Nice job of reasoning, but based on a flawed premise. The 3.5 mm plug and jack both represent a tremendous waste of space and material.
Look at them objectively in terms of current manufacturing capabilities. There are only four contacts, yet you are using many square mms to make those temporary contacts. (I forget how many; the figure is out there.)
The Lightning port and plug seem to handle 19 contacts while using much less space.
From an engineering point of view, there is absolutely no reason to tolerate the waste and sloppiness of the ancient, round plug-and-jack model. In its time it was a miniaturization (based of new 1960s manufacturing standards) of the giant "phone plug" of the late 1800s. Now its run is over because the manufacturing can be exponentially finer.
Your resort to an argument that this is a money grab bears revising. Apple's designers are risking their reputations and public goodwill by following principles to their logical end. It may even cost Apple sales until people get the idea and the problems you foresee shake out.
Thanks for pointing me to Joanna Stern's article on iPhone and AI in WSJ. I think she's spot on. The position of Apple on privacy is not a desirable one. If I look at my Android friends that are amazed by the AI delivered to their phone by Google & friends that analyse their data, I can't help but wonder how Apple will ever deliver something similar? Nobody seems to care that Apple protects their privacy (it's a multinational too!) and Google not. They just want useful information delivered to them when they need it.
You're wrong. Plenty of people care about privacy. And for many it is Apple's vocal stance which is why many have migrated from the mess that is Android to Apple.
Saying there is no case for privacy, is like saying no one wants to travel in an airplane because they are not personally operating the controls. If you're only driving in a car (Android) you're only going to see car drivers. Maybe you should look up in the sky and see how the other half travels.
Nice job of reasoning, but based on a flawed premise. The 3.5 mm plug and jack both represent a tremendous waste of space and material. Look at them objectively in terms of current manufacturing capabilities. There are only four contacts, yet you are using many square mms to make those temporary contacts. (I forget how many; the figure is out there.)
The mistake that you're making here, and in some other points, is drawing the conclusion that a sales drop is primarily due to the features/innovation. You don't actually know that. Nobody knows that. In fact, if you look at the flagship smartphone market as a whole, it's unlikely that's the case. Samsung has basically resorted to 2 for 1 deals to increase S7 sales volume. That doesn't exactly show confidence from Samsung in regards to any new hardware/software features they might include vs. the iPhone.
It isn't Samsung who have resorted to 2:1 deals, that is being done the carriers in order to try and wrest customers from competitors. There have been iPhone 2:1 deals as well - are those the work of Apple? While DED and other one-eyes love to point out Samsung is past peak Galaxy S sales, their flagship sales and income are on an upward trajectory while Apple's are declining. It's like saying gold is past it's $1800 peak, forget gold, it won't go anywhere, no money to made there, invest in something else.
You are factually wrong.
Samsung details the financial performance of its smartphone/tablet/PC business segment.
It also clearly articulates each quarter that its "flagship sales and income" are not "on an upward trajectory" but that demand continues to shift downward and that the remaining profit growth at Samsung is increasingly coming from its separate components business, not smartphones.
Back in early 2014, Galaxy S4 peaked while smartphones made up ~70% of Samsung Electronics total profits. Samsung Mobile IM now makes up a much smaller percentage, and even the whole profit number is substantially less than it was at Peak Galaxy.
Also, Samsung does promote free bundle deals. It gives away free phones with the purchase of one and frequently bundled free tablets with its TVs. It has also given away watches with purchase. It does this all the time. Carriers also do this, and occasionally offer promotions with iPhones. But Apple has rarely promoted free hardware--even the student discounts are now generally iTunes gift cards. The reason is simple: Apple sees more demand for its premium hardware. You can wish for change, but you can't state false things as fact just because you'd like them to be.
