IF they plan on deleting the 3.5mm connector, it would make sense to include Lightning Ear Pods and an adapter for the first year's products. Then stop including the adapter as 3rd-party suppliers begin to deliver Lightning headphones. There are lots of people who use other types and/or multiple headphones and it would make no sense to piss everybody off.
Just this weekend my bluetooth headset went bleepety bleep in my ear while i was mowing to tell me its battery was about to die, which it then did shortly after, so yes, problem - no wires, no jack, no work.
The old wired in-ears still worked though.
Yeah because it's so hard to charge your headphones as you're charging your phone. Last inexpensive BT earbud headphones I bought have 22 hour music playback battery life, I wish my iPhone battery would last this long
IF they plan on deleting the 3.5mm connector, it would make sense to include Lightning Ear Pods and an adapter for the first year's products. Then stop including the adapter as 3rd-party suppliers begin to deliver Lightning headphones. There are lots of people who use other types and/or multiple headphones and it would make no sense to piss everybody off.
Makes no sense. It encourages customers to stick with their old headphones, rather than try Lightning or Wireless. It also takes away Apple's competitive edge for those who decide to switch. It's still a business after all. And it makes no sense to ship two things in the box, one of which the customer is just going to shove in the drawer, which adds unecessary costs. In the end, including an adapter in the box isn't going to make people upset by this move any less upset, and only succeeds in keeping them invested in their existing equipment without giving Lightning or wireless a fair shot, and perpetuating their displeasure with an inelegant solution everytime they plug in the adapter or forget it.
Seems a bit unlikely that Apple would make a big deal about the Lightning port being a great digital sound source and promote using it, only to throw in the same extremely crappy buds into the box with an adapter, then calling it a day.
I hope I'm wrong on this one Apple seems too smart to pull off something half-assed like that.
On the other hand, I'll be happy to see the headphone jack go. Not because it's outdated or I hate it, but because Apple can't seem to put one into their phones which wouldn't crap out after a few months of every-day use.
Interesting but I thought Lightening supported an analog pass through mode so the adapter could be fairly inexpensive. As for crappy buds that has been the case with every iPhone sold, why would things change there.
By including a pair of regular EarPods with an adapter, Apple would offer the option of using its included headphones with iPhone and other audio sources. The strategy might also result in cost savings, as it does not require development or production of a new Lightning EarPods design.
Can we safely say that this claim isn’t a Steveseque decision? He’d make a new product and damn the consequences. “Why would you want to use someone else’s product when you have what Apple offers?”
I have a box full of assorted adaptors that shipped with various Macs and devices released while Steve was at the helm. My guess is this is the best way to liquidate the inventory of headphones they have without having to write them off.
I find it weird that they'd use the space to put in another speaker. It's not like you often hear people saying, "Hey I wish my phone was a bluetooth speaker!" (Well sometimes you do but I don't think they'll be able to pump up enough volume to make it worth it.) I think if they used the space to fit a bit more battery in to make up for what got lost when they added the taptic engine, that'd be good.
Maybe it is for separating the high and low frequencies between two speakers to improve the quality and reduce the muddiness of the sound at higher volumes.
True? False? I don't care. Can't stand earbuds with cords anyway.
Being someone that does 10 miles/day plus over an area with high winds off the bluff the lack of the earbuds not looping a clip around each ear and being wireless is very frustrating. The phones cost a small fortune and you get stuck with these chords that snag on everything.
The plantronic has a model for $74 at Costco I'm thinking of investing in.
If Apple wants to move away from 3.5mm jack/port than it needs to ship earbuds with lightening plug and adapter that let 3.5mm earbuds to connect to lightening jack/port. Than, in next iteration of iphone, just drop adapter. Who knows, by that time Apple will make available wireless earbuds based on BT5. No wires, no jack, no plug, no problem.
