I agree with the vast majority of the posts, there is no need for the phone to get any thinner. I would rather have improved battery life.
There is a need for all electronics to get as small as possible. This is a mandate built into technological evolution. Thus Moore's Law. You can call this Ive's or Jobs' Law if you want, but the mobile communicator-computer must shrink to the minimum material embodiment until it fits on your wrist or inside the temple of your AR glasses, or wherever. In the interim, if you need help handling transitional models without fumbling, you add a cover or a case. Down the road a ways, a wirelessly connected screen may have to remain large enough to type on or touch, but that can be like a thick index card.
You guys are digging in your heels like the mainframe and DEC-type minicomputer makers did when the personal computer was struggling to be born. We will always lose in a battle against evolution.
Oh No!!!! For goodness sake, stop with the thinness, Apple. If anything, make them 1 mm thicker and improve battery. Jony, this is getting stupid.
Originally Posted by NolaMacGuy
Without the technical gains learned while making iPhones thinner, the iPad Pro would not have been possible.
I have no problem with innovative miniaturisation, which can be used to advantage in certain situations, but not needed in this case to such an extent where loss of battery life suffers, let alone extra adaptors and possible use of accessories.
I agree with the vast majority of the posts, there is no need for the phone to get any thinner. I would rather have improved battery life.
it doesnt matter how many new posters say so -- apple marches to its own drum.
but let me point out again -- iPhone's battery life has continued to improve, despite getting thinner each design. your dichotomy of choice is a false one.
I have no problem with innovative miniaturisation, which can be used to advantage in certain situations, but not needed in this case to such an extent where loss of battery life suffers,
what on earth are you talking about? iPhone's battery life has not "suffered" over the years, its only gotten better, despite getting thinner. are you using the same devices I've been using?
and your statement is a contradiction. if apple doesnt practice miniaturization now, they won't be able to magically introduce it into future products. the future is always now. thats how you get better.
i swear its like some of you haven't been paying attention the past 30 years. it's the same pattern.
Apple will make sure you're wrong on that. If Apple ditch the 3.5mm port, the Lighting port will support Analog signal. Otherwise, how the hell the new headphone will work? I'm sure that Apple won't be dumb enough to add D/A converter to the headphone. It doesn't make sense financially. Instead, they make the Lightning port on new iPhone compatible with analog headphone and sell you a 3.5mm-Lighting converter.
For whiners, you don't need to dump your $1000 headphone. Apple will sell you a connector and it should be small enough for your ridiculous habit ($1000 headphone for an iPhone?).
You've just outlined why I don't believe Apple will be getting rid of the headphone jack any time soon.
They CAN'T add analogue out to the Lightning connector. The whole point is that it's auto-sensing, reversible, and digital. They'd have to assign fixed pins to an analog output — that's one of the reasons it's gone!
However, adding a dedicated D/A to headphones isn't a bit challenge. Excellent D/A is fairly cheap nowadays, and ever single set of wireless headphones already comes with D/A as it is. This wouldn't be some insurmountable technical or financial hurdle.
So actually, thinking on this…it would make sense to drop the 3.5mm jack, and it would be a pretty "Apple" thing to do — but ONLY if they went fully wireless.
Both the iPod touch and iPod nano are thinner than the current iPhones but use the standard 3.5 mm headphone jack. So is this really about making the phone thinner?
I understand what you're saying about the ability of Apple to make the phone smaller and still improve the battery life. However, I'm not talking about the modest improvements with each new model. I would like double the battery life, and that will not happen with continued downsizing unless there is some leapfrog in technology.
Oh No!!!! For goodness sake, stop with the thinness, Apple. If anything, make them 1 mm thicker and improve battery. Jony, this is getting stupid.
Do you really think this is all down to Jony? I don't doubt he's a very powerful person inside Apple but I do doubt that he and he alone makes these kind of decisions. Also the iPod touch, iPod nano and iPad Air 2 are thinner than the iPhone 6S and they use the standard headphone jack so I'm a little skeptical that this is about making the iPhone thinner as it seems Apple could do that without replacing the existing headphone jack.