Daniel understands Apple, the market, and the failings of the other computers just about better than anyone I've read. Which is particularly interesting because his politics, as he has expressed many times, put him so far to the Left that he should be allergic to everything Apple is actually doing. To wit, these fundamental, core, small 'c' conservative traits:
-- profit, not market share
-- relentless, iterative innovation
-- relentless focus on doing a few things well
-- ability to say 'no'
-- long term thinking on markets, immediate attention to detail
-- making sure a product works (not a beta) before putting it on the market
-- treating employees well
-- demanding results from employees, not art, concepts, intentions or good feelings
These are small 'c' conservative (not Republican, Tory, Liberal, or Socialist). These are timeless fundamentals; do these well and you have a successful company. Apple is doing all these things and has consistently done so under Jobs II and Cook; they didn't do these things with Scully or the Diesel and suffered as a result.
Perhaps Daniel isn't as liberal/socialist as he thinks he is.
Daniel understands Apple, the market, and the failings of the other computers just about better than anyone I've read. Which is particularly interesting because his politics, as he has expressed many times, put him so far to the Left that he should be allergic to everything Apple is actually doing. To wit, these fundamental, core, small 'c' conservative traits:
-- profit, not market share
-- relentless, iterative innovation
-- relentless focus on doing a few things well
-- ability to say 'no'
-- long term thinking on markets, immediate attention to detail
-- making sure a product works (not a beta) before putting it on the market
-- treating employees well
-- demanding results from employees, not art, concepts, intentions or good feelings
These are small 'c' conservative (not Republican, Tory, Liberal, or Socialist). These are timeless fundamentals; do these well and you have a successful company. Apple is doing all these things and has consistently done so under Jobs II and Cook; they didn't do these things with Scully or the Diesel and suffered as a result.
Perhaps Daniel isn't as liberal/socialist as he thinks he is.
Or "Perhaps Daniel isn't as xyz as you think he is?"
I mean, if pieces of the story don't fit, it's probably not accurate.
Daniel understands Apple, the market, and the failings of the other computers just about better than anyone I've read. Which is particularly interesting because his politics, as he has expressed many times, put him so far to the Left that he should be allergic to everything Apple is actually doing. To wit, these fundamental, core, small 'c' conservative traits:
-- profit, not market share
-- relentless, iterative innovation
-- relentless focus on doing a few things well
-- ability to say 'no'
-- long term thinking on markets, immediate attention to detail
-- making sure a product works (not a beta) before putting it on the market
-- treating employees well
-- demanding results from employees, not art, concepts, intentions or good feelings
These are small 'c' conservative (not Republican, Tory, Liberal, or Socialist). These are timeless fundamentals; do these well and you have a successful company. Apple is doing all these things and has consistently done so under Jobs II and Cook; they didn't do these things with Scully or the Diesel and suffered as a result.
Perhaps Daniel isn't as liberal/socialist as he thinks he is.
Or "Perhaps Daniel isn't as xyz as you think he is?"
I mean, if pieces of the story don't fit, it's probably not accurate.
I can tell you one thing that's inaccurate, and that is that Samsung can license lightning for use on its phones. Apple does not license the female port, which is way battery case makers have to use micro USB.
Or "Perhaps Daniel isn't as xyz as you think he is?"
I mean, if pieces of the story don't fit, it's probably not accurate.
I can tell you one thing that's inaccurate, and that is that Samsung can license lightning for use on its phones. Apple does not license the female port, which is way battery case makers have to use micro USB.
They don't license the female port yet, but they're likely going to have to, if they remove the 3.5mm headphone jack. The same goes for peripherals like their own mouse, keyboard and TV remote released this year.
Exactly. But Dan doesn't seem to be willing to look at that, and I don't know why. Using two for a notebook would still be at the power envelope for an i3, which Apple doesn't use, though over the "M" series, which they now do. Apple has vast experience using double chips, going back to the ill fated G4.
I wrote articles about it.
What I'm saying here is that it looks like Apple has other more pressing priorities than replacing Intel+GPU on 20M Macs. You know, like building a car or any number of any other products that will sell in much larger quantities and generate more money. Macs can coast along on Intel without any real problem for a couple years at least.
As Mac software gets closer to iOS/ARM software, maybe we will see convergence between AppKit and UIKit, or perhaps iOS apps will come to the Mac and we'll see hybrid ARM/x86 systems that eventually wean away any need for Intel. But that doesn't appear to be a short term goal.
