Otherwise, how the hell the new headphone will work? I'm sure that Apple won't be dumb enough to add D/A converter to the headphone. It doesn't make sense financially.
It makes perfect sense that Apple may in fact desire to make a device with only a lightning port and market a companion set of lightning headphones, so one would either get on board or go home. In fact they're the only candidate for doing so (not that I'm claiming the rumor is true or predicting they will do this). It's not as if they've never said this before. Sell an adapter to make money from those wishing to use other headphone, but a totally digital path to a set of digital port earbuds is more like Apple than not. Putting the converter in headphones makes no more of a manufacturing burden than creating adapters and putting it in them. It's a tiny cylinder of plastic the size of a pinky nail that has to be fabricated and put in either one no matter what they do.
As far as financials for the user, many smartphone buyers are swayed by a $20 difference in cost. And many get the top of the line and literally have no idea how much it costs. Apple doesn't think much about the user for whom being $20 more than without a feature is a dealbreaker.
Of course, any discussion about the advantages of keeping it digital until the last possible connection with earbuds is ridiculous on two levels. One, because it has to be analog at the earbud there's never going to be any advantage sonically strictly based on keeping it digital leaving the device, as far as headphones, and two, there doesn't exist the sonic quality in 95% of the iDevice earwidgets in use to make a difference. And whatever difference can be determined by high end monitoring is well offset by the total % of users for whom it makes no difference.
It's all about doing something notable, being the first. It doesn't even matter if it has little market penetration.
My response had zero to do with my experience vs your experience.
That's not a given.
It makes perfect sense that Apple may in fact desire to make a device with only a lightning port and market a companion set of lightning headphones, so one would either get on board or go home. In fact they're the only candidate for doing so (not that I'm claiming the rumor is true or predicting they will do this). It's not as if they've never said this before. Sell an adapter to make money from those wishing to use other headphone, but a totally digital path to a set of digital port earbuds is more like Apple than not. Putting the converter in headphones makes no more of a manufacturing burden than creating adapters and putting it in them. It's a tiny cylinder of plastic the size of a pinky nail that has to be fabricated and put in either one no matter what they do.
As far as financials for the user, many smartphone buyers are swayed by a $20 difference in cost. And many get the top of the line and literally have no idea how much it costs. Apple doesn't think much about the user for whom being $20 more than without a feature is a dealbreaker.
Of course, any discussion about the advantages of keeping it digital until the last possible connection with earbuds is ridiculous on two levels. One, because it has to be analog at the earbud there's never going to be any advantage sonically strictly based on keeping it digital leaving the device, as far as headphones, and two, there doesn't exist the sonic quality in 95% of the iDevice earwidgets in use to make a difference. And whatever difference can be determined by high end monitoring is well offset by the total % of users for whom it makes no difference.
It's all about doing something notable, being the first. It doesn't even matter if it has little market penetration.
That's part and parcel of being a mainstream luxury brand.
I had forgotten that Apple include a set of earphones in the box when I wrote that.
But yeah, if you have another set you prefer it would be annoying. Adaptors are easily lost so you could end up going through several, which would be costly as well as inconvenient
Not a good idea! I use my jack to connect to my car audio system (not Bluetooth compatible) and also to connect to a sound board to play audio tracks at church.
Because adapters and dongles are aesthetically and technically ugly. They add to and increase points for failure, cost and bulk. The cost of compatible headphones and earbuds goes up because they all now would need a lightning chip, D/A converter, op amp, circuit board and probably a few other associated components.
Why do you think it would be 'only' $19? Given the number of components required it could well be more.
Have you seen measurements of the signal quality output by iPhones? Have you 'listened' to the analogue output of an iPhone? If so, in what respect did you find it audibly deficient such that you think there is room for an audible improvement?
The sound quality of the internal speakers of my moto G is so much better than the quality of the internal speaker of my iPhone6. So yes there is definitely room for improvement.
The sound quality of the internal speakers of my moto G is so much better than the quality of the internal speaker of my iPhone6. So yes there is definitely room for improvement.