Agreed. We don't need any more crap hanging from the bottom of the phone.
thewhitefalcon said: the original MacBook Air with a MicroDVI port came with DVI and VGA adapters in the box.
Well, yeah; no one else used Micro DVI (and ever did). The MacBook Pro once came with DVI to VGA (and I have a Mini VGA to VGA from my iBook G3, so I assume it came with that).
I suppose you’re right. Just seems like since it’s a new port they’d go all in.
I also have several of those same adapters that Apple shipped with Mac minis and MBPs. And those weren't even dealing with something as fundamental as the headphone jack. I think this is a case were a very large number of users would require the adapter (vs how many people needed those various video adapters?) so they might as well just include it in the box. Also, unlike other cases were adapters might be needed, this is a case were Apple is also supplying the device being connected (the headphones). Wireless headphones are going to be quite a bit more costly vs including what is likely just a pass-through adapter.
Apple saves a few bucks per iPhone by not including wireless headphones and avoids customer out-of-the-box frustration when they can't plug in their existing headphones without making another trip to an Apple Store to get an adapter.
IF they plan on deleting the 3.5mm connector, it would make sense to include Lightning Ear Pods and an adapter for the first year's products. Then stop including the adapter as 3rd-party suppliers begin to deliver Lightning headphones. There are lots of people who use other types and/or multiple headphones and it would make no sense to piss everybody off.
Makes no sense. It encourages customers to stick with their old headphones, rather than try Lightning or Wireless. It also takes away Apple's competitive edge for those who decide to switch. It's still a business after all. And it makes no sense to ship two things in the box, one of which the customer is just going to shove in the drawer, which adds unecessary costs. In the end, including an adapter in the box isn't going to make people upset by this move any less upset, and only succeeds in keeping them invested in their existing equipment without giving Lightning or wireless a fair shot, and perpetuating their displeasure with an inelegant solution everytime they plug in the adapter or forget it.
Some might argue that the inelegant solution is getting rid of the standard audio jack and creating a device that is incompatible with nearly every other audio device made in the last three decades (or longer). Unless you get 100% of your audio from your iPhone and only use Apple supplied headphones, you are going to require a dongle. I have different headphones for different purposes. My noise cancelling headphones are too bulky for everyday use but are great when flying. A lightweight over-the-head pair for working out (never could get earbuds to stay in place when active). And an old, discontinued pair of Sony earbuds, which are still my favorites, for casual listening. All three headphones also get used with multiple devices (iPhone, iPad, computer, an old iPod, listening to audio from an aircraft's entertainment system, etc).
Your suggestion of switching to Lightning would require that I replace three sets of headphones to listen to my iPhone, but still keep all of the old headphones for when I want to listen to anything else, INCLUDING my other Apple devices. That ain't gonna happen. And if I have to get an adapter for one of them, I might as well use the adapter for all of them. Bottom line, I'll need an adapter. If anything gets shoved into the drawer, it's going to be the cheap Apple earbuds which I have always found useless. If you want Apple to save money, that's the part that should be excluded from the box. I'm pretty sure everyone already has a few sets of those laying around.
It makes perfect sense for Apple to include a 25-cent adapter in the box rather than a pair of lightning headphones because a very large percentage of people will need the adapter to listen to the iPhone with their existing headphones and lightning headphones would be incompatible with every other device you own.
The future is not lightning headphones. The future is wireless headphones. The adapter would just be a stop-gap measure, and making it "inelegant" is how you start moving people to wireless. If you want elegant wired headphones, you stick with the 3.5 mm connector because having to have different headphones for different devices is inherently inelegant.
The future is not lightning headphones. The future is wireless headphones. The adapter would just be a stop-gap measure, and making it "inelegant" is how you start moving people to wireless. If you want elegant wired headphones, you stick with the 3.5 mm connector because having to have different headphones for different devices is inherently inelegant.
The future is not bluetooth wireless headphones though. Bluetooth is too short a range and tied to one device. Bluetooth is just a cordless cord. All the problems of wireless very little of the advantage.
