First video of functional Lightning EarPods hits the web

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 62
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,038member
    cnocbui said:
    as has been said so many times that I can't believe you're unaware of it and are instead trolling as usual -- it's obviously not about the thinness since the iPod touch is thinner with the jack, but about the internal volume. the jack is one of the larger components, it's not insignificant.
    That is simply not even close to being true.
    In what was is that not true?

    1) There are hundreds, if not thousands, of internal components that go into making an iPhone. Some of them, you may count as a single component but they are made up of many components before they are placed into the iPhone. For example, the display assembly now includes the glass, the LCD, the touch matrix, the 3D Touch sensor array, backlight, at least one ribbon cable, one chip (which could be dozens of chips for all I know), and other little parts made my companies from around the world. You move to the logic board and you get a considerably more complex setup than the display assembly.

    2) You highlighted "it's not insignificant" and then wrote, "That is simply not even close to being true." The inference is that the 3.5mm port housing, the chips, the large screws used to keep it from breaking with years of force applied, other little components, and requiring being placed within a small window of space on 2 of 4 edges during the design phase, is, in fact, insignificant. Even just looking at the previously posted pic I can see that the space used is significant. Even just being able to bring the flat Li-Ion Poly battery down 1-2mm closer to the Lightning port connector housing seems significant to me in being able to build a denser iPhone that better utilizes its very limited space. Now, if we're talking about an iPad, I could see how the space utilized by the headphone jack is less significant considering how much room is dedicated to air channels for the speakers since the battery size isn't maximized to fill the enter casing due to weight concerns, but I still couldn't say that it's not significant.

    nolamacguy
  • Reply 42 of 62
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,038member

    SEngineer said:
    If they move the DAC to headphone: Which DAC will be used by the speaker? And iPhone will no longer be an iPod cause it cant play sound without earphones with DAC
    1) The speaker when you hold it up to your ear isn't the same quality as the one when used as a speaker phone, and certainly not the same quality as the best headphones you can buy, much less their included headphones, so would they have to use a DAC that is large and/or as high quality to achieve the same level of quality for those internal speakers?

    2) If "A DAC is a DAC" is somehow true, and they are really just saving on oceanfront real estate with removing the 3.5mm jack housing, could they include all the electronics on or near the Lightning port chips so that it can auto-detect headphones and then push out an analog signal correctly when old headphones are used with a 3.5mm to Lightning adapter. More specifically, to keep the cost of wired headphones down slightly by not requiring a DAC and DSP in each pair? While I'm sure this is technically possible, especially after they move to Lightning 2.0 with double the pins in use (both sides of the port/plug being utilized), I do question if it's possible due to interference, being overly complex, and likely to fail with pins wear out a Lightning plug.
  • Reply 43 of 62
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    cnocbui said:
    as has been said so many times that I can't believe you're unaware of it and are instead trolling as usual -- it's obviously not about the thinness since the iPod touch is thinner with the jack, but about the internal volume. the jack is one of the larger components, it's not insignificant.
    That is simply not even close to being true.
    sure it is. compared to the countless chips and whatnot soldered onto the boards, it is. they are quite small. compared to entire completed boards, of course not. 
  • Reply 44 of 62
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    Soli said:
    cnocbui said:
    That is simply not even close to being true.
    In what was is that not true?

    1) There are hundreds, if not thousands, of internal components that go into making an iPhone. Some of them, you may count as a single component but they are made up of many components before they are placed into the iPhone. For example, the display assembly now includes the glass, the LCD, the touch matrix, the 3D Touch sensor array, backlight, at least one ribbon cable, one chip (which could be dozens of chips for all I know), and other little parts made my companies from around the world. You move to the logic board and you get a considerably more complex setup than the display assembly.

    2) You highlighted "it's not insignificant" and then wrote, "That is simply not even close to being true." The inference is that the 3.5mm port housing, the chips, the large screws used to keep it from breaking with years of force applied, other little components, and requiring being placed within a small window of space on 2 of 4 edges during the design phase, is, in fact, insignificant. Even just looking at the previously posted pic I can see that the space used is significant. Even just being able to bring the flat Li-Ion Poly battery down 1-2mm closer to the Lightning port connector housing seems significant to me in being able to build a denser iPhone that better utilizes its very limited space. Now, if we're talking about an iPad, I could see how the space utilized by the headphone jack is less significant considering how much room is dedicated to air channels for the speakers since the battery size isn't maximized to fill the enter casing due to weight concerns, but I still couldn't say that it's not significant.


    cnocbui said:
    That is simply not even close to being true.
    sure it is. compared to the countless chips and whatnot soldered onto the boards, it is. they are quite small. compared to entire completed boards, of course not. 