Nobody is talking about speakers. This thread is about the 3.5 mm jack.
The sound quality of the internal speakers of my moto G is so much better than the quality of the internal speaker of my iPhone6. So yes there is definitely room for improvement.
Think we were talking about what's output via the headphone socket. I wish Apple would ditch using Intel's integrated audio in their laptops. I hate the delay you get in routing a signal to the port when you plug something into it. I might be imagining it but I think my Powerbook Ti had better sound quality from the headphone socket than either of its two successors.
Oh No!!!! For goodness sake, stop with the thinness, Apple. If anything, make them 1 mm thicker and improve battery. Jony, this is getting stupid.
I so totally agree with this statement.
The other thing which bothers me is for all their claimed environmentalism, if they do this, how much perfectly good product will end up in land fills?
Think we were talking about what's output via the headphone socket. I wish Apple would ditch using Intel's integrated audio in their laptops. I hate the delay you get in routing a signal to the port when you plug something into it. I might be imagining it but I think my Powerbook Ti had better sound quality from the headphone socket than either of its two successors.
Most definitely not. Built-in D/A chips have improved by leaps and bounds over the past fifteen years.
Also, Apple uses Cirrus audio converters in their MacBooks, same as in their iOS devices, and have for years (at least since 2011 — didn't check any older machines). Sound quality is quite fine.
The other thing which bothers me is for all their claimed environmentalism, if they do this, how much perfectly good product will end up in land fills?
If you're talking about headphones ending up in landfills, I'm sure an adaptor will be provided / sold so you can use your "old" headphones with the new iPhones, assuming this rumour is true of course.
My response had zero to do with my experience vs your experience.
That's not a given.
It makes perfect sense that Apple may in fact desire to make a device with only a lightning port and market a companion set of lightning headphones, so one would either get on board or go home. In fact they're the only candidate for doing so (not that I'm claiming the rumor is true or predicting they will do this). It's not as if they've never said this before. Sell an adapter to make money from those wishing to use other headphone, but a totally digital path to a set of digital port earbuds is more like Apple than not. Putting the converter in headphones makes no more of a manufacturing burden than creating adapters and putting it in them. It's a tiny cylinder of plastic the size of a pinky nail that has to be fabricated and put in either one no matter what they do.
As far as financials for the user, many smartphone buyers are swayed by a $20 difference in cost. And many get the top of the line and literally have no idea how much it costs. Apple doesn't think much about the user for whom being $20 more than without a feature is a dealbreaker.
Of course, any discussion about the advantages of keeping it digital until the last possible connection with earbuds is ridiculous on two levels. One, because it has to be analog at the earbud there's never going to be any advantage sonically strictly based on keeping it digital leaving the device, as far as headphones, and two, there doesn't exist the sonic quality in 95% of the iDevice earwidgets in use to make a difference. And whatever difference can be determined by high end monitoring is well offset by the total % of users for whom it makes no difference.
It's all about doing something notable, being the first. It doesn't even matter if it has little market penetration.
I've been predicting this since Apple announced the Lightning connector audio support program, and then released the retina MacBook with just two ports, one of which is the latest tech, multipurpose USB-C and the other is a single function, based on 19th century technology invented for the first telephone. It makes so much more sense to use a multifunction Lightning port instead where space is at a premium, and elimination of a single function built-in headphone jack is one of the largest items taking up space inside an iDevice. If my gym is any indication, Bluetooth is the preferred headphone connection these days. Followed closely by Apple's free iPhone headphones, which will of course be native Lightning going forward. A distant third are all other wired headphones. And frankly for the Apple customer that still feels compelled to plug non-Apple headphones into their iDevices, I don't really see how a tiny outboard DAC adapter is going to add substantially to the burden of carrying around a bulky set of wired headphones anyway.
Apple's been asking what kind of headphones its customers use in surveys for some time now, most recently with the rMacBook. If Apple is actually doing this soon, it's not without a thorough understanding of how it may affect their customer base. And it seems clear that a tipping point has been reached where the numerous benifits outweigh the perceived inconvenience by the customer. The ?Watch alone is going to drive the wireless headphone market leading up to the next iPhone release, and for those who aren't making that leap, Apple will likely give them a new set of earbuds, so likely no problem for most of Apple's customers. Only a small fraction of those "audiophiles" will likely be affected and for them there's a convenient adapter, or Android.