Makes no sense. It encourages customers to stick with their old headphones, rather than try Lightning or Wireless. It also takes away Apple's competitive edge for those who decide to switch. It's still a business after all. And it makes no sense to ship two things in the box, one of which the customer is just going to shove in the drawer, which adds unecessary costs. In the end, including an adapter in the box isn't going to make people upset by this move any less upset, and only succeeds in keeping them invested in their existing equipment without giving Lightning or wireless a fair shot, and perpetuating their displeasure with an inelegant solution everytime they plug in the adapter or forget it.
Some might argue that the inelegant solution is getting rid of the standard audio jack and creating a device that is incompatible with nearly every other audio device made in the last three decades (or longer). Unless you get 100% of your audio from your iPhone and only use Apple supplied headphones, you are going to require a dongle. I have different headphones for different purposes. My noise cancelling headphones are too bulky for everyday use but are great when flying. A lightweight over-the-head pair for working out (never could get earbuds to stay in place when active). And an old, discontinued pair of Sony earbuds, which are still my favorites, for casual listening. All three headphones also get used with multiple devices (iPhone, iPad, computer, an old iPod, listening to audio from an aircraft's entertainment system, etc).
Your suggestion of switching to Lightning would require that I replace three sets of headphones to listen to my iPhone, but still keep all of the old headphones for when I want to listen to anything else, INCLUDING my other Apple devices. That ain't gonna happen. And if I have to get an adapter for one of them, I might as well use the adapter for all of them. Bottom line, I'll need an adapter. If anything gets shoved into the drawer, it's going to be the cheap Apple earbuds which I have always found useless. If you want Apple to save money, that's the part that should be excluded from the box. I'm pretty sure everyone already has a few sets of those laying around.
It makes perfect sense for Apple to include a 25-cent adapter in the box rather than a pair of lightning headphones because a very large percentage of people will need the adapter to listen to the iPhone with their existing headphones and lightning headphones would be incompatible with every other device you own.
The future is not lightning headphones. The future is wireless headphones. The adapter would just be a stop-gap measure, and making it "inelegant" is how you start moving people to wireless. If you want elegant wired headphones, you stick with the 3.5 mm connector because having to have different headphones for different devices is inherently inelegant.
No, you're jumping into the deep end without taking everything into consideration.
You are right, that wireless if the future of audio. That's why all this talk about Apple's proprietary "standard" vs. USB-C as a "standard" is completely moot. Both are merely transitional devices that allow those who want or need to plug in wires to do so.
You're also imposing your specific use case into the mix. Not everyone has multiple pairs of beloved headphones lying around the house they insist on using, or have such high level quality issues. For many, Apple's earbuds are perfectly suitable, and a new set of Lightning earbuds will be just fine. Also, noise canceling headphones improve every year. I've traded mine in three times already for better ones over the years. And if Apple moves to Lightning, I may consider upgrading to wireless, or upgrading to the latest technology with Lightning. And that's another point, headphones won't be hard wired for Lightning, or USB-C or 3.5mm anymore. There will be an interchangeable cable, to adapt them to whatever you want to plug them into. Including the ultimate in compatibility, wireless. And just like with any new technology, the new products that don't need an adapter will ultimately win out.
You're throwing out all kinds of "facts" with wiggle words like "pretty sure", without supporting them. Well here's some evidence against this idea that a "very large percentage" of people will need the adapter:
Moreover, Apple is not going to make their customers use an adapter to plug in their Lightning headphones on a MacBook, so it will most likely get a Lightning port as well. Add to that Android and other mobile phone makers will most likely drop their headphone jack within a year. And if they do that, the most likely wired alternative for them will be USB-C which isn't exactly ubiquitous at the moment, nor is it likely to be in a year. Which means everyone will be using an adapter, so this isn't just Apple customer's problem -- it's everybody's problem.