    If you teardown an 6S you will be left with a collection of assemblies and parts.  If you want to get literal and count the individual SMDs on boards, then fine, the socket would be large compared to those, however I was referring to the assemblies you end up with.  The screen and battery are vastly larger, the taptic engine is much larger, the main board is vastly larger, many other assemblies/components in the photo below are larger, I'm not sure what several of them even are.  If you can look at the photo and get from it an impression that the 0.28% of volume represented by the headphone socket is one of the largest components, then there is nothing further I can say other than I disagree and that is not the impression I get.




  • Reply 45 of 62
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,038member
    cnocbui said:
    Soli said:
    In what was is that not true?

    1) There are hundreds, if not thousands, of internal components that go into making an iPhone. Some of them, you may count as a single component but they are made up of many components before they are placed into the iPhone. For example, the display assembly now includes the glass, the LCD, the touch matrix, the 3D Touch sensor array, backlight, at least one ribbon cable, one chip (which could be dozens of chips for all I know), and other little parts made my companies from around the world. You move to the logic board and you get a considerably more complex setup than the display assembly.

    2) You highlighted "it's not insignificant" and then wrote, "That is simply not even close to being true." The inference is that the 3.5mm port housing, the chips, the large screws used to keep it from breaking with years of force applied, other little components, and requiring being placed within a small window of space on 2 of 4 edges during the design phase, is, in fact, insignificant. Even just looking at the previously posted pic I can see that the space used is significant. Even just being able to bring the flat Li-Ion Poly battery down 1-2mm closer to the Lightning port connector housing seems significant to me in being able to build a denser iPhone that better utilizes its very limited space. Now, if we're talking about an iPad, I could see how the space utilized by the headphone jack is less significant considering how much room is dedicated to air channels for the speakers since the battery size isn't maximized to fill the enter casing due to weight concerns, but I still couldn't say that it's not significant.



    If you teardown an 6S you will be left with a collection of assemblies and parts.  If you want to get literal and count the individual SMDs on boards, then fine, the socket would be large compared to those, however I was referring to the assemblies you end up with.  The screen and battery are vastly larger, the taptic engine is much larger, the main board is vastly larger, many other assemblies/components in the photo below are larger, I'm not sure what several of them even are.  If you can look at the photo and get from it an impression that the 0.28% of volume represented by the headphone socket is one of the largest components, then there is nothing further I can say other than I disagree and that is not the impression I get.




    Considering the picture shows the 3.5mm jack assembly connected to a complex series of connectors, with a variety of other chips, a Lightning port, and I think at least a a microphone (is there a speaker there?), don't we first have to remove that component from the component assembly in order to count it? And if we're going to do that, why wouldn't we do the same for everything else that is a pre-assembled component made up of components (comprised up of components, all the way down...)?

    In terms of the total internal volume I would agree that it's not taking up anywhere close to a majority of the space—but neither did the ODD in even the 13" MacBook/Pro, yet that still took up about 25% of the internal volume of the lower-chassis. In both cases, I'd say both were significant.

    I would ague that the ODD was more significant in terms of space being used, but I'd also state that since the notebook display was 13" to 17" (at the time) that the space being used may not have been as pressing as 1) a pocketable device, 2) with only a 4" to 5.5" display, 3) that—at least from Apple's PoV—needs to be thinner and lighter to help sell more units, 4) already has an excellent port that would be great at pushing out 24-bit audio, 5) 17% are already using BT headphones over wired headphones (what will the percentage be in a year?), and 6) Intel et al. are already pushing forward with USB-C and Lightning headphones are already supported by 3rd-party vendors.

    PS: I'd also like the SIM card and tray removed in favor for the vSIM, which can hold a lot more data and work faster (id set: switch between stored SIM cards), be more secure, and be less prone to physical issues. It also does take up space in iPhones, offers an extra point of egress for moisture, potentially security risk, and requires engineers to work around it. I still think we're at least 5 years from seeing that get dropped from an iDevice in a reason, but I hope it's sooner.
    nolamacguyTurboPGT
  • Reply 46 of 62
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    Soli said:

    SEngineer said:
    If they move the DAC to headphone: Which DAC will be used by the speaker? And iPhone will no longer be an iPod cause it cant play sound without earphones with DAC
    1) The speaker when you hold it up to your ear isn't the same quality as the one when used as a speaker phone, and certainly not the same quality as the best headphones you can buy, much less their included headphones, so would they have to use a DAC that is large and/or as high quality to achieve the same level of quality for those internal speakers?