If you're talking about headphones ending up in landfills, I'm sure an adaptor will be provided / sold so you can use your "old" headphones with the new iPhones, assuming this rumour is true of course.
Yeah, an Apple adaptor: sticks out an inch from the phone, breaks off the first time you put it in your pocket, made obsolete by the shape of the next iPhone upgrade. Sorry to be cynical about stuff like this, but I am sick of perfectly good products intentionally being made obsolete every couple years.
Very, very bad move, if true. That could be the straw that breaks this camel's back that would cause me to abandon the iPhone. I want to be able to use any headset I choose from any manufacturer and I want to be able to use that headset with other devices. Besides, the standard phone plug to a headset is analog. Does the Lightning connector even have any capability of sending an analog signal or would the headphones have to include a D/A converter? If they did, that would substantially increase the price (and size) of headphones and could actually decrease the quality of the sound if the D/A converter in the headphones was of lower quality than the one in the iPhone and in any case would create unnecessary redundancy.
And I agree with others. Stop with the obsession with thinness to the detriment of all else: battery life, speaker/mic audio quality, structural robustness and usability. The speaker in the iPhone is already incredibly crappy - making the iPhone thinner would make it sound worse - you can't get away from the physics that for decent sound you have to push a lot of air. I would gladly trade thinness for longer battery life. And are they going to get rid of the switches and controls on the side or are they going to make those so small, you'll need a paper clip to operate them? Most people carry an iPhone in a case anyway, since they break so easily when dropped, so while the thinness still looks great in a TV ad, it has almost no use even from an aesthetics standpoint. There have been many times when I've seen someone with a phone out of a case and I think, "that phone looks really nice - I wonder what phone that is?" and then realize it's the exact same iPhone model I have, but I didn't recognize it because mine is always in a case.
I'm sorry I read this rumor. It's actually making me angry. I am really hoping it's completely bogus. I have had problems on my iPhones with both the lightning connector and the mini-phone jack. My current iPhone 6 is having problems with the phone jack - it doesn't make good contact and it loses level (and sometime reverses phase) until I tap it. I had this problem as well as a complete mechanical failure of the Lightning Connector with the iPhone 5 as well. These are jacks that might have usage several times a day. IMO, they have to be made more robust.
Yeah, an Apple adaptor: sticks out an inch from the phone, breaks off the first time you put it in your pocket, made obsolete by the shape of the next iPhone upgrade. Sorry to be cynical about stuff like this, but I am sick of perfectly good products intentionally being made obsolete every couple years.
Not obsolete, they'll still work wonderfully well on the phone you have NOW. Which, since it's not "obsolete" you won't be replacing anyway right? So your functioning pairing is wonderful and for those that do need new things that the new things have a different port setup isn't even on the radar,
Very, very bad move, if true. That could be the straw that breaks this camel's back that would cause me to abandon the iPhone. I want to be able to use any headset I choose from any manufacturer and I want to be able to use that headset with other devices. .....
Like every other port ever there'll be adapters for legacy gear.
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!
but .. but there may be religious people in this blog and you will offend them.
Like every other port ever there'll be adapters for legacy gear.
You missed my point about the phone jack being analog and the Lightning being digital. If there's an adapter, it would have to contain an analog to digital circuit. It's not just a matter of a different form factor. That would be expensive and will either increase the size of the adapter or increase the size of the headphones or earbud cables. What's the point of making the iPhone smaller necessitating a smaller jack if you have to stick a bigger plug or dongle into it? This is just moving the problem slightly outside the iPhone.
And sticking an adapter into the Lightning jack increases the stress on that jack. It also doubles the number of insertions into the Lightning jack whereas they're split between the Lightning jack and the phone jack now AND it means that you couldn't listen with earphones while it's charging (assuming there's still only going to be one Lightning jack and not two).