And then finally there's the fact that if Apple includes a "25 cent" adapter in the box, it only encourages the user to continue using their old equipment, rather than invest in the future. And that's bad for business, and ultimately the customer. Wireless is the future, and I would expect many more customers to explore new wireless technology than Lightning, especially if Apple introduces some revolutionary new audio standards. If Apple includes the headphones in the box, then people are just going to complain about the unnecessary need for it, but continue to use their old headphones as you have stated the intent to personally do. And then they're really going to complain when they forget it. And they won't ever benefit from any of the improvements digital has the potential to offer. On the other hand, with a digital set of headphones, wireless or otherwise, the customer has the option of plugging into anything they want with the proper cable, or better yet, an adapter with the most common plugs needed by the user built-in, so they're ready for anything if need be. And that's a reason to upgrade right there, not to mention custom designed headphones were the DAC/DSP & Amp are customized to the equipment for sound reproduction the way the manufacturer intended. Whatever digital device the headphones are plugged into, they will have identical sound.
Well it certainly won't have better sound quality.
Oh do explain your theory on that one ...
iPhones and most iPods have consistently had very high fidelity audio output for some time. D/A converters have been sonically superb for some time to the point the are likely auditorially indistinguishable from each other.
So, I don't think it likely Apple could sonically improve on the existing audio output from iPhones by using alternative components, which would be the only way the output from an adapter could be sonically superior to that from existing iPhones. They could supply better earbuds, which might easily sound better than the existing ones, but then it wouldn't be the adapter causing the sound quality improvement.
If you want to assert the adapter sound quality could be better then you are essentially saying that the existing iPhone sound quality has always been less than the best Apple could have made it. Is that what you believe?
I didn't really want to get into this because inevitably some hi-fi fruitcake will explode with indignation at the idea you can't hear a difference between DACs, because they spent many thousands on one, and I'll be told i haven't a clue, etc, etc.
I have a 2003 3rd gen iPod. I always thought it sounded just as good as my Micromega CD player which has a dedicated DAC for each channel. I recorded the output from the CD player and iPod with both playing the same track - the iPod playing an Apple lossless rip of the track - then spliced sections from each recording together. When I play back that track, I can not detect any sound quality variance when the segments change as to their original source. I can upload the track if you like, I think I still have it somewhere.
There was a Stereophile review of the same model iPod and it concluded the output was as good as high-end CD players of the time.
Comments
Quite obviously Apple is NOT going to remove the 3.5mm jack and then half ass the EarPods so that they don't have to make any new variant.
E.g.,
- better sound quality?
- additional controls?
- metadata if the earphone have a display?
- etc.
Maybe it is for separating the high and low frequencies between two speakers to improve the quality and reduce the muddiness of the sound at higher volumes.
Apple saves a few bucks per iPhone by not including wireless headphones and avoids customer out-of-the-box frustration when they can't plug in their existing headphones without making another trip to an Apple Store to get an adapter.
Your suggestion of switching to Lightning would require that I replace three sets of headphones to listen to my iPhone, but still keep all of the old headphones for when I want to listen to anything else, INCLUDING my other Apple devices. That ain't gonna happen. And if I have to get an adapter for one of them, I might as well use the adapter for all of them. Bottom line, I'll need an adapter. If anything gets shoved into the drawer, it's going to be the cheap Apple earbuds which I have always found useless. If you want Apple to save money, that's the part that should be excluded from the box. I'm pretty sure everyone already has a few sets of those laying around.
It makes perfect sense for Apple to include a 25-cent adapter in the box rather than a pair of lightning headphones because a very large percentage of people will need the adapter to listen to the iPhone with their existing headphones and lightning headphones would be incompatible with every other device you own.
The future is not lightning headphones. The future is wireless headphones. The adapter would just be a stop-gap measure, and making it "inelegant" is how you start moving people to wireless. If you want elegant wired headphones, you stick with the 3.5 mm connector because having to have different headphones for different devices is inherently inelegant.
