Apple formalizes 8-pin 'Ultra Accessory Connector' for switching headphones from Lightning...



  • Reply 41 of 46
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    jkichline said:
    pixelwash said:
    The earpods Apple ships with current phones are Lightning, and analog, so the claim in this article that Lightning cannot carry analog audio is wrong. They also carry digital and power too, clearly.
    Lightning does NOT carry analog audio signals. It can carry digital. The Lightning EarPods and 3.5mm adapter contain a DAC that converts the digital signal to analog and vice versa.
    To be technically correct the adapter contains a DAC to convert digital to analogue, and an ADC to convert analogue to digital. You are correct in that there is no current spec to deliver analogue audio over Lightning, but it's certainly possible should Apple chose to do so, which is one of the benefits of Lighting (dynamic pin assignment). In fact, I'd like to see Apple add an analogue function to at least their Lightning audio accessories, like headphones, to allow a simple Lightning headphone to 3.5mm adapter so a pair of Lightning headphones could be plugged into an analogue source. The adapter would instruct the headphones to bypass the internal DAC and simply pass the analogue audio over assigned wires. This would be a lot more practical than a powered converter with a built-in ADC/DAC. Frankly, I'm perplexed that there's not yet been any hint of a Lightning headphone adapter 6 months after the iPhone 7 launch, even a straight USB-C to Lightning one. Makes me think Apple doesn't ever intend to support it, instead pushing wireless solutions for audio. Indeed this new interconnect might very well be the solution -- allowing a customer to swap the cable depending on their source.
    edited February 2017
  • Reply 42 of 46
    volcanvolcan Posts: 1,799member
    Soli said:
    USB-C is great, but I'm still amazed at the pushback from people that don't like the idea of a a change to a smaller, reversible, and faster standard that is better in every single way over USB-A.
    Sure but Apple still uses USB-A on every mobile device they make. 
  • Reply 43 of 46
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,035member
    volcan said:
    Soli said:
    USB-C is great, but I'm still amazed at the pushback from people that don't like the idea of a a change to a smaller, reversible, and faster standard that is better in every single way over USB-A.
    Sure but Apple still uses USB-A on every mobile device they make. 
    They don't. What you're referring to is one end of the cable and a PSU, both of which can be replaced from Apple or a 3rd-party, but those are accessory items, not the device. Additionally, it's clear why Apple still includes a USB-A PSU with a cable attaches to it with USB-A. With the new Macs it's USB-C on the device, which should also be obvious.

    If there's anything that's a head scratcher, it's why the iPad Pro comes with a chip cable of USB 3.0 performance with Lightning pins on both sides of the female port inside the device, but not an included cable to take advantage of that additional HW, or why USB 3.0 performance has happened on other iDevices yet.

    One day (maybe not even this year) we'll see a USB-C cable and PSU, but let's remember that most iDevice users don't use Macs, and even those that do you use Macs may 1% are on the Late-2016 Macs that support USB-C. This takes time. We need to wait for a tipping point before it become a feasible move for Apple. One benefit is that Android is helping this along in ways Apple couldn't because the future of Android devices will replace micro-USB-B with USB-C.
    edited February 2017
  • Reply 44 of 46
    brucemcbrucemc Posts: 1,541member
    altivec88 said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    altivec88 said:
    hexclock said:
    ireland said:
    Non-symmetrical is insane.
    That line struck me as well. Is it shaped like a T-bone steak or what?
    Add me to the list of thinking, are they crazy.  People had enough problems fumbling around and force pushing the smaller USB connectors in.   Now they want to make something even smaller that's not symmetrical.   You're going to have to buy a magnifying glass to know which way to put these things in and if you want to try to do it in the dark, forget about it.

    The good news is that once everyone gets the peripherals, dongles, and cables for this needless port,  Apple can say, Jony spent years in the labs and designed a new  version of this needless port which is now symetrical, one micron thinner and made of aluminum.   We can then go out and replace the peripherals, dongles and cables we just bought a few years back.  It really keeps the economy going.  Thanks Apple.

    Call me crazy, but why can't they just update the lightning cable port spec to include analog audio, if that's what this is really about.   I mean, the USB standard was upgraded several times using the same USB-A connector,  why can't they do this with the lighting connector and maybe a specialized cable.  Why are they going backwards with a non symmetrical port?

    I've seen many posters who comment without having read the story properly.

    But I think this is the first time I've seen a post from someone who, by the looks of it, didn't even read the headline.
    The first sentence of the article states how the design is non-symmetrical.   My first two paragraphs are completely about how they should have learned from past small connectors that are non-symmetrical.   I don't think that is wise choice unless they are planning to monetize the situation with another upgrade down the road.

    The only logic I can remotely come up with that can justify your comment is that you completely misconstrued my last paragraph to believe I think this port is a replacement for the lightning port which I did not say at all.  I think its written pretty clear that I said "Why" can't they update the lighting spec to incorporate the features "ultra accessory connector' for headphone interoperability" they want out of this new port.

    I prefer one cable to do everything so ultimately USB-C for everything would be great, but I understand the benefits to Apple's proprietary lightning port.  My pdoint is, why do we need a secondary Apple proprietary port where now you need to drag two different cables around.   Why can't they just combine the functionality into one.

    Now, I can understand you disagreeing with me and I enjoy a good debate, but to say I didn't even read the headline,  I really don't get.   So for the sake of self improvement to prevent me from posting similarly in the future, can you please explain why you feel that what I posted is not only irrelevant to the article but its not even relevant to the headline.  honestly, I don't get it.
    People are saying you must not have read the article because this is NOT about Apple making a new proprietary port.  Your rambling on and on about Apple making more stuff obsolete is completely irrelevant to this article. 

    You ou need to TROLL harder...but start with reading first
    suddenly newton
  • Reply 45 of 46
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,675member
    wizard69 said:
    MiFi is one of the things that makes Apple suck as a electronics vendor.    If Apple really wanted to do something constructive they would get rid of the MiFi program and free up their I/O.
    It's called Made For iPhone, abbreviated to MFi.

Sign In or Register to comment.