    2) If "A DAC is a DAC" is somehow true, and they are really just saving on oceanfront real estate with removing the 3.5mm jack housing, could they include all the electronics on or near the Lightning port chips so that it can auto-detect headphones and then push out an analog signal correctly when old headphones are used with a 3.5mm to Lightning adapter. More specifically, to keep the cost of wired headphones down slightly by not requiring a DAC and DSP in each pair? While I'm sure this is technically possible, especially after they move to Lightning 2.0 with double the pins in use (both sides of the port/plug being utilized), I do question if it's possible due to interference, being overly complex, and likely to fail with pins wear out a Lightning plug.
    It's certainly possible, but Apple won't do it, because it's not the best solution. Apple will cut corners by reducing the quality of its internal DAC and AMP chipset, the AMP being the biggest aspect of output sound quality. In the end, if Apple's going to take away my 3.5mm Jack, I want them to replace it with something that does more, not a mere converter from one shape plug to another. That was one of the biggest unecessary criticisms of the original iPhone -- a $10 dongle that did nothing but change the shape of the plug.

    The reverse will definitely be true, encouraging adotption of Lightning at the expense of obsoleting old 3.5mm products. 3.5mm to Lightning adapters will likely be cheap, and allow Lightning equipped cables to easily adapt to 3.5mm jacks, by detecting an analogue signal and bypassing the internal DAC, sending analogue audio straight to the headphones when plugged into a 3.5mm Jack. No special hardware needed, except the female Lightning port of course. Making an investment in new Lightning headphones much more affordable as a customer can buy a box of adapters for $20 and never have to worry about having one. It will make them much easier to supply at convenience stores, and on airlines as well, compared to Lightning to 3.5mm adapters which must have complex built-in circuitry.
    edited July 2016
  • Reply 47 of 62
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    cnocbui said:
    Soli said:
    In what was is that not true?

    1) There are hundreds, if not thousands, of internal components that go into making an iPhone. Some of them, you may count as a single component but they are made up of many components before they are placed into the iPhone. For example, the display assembly now includes the glass, the LCD, the touch matrix, the 3D Touch sensor array, backlight, at least one ribbon cable, one chip (which could be dozens of chips for all I know), and other little parts made my companies from around the world. You move to the logic board and you get a considerably more complex setup than the display assembly.

    2) You highlighted "it's not insignificant" and then wrote, "That is simply not even close to being true." The inference is that the 3.5mm port housing, the chips, the large screws used to keep it from breaking with years of force applied, other little components, and requiring being placed within a small window of space on 2 of 4 edges during the design phase, is, in fact, insignificant. Even just looking at the previously posted pic I can see that the space used is significant. Even just being able to bring the flat Li-Ion Poly battery down 1-2mm closer to the Lightning port connector housing seems significant to me in being able to build a denser iPhone that better utilizes its very limited space. Now, if we're talking about an iPad, I could see how the space utilized by the headphone jack is less significant considering how much room is dedicated to air channels for the speakers since the battery size isn't maximized to fill the enter casing due to weight concerns, but I still couldn't say that it's not significant.



    If you teardown an 6S you will be left with a collection of assemblies and parts.  If you want to get literal and count the individual SMDs on boards, then fine, the socket would be large compared to those, however I was referring to the assemblies you end up with.  The screen and battery are vastly larger, the taptic engine is much larger, the main board is vastly larger, many other assemblies/components in the photo below are larger, I'm not sure what several of them even are.  If you can look at the photo and get from it an impression that the 0.28% of volume represented by the headphone socket is one of the largest components, then there is nothing further I can say other than I disagree and that is not the impression I get.




    you're referring to assembled component trays (skids in the offshore platform lingo), each itself composed of numerous components. the jack is but one component -- itself larger than many of those other components assembled into the various trays. obviously smaller than the assembled trays, the battery, and the screen. but itself a large component. that's significant. 

    not rocket science bro. 

    in in your own photo you can see it has more volume than the lightning port, despite having fewer functions.

    but we get it -- the routine Apple troll doesn't think Apple engineering has any idea what's it's doing, and that you, an anonymous random crank on a rumor site, knows better. uh huh. same as it ever was. 
    edited July 2016 TurboPGT
  • Reply 48 of 62
    jeffharrisjeffharris Posts: 798member
    Too bad Apple makes such shitty headphones.
    There's no way I'd give up my Etymotics or Grados for those pieces of crap.