Both the iPod touch and iPod nano are thinner than the current iPhones but use the standard 3.5 mm headphone jack. So is this really about making the phone thinner?
To an extent it is, because Apple wants a minimum battery life for their devices which means for a given battery tech density they need a certain amount of room for the battery. Getting rid of that long internal port interface just for wired headphones plus the cable, and potentially being able to build the DAC into the Lightning port's chip, saves valuable internal space.
This decades old port going away is inevitable, the question are "when?,"is BT tech inexpensive enough that Apple would offer free BT headphones with each iPhone?," "will it happen at the same time as Macs?," "will Macs get a Lightning port for headphones?"
Have you seen measurements of the signal quality output by iPhones? Have you 'listened' to the analogue output of an iPhone? If so, in what respect did you find it audibly deficient such that you think there is room for an audible improvement?
No need to get defensive about Apple's hardware, I agree that it's always very good.
From your original reply ("Taking the digital audio stream from a lightning connector and doing the D/A conversion outside the phone can not improve audio quality") I thought it useful to point out some of the possible factors. Leaving aside the iPhone's internals, however good the analogue signal as it leaves the phone, there are potential interference factors for analogue signals on cables that don't happen to digital signals. Hence, moving the point of decoding the digital signal can ('can', not will) have a benefit. In those circumstances, assuming the external D-to-A device is the same or better quality then there will be a gain in quality.
With a portable device, no-one can guarantee the cable and its environment. If your circumstances give you you an acceptable quality, of course you have nothing to gain.
Removing compatibility is the direct result of a design change such as this. Lightning Connector certainly hasn't created as many options to consume music, entertainment, and content as the 30-pin adapter ever did. When Apple open-sourced the 30-pin design, electronics manufacturers adopeted it quickly... They re-tooled manufacturing lines for clock radios, stereos, TVs, sound bars, cars, even commercial aircraft adopted and implemented the 30-pin connector. To compare, today's Lightning Connector-enabled systems are proprietary, and there are only a handful of options.
Electronics companies are wary for a reason; especially when it comes to the way Apple treats other companies. For example- when Apple's Beats Music was sued by Bose for illegally copying Bose's noise cancellation technology (case is still pending) Apple immediately stopped carrying Bose headphones; even before a court could determine legitimacy to the complaint and deliver a decision. The Intel-based lightning technology standard has utterly failed in adoption when compared to USB 3.0. How many PCs support Lightning Connectivity..? Why isn't there more..? Answer: Apple controls the toll-way, and it's an Apple-specific standard.
But that's what happens when companies clamp down; and have exhausted ways to generate revenue through compelling devices. They create a license where there used to be an open standard.
Companies change cable connections when they simply don't want compatibility. That's not a secondary blowback for a new, thinner, lighter design of hardware. Removing compatibility is the actual goal.
I don't understand? The very thin iPod Touch does have a round headphone jack. Unless the iPhone 7 is going to be thinner than the iPod?
EDIT: Ah, I got it. They want to further simplify the design by getting rid of the headphone jack. The lightning connector will be used for recharging && plugging in your headphones. Very neat!
This means they could get rid of the round headphone jack on the Macbook as well? Or replace it with a second lightning connector?
what if someone wants to simultaneously listen to music and charge their phone?
Both the iPod touch and iPod nano are thinner than the current iPhones but use the standard 3.5 mm headphone jack. So is this really about making the phone thinner?
No, it isn't. This is about further simplifying the iPhone. It does make sense, why have a dedicated headphone jack if you could make use of the lightning port?
To an extents the is, because Apple wants a minimum battery life for their devices which means for a given battery tech density they need a certain amount of room for the battery. Getting rid of that long internal port interface just for wired headphones plus the cable, and potentially being able to build the DAC into the Lightning port's chip, saves valuable internal space.
This decades old port going away is inevitable, the question are "when?,"is BT tech inexpensive enough that Apple would offer free BT headphones with each iPhone?," "will it happen at the same time as Macs?," "will Macs get a Lightning port for headphones?"
What does that have to do with thinness though? Apple has existing products thinner than the iPhone that use this jack. So I don't think the thickness of the iPhone is being determined by this jack.
