It's possible using the Lightning connector but headphones will be expensive and Apple most likely won't license it to other phone makers.

    Low power Bluetooth is too expensive and requires charging the headphone battery. Magnetic connected digital headphone connector standard is needed that is available to all vendors to keep costs at a minimum.
  • Reply 27 of 92
    cornchipcornchip Posts: 1,865member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post It's a perfect opportunity to sell $5 adapters for $25.

     

    You say that, but I've never bought a cheaper cord or adapter than Apple makes, that was better than the one Apple makes. Ever. I'll pay $25 for something that isn't garbage. In fact I've paid for cords that cost as much as Apple cords and were still pieces of shit. I'll just give my money to Apple, thanks. 

  • Reply 28 of 92
    cornchipcornchip Posts: 1,865member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mnbob1 View Post



    This might solve a short term problem in making the connector thinner. I like the idea of a magnetic connection to the phone. My teenage daughter constantly ruins headphones by just grabbing the wire and pulling it.



    The next standard in headphones however should be a digital connection. The analog connection hasn't evolved at all in decades. All of the devices it connects to require a digital to analog conversion. It's time to for a new standard. The sound quality would be much better. It's possible using the Lightning connector but headphones will be expensive and Apple most likely won't license it to other phone makers.



    Low power Bluetooth is too expensive and requires charging the headphone battery. Magnetic connected digital headphone connector standard is needed that is available to all vendors to keep costs at a minimum.

     

    Maybe something like the new SmartConnector on iPad Pro? 

  • Reply 29 of 92
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cornchip View Post

     

     

    You say that, but I've never bought a cheaper cord or adapter than Apple makes, that was better than the one Apple makes. Ever. I'll pay $25 for something that isn't garbage. In fact I've paid for cords that cost as much as Apple cords and were still pieces of shit. I'll just give my money to Apple, thanks. 




    Apple cords are notoriously bad. Are you sure you have an Apple device?

  • Reply 30 of 92
    cornchip wrote: »
    dasanman69 wrote: »
     <span style="line-height:1.4em;">It's a perfect opportunity to sell $5 adapters for $25.</span>

    You say that, but I've never bought a cheaper cord or adapter than Apple makes, that was better than the one Apple makes. Ever. I'll pay $25 for something that isn't garbage. In fact I've paid for cords that cost as much as Apple cords and were still pieces of shit. I'll just give my money to Apple, thanks. 

    Anker cords/chargers are high quality, and inexpensive.
  • Reply 31 of 92
    As some suggest.. lightning port would be a better choice. True Apple style, however, would be to dis the audio port alltogether, in favour of wireless.
  • Reply 32 of 92
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by palegolas View Post



    As some suggest.. lightning port would be a better choice. True Apple style, however, would be to dis the audio port alltogether, in favour of wireless.



    That would also require serious negotiation with airlines. There is a reason the QC25 doesn't have bluetooth.

  • Reply 33 of 92
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    palegolas wrote: »
    As some suggest.. lightning port would be a better choice. True Apple style, however, would be to dis the audio port alltogether, in favour of wireless.
    Yes. I've been saying this since they released the Retina MacBook. At least with a Lightning port there's some multifunctional capability using cords Apple customers already own.

    Also, this creates a proprietary connector that won't work with third party headphones, while making Apple's headphones harder to use, though they will still work on standard 1/8" connectors, which has never really been a consideration of Apples. The only benefit it gives Apple is you can use your headphones on legacy devices, which is also not a concern of Apples.

    I've been predicting they will go lightning, with a free set of Lightning earbuds with the iPhone and iPods, which customers can use with all of their other lightning devices. Adapters/dongles available for the Macs which don't have built-in Lightning connectors. Likewise, dongles to use standard 1/8" audio headphones on lightning with higher quality external DACs, which only make the Apple devices sound better.

    Lightning exists as a standard, Apple has doubled-down on its use in ancillary products, so it's the logical choice for slimmer, convenient, higher quality audio, with multifunction capabilities. A much better solution than perpetuating single purpose technology invented in the 1870s. The fact that Apple is thinking about this means it's important, but this is the last way a progressive company would address this kind of problem.
  • Reply 34 of 92
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,612moderator
    solipsismy wrote: »
    Just move headphones to the Lightning connector (or whoever connector Apple may move to — I'm a big fan of USB-C, and maybe Apple can submit a mini-USB-C that is that the exact same exact 40% smaller in size but with all the greatness to make it thinner than even Lightning)

    When the USB C spec was being decided, someone applied to have support for analog audio and it was rejected because they wanted USB C to remain all-digital. This would have allowed for making passive adaptors so you'd just have a USB C to 3.5mm cable. With it being digital, you can still have an adaptor but need a converter too ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital-to-analog_converter ). If they can engineer a small one then they might get away with that but people would complain about the bulk in order to save the size of the port. The idea would be to move people to digital audio or wireless audio.

