Apple has extensive case designed for third parties. I wonder if that will mean more expensive third party cases that have cooper/metal or open areas in them to allow for inductive pathways; or would plastic simply not affect that at all, since the inductive charger on the Apple Watch Sport is plastic, not ceramic?
I've seen really beefy cases out there: essentially portfolios or wallets. How much risk does Apple want to take? Maybe ditch a wire connector all together in favor of wireless....everything? Wires don't really bug me, but gosh that would be pretty cool.
I've seen really beefy cases out there: essentially portfolios or wallets. How much risk does Apple want to take? Maybe ditch a wire connector all together in favor of wireless....everything? Wires don't really bug me, but gosh that would be pretty cool.
Because syncing via wireless for bulk data can take many hours and because you still need a wired connection for diagnostic and restore, I'd think that the Lightning will stay. Also, if you are someone that wants to use some big fancy case, like the ones that are wallets on the back, then you'd still use the Lightning port for charging instead of inductive charging.
PS: I don't think the inductive charging activates until it communicates with the base properly we'll see people complaining that their cards became demagnetized because of the iPhone the same way people said that wallets made from the skin of "electric eels" caused their cards to demagnetize.
I really don't think the expletive was necessary. Moreover -- and I am not saying it's true or not in this particular instance -- the fact that someone thinks they may have explained something doesn't necessarily mean that the recipient thought so (although it would be nice if the recipient acknowledged the response and built on it).
There are existing Apple products that are thinner than the iPhone that still use the standard headphone jack. Apple may have legitimate reasons for losing the headphone jack I just don't see how thinness is one of them. And are there any iPhone owner saying I wish my iPhone was thinner? I highly doubt it. If anything people want more battery life, but for whatever reason Apple has decided that nine hours is good enough (yes I know the iPhone Plus gets more). I would much rather keep iPhone at the same thickness and get an extra hour or two of battery life.
Here is another issue replacing 3.5 plug as it is heavily used( IN / OUT) insertion of earpod/earphone several times a day vs lightening port used once a day for charging overnight. When Apple combines both into one connector than it better withstand that usage/abuse of several insertion/takeout per day to one connector. Iphone users can and will get upset if within the few months after warranty expiration, that one connector somehow breaks because of it's over usage. The rest of the iphone working fine but now you can't charge it because that one overused connector is broken. OR Apple has to make it easily replaceable by customer which I doubt.
USB Type-C will face the similar over usage(charging,data transfer,etc) to one connector problem and time will tell how it holds up on macbook, oneplus, nexus 6p android phones ?
No you didn't and why do you have to curse at people?
Because I just explained what removing an internal component does for allowing the battery to use more of the internal footprint thereby allowing the device to be thinner. That's why!
You've just outlined why I don't believe Apple will be getting rid of the headphone jack any time soon.
They CAN'T add analogue out to the Lightning connector. The whole point is that it's auto-sensing, reversible, and digital. They'd have to assign fixed pins to an analog output — that's one of the reasons it's gone!
Don't you think Apple CAN'T design a Lighting port that could distinguish the difference between regular power Lighting cable and the headphone adaptor so it can convert a few pins to carry analog signal? I would say it's possible to design the port in which it doesn't activate a few pins unless it recognize power coming from the insert cable.
Both the iPod touch and iPod nano are thinner than the current iPhones but use the standard 3.5 mm headphone jack. So is this really about making the phone thinner?
iPod is a dedicated device to be used with headphone while iPhone is not. What the point of having a port there and it's not used 90% of the time? I used that ports maybe a few times for over a year now and most of people I know don't even have earpiece with them. Besides, iPod has less components to be squeezed in that chassis than iPhone. So, getting rid of this port may allow Apple to put some extra new tech/components in there. This is the same move Apple made for the new Macbook and I think it's a great idea.
what if someone wants to simultaneously listen to music and charge their phone?
What if someone wants to simultaneously use the USB-C for external device and charge their new Macbook? Same here, Apple wouldn't care. Users have to figure out the priority of their tasks.
There are existing Apple products that are thinner than the iPhone that still use the standard headphone jack. Apple may have legitimate reasons for losing the headphone jack I just don't see how thinness is one of them. And are there any iPhone owner saying I wish my iPhone was thinner? I highly doubt it. If anything people want more battery life, but for whatever reason Apple has decided that nine hours is good enough (yes I know the iPhone Plus gets more). I would much rather keep iPhone at the same thickness and get an extra hour or two of battery life.
Why did you keep saying "thinner"? It's not about thinner but save extra internal space for other things: circuit board, chips, sensors if that port is removed. When you do a research on the usage of the functions, if a function is not used most of the times, you know that function is not effective or practical. What would you do? Just leave it there or modify it? As an R&D engineer, I would get rid of it or redesign it somehow to make it more effective.
Do they expect me to just throw away my $300 headphones and my $150 earbuds? Ridiculous move Apple expecting me to diminish my user experience so you can save a mm of thickness.
There will be an adaptor so you can still keep whatever you owned.
All they need to do is include a standard headphone adapter with lightning pass-through and it'll be fine. Don't include an adapter, and they'll receive the ire of millions of people.
All they need to do is include a standard headphone adapter with lightning pass-through and it'll be fine. Don't include an adapter, and they'll receive the ire of millions of people.
since when has Apple ever included adaptors in the box?
This stupid reason to retain the 3.5mm port got to stop. Typical users don't use the device that way.
