Rumor: Apple to debut Bluetooth earbuds alongside 'iPhone 7,' with truly wireless left & right earp

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 78
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    cnocbui said:
    I have seen far more people cry for better battery life from iPhones than for a thinner one.  I would bet that if it were a choice between force-touch or better battery life, most people would choose the latter.  The same for the choice between force-touch and the headphone jack.
    you don't know that it's about making it thinner since Apple hasn't said, and there are thinner devices today with the jack. 

    removing the 3.5 yields more volume for battery, especially since some was lost for 3D Touch. 

    now what do you say?
    I say the 0.28% of the volume of a 6s that the jack occupies - if the 184 cubic mm figure is correct - is so trivial that nothing could possibly be done with that amount of volume that would provide more utility than would be lost by the jacks removal.
  • Reply 62 of 78
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    cnocbui said:

     I have a JVC Bluetooth receiver with in-ear-buds and I have run out of power plenty of times, even though it has an 11hr rating - which only applies when it was new of course. ...If you can't change the battery in a Bluetooth device you should consider it an expensive disposable item which you will have to bin at some point.  Apple don't do user-replaceable batteries anymore - sadly.  Any Bluetooth audio devices Apple comes up with that deliver high audio quality are going to be expensive.  If it's even possible to replace the batteries that is going to involve both hassle and considerable expense.

    Having to always ensure you have multiple devices charged is a fiddle.  I only use the earbuds when I am doing things where the trade-off in sound quality and comfort for cord-free mobility makes it worth it, otherwise I use my wired over ear headphones.  Which, by the way, the bluetooth receiver can't really drive as well as my phone and Macbook can.

    There is no sound quality improvement to be had from the lightning port or Bluetooth vs a 3.5mm headphone jack.  There is no technical reason to get rid of it - not even that bogus argument of thinness or internal volume.  There is an Android phone that is 4.75mm thick which still has a headphone jack.  The camera in a smartphone would have to be got rid of or be of lower quality if anyone really thinks they want a 4mm thick phone or thinner.  Boy are those going to bend.  The internal volume saving from eschewing the socket argument is another nonsense when it takes up only 0.28 % of the volume of a 6S.  I have not seen anyone ever say they were so keen on a thinner phone they would be happy for the camera to be dropped.  I would bet more people spend time listening via wired earphones/headphones than they spend taking photos.

    I have seen far more people cry for better battery life from iPhones than for a thinner one.  I would bet that if it were a choice between force-touch or better battery life, most people would choose the latter.  The same for the choice between force-touch and the headphone jack.
    So your anectdotal experience on battery life versus mine? Let's stop claiming stuff as facts unless we have links to studies we can reference.

    you know what else has to be thrown into the bin at some point? Your iPhone. That's a discussion for another thread not here.

    So you only have one device you have to recharge, your iPhone, no Mac, no iPad, no Apple Watch? Technology is about charging stuff. And I get why people resist it. So with respect to headphones there's the Lightning port. And if you don't want to use Lightning headphones, there's an adapter.

    im not going to argue Bluetooth is superior to anything, but all of your complaints are hardware specific, and will all be addressed and improved over time, especially if removing the 3.5mm Jack will spur competition, innovation and price reductions. There's a huge difference in quality between my first Bluetooth headphones and the ones I have now. Again, if theyre not up to your standards for listening to lossy mp3s from an iPhone DAC, then there's always lightning. 

    i particularly like how you call the argument that removing a component that takes up a huge relative volume inside the phone "bogus" and then your only evidence is that an Android phone can do it. So at this point, I'm not even sure why I'm still responding to you. If an Android phone can perform as well for you as an Apple phone, with all the same features, and comperbale to superior performance for them all, then if I were you, I'd just trade in your iPhone now. Numerous people have pointed out that this is not about making the phone thinner, but about not making it bigger, while improving battery, or adding features. And then you start making proclamations about what can be done with over 184 cubic mm that removing the 3.5mm hardware will provide, again without even suggesting how you have the expertise to say such a thing. Presumably, you're an engineer with inside information of Apple's secret development files. Yes that must be it. 