Could Apple create a laptop with both one or more A-series chips and a Core M chip for those programs that haven't been recompiled yet and for those who want or need to use BootCamp or VMWare fusion to access a Windows partition?
mac_128 said: ...they’re likely going to have to...
Why?
I thought I was pretty clear, but once the 3.5mm port goes they will need things like pass-through/charging ports on the Lightning adapters, or headphones themselves, or dual Lightning jack adapters so two people can listen to the same source, or battery charging cases which allow access by the Lightning headphones.
Otherwise they basically, shut out a whole segment of third party manufactuers and take away some basic feature options that would inconvenience their customers and make the loss of the 3.5mm jack harder to accept.
the notion that Apple is lazy and sitting around doing nothing is idiotic.
as for dramaticly changing the case design, repeat after me: Apple doesn't do change for change's sake. they won't redo the bezels just because. this hasn't bothered you with toasters, dvd players, laptops, or cars -- where annual releases look largely the same as last year's.
There are many Apple products that hasn't had much needed improvements for years. It's not change for changes sake, tech in those products have progressed and passed Apple by. Case in point, the AirPort Extreme. so can you explain to me what folks who work on those products do In those interim years? What about the MAC pro and Apple display? Are those product teams disbanded after they released the last product? Why can't they upgrade the products while they work on the next entirely new model? I mean either you're in or you're out. You can't call it a hobby (insulting) or whatever and leave the product lines languishing in the tech wasteland.
i won't complain if Apple call the next iphone 6se. Come to think of it maybe that's why we don't have a 4" iphone in iPhone 6 form factor. To me that gives Apple an out for sticking to the same form factor - they're just extending the current product. if the Rumours are correct, you can't deny the next iphone hasn't got much in terms of newness and therefore innovation. It's the same for other products I buy. It won't make sense to get a face lifted model of the same car with few improvements. If I do get the same make and model, it better look different and functionally improved from the one I have. Otherwise why bother?
Otherwise they basically, shut out a whole segment of third party manufactuers and take away some basic feature options that would inconvenience their customers and make the loss of the 3.5mm jack harder to accept.
Or they make their own accessories and just cut it out anyway. I’m trying to think of a past example... Anyway, something just tells me they’ll expect people to get along with microUSB on third party things.
the notion that Apple is lazy and sitting around doing nothing is idiotic.
as for dramaticly changing the case design, repeat after me: Apple doesn't do change for change's sake. they won't redo the bezels just because. this hasn't bothered you with toasters, dvd players, laptops, or cars -- where annual releases look largely the same as last year's.
Oh but they do. They used to, at least. They would routinely change things for the sake of change, and their product announcements were the talk of the town while people were getting bored at conventions like CES. Now it's the other way around. They won't make changes until it's so late that there's no choice left but to move on.
Otherwise they basically, shut out a whole segment of third party manufactuers and take away some basic feature options that would inconvenience their customers and make the loss of the 3.5mm jack harder to accept.
Or they make their own accessories and just cut it out anyway. I’m trying to think of a past example... Anyway, something just tells me they’ll expect people to get along with microUSB on third party things.
Well assuming you're right, it won't be microUSB, it'll be USBc. And nothing will drive adoption of USBc like requiring customers to invest in it to be used with an Apple product, at the expense of Lightning. And nothing drives unauthorized Chinese knockoffs like depriving customers of options. And nothing stifles major players from jumping on the band wagon like denying them access to essential technology to remain competitive. Maybe top headphone makers reject Apple and make exclusive deals with Samsung instead, further retarding wide Lightning audio adoption. This isn't like Belkin licensing Mac peripherals and chargers, these are headphones and audio products which have strong brand identity associated with quality and performance. If they don't get on board with Lightning, it might actually make a difference.
But your theory certainly puts to rest Apple making a money grab for Lightning licenses since such a move would likely drive manufactures away from Lightning and toward USBc. Customers might buy a cheap Lightning to USBc adapter, and start buying USBc cables and accessories instead, which will offer them a much wider choice of options all the way around.
Well assuming you're right, it won't be microUSB, it'll be USBc.
Ah, you’re right. That’d be much better.