No, it isn't. This is about further simplifying the iPhone. It does make sense, why have a dedicated headphone jack if you could make use of the lightning port?
Next will be the removal of the SIM tray.
other than reducing costs or simplifying manufacturing, what other purpose would simplifying the iPhone serve?
What does that have to do with thinness though? Apple has existing products thinner than the iPhone that use this jack. So I don't think the thickness of the iPhone is being determined by this jack.
Seems like Apple devices are going backwards; returning to the 1980s, when people preferred uni-taskers, single-user mode software... Something that Compaq was excellent at.
Comments
There is a need for all electronics to get as small as possible. This is a mandate built into technological evolution. Thus Moore's Law. You can call this Ive's or Jobs' Law if you want, but the mobile communicator-computer must shrink to the minimum material embodiment until it fits on your wrist or inside the temple of your AR glasses, or wherever. In the interim, if you need help handling transitional models without fumbling, you add a cover or a case. Down the road a ways, a wirelessly connected screen may have to remain large enough to type on or touch, but that can be like a thick index card.
You guys are digging in your heels like the mainframe and DEC-type minicomputer makers did when the personal computer was struggling to be born. We will always lose in a battle against evolution.
Quote:
Oh No!!!! For goodness sake, stop with the thinness, Apple. If anything, make them 1 mm thicker and improve battery. Jony, this is getting stupid.
Without the technical gains learned while making iPhones thinner, the iPad Pro would not have been possible.
I have no problem with innovative miniaturisation, which can be used to advantage in certain situations, but not needed in this case to such an extent where loss of battery life suffers, let alone extra adaptors and possible use of accessories.
it doesnt matter how many new posters say so -- apple marches to its own drum.
but let me point out again -- iPhone's battery life has continued to improve, despite getting thinner each design. your dichotomy of choice is a false one.
what on earth are you talking about? iPhone's battery life has not "suffered" over the years, its only gotten better, despite getting thinner. are you using the same devices I've been using?
and your statement is a contradiction. if apple doesnt practice miniaturization now, they won't be able to magically introduce it into future products. the future is always now. thats how you get better.
i swear its like some of you haven't been paying attention the past 30 years. it's the same pattern.
Apple will make sure you're wrong on that. If Apple ditch the 3.5mm port, the Lighting port will support Analog signal. Otherwise, how the hell the new headphone will work? I'm sure that Apple won't be dumb enough to add D/A converter to the headphone. It doesn't make sense financially. Instead, they make the Lightning port on new iPhone compatible with analog headphone and sell you a 3.5mm-Lighting converter.
For whiners, you don't need to dump your $1000 headphone. Apple will sell you a connector and it should be small enough for your ridiculous habit ($1000 headphone for an iPhone?).
You've just outlined why I don't believe Apple will be getting rid of the headphone jack any time soon.
They CAN'T add analogue out to the Lightning connector. The whole point is that it's auto-sensing, reversible, and digital. They'd have to assign fixed pins to an analog output — that's one of the reasons it's gone!
However, adding a dedicated D/A to headphones isn't a bit challenge. Excellent D/A is fairly cheap nowadays, and ever single set of wireless headphones already comes with D/A as it is. This wouldn't be some insurmountable technical or financial hurdle.
So actually, thinking on this…it would make sense to drop the 3.5mm jack, and it would be a pretty "Apple" thing to do — but ONLY if they went fully wireless.
I understand what you're saying about the ability of Apple to make the phone smaller and still improve the battery life. However, I'm not talking about the modest improvements with each new model. I would like double the battery life, and that will not happen with continued downsizing unless there is some leapfrog in technology.
Do you really think this is all down to Jony? I don't doubt he's a very powerful person inside Apple but I do doubt that he and he alone makes these kind of decisions. Also the iPod touch, iPod nano and iPad Air 2 are thinner than the iPhone 6S and they use the standard headphone jack so I'm a little skeptical that this is about making the iPhone thinner as it seems Apple could do that without replacing the existing headphone jack.
