First thing I do when I get a new phone is toss the crap headphones in the garbage, now they're expecting us to listen to audio via Bluetooth? For some of us that care about audio quality this SUCKS!
they buy an adapter and stop complaining. if you dont want to buy an adapter, start a new company in your garage and challenge the status quo. easy, right?
So Apple goes from iPhone, Inc. to Adapter, Inc. and people just need to buy an adapter and stop complaining.
I know a lot of you are upset by this rumour, just as many were upset by the removal of the ODD, but I'm quite happy to see this news escalate as I've been waiting for this for years now, just I did with the ODD getting the kibosh.
How does the removal of the headphone socket materially benefit you personally?
Simplicity.
And while they are at it, I hope the Micro SD card slot follows suit. Or perhaps that is more like an iPhone 7S feature?
The biggest issue I have with a wireless or bluetooth connection vs wired is there is a latency in Bluetooth that makes it impossible to play/hear in realtime musical instruments.
That's an edge case. For listening to music, playing games, making calls, etc., BT headsets have already minimized latency to the point where it is justified by the convenience of wireless.
Convenience of wireless. Just another device you may forget to charge. Some people have a busy life. It is already an annoyance charging my iPhone, my wifes iPhone, the kids iPad, my Apple Watch on an almost daily basis. I certainly do not want to charge several wireless headphones, too.
Apples lightning cables are quite possibly the worst quality, most overpriced cables I have used on any device ever. They break after a few months of light use and at $20+ a pop are a massive cash cow for apple.
my Monoprice and Amazon cables are garbage -- they routinely fall apart (see photo). but my apple cables dont. in fact the only problems I've had w/ them is the cats enjoy chewing them due to the anti-tangle plastic composition.
Now people won't be able to use their own 3rd party, higher quality headphones and will be forced to spend more money in the "Sexy but you get to buy a new one every 90 days" Apple accessories business.
what in gods name are you talking about? why wouldnt people be free to use an adapter? you dont think apple or somebody is going to release an adapter?
they buy an adapter and stop complaining. if you dont want to buy an adapter, start a new company in your garage and challenge the status quo. easy, right?
So Apple goes from iPhone, Inc. to Adapter, Inc. and people just need to buy an adapter and stop complaining.
yep, apple is now an adapter company. you got me.
the trolls here are pretending they won't be able to plug in their legacy gear, and the obvious, rational, sane response is to use an adapter.
your concern trolling is almost as bad as the haters and whiners.
I'm not talking about the space inside the phone. My point is there are devices thinner than the iPhone that still use the headphone jack. There might be other reasons Apple wants to get rid of the jack but I don't think thinness is one of them. And from that New Yorker article it's clear Jony Ive doesn't love the camera hump. I would be very surprised if the iPhone 7 doesn't have s flush camera.
1) Sure, they could go thinner, but not by much more and still use the 3.5mm jack. If there is any CE company that is planning ahead for more than just the next quarter or product release, it's Apple; so I think it behooves us to try to look at this from the perspective of what we think Apple will want to do, not how we wish them to do it.
2) While I believe that Apple can go thinner with the current quality in durability and audio for their iPhone's 3.5mm jack, we need to keep in mind that not all components are the same. Does having extra channels for the mic input and controls (over just stereo channels out) affect the size of the component in terms of thickness? What about its thickness for a top of the line smartphone v a $12 Chinese MP3 player?
How does the removal of the headphone socket materially benefit you personally?
Simplicity.
And while they are at it, I hope the Micro SD card slot follows suit. Or perhaps that is more like an iPhone 7S feature?
Good point.
I think you must mean the SIM slot as Apple have never given people the option of adding to the base storage.
While they are at it they should drop the camera as not everyone uses that feature just as not everyone uses the headphone socket. That would considerably benefit simplicity as people would no longer have to wonder whether or not they should take a photo or a movie or how to compose a shot. It would allow for a much cleaner design and there would be no requirement for a hump and it would free up internal space for more battery capacity and other innovations.
A camera module that plugs into the lightning port could be sold for those people who happen to want to take photos.
All of which 1) should make people question this rumor and 2) IF it is true assume a lot of research was done before the decision was made. Something like this could absolutely impact iPhone sales in a negative way. LOTS more people use the headphone jack than used 30-pin accessories. And people that have expensive headphones aren't going to toss those for new lightening or BT ones, they'll either not upgrade their phone or get a different phone.
On the flip side though, if most iPhone owners use the included EarPods then they'll just use whatever replacement Apple puts in the box so I don't see how this is a big money maker for Apple.
I don't agree with this assertion… I feel Apple is far more motivated by profit margins these days than research into what users want. Case in point… I know an older person who is having a hell of a time trying to using the remote on the new Apple TV because his hands shake. You'd figure good product research would have seen that coming.