    Hopefully they'll supply a nice, compact adaptor for 3.5mm headphones. 
  • Reply 49 of 62
    singularitysingularity Posts: 1,328member
    Nice! Fuck standards!
    Fuck 52 year old standards that hold progress back.

    Do you also support the EU’s bullshit law forcing all phones to use MicroUSB? Now that USB-C exists, an entirely new law will have to be written or no one will be able to update their phones. Or we could just not HAVE such a law entirely and let technological progress dictate use.
    which bullshit law is that?
    link?
  • Reply 50 of 62
    mj webmj web Posts: 918member
    mj web said:
    Er, there's this little technology called Bluetooth that makes these earbuds obsolete, not to mention this little thing called airplanes which requires a mini RCA jack to access inflight entertainment. This isn't well thought through, at all, which is what I've come to expect from Tim Cook's Apple.
    utter nonsense. in flight entertainment ports is the feeaking last of anyone's priorities, including the airlines. get an adapter or use the freebies on the plane. also, it's not a mini RCA jack. mini phono. 

    tim cooks Apple is doing better than Jobs' by every quantifiable metric. the critical whining had remained constant, however. 

    get real. 
    Do you mean with the exception of growth, innovation, design, and creativity? All but the deniers agree that Apple, under Tim Cook's leadership, is withering on the vine. Wake up! already! 
    wozwoz
  • Reply 51 of 62
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Boy, I sure hope this isn't going to happen. No way I want to haul around another bloody adapter to work with my brand new headphones. Wondering if the new iPhone will ship with an adapter included... LOL.
  • Reply 52 of 62
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    which bullshit law is that?
    link?
    Huh. Thought more people knew.
    TurboPGT
  • Reply 53 of 62
    I bet I can explain Apple's reason for removing the headphone jack.

    Right now there are two holes in the bottom of the iPhone... the 3.5mm headphone jack... and the Lightning port.

    Maybe they want to cut it down to just one hole?  

    The Lightning port is multi-function and can do everything the headphone jack can do.... but the reverse isn't entirely true.

    I'm not saying I agree with the decision... since it will affect current accessories like Square readers and microphones... as well as existing 3.5mm headphones.

    But I can see their argument.

    Thoughts?
  • Reply 54 of 62
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    Maybe they want to cut it down to just one hole?  
    Simplicity’s a driving force at Apple. At least, it was when Steve was alive. Hopefully they actually go, what’s the phrase, something like ‘all in’ but more specific… with Thunderbolt 3. I don’t want to see anything but Thunderbolt 3 on Macs going forward. At the same time, they have to fucking bring down the dongle prices. I mean, for the love of… Never mind that they’d need dongles if they were actually going to have some balls like they did in the late ‘90s with the iMac switch.

    Thunderbolt 3 can provide enough power for the entire laptop line and can do everything that every port that preceded it can do (and is physically USB C, so is compatible with the future that luddites want, too). My way of thinking is that there’s no excuse not to use it exclusively going forward.
    michael scripAni
  • Reply 55 of 62
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    mj web said:
    utter nonsense. in flight entertainment ports is the feeaking last of anyone's priorities, including the airlines. get an adapter or use the freebies on the plane. also, it's not a mini RCA jack. mini phono. 

    tim cooks Apple is doing better than Jobs' by every quantifiable metric. the critical whining had remained constant, however. 

    get real. 
    Do you mean with the exception of growth, innovation, design, and creativity? All but the deniers agree that Apple, under Tim Cook's leadership, is withering on the vine. Wake up! already! 
    yeah because these products design themselves, that's why the rest of the industry clones them. 

    get lost troll
  • Reply 56 of 62
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    Maybe they want to cut it down to just one hole?  
    Simplicity’s a driving force at Apple. At least, it was when Steve was alive. Hopefully they actually go, what’s the phrase, something like ‘all in’ but more specific… with Thunderbolt 3. I don’t want to see anything but Thunderbolt 3 on Macs going forward. At the same time, they have to fucking bring down the dongle prices. I mean, for the love of… Never mind that they’d need dongles if they were actually going to have some balls like they did in the late ‘90s with the iMac switch.

    Thunderbolt 3 can provide enough power for the entire laptop line and can do everything that every port that preceded it can do (and is physically USB C, so is compatible with the future that luddites want, too). My way of thinking is that there’s no excuse not to use it exclusively going forward.
    I thought user experience was supposed to be a driving force at Apple.  There is no point 'simplifying' a product if it complicates the users life and use of the product, those degrade the user experience.  This is what Apple are engaged in with their port eradication campaign.  When your argument is that the user can go buy a USB C hub on kickstarter for their Macbook and similar such retorts, you have lost the argument.  Shouldn't have to > can.