But your theory certainly puts to rest Apple making a money grab for Lightning licenses since such a move would likely drive manufactures away from Lightning and toward USBc. Customers might buy a cheap Lightning to USBc adapter, and start buying USBc cables and accessories instead, which will offer them a much wider choice of options all the way around.
I’m not saying I like the idea, but what does Lightning do that USB-C+Thunderbolt 3 couldn’t? Lightning is smaller, isn’t it?
It isn't Samsung who have resorted to 2:1 deals, that is being done the carriers in order to try and wrest customers from competitors. There have been iPhone 2:1 deals as well - are those the work of Apple? While DED and other one-eyes love to point out Samsung is past peak Galaxy S sales, their flagship sales and income are on an upward trajectory while Apple's are declining. It's like saying gold is past it's $1800 peak, forget gold, it won't go anywhere, no money to made there, invest in something else.
You are factually wrong.
Samsung details the financial performance of its smartphone/tablet/PC business segment.
It also clearly articulates each quarter that its "flagship sales and income" are not "on an upward trajectory" but that demand continues to shift downward and that the remaining profit growth at Samsung is increasingly coming from its separate components business, not smartphones.
Back in early 2014, Galaxy S4 peaked while smartphones made up ~70% of Samsung Electronics total profits. Samsung Mobile IM now makes up a much smaller percentage, and even the whole profit number is substantially less than it was at Peak Galaxy.
Also, Samsung does promote free bundle deals. It gives away free phones with the purchase of one and frequently bundled free tablets with its TVs. It has also given away watches with purchase. It does this all the time. Carriers also do this, and occasionally offer promotions with iPhones. But Apple has rarely promoted free hardware--even the student discounts are now generally iTunes gift cards. The reason is simple: Apple sees more demand for its premium hardware. You can wish for change, but you can't state false things as fact just because you'd like them to be.
I think it was pretty clear the topic was flagship sales in the current time frame. Referencing deals Samsung offered in the past isn't really relevant. There is currently no evidence that Samsung is behind current 2:1 deals advertised by Telco's. Those are entirely the work of the Telco's chasing market share and enticing switchers - the same as we see for iPhone 2:1 deals.
And as for as your rejection of my assertions regarding the relative trajectories of Samsung and Apple's flagship sales - you are factually wrong.
Tech giant
Samsung Electronics Co Ltd said on Thursday its second-quarter operating
profit likely rose 17.4 percent from a year earlier, its highest in
more than 2 years as Galaxy S7 smartphone sales propelled mobile
earnings. The world's top
maker of smartphones and memory chips said its April-June profit was
likely 8.1 trillion won ($7 billion), better than the average forecast
of 7.8 trillion won tipped by a Thomson Reuters survey of 16 analysts.
It was the highest since a 8.5 trillion won profit in the first quarter
of 2014. The mobile division
likely was the top earner for the second straight quarter, raising the
question of whether the South Korean company can sustain this strong
momentum in the face of competition from Apple Inc and cheaper Chinese
rivals."At this point it appears
unlikely that we'll see stronger competing devices emerging (in the
second half)," IBK Asset Management fund manager Kim Hyun-soo said.Apple's new iPhones - likely to launch around September - would not offer any dramatic new features, Kim said.
Well assuming you're right, it won't be microUSB, it'll be USBc.
Ah, you’re right. That’d be much better. I’m not saying I like the idea, but what does Lightning do that USB-C+Thunderbolt 3 couldn’t? Lightning is smaller, isn’t it?
I like Lightning. I think it's a really simple, robust connector, that surpasses the data needs of most mobile devices. But I also recognize that it's proprietary, and it's not that much better than other non-proprietary solutions, in particular USBc. And I also recognize that most manufacturers tend to gravitate toward non-proprietary standards, and USBc is a good one, perhaps the best to come along in years.
