Too soon? Apple's new iPhone 7 ruffles feathers with Lightning audio, Home button changes



  • Reply 121 of 125
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • Reply 122 of 125
    sog35 said:
    hungover said:
    Soli said:
    hungover said:
    Sorry but I don't understand the claim that Apple had to ditch the 3.5mm socket so that they could make the phone waterproof.

    Don't the latest Galaxy phones have waterproof headphone sockets (that do not require a rubber bung)?
    1) Removing points of ingress does make it easier to waterproof. Apple even talked about this with the Apple Watch and microphone and speaker ports.

    2) Apple talked about what the internals space and edge "real estate" savings allowed their engineers to do, and this only the beginning. Think of how removing the ODD made way for a truly modern notebook.

    3) Samsung can claim anything they want. A statement of waterproof is a lie. As statement of water-resistance is possible, but it doesn't mean your device will not be affected. An IPx7 rating only means they had a device tested that met that qualification, which in the case of a '7' for water-resistance means it can withstand being submerged In fresh water for 30 minutes at a depth of 1M, but it doesn't mean your device will not be affected.

    This goes the same for any product by Apple. Keep in mind that any statement of water-proof, water-resistance, or an IP rating is to appeal to the customer (i.e.: marketing), but it doesn't mean the device can handle it. The company could have used an adhesive that will be 95% effective for about 6 months of use and then start to drop at a rate of about 10% per month. They may have also figured out that their customer-based isn't likely to go swimming with the device they're marketing so their risk is low. It's all about the numbers. We see something similar in battery capacity and fast charging, when many vendors use poor batteries that don't hold up well over time. Even Apple has a disclaimer that water damage isn't covered under their warranty, but I doubt they would forego replacing a defective device that was used in the proper way; it's more or less to legally protect themselves from the potential of pushing well past the limits of the device.
    Yes it was sloppy of me to use the term "waterproof" as shorthand for water resistant but Apple succeeded in making the Lightning port water resistant, why not the headphone socket? DED's assertion that the port had to die to make the phone water resistant seems dubious and reads like a half- hearted platitude (made by him and not by Apple)
    Its a fact that you need more material and more volume to make a phone water resistant. You need to add additional seals, gaskets, and adhesives. Those all add bulk into the phone. 

    Then why was Samsung able to make their phone water resistant AND have headphone jack? 

    Water-resistant' Samsung Galaxy S7 Active fails water resistance test

    Fact is the more points of 'failure' the more likely your phone will get waterlogged. Getting rid of the headphone jack makes one less point of failure to worry about.
    By that reasoning, you would do away with the lightning port as well and speaker grills and end up with a fully wireless phone.

    I have no idea why (ironically) the supposedly more rugged version of the Galaxy S7 failed, however the standard versions of the S7 seem to be OK in spite of their headphone port.

  • Reply 123 of 125
    TurboPGT said:
    mactodd said:
    You didn't mention charging while listening.

    Yeah, that's a monster deal breaker, for like about 1:1,000,000 people.  Seriously, how often are you walking around, listening to youriPhone while its plugged into a charger?
    The answer to that has to be never, since its physically impossible to "walk around" while your head is tethered to the wall.

    Its laughable the way these people think that these tiny niche use cases should be preserved at the expense of progress and innovation.
    It's laughable how people think that their use case is thinly one that matters.

    In the end, it's obvious Apple has sufficient size to win. It's also obvious (as per my previous post) why that one is a net loss to some people, like me and other posters. And yes of course we won't leave Apple, they're the only ones who actually have decent phones, but we may be aware of what happened rather than just claim it is "progress" just because it is Apple.

    It's a tradeoff: eliminate an efficient tech that takes place and suffers from unreliability when it comes to water ingress, but prevent people charging while in the plane/train/car (which happens to be a lot of people, not a niche). Unless you also claim that only people who cannot afford to fly planes use iPhones, in which case... whatever.
  • Reply 124 of 125

    But alas, such first-world problems are soon to be a thing of the past in my existence, as I'm closing on the sale of my Boca Raton condo this coming Friday, selling the car to CarMAX and getting on a plane to the Philippines next Monday, off to live a life of adventure and giving back among a people whose lives are shaped by their culture, not their condition.  A people who would gently smile and not comment on the pettiness of the problems we moan about in online forums.  
    Really cool! Enjoy your adventure :)
Sign In or Register to comment.