    And I'd also love to get a gander at your surveys that confirm what "most" people would do. Talk about nonsense. Maybe Apple should start listening to what every one of their customers wants. They could rename themselves "AppleSoft". Or "Appledroid". Or "Applesung". Maybe they could make variations of the iPhone addressing every customers particular needs, and have dozens of models for everyone that do everything everybody wants. 
    edited January 2016
  • Reply 63 of 78
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    cnocbui said:

    I have seen far more people cry for better battery life from iPhones than for a thinner one.
    Since you've "seen" it, I am sure it must be true.

    For some reason, I thought I'd seen far many more tens of millions of people around the globe BUY the thinner ones, and express ever higher rates of customer satisfaction, but what do I know.....

    /s
    Maybe that was because the thinner phones also got wider and longer and had much better battery life due to the bigger battery and power efficiencies.  Maybe it was the better battery life people were motivated by and not the shallower depth.
  • Reply 64 of 78
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    mr o said:
    Those 'EARpods' are actually a standalone product.

    Why not branding them as iPod?
    iPod may be recycled as the new car name.
  • Reply 65 of 78
    jonshfjonshf Posts: 90member
    atlapple said:
    Good to see Apple is going to get rid of an universal port in favor of making most users buy yet again another dongle. Unlike getting rid of optical drives in Macs there is no real space saving benefits to getting rid of a 3.5mm jack. As far as making the thinnest phone ever that mean not only will it have to be thinner than the iPhone 6s it will also have to be thinner than the iPhone 6. This years model actually increased in thickness. 
    Getting rid of the 3.5 mm port will mean huge space savings inside the phone. It's not about thickness. It's about the socket space and the space for all the DAC and amplifier electronics in the phone. Relative to the size of the iPhone, the 3.5 mm analog port and related electronics is probably bigger than the optical drive on a Mac.

    Dongles will only be for compatibility with old headphones. Better to put the electronics in the headphone or in the volume control part of the cable. The cable section reaching the phone can be either Lightning or USB-C ended (when the other smartphone makers follow suite). The headphones will be able to offer noise canceling features without needing a battery.
  • Reply 66 of 78
    jonshfjonshf Posts: 90member
    cnocbui said:
    mac_128 said:
    Perhaps if you would elaborate a bit more, perhaps we could properly address you. The 3.5mm jack hardware takes up about 184 cubic mm. How is that trivial in a device measured in mm?

    It could be thought trivial when that actually only represents roughly 0.28% of the volume of an 6S and 0.2% that of a Plus.  Fits my definition.
    It's not just the volume of the port hardware. There is also accompanying electronics like a DAC, amplifier and wiring. The total is probably over 250 mm3. It is significant with respect to the internal space of an iPhone. It could mean a significant increase in battery size for example, maybe near 5%, if they chose to go that route.
  • Reply 67 of 78
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    I want a “wrap around the back of the head” wireless headset. Put a huge battery in the connecting bar. Boom. Keep the overall shape and switch out the earpieces. Offer two or three models. In-ear, on-ear, and around ear.
  • Reply 68 of 78
    cnocbui said:
    Since you've "seen" it, I am sure it must be true.

    For some reason, I thought I'd seen far many more tens of millions of people around the globe BUY the thinner ones, and express ever higher rates of customer satisfaction, but what do I know.....

    /s
    Maybe that was because the thinner phones also got wider and longer and had much better battery life due to the bigger battery and power efficiencies.  Maybe it was the better battery life people were motivated by and not the shallower depth.
    Yeah, the wider/longer phones came with smaller, less battery power-hogging displays.... /s.

    C'mon, you're barking up the wrong tree here. 
  • Reply 69 of 78
    sirlance99sirlance99 Posts: 1,295member
    I want a “wrap around the back of the head” wireless headset. Put a huge battery in the connecting bar. Boom. Keep the overall shape and switch out the earpieces. Offer two or three models. In-ear, on-ear, and around ear.
    Try the Jaybird Bluebuds X2. Exactly what you ask for. I have these and the first generation. They are amazing. Absolutely love them. 