The reasons why this is an incredibly awful idea keep adding up. And it probably means a thinner battery for the iPhone which means even less battery life when it really needs far more battery life. Give me an iPhone with TWICE the thickness of the current one with twice the battery life and I'll be far happier. While I'm sure the "Apple can never do wrong" crowd will think a thinner iPhone with no phone jack, lesser battery life and less mechanical robustness will be just great, I personally think it's a bit of insanity on Apple's part and is part of Apple's obsession with their conception of good design and control over users over all aspects of usability. I'm still hoping this is a bogus rumor.
Comments
My response had zero to do with my experience vs your experience.
That's not a given.
It makes perfect sense that Apple may in fact desire to make a device with only a lightning port and market a companion set of lightning headphones, so one would either get on board or go home. In fact they're the only candidate for doing so (not that I'm claiming the rumor is true or predicting they will do this). It's not as if they've never said this before. Sell an adapter to make money from those wishing to use other headphone, but a totally digital path to a set of digital port earbuds is more like Apple than not. Putting the converter in headphones makes no more of a manufacturing burden than creating adapters and putting it in them. It's a tiny cylinder of plastic the size of a pinky nail that has to be fabricated and put in either one no matter what they do.
As far as financials for the user, many smartphone buyers are swayed by a $20 difference in cost. And many get the top of the line and literally have no idea how much it costs. Apple doesn't think much about the user for whom being $20 more than without a feature is a dealbreaker.
Of course, any discussion about the advantages of keeping it digital until the last possible connection with earbuds is ridiculous on two levels. One, because it has to be analog at the earbud there's never going to be any advantage sonically strictly based on keeping it digital leaving the device, as far as headphones, and two, there doesn't exist the sonic quality in 95% of the iDevice earwidgets in use to make a difference. And whatever difference can be determined by high end monitoring is well offset by the total % of users for whom it makes no difference.
It's all about doing something notable, being the first. It doesn't even matter if it has little market penetration.
My response had zero to do with my experience vs your experience.
That's not a given.
It makes perfect sense that Apple may in fact desire to make a device with only a lightning port and market a companion set of lightning headphones, so one would either get on board or go home. In fact they're the only candidate for doing so (not that I'm claiming the rumor is true or predicting they will do this). It's not as if they've never said this before. Sell an adapter to make money from those wishing to use other headphone, but a totally digital path to a set of digital port earbuds is more like Apple than not. Putting the converter in headphones makes no more of a manufacturing burden than creating adapters and putting it in them. It's a tiny cylinder of plastic the size of a pinky nail that has to be fabricated and put in either one no matter what they do.
As far as financials for the user, many smartphone buyers are swayed by a $20 difference in cost. And many get the top of the line and literally have no idea how much it costs. Apple doesn't think much about the user for whom being $20 more than without a feature is a dealbreaker.
Of course, any discussion about the advantages of keeping it digital until the last possible connection with earbuds is ridiculous on two levels. One, because it has to be analog at the earbud there's never going to be any advantage sonically strictly based on keeping it digital leaving the device, as far as headphones, and two, there doesn't exist the sonic quality in 95% of the iDevice earwidgets in use to make a difference. And whatever difference can be determined by high end monitoring is well offset by the total % of users for whom it makes no difference.
It's all about doing something notable, being the first. It doesn't even matter if it has little market penetration.
That's part and parcel of being a mainstream luxury brand.
That is a blatantly sexist cheap shot at a poster whom we know is a woman.
If you have the balls, I dare you to show me whether and when you've said this to a male poster here. (If you do, I'll readily apologize.)
You, sir, are a jerk.
I've reported your list as offensive. Feel free to do likewise with this post of mine.
I had forgotten that Apple include a set of earphones in the box when I wrote that.
But yeah, if you have another set you prefer it would be annoying. Adaptors are easily lost so you could end up going through several, which would be costly as well as inconvenient
Because a $19 adapter would be too burdensome?
Because adapters and dongles are aesthetically and technically ugly. They add to and increase points for failure, cost and bulk. The cost of compatible headphones and earbuds goes up because they all now would need a lightning chip, D/A converter, op amp, circuit board and probably a few other associated components.