    The magsafe power connector is one of the best things Apple have ever done to enhance the user experience.  The USB C connector for power delivery is a step backwards with 7-league boots.  Wanting the magsafe connector to be retained isn't being a luddite, it's just being sensible.  
    edited August 2016
  • Reply 57 of 62
    singularitysingularity Posts: 1,328member
    which bullshit law is that?
    link?
    Huh. Thought more people knew.
    The EU parliament has voted but the commission  or council of ministers hasn't agreed yet thus it has no enforcement. Thus no enforceable directive or regulation yet.
    Also the EU  commission doesn't see that Apples proprietary solution is worrying due to its low market share in the EU.
  • Reply 58 of 62
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,038member
    Huh. Thought more people knew.
    Also the EU  commission doesn't see that Apples proprietary solution is worrying due to its low market share in the EU.
    I don't recall that being correct. I recall a provision specifically being placed that would allow a company to use a proprietary connector type they wanted in their device providing the PSU had a detachable cable with a USB-A port, which Apple had been doing already for a very, very long time.
    nolamacguy
  • Reply 59 of 62
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    cnocbui said:
    Simplicity’s a driving force at Apple. At least, it was when Steve was alive. Hopefully they actually go, what’s the phrase, something like ‘all in’ but more specific… with Thunderbolt 3. I don’t want to see anything but Thunderbolt 3 on Macs going forward. At the same time, they have to fucking bring down the dongle prices. I mean, for the love of… Never mind that they’d need dongles if they were actually going to have some balls like they did in the late ‘90s with the iMac switch.

    Thunderbolt 3 can provide enough power for the entire laptop line and can do everything that every port that preceded it can do (and is physically USB C, so is compatible with the future that luddites want, too). My way of thinking is that there’s no excuse not to use it exclusively going forward.
    I thought user experience was supposed to be a driving force at Apple.  There is no point 'simplifying' a product if it complicates the users life and use of the product, those degrade the user experience.  This is what Apple are engaged in with their port eradication campaign.  When your argument is that the user can go buy a USB C hub on kickstarter for their Macbook and similar such retorts, you have lost the argument.  Shouldn't have to > can.

    The magsafe power connector is one of the best things Apple have ever done to enhance the user experience.  The USB C connector for power delivery is a step backwards with 7-league boots.  Wanting the magsafe connector to be retained isn't being a luddite, it's just being sensible.  
    user experience does drive -- the common user experience. thus if most people dont need or use hubs, and removing Port X has added benefits to enable other features (you can use your imagination to guess what the added features of removing extra ports are), then it's the right choice. outlier use cases are the ones that have to do something special.

    if magsafe was the next jesus, then why dont we have it on our ipads? why has no one complained about not having it on ipads? same with ethernet ports, etc. typical use cases are changing.. an all-day ultraportable like the MB isnt designed for serving as a desktop replacement, it's an ultra *portable* use case. pros and desktops are alternative use cases, and available for you to purchase. 
    edited August 2016
  • Reply 60 of 62
    wozwozwozwoz Posts: 263member
    mj web said:
    utter nonsense. in flight entertainment ports is the feeaking last of anyone's priorities, including the airlines. get an adapter or use the freebies on the plane. also, it's not a mini RCA jack. mini phono. 

    tim cooks Apple is doing better than Jobs' by every quantifiable metric. the critical whining had remained constant, however. 

    get real. 
    Do you mean with the exception of growth, innovation, design, and creativity? All but the deniers agree that Apple, under Tim Cook's leadership, is withering on the vine. Wake up! already! 

    What leadership?  Mac hardware is comatose ... how many years now since the Mac Pro got updated?  You can't buy an Apple monitor anymore??  Dropping ethernet on MacBooks? There's a dongle for that. Fine .. except you can't use it while powering it at the same time ... unless you add a hub and a million wires.

    Then look at Mac OS:  it's being dumbed down and made to feel and look like iOS ... the very thing Steve Jobs warned against:  the Mac is not an iPad, you don't carry it in your pocket, so it shouldn't have the same interface as your phone.

    Then move on to the iPhone:  the change from 3.5mm to proprietary format does nothing for anyone, other than irritate Apple's own user base. It is self-destructive. It does not simplify, it makes life more complicated (not simpler) ... and iPhone innovation is just some boring stuff about coloured metals, taking photos and asking Siri to find you a restaurant.

    In the olde days, tuning in to Macworld was the coolest and most exciting thing to do; ... today, I watch and get totally bored.  
    cnocbuitallest skilmj web
Sign In or Register to comment.