    http://www.jaybirdsport.com/x2-bluetooth-headphones/
  • Reply 70 of 78
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    jonshf said:
    cnocbui said:
    It could be thought trivial when that actually only represents roughly 0.28% of the volume of an 6S and 0.2% that of a Plus.  Fits my definition.
    It's not just the volume of the port hardware. There is also accompanying electronics like a DAC, amplifier and wiring. The total is probably over 250 mm3. It is significant with respect to the internal space of an iPhone. It could mean a significant increase in battery size for example, maybe near 5%, if they chose to go that route.
    No it's not. The DAC is a relatively tiny aspect of all of this, and they have to keep the DAC for speaker, earpiece and microphone. The biggest space savings is the jack itself.
  • Reply 71 of 78
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,038member
    mac_128 said:
    jonshf said:
    It's not just the volume of the port hardware. There is also accompanying electronics like a DAC, amplifier and wiring. The total is probably over 250 mm3. It is significant with respect to the internal space of an iPhone. It could mean a significant increase in battery size for example, maybe near 5%, if they chose to go that route.
    No it's not. The DAC is a relatively tiny aspect of all of this, and they have to keep the DAC for speaker, earpiece and microphone. The biggest space savings is the jack itself.
    They have to keep a DAC. If it's only used for the tiny and comparably poor speakers for just the earpiece, speakerphone, and microphones, they should be able to reduce the cost and size of the DAC (andd possibly power usage, even though it would be in comparison to that component which I doubt is anymore than a blip in the iPhone's total power usage).
  • Reply 72 of 78
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    jonshf said:
    cnocbui said:
    It could be thought trivial when that actually only represents roughly 0.28% of the volume of an 6S and 0.2% that of a Plus.  Fits my definition.
    It's not just the volume of the port hardware. There is also accompanying electronics like a DAC, amplifier and wiring. The total is probably over 250 mm3. It is significant with respect to the internal space of an iPhone. It could mean a significant increase in battery size for example, maybe near 5%, if they chose to go that route.
    Remove components so you can increase the battery size so you have a fraction more power to run the Bluetooth you didn't have to run all the time before, so now your phone has less battery endurance than before.  That's so logical.

    Oh and this volume saved crap is just that.  That 250mm³ could be acquired with a miniscule 0.03mm increase in thickness - and that is less than one third the thickness of a sheet of paper.  Apple increased the thickness of the 6 by a comparatively whopping 0.2mm to deliver the force touch gimmick. 
  • Reply 73 of 78
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 2,388member
    cnocbui said:
    jonshf said:
    It's not just the volume of the port hardware. There is also accompanying electronics like a DAC, amplifier and wiring. The total is probably over 250 mm3. It is significant with respect to the internal space of an iPhone. It could mean a significant increase in battery size for example, maybe near 5%, if they chose to go that route.
    Remove components so you can increase the battery size so you have a fraction more power to run the Bluetooth you didn't have to run all the time before, so now your phone has less battery endurance than before.  That's so logical.

    Oh and this volume saved crap is just that.  That 250mm³ could be acquired with a miniscule 0.03mm increase in thickness - and that is less than one third the thickness of a sheet of paper.  Apple increased the thickness of the 6 by a comparatively whopping 0.2mm to deliver the force touch gimmick. 
    But if look at the teardown of the iPhone 6s there is a clear gap of maybe 2mm between the lightening socket and the taptic engine. 
    https://d3nevzfk7ii3be.cloudfront.net/igi/gVLQEpWGf6Zd521H

    That gap only seems to be there because the headphone socket is longer than the lightening socket. Given visually the gap is almost as big as the taptic engine then the battery gain should be close to as much as was lost to put the taptic engine in the first place.

    The other question that comes to mind is why do we assume Bluetooth?

    Sure it's there but so is wifi and wifi is more likely to be on. With the new wave of low power wifi chips aimed at IoT applications it would seem a better idea to skip BT and go Wifi. 

    Headphones could switch between a phone hosted network or your approved wifi-networks. Which would give you a lot more wire free freedom.lot more bandwidth so they could cache music then switch into a low power notification mode.
  • Reply 74 of 78
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    mattinoz said:
    The other question that comes to mind is why do we assume Bluetooth?

    Sure it's there but so is wifi and wifi is more likely to be on. With the new wave of low power wifi chips aimed at IoT applications it would seem a better idea to skip BT and go Wifi. 