If Apple chooses to be as isolationist as you suggest they might, then no third party is going to want to embrace it, it's a hard enough pill to swallow a small to i, even when Apple is completely open with its standards. As it was during the 90s when Apple was incompatible with just about every mainstream standard, most third party manufacturers will likely just ignore Apple, and let the customer deal with solving the problem. And in this case, a simple USBc adapter for a product by a company replete with adapters, will solve the problem. Even if a headphone maker offers both a Lightning and USBc cable option, the USBc will be less expensive. And USBc will likely be much more widely compatible with the rest of the world outside Apple, making it that much more attractive. So if Apple keeps the most convenient tech solely for themselves, then they gamble the adoption of Lightning (and customer retention) on whether or not their customers would rather pay a premium for limited choice and limited compatibility, or use a simple adapter with less expensive and "standardized" products; or solely use Apple products, or not.
i think we can all agree that many Apple customers do opt for limited choice and compatibility when it comes to choosing and sticking with Apple. However, removing the 3.5mm Jack is a whole new area from seldom used iPhone data & media accessories, and something like a headphone which many use everyday. So I think Apple runs a pretty substantial risk Lightning won't be quickly embraced as an audio standard (even if only an Apple one) if they chose the limited expansion path you think they will, giving the competition a chance to cement USBc as the preferred standard.
the notion that Apple is lazy and sitting around doing nothing is idiotic.
as for dramaticly changing the case design, repeat after me: Apple doesn't do change for change's sake. they won't redo the bezels just because. this hasn't bothered you with toasters, dvd players, laptops, or cars -- where annual releases look largely the same as last year's.
Oh but they do. They used to, at least. They would routinely change things for the sake of change, and their product announcements were the talk of the town while people were getting bored at conventions like CES. Now it's the other way around. They won't make changes until it's so late that there's no choice left but to move on.
And who are you, to repeat after you?
the guy who watches and reads the interviews with apple's leadership. they have stated quite clearly -- they don't do change for change's sake. if you believe otherwise you simply don't understand Apple.
Or "Perhaps Daniel isn't as xyz as you think he is?"
I mean, if pieces of the story don't fit, it's probably not accurate.
I can tell you one thing that's inaccurate, and that is that Samsung can license lightning for use on its phones. Apple does not license the female port, which is way battery case makers have to use micro USB.
That's clearly not true. Apple has already licensed female Lightning ports for use with game controllers, including the SteelSeries Nimbus.
Comments
Nice job of reasoning, but based on a flawed premise. The 3.5 mm plug and jack both represent a tremendous waste of space and material.
Look at them objectively in terms of current manufacturing capabilities. There are only four contacts, yet you are using many square mms to make those temporary contacts. (I forget how many; the figure is out there.)
The Lightning port and plug seem to handle 19 contacts while using much less space.
From an engineering point of view, there is absolutely no reason to tolerate the waste and sloppiness of the ancient, round plug-and-jack model. In its time it was a miniaturization (based of new 1960s manufacturing standards) of the giant "phone plug" of the late 1800s. Now its run is over because the manufacturing can be exponentially finer.
Your resort to an argument that this is a money grab bears revising. Apple's designers are risking their reputations and public goodwill by following principles to their logical end. It may even cost Apple sales until people get the idea and the problems you foresee shake out.
Saying there is no case for privacy, is like saying no one wants to travel in an airplane because they are not personally operating the controls. If you're only driving in a car (Android) you're only going to see car drivers. Maybe you should look up in the sky and see how the other half travels.
https://www.macstories.net/stories/thoughts-on-the-inevitable-demise-of-the-3-5mm-audio-jack-on-the-iphone/
Samsung details the financial performance of its smartphone/tablet/PC business segment.
It also clearly articulates each quarter that its "flagship sales and income" are not "on an upward trajectory" but that demand continues to shift downward and that the remaining profit growth at Samsung is increasingly coming from its separate components business, not smartphones.
Back in early 2014, Galaxy S4 peaked while smartphones made up ~70% of Samsung Electronics total profits. Samsung Mobile IM now makes up a much smaller percentage, and even the whole profit number is substantially less than it was at Peak Galaxy.
Also, Samsung does promote free bundle deals. It gives away free phones with the purchase of one and frequently bundled free tablets with its TVs. It has also given away watches with purchase. It does this all the time. Carriers also do this, and occasionally offer promotions with iPhones. But Apple has rarely promoted free hardware--even the student discounts are now generally iTunes gift cards. The reason is simple: Apple sees more demand for its premium hardware. You can wish for change, but you can't state false things as fact just because you'd like them to be.