    Because they control the Lightning spec, they could add passive audio output if they wanted. Making it backwards compatible with existing Lightning products would be best. Then they'd just have a Lightning to 3.5mm jack for 3rd party products. This would force iOS device accessory makers to switch to Lightning instead of making 3.5mm jack devices.
  • Reply 35 of 92
    1983 wrote: »
    I agree, the world doesn't need or want another proprietary connector. Anyway how much thinner do smartphones need to get? It ultimately just makes them uncomfortable to hold with poorer battery life. Only selfish designers obsessed with thinness want this, not most other people.

    Yet, and how their using their devices now.

    Stretch your imagination to think what 2mm devices could be and how you might integrate them into other objects, then you might understand the desire for miniaturization.

    With that said, this "opinion" and comment in the article is pure conjecture. I object.
    To Apple CDO Jony Ive's dismay, iPhones and iPads can only be as thin as their largest internal component, as evidenced by the "camera bump" on iPhone 6 and 6s.
  • Reply 36 of 92
    Just have the one Lightning port for charging and headphone. If people want more connectors, they can strap on a fat dock case that can uses the lightning port to dock and then it can have all of everyone's favorite legacy ports so they can hook up their Ethernet, parallel port printer, zip drive, etc.
  • Reply 37 of 92
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member

    That would also require serious negotiation with airlines. There is a reason the QC25 doesn't have bluetooth.

    What are you talking about? I can use Bluetooth and wifi all over every major air carrier now. I don't even have to put my iPhone and iPad away when we take off. There are a few budget carriers I've flown that have restrictions, but as new planes are certified, and rules rethought, this is rapidly becoming a thing of the past.
  • Reply 38 of 92
    Apple thinks about the environment, and a smaller battery, multiplied by hundreds of millions of iPhones (across all generations) means a smaller impact, less volume of chemicals/metals to eventually need recycling, or that ends up in a landfill. And smaller batteries implies Apple pushes themselves to engineer more efficient phones that provide each unit of performance at lower power, which means that each daily charge requires less electricity than competing phones. That reduces greenhouse gasses and the need, even slightly, for the world to build that next coal-fired power plant. I've mentioned this before and people suggest that reasoning is weak, but I'm here to tell you Apple does think about precisely these aspects and it's a big reason the company doesn't ship phones with larger batteries.

    ^^^ Something that Apple's detractors NEVER mention.... so I'm with ya here! Keep on saying it loud and BIG... because it's no small accomplishment or desire to protect our environment, what's left of it anyway. :smokey:
  • Reply 39 of 92
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    Marvin wrote: »
    Because they control the Lightning spec, they could add passive audio output if they wanted. Making it backwards compatible with existing Lightning products would be best. Then they'd just have a Lightning to 3.5mm jack for 3rd party products. This would force iOS device accessory makers to switch to Lightning instead of making 3.5mm jack devices.
    I don't think Apple would ever add an analogue output to the Lightning connector. Better to require customers to use the proper technology and invest the R&D into high quality Lightning headphones (or wireless), the former of which Apple is going to give you for free wit e purchase of a new iPhone requiring this technology. Anybody who insists on using an old pair of headphones with a new Apple product merely needs to buy a dongle with an external DAC which will arguably improve the audio quality as well. I don't see Apple being a big enough force in the industry to force accessory makers to switch to lightning, but certainly many would offer it as well.
  • Reply 40 of 92
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mac_128 View Post





    What are you talking about? I can use Bluetooth and wifi all over every major air carrier now. I don't even have to put my iPhone and iPad away when we take off. There are a few budget carriers I've flown that have restrictions, but as new planes are certified, and rules rethought, this is rapidly becoming a thing of the past.



    Well, that is not my experience, by far, and I tend to fly "national airlines" for simplicity reasons. Budget airlines tend to require you running off to some random airport nobody else uses.

Sign In or Register to comment.