    Headphones could switch between a phone hosted network or your approved wifi-networks. Which would give you a lot more wire free freedom.lot more bandwidth so they could cache music then switch into a low power notification mode.
    Good point. I usually say the future of audio is wireless, or Bluetooth or its successor.

    i haven't brought this up because it just adds another layer in an already complicated debate, which becomes a strawman for those who are devoted to the 3.5mm connector.

    the reality is at first Apple can't throw out one standard in this case without a replacement -- which is Bluetooth. And let's face it, any wifi implementation is most likely going to be based on AirPlay. Moreover the opposition to this move keep citing the current status of Bluetooth, the biggest drawback of which is power. Wifi uses even more power, so for the moment it's a worse implementation for that, but a better one for quality. BT Gets better every year without developers trying very hard, so the first step is going to be to support Bluetooth, then maybe for the 7S or 8 they will introduce some kind of new low-power, close proximity AirPlay, which will blow BT out of the water, and just like wifi, the competition will scramble to support legacy BT while working on a new codec to compete with AirPlay. And everybody benefits.
  • Reply 75 of 78
    jonljonl Posts: 210member
    All the attention to this suggests to me Apple is really running out of ideas and is highly desperate for new features. Hirez audio is a marketing gimmick, period, and choice of DAC doesn't matter to 99.9% of people, and 99.9% of the .1% who claim it matters wouldn't withstand ABX testing. The numbers would be even worse when talking about a portable audio device and the conditions that it's used in.

    cnocbui
  • Reply 76 of 78
    cornchipcornchip Posts: 1,954member
    mr o said:
    Those 'EARpods' are actually a standalone product.

    Why not branding them as iPod?
    iPod may be recycled as the new car name.
    I've seen several people post that, but find that idea to be highly unlikely. Not saying it won't happen, I personally just think the chances are higher than astronomical.
  • Reply 77 of 78
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    I have had an idea of what Apple could do to sell this idea to people, even me,  should they actually be intending to do it.

    I posited it before, but I think Apple will introduce a new proprietary lossless audio streaming protocol.  This would get around them having to pay aptX licensing fees for lossless audio via Bluetooth and would give them an ongoing revenue stream from licensing their new protocol to third parties.  Hopefully they will have managed to make this work with a lower power requirement than Bluetooth.

    They could make a receiver for this new protocol that has the usual audio playback controls you would expect of a Bluetooth receiver, a 3.5mm headphone jack, a decent DAC and op amp.  The wrinkle is that this device would have a female Lightning port in it.  When connected to an Apple device via lightning, it would charge its battery and no longer act as a receiver but just as an outboard DAC/Wired remote.  This would solve all legacy compatibility issues.  The lightning cable could have a piggyback plug design at one end so you could charge the phone and receiver and still listen to audio.

    Where this all falls apart is this would have to be bundled with the iPhone instead of making it a $120 accessory, like the Pencil.

    PS  - As I and Rogifan suspected, it looks like people will not be happy unless they do something along the lines I have suggested: A petition with 200,000 signatures so far -
    http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35253398

    RIP David Bowie - thank you fro doing what you did.
    edited January 2016
  • Reply 78 of 78
    On October 4, 2012, the US Patent & Trademark Office published a patent application from Apple that reveals a rather inventive new headset that provides users with a temporary wireless option that's great for when you're working out in the gym or jogging. 

    Earphones with Detachable Connector Providing Wireless Connectivity



    Broadly speaking, Apple's invention describes at least a media apparatus that provides an end user of a personal media player a pleasurable listening and unencumbered experience during physical activity.

    The listening device could include a single listening a single or double component such as an ear bud(s) that could be detachably coupled to a corded portion by way of a detachable connector. The detachable connector could take many forms. For example, the detachable connector could be mechanical nature and rely upon a clip, fastener, and the like to secure the listening device to the corded portion.

    In another embodiment, the first part and the second part could include a wireless receiver and a wireless transmitter portion, respectively, that facilitates the establishment of a wireless communication channel between the listening device and the host device by way of the corded portion when the first and second parts are physically separate from each other. For example, when the host device is Bluetooth enabled, the host device and the listening device could identify each other according to the well-known BT pairing procedure. Once paired, the host device could retain a BT address associated with the listening device. It should be noted that in those cases where the listening device includes two listening components capable of projecting Left and Right audio channels in support of two channel stereo, then each listening component could have its own BT address associated therewith.

    Designed for 30-60 Minute Workouts or Timespans

    Note...two different Bluetooth addresses left and right earbuds...this eliminates all wires for AirBuds.
Sign In or Register to comment.