You are right, that wireless if the future of audio. That's why all this talk about Apple's proprietary "standard" vs. USB-C as a "standard" is completely moot. Both are merely transitional devices that allow those who want or need to plug in wires to do so.
You're also imposing your specific use case into the mix. Not everyone has multiple pairs of beloved headphones lying around the house they insist on using, or have such high level quality issues. For many, Apple's earbuds are perfectly suitable, and a new set of Lightning earbuds will be just fine. Also, noise canceling headphones improve every year. I've traded mine in three times already for better ones over the years. And if Apple moves to Lightning, I may consider upgrading to wireless, or upgrading to the latest technology with Lightning. And that's another point, headphones won't be hard wired for Lightning, or USB-C or 3.5mm anymore. There will be an interchangeable cable, to adapt them to whatever you want to plug them into. Including the ultimate in compatibility, wireless. And just like with any new technology, the new products that don't need an adapter will ultimately win out.
You're throwing out all kinds of "facts" with wiggle words like "pretty sure", without supporting them. Well here's some evidence against this idea that a "very large percentage" of people will need the adapter:
http://www.macnn.com/articles/16/01/10/we.took.a.few.hours.on.saturday.to.ask.apple.shoppers.what.they.thought.131986
Moreover, Apple is not going to make their customers use an adapter to plug in their Lightning headphones on a MacBook, so it will most likely get a Lightning port as well. Add to that Android and other mobile phone makers will most likely drop their headphone jack within a year. And if they do that, the most likely wired alternative for them will be USB-C which isn't exactly ubiquitous at the moment, nor is it likely to be in a year. Which means everyone will be using an adapter, so this isn't just Apple customer's problem -- it's everybody's problem.
And then finally there's the fact that if Apple includes a "25 cent" adapter in the box, it only encourages the user to continue using their old equipment, rather than invest in the future. And that's bad for business, and ultimately the customer. Wireless is the future, and I would expect many more customers to explore new wireless technology than Lightning, especially if Apple introduces some revolutionary new audio standards. If Apple includes the headphones in the box, then people are just going to complain about the unnecessary need for it, but continue to use their old headphones as you have stated the intent to personally do. And then they're really going to complain when they forget it. And they won't ever benefit from any of the improvements digital has the potential to offer. On the other hand, with a digital set of headphones, wireless or otherwise, the customer has the option of plugging into anything they want with the proper cable, or better yet, an adapter with the most common plugs needed by the user built-in, so they're ready for anything if need be. And that's a reason to upgrade right there, not to mention custom designed headphones were the DAC/DSP & Amp are customized to the equipment for sound reproduction the way the manufacturer intended. Whatever digital device the headphones are plugged into, they will have identical sound.
So, I don't think it likely Apple could sonically improve on the existing audio output from iPhones by using alternative components, which would be the only way the output from an adapter could be sonically superior to that from existing iPhones. They could supply better earbuds, which might easily sound better than the existing ones, but then it wouldn't be the adapter causing the sound quality improvement.
If you want to assert the adapter sound quality could be better then you are essentially saying that the existing iPhone sound quality has always been less than the best Apple could have made it. Is that what you believe?
I didn't really want to get into this because inevitably some hi-fi fruitcake will explode with indignation at the idea you can't hear a difference between DACs, because they spent many thousands on one, and I'll be told i haven't a clue, etc, etc.
I have a 2003 3rd gen iPod. I always thought it sounded just as good as my Micromega CD player which has a dedicated DAC for each channel. I recorded the output from the CD player and iPod with both playing the same track - the iPod playing an Apple lossless rip of the track - then spliced sections from each recording together. When I play back that track, I can not detect any sound quality variance when the segments change as to their original source. I can upload the track if you like, I think I still have it somewhere.
There was a Stereophile review of the same model iPod and it concluded the output was as good as high-end CD players of the time.