I don't know who you think the typical user is, but I can recall many times when I've done just that. And even if most people don't, there are still going to be those few who have a problem, and I see no reason to make them upset for the sake of 1mm. It's just not worth it
Comments
Apple has extensive case designed for third parties. I wonder if that will mean more expensive third party cases that have cooper/metal or open areas in them to allow for inductive pathways; or would plastic simply not affect that at all, since the inductive charger on the Apple Watch Sport is plastic, not ceramic?
I've seen really beefy cases out there: essentially portfolios or wallets. How much risk does Apple want to take? Maybe ditch a wire connector all together in favor of wireless....everything? Wires don't really bug me, but gosh that would be pretty cool.
Because syncing via wireless for bulk data can take many hours and because you still need a wired connection for diagnostic and restore, I'd think that the Lightning will stay. Also, if you are someone that wants to use some big fancy case, like the ones that are wallets on the back, then you'd still use the Lightning port for charging instead of inductive charging.
PS: I don't think the inductive charging activates until it communicates with the base properly we'll see people complaining that their cards became demagnetized because of the iPhone the same way people said that wallets made from the skin of "electric eels" caused their cards to demagnetize.
No you didn't and why do you have to curse at people?
There are existing Apple products that are thinner than the iPhone that still use the standard headphone jack. Apple may have legitimate reasons for losing the headphone jack I just don't see how thinness is one of them. And are there any iPhone owner saying I wish my iPhone was thinner? I highly doubt it. If anything people want more battery life, but for whatever reason Apple has decided that nine hours is good enough (yes I know the iPhone Plus gets more). I would much rather keep iPhone at the same thickness and get an extra hour or two of battery life.
Here is another issue replacing 3.5 plug as it is heavily used( IN / OUT) insertion of earpod/earphone several times a day vs lightening port used once a day for charging overnight. When Apple combines both into one connector than it better withstand that usage/abuse of several insertion/takeout per day to one connector. Iphone users can and will get upset if within the few months after warranty expiration, that one connector somehow breaks because of it's over usage. The rest of the iphone working fine but now you can't charge it because that one overused connector is broken. OR Apple has to make it easily replaceable by customer which I doubt.
USB Type-C will face the similar over usage(charging,data transfer,etc) to one connector problem and time will tell how it holds up on macbook, oneplus, nexus 6p android phones ?
Because I just explained what removing an internal component does for allowing the battery to use more of the internal footprint thereby allowing the device to be thinner. That's why!
You've just outlined why I don't believe Apple will be getting rid of the headphone jack any time soon.
They CAN'T add analogue out to the Lightning connector. The whole point is that it's auto-sensing, reversible, and digital. They'd have to assign fixed pins to an analog output — that's one of the reasons it's gone!
Don't you think Apple CAN'T design a Lighting port that could distinguish the difference between regular power Lighting cable and the headphone adaptor so it can convert a few pins to carry analog signal? I would say it's possible to design the port in which it doesn't activate a few pins unless it recognize power coming from the insert cable.
Both the iPod touch and iPod nano are thinner than the current iPhones but use the standard 3.5 mm headphone jack. So is this really about making the phone thinner?
iPod is a dedicated device to be used with headphone while iPhone is not. What the point of having a port there and it's not used 90% of the time? I used that ports maybe a few times for over a year now and most of people I know don't even have earpiece with them. Besides, iPod has less components to be squeezed in that chassis than iPhone. So, getting rid of this port may allow Apple to put some extra new tech/components in there. This is the same move Apple made for the new Macbook and I think it's a great idea.
what if someone wants to simultaneously listen to music and charge their phone?
What if someone wants to simultaneously use the USB-C for external device and charge their new Macbook? Same here, Apple wouldn't care. Users have to figure out the priority of their tasks.
And what if someone wants to listen to music while their phone is charging, say if you're on a bus or an aeroplane? I just don't see the logic
This stupid reason to retain the 3.5mm port got to stop. Typical users don't use the device that way.
There are existing Apple products that are thinner than the iPhone that still use the standard headphone jack. Apple may have legitimate reasons for losing the headphone jack I just don't see how thinness is one of them. And are there any iPhone owner saying I wish my iPhone was thinner? I highly doubt it. If anything people want more battery life, but for whatever reason Apple has decided that nine hours is good enough (yes I know the iPhone Plus gets more). I would much rather keep iPhone at the same thickness and get an extra hour or two of battery life.
Why did you keep saying "thinner"? It's not about thinner but save extra internal space for other things: circuit board, chips, sensors if that port is removed. When you do a research on the usage of the functions, if a function is not used most of the times, you know that function is not effective or practical. What would you do? Just leave it there or modify it? As an R&D engineer, I would get rid of it or redesign it somehow to make it more effective.
Really?
99.5% of my usage is in the car, where I'll typically have navigation running, which eats battery like a mofo, and listen to music.
The rest is occasional playback at rehearsals.
I never hook it up to headphones.
Are you disagreeing with him?
Do they expect me to just throw away my $300 headphones and my $150 earbuds? Ridiculous move Apple expecting me to diminish my user experience so you can save a mm of thickness.
There will be an adaptor so you can still keep whatever you owned.
I don't feel like giving Apple another $20 bucks or more to keep that investment, all because they want an effing thinner phone.
Is that a question?
I just wrote that 99% of my use of the headphone jack involves charging the iPhone at the same time.
All they need to do is include a standard headphone adapter with lightning pass-through and it'll be fine. Don't include an adapter, and they'll receive the ire of millions of people.
since when has Apple ever included adaptors in the box?
I don't know who you think the typical user is, but I can recall many times when I've done just that. And even if most people don't, there are still going to be those few who have a problem, and I see no reason to make them upset for the sake of 1mm. It's just not worth it