-- profit, not market share
-- relentless, iterative innovation
-- relentless focus on doing a few things well
-- ability to say 'no'
-- long term thinking on markets, immediate attention to detail
-- making sure a product works (not a beta) before putting it on the market
-- treating employees well
-- demanding results from employees, not art, concepts, intentions or good feelings
These are small 'c' conservative (not Republican, Tory, Liberal, or Socialist). These are timeless fundamentals; do these well and you have a successful company. Apple is doing all these things and has consistently done so under Jobs II and Cook; they didn't do these things with Scully or the Diesel and suffered as a result. Perhaps Daniel isn't as liberal/socialist as he thinks he is.
I mean, if pieces of the story don't fit, it's probably not accurate.
Otherwise they basically, shut out a whole segment of third party manufactuers and take away some basic feature options that would inconvenience their customers and make the loss of the 3.5mm jack harder to accept.
There are many Apple products that hasn't had much needed improvements for years. It's not change for changes sake, tech in those products have progressed and passed Apple by. Case in point, the AirPort Extreme. so can you explain to me what folks who work on those products do In those interim years? What about the MAC pro and Apple display? Are those product teams disbanded after they released the last product? Why can't they upgrade the products while they work on the next entirely new model? I mean either you're in or you're out. You can't call it a hobby (insulting) or whatever and leave the product lines languishing in the tech wasteland.
i won't complain if Apple call the next iphone 6se. Come to think of it maybe that's why we don't have a 4" iphone in iPhone 6 form factor. To me that gives Apple an out for sticking to the same form factor - they're just extending the current product. if the Rumours are correct, you can't deny the next iphone hasn't got much in terms of newness and therefore innovation. It's the same for other products I buy. It won't make sense to get a face lifted model of the same car with few improvements. If I do get the same make and model, it better look different and functionally improved from the one I have. Otherwise why bother?
And who are you, to repeat after you?
But your theory certainly puts to rest Apple making a money grab for Lightning licenses since such a move would likely drive manufactures away from Lightning and toward USBc. Customers might buy a cheap Lightning to USBc adapter, and start buying USBc cables and accessories instead, which will offer them a much wider choice of options all the way around.
I’m not saying I like the idea, but what does Lightning do that USB-C+Thunderbolt 3 couldn’t? Lightning is smaller, isn’t it?
And as for as your rejection of my assertions regarding the relative trajectories of Samsung and Apple's flagship sales - you are factually wrong.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-samsung-elec-results-idUSKCN0ZM2N2
If Apple chooses to be as isolationist as you suggest they might, then no third party is going to want to embrace it, it's a hard enough pill to swallow a small to i, even when Apple is completely open with its standards. As it was during the 90s when Apple was incompatible with just about every mainstream standard, most third party manufacturers will likely just ignore Apple, and let the customer deal with solving the problem. And in this case, a simple USBc adapter for a product by a company replete with adapters, will solve the problem. Even if a headphone maker offers both a Lightning and USBc cable option, the USBc will be less expensive. And USBc will likely be much more widely compatible with the rest of the world outside Apple, making it that much more attractive. So if Apple keeps the most convenient tech solely for themselves, then they gamble the adoption of Lightning (and customer retention) on whether or not their customers would rather pay a premium for limited choice and limited compatibility, or use a simple adapter with less expensive and "standardized" products; or solely use Apple products, or not.
i think we can all agree that many Apple customers do opt for limited choice and compatibility when it comes to choosing and sticking with Apple. However, removing the 3.5mm Jack is a whole new area from seldom used iPhone data & media accessories, and something like a headphone which many use everyday. So I think Apple runs a pretty substantial risk Lightning won't be quickly embraced as an audio standard (even if only an Apple one) if they chose the limited expansion path you think they will, giving the competition a chance to cement USBc as the preferred standard.
That's clearly not true. Apple has already licensed female Lightning ports for use with game controllers, including the SteelSeries Nimbus.