Why do you think it would be 'only' $19? Given the number of components required it could well be more.
Have you seen measurements of the signal quality output by iPhones? Have you 'listened' to the analogue output of an iPhone? If so, in what respect did you find it audibly deficient such that you think there is room for an audible improvement?
The sound quality of the internal speakers of my moto G is so much better than the quality of the internal speaker of my iPhone6. So yes there is definitely room for improvement.
The sound quality of the internal speakers of my moto G is so much better than the quality of the internal speaker of my iPhone6. So yes there is definitely room for improvement.
Nobody is talking about speakers. This thread is about the 3.5 mm jack.
The sound quality of the internal speakers of my moto G is so much better than the quality of the internal speaker of my iPhone6. So yes there is definitely room for improvement.
Think we were talking about what's output via the headphone socket. I wish Apple would ditch using Intel's integrated audio in their laptops. I hate the delay you get in routing a signal to the port when you plug something into it. I might be imagining it but I think my Powerbook Ti had better sound quality from the headphone socket than either of its two successors.
Oh No!!!! For goodness sake, stop with the thinness, Apple. If anything, make them 1 mm thicker and improve battery. Jony, this is getting stupid.
I so totally agree with this statement.
The other thing which bothers me is for all their claimed environmentalism, if they do this, how much perfectly good product will end up in land fills?
Think we were talking about what's output via the headphone socket. I wish Apple would ditch using Intel's integrated audio in their laptops. I hate the delay you get in routing a signal to the port when you plug something into it. I might be imagining it but I think my Powerbook Ti had better sound quality from the headphone socket than either of its two successors.
Most definitely not. Built-in D/A chips have improved by leaps and bounds over the past fifteen years.
Also, Apple uses Cirrus audio converters in their MacBooks, same as in their iOS devices, and have for years (at least since 2011 — didn't check any older machines). Sound quality is quite fine.
I so totally agree with this statement.
The other thing which bothers me is for all their claimed environmentalism, if they do this, how much perfectly good product will end up in land fills?
If you're talking about headphones ending up in landfills, I'm sure an adaptor will be provided / sold so you can use your "old" headphones with the new iPhones, assuming this rumour is true of course.
I've been predicting this since Apple announced the Lightning connector audio support program, and then released the retina MacBook with just two ports, one of which is the latest tech, multipurpose USB-C and the other is a single function, based on 19th century technology invented for the first telephone. It makes so much more sense to use a multifunction Lightning port instead where space is at a premium, and elimination of a single function built-in headphone jack is one of the largest items taking up space inside an iDevice. If my gym is any indication, Bluetooth is the preferred headphone connection these days. Followed closely by Apple's free iPhone headphones, which will of course be native Lightning going forward. A distant third are all other wired headphones. And frankly for the Apple customer that still feels compelled to plug non-Apple headphones into their iDevices, I don't really see how a tiny outboard DAC adapter is going to add substantially to the burden of carrying around a bulky set of wired headphones anyway.
Apple's been asking what kind of headphones its customers use in surveys for some time now, most recently with the rMacBook. If Apple is actually doing this soon, it's not without a thorough understanding of how it may affect their customer base. And it seems clear that a tipping point has been reached where the numerous benifits outweigh the perceived inconvenience by the customer. The ?Watch alone is going to drive the wireless headphone market leading up to the next iPhone release, and for those who aren't making that leap, Apple will likely give them a new set of earbuds, so likely no problem for most of Apple's customers. Only a small fraction of those "audiophiles" will likely be affected and for them there's a convenient adapter, or Android.
If you're talking about headphones ending up in landfills, I'm sure an adaptor will be provided / sold so you can use your "old" headphones with the new iPhones, assuming this rumour is true of course.
Yeah, an Apple adaptor: sticks out an inch from the phone, breaks off the first time you put it in your pocket, made obsolete by the shape of the next iPhone upgrade. Sorry to be cynical about stuff like this, but I am sick of perfectly good products intentionally being made obsolete every couple years.