To an extent it is, because Apple wants a minimum battery life for their devices which means for a given battery tech density they need a certain amount of room for the battery. Getting rid of that long internal port interface just for wired headphones plus the cable, and potentially being able to build the DAC into the Lightning port's chip, saves valuable internal space.
This decades old port going away is inevitable, the question are "when?,"is BT tech inexpensive enough that Apple would offer free BT headphones with each iPhone?," "will it happen at the same time as Macs?," "will Macs get a Lightning port for headphones?"
Have you seen measurements of the signal quality output by iPhones? Have you 'listened' to the analogue output of an iPhone? If so, in what respect did you find it audibly deficient such that you think there is room for an audible improvement?
No need to get defensive about Apple's hardware, I agree that it's always very good.
From your original reply ("Taking the digital audio stream from a lightning connector and doing the D/A conversion outside the phone can not improve audio quality") I thought it useful to point out some of the possible factors. Leaving aside the iPhone's internals, however good the analogue signal as it leaves the phone, there are potential interference factors for analogue signals on cables that don't happen to digital signals. Hence, moving the point of decoding the digital signal can ('can', not will) have a benefit. In those circumstances, assuming the external D-to-A device is the same or better quality then there will be a gain in quality.
With a portable device, no-one can guarantee the cable and its environment. If your circumstances give you you an acceptable quality, of course you have nothing to gain.
Removing compatibility is the direct result of a design change such as this. Lightning Connector certainly hasn't created as many options to consume music, entertainment, and content as the 30-pin adapter ever did. When Apple open-sourced the 30-pin design, electronics manufacturers adopeted it quickly... They re-tooled manufacturing lines for clock radios, stereos, TVs, sound bars, cars, even commercial aircraft adopted and implemented the 30-pin connector. To compare, today's Lightning Connector-enabled systems are proprietary, and there are only a handful of options.
Electronics companies are wary for a reason; especially when it comes to the way Apple treats other companies. For example- when Apple's Beats Music was sued by Bose for illegally copying Bose's noise cancellation technology (case is still pending) Apple immediately stopped carrying Bose headphones; even before a court could determine legitimacy to the complaint and deliver a decision. The Intel-based lightning technology standard has utterly failed in adoption when compared to USB 3.0. How many PCs support Lightning Connectivity..? Why isn't there more..? Answer: Apple controls the toll-way, and it's an Apple-specific standard.
But that's what happens when companies clamp down; and have exhausted ways to generate revenue through compelling devices. They create a license where there used to be an open standard.
Companies change cable connections when they simply don't want compatibility. That's not a secondary blowback for a new, thinner, lighter design of hardware. Removing compatibility is the actual goal.
I don't understand? The very thin iPod Touch does have a round headphone jack. Unless the iPhone 7 is going to be thinner than the iPod?
EDIT: Ah, I got it. They want to further simplify the design by getting rid of the headphone jack. The lightning connector will be used for recharging && plugging in your headphones. Very neat!
This means they could get rid of the round headphone jack on the Macbook as well? Or replace it with a second lightning connector?
what if someone wants to simultaneously listen to music and charge their phone?
what if someone wants to simultaneously listen to music and charge their phone?
They could make use of a dongle
Both the iPod touch and iPod nano are thinner than the current iPhones but use the standard 3.5 mm headphone jack. So is this really about making the phone thinner?
No, it isn't. This is about further simplifying the iPhone. It does make sense, why have a dedicated headphone jack if you could make use of the lightning port?
Next will be the removal of the SIM tray.
Just what people want, more dongles. What's Apple going to sell this one for $29? Sigh.
What does that have to do with thinness though? Apple has existing products thinner than the iPhone that use this jack. So I don't think the thickness of the iPhone is being determined by this jack.
No, it isn't. This is about further simplifying the iPhone. It does make sense, why have a dedicated headphone jack if you could make use of the lightning port?
Next will be the removal of the SIM tray.
other than reducing costs or simplifying manufacturing, what other purpose would simplifying the iPhone serve?
I just fucking explained it.
They could make use of a dongle
Seems like Apple devices are going backwards; returning to the 1980s, when people preferred uni-taskers, single-user mode software... Something that Compaq was excellent at.