Very, very bad move, if true. That could be the straw that breaks this camel's back that would cause me to abandon the iPhone. I want to be able to use any headset I choose from any manufacturer and I want to be able to use that headset with other devices. Besides, the standard phone plug to a headset is analog. Does the Lightning connector even have any capability of sending an analog signal or would the headphones have to include a D/A converter? If they did, that would substantially increase the price (and size) of headphones and could actually decrease the quality of the sound if the D/A converter in the headphones was of lower quality than the one in the iPhone and in any case would create unnecessary redundancy.
And I agree with others. Stop with the obsession with thinness to the detriment of all else: battery life, speaker/mic audio quality, structural robustness and usability. The speaker in the iPhone is already incredibly crappy - making the iPhone thinner would make it sound worse - you can't get away from the physics that for decent sound you have to push a lot of air. I would gladly trade thinness for longer battery life. And are they going to get rid of the switches and controls on the side or are they going to make those so small, you'll need a paper clip to operate them? Most people carry an iPhone in a case anyway, since they break so easily when dropped, so while the thinness still looks great in a TV ad, it has almost no use even from an aesthetics standpoint. There have been many times when I've seen someone with a phone out of a case and I think, "that phone looks really nice - I wonder what phone that is?" and then realize it's the exact same iPhone model I have, but I didn't recognize it because mine is always in a case.
I'm sorry I read this rumor. It's actually making me angry. I am really hoping it's completely bogus. I have had problems on my iPhones with both the lightning connector and the mini-phone jack. My current iPhone 6 is having problems with the phone jack - it doesn't make good contact and it loses level (and sometime reverses phase) until I tap it. I had this problem as well as a complete mechanical failure of the Lightning Connector with the iPhone 5 as well. These are jacks that might have usage several times a day. IMO, they have to be made more robust.
Yeah, an Apple adaptor: sticks out an inch from the phone, breaks off the first time you put it in your pocket, made obsolete by the shape of the next iPhone upgrade. Sorry to be cynical about stuff like this, but I am sick of perfectly good products intentionally being made obsolete every couple years.
Not obsolete, they'll still work wonderfully well on the phone you have NOW. Which, since it's not "obsolete" you won't be replacing anyway right? So your functioning pairing is wonderful and for those that do need new things that the new things have a different port setup isn't even on the radar,
Very, very bad move, if true. That could be the straw that breaks this camel's back that would cause me to abandon the iPhone. I want to be able to use any headset I choose from any manufacturer and I want to be able to use that headset with other devices. .....
Like every other port ever there'll be adapters for legacy gear.
but .. but there may be religious people in this blog and you will offend them.
True but Apple also moved on, Apple never fear abandoning a standard even if they created it, which was the point of Soli's comment and mine earlier.
Like every other port ever there'll be adapters for legacy gear.
You missed my point about the phone jack being analog and the Lightning being digital. If there's an adapter, it would have to contain an analog to digital circuit. It's not just a matter of a different form factor. That would be expensive and will either increase the size of the adapter or increase the size of the headphones or earbud cables. What's the point of making the iPhone smaller necessitating a smaller jack if you have to stick a bigger plug or dongle into it? This is just moving the problem slightly outside the iPhone.
And sticking an adapter into the Lightning jack increases the stress on that jack. It also doubles the number of insertions into the Lightning jack whereas they're split between the Lightning jack and the phone jack now AND it means that you couldn't listen with earphones while it's charging (assuming there's still only going to be one Lightning jack and not two).
The reasons why this is an incredibly awful idea keep adding up. And it probably means a thinner battery for the iPhone which means even less battery life when it really needs far more battery life. Give me an iPhone with TWICE the thickness of the current one with twice the battery life and I'll be far happier. While I'm sure the "Apple can never do wrong" crowd will think a thinner iPhone with no phone jack, lesser battery life and less mechanical robustness will be just great, I personally think it's a bit of insanity on Apple's part and is part of Apple's obsession with their conception of good design and control over users over all aspects of usability. I'm still hoping this is a bogus rumor.