My father's got parkinson (10 years in) and is using it, no prob. So, hey! They're not going to fit everyone's use case, there is no magic. They can try, but undoubtably, someone will be left behind.
And while they are at it, I hope the Micro SD card slot follows suit. Or perhaps that is more like an iPhone 7S feature?
Good point.
While they are at it they should drop the camera as not everyone uses that feature just as not everyone uses the headphone socket. That would considerably benefit simplicity as people would no longer have to wonder whether or not they should take a photo or a movie or how to compose a shot. It would allow for a much cleaner design and there would be no requirement for a hump and it would free up internal space for more battery capacity and other innovations.
A camera module that plugs into the lightning port could be sold for those people who happen to want to take photos.
While I'm not one for having a camera, that comparison falls apart because there is no replacement camera option already built into another component that can replace either of the current cameras; unlike with removing th 3.5mm jack so that the Lighting port—either as USB or analog [may be likely be possible this year when they double up the pins in the device]—has been available for a very long time for audio.
For your argument to be comparable, we'd have to wait for a display with photoreceptive pixels inlaid that can then be used in place of having a separate, FaceTime camera, if and when the quality is comparable. Then Apple saves space by removing the front-facing camera module. Perhaps by then, the Home Button and Touch ID would be using the display, as well, so that the chin and brow of the device can be reduced significantly.
Another (very remote) possibility for reducing the total size used by the cameras, could be only use a single camera for both FaceTime and iSight. Additionally, perhaps they may be able to layout the camera at a 90° angle (using mirrors?) so that it fits flat inside the iPhone so that the lens can be flush again with the device.
mac_128 said: ... The 3.5mm jack takes up around 184 cubic mm of space inside the phone. That's a lot of room for a space limited device that keeps adding features year after year. ...
Also, read some articles about headphone jacks and phones, and read through all of Apple's patents on this (especially the D jack patent). You will find that the thinness/thickness of the device is actually the main variable they are trying to solve for, not the internal volume.
Of course they are, it's all about volume, because as a device gets thinner, or they squeeze in another component, the existing internal components have to go somewhere, they have to spread out. And just because there's a lot of empty space scattered throughout the iPhone, doesn't mean they can use it, unlike a concentrated 184 cubic mm of space. Of course if the batteries become custom molded into the case like the rMB, then maybe they will be able to use aver single cubic mm of empty space inside the phone.
"It would be much smarter of Apple to phase in a change like this over several years/models, like put lightning headphones in the box this year, but also leave in the jack, only to phase it out at a later date."
That is definitely one smart way they can do it. The other way is, if iP7 does get rid of the 3.5mm jack, is to include the adaptor with every iPhone 7 / Plus purchase.
No that's the worst thing Apple can do, because as long as consumers have the choice, developers will focus on the least common denominator, i.e. the cheapest solution for the customer, who is always looking to pay less not more. It will delay the Lightning audio revolution, and that's bad for everyone.
I'm not talking about the space inside the phone. My point is there are devices thinner than the iPhone that still use the headphone jack. There might be other reasons Apple wants to get rid of the jack but I don't think thinness is one of them. And from that New Yorker article it's clear Jony Ive doesn't love the camera hump. I would be very surprised if the iPhone 7 doesn't have s flush camera.
It doesn't matter what you understand the problem to be, it's all about the space inside the phone, whether Apple wants to make the phone thinner now, or over time, or are content to leave it where it is.
Convenience of wireless. Just another device you may forget to charge. Some people have a busy life. It is already an annoyance charging my iPhone, my wifes iPhone, the kids iPad, my Apple Watch on an almost daily basis. I certainly do not want to charge several wireless headphones, too.
And that's the beauty of it. If Apple does this, manufacturers will begin to cater toward customer's needs. Many Bluetooth headphones already offer the option to plug them in via an analogue 3.5mm cable. Plugging them into Lightning will be even easier. Higher end digital headphones are already starting to come with those same options. And then you'll have the best of both worlds -- don't want to charge them, no problem, plug them in!
[... ] Does having extra channels for the mic input and controls (over just stereo channels out) affect the size of the component in terms of thickness?
No. It just adds one more spring contact along the barrel within the same physical dimensions as a "standard" TRS headphone jack.
How does the lightning port currently do analogue audio?
It doesn't, but that doesn't mean it couldn't. The signal sent via Lightning could be anything, and it's smart enough to know what's connected to it, and what to send. This isn't a lot different than the current iPod Shuffle that knows whether it's being charged, or sending and receiving audio over the same pins. In the end, a microchip is controlling everything, and this goes back to the days of video output by the iPod headphone jack, and the use of credit card readers and other devices on the iPhone/iPad jacks.
However, I don't think Apple would hose to do this, even though it's possible. Best to push the DAC out into the attached product than fix the technology inside the device, and create yet a new standard that doesn't really gain them anything in this transition.
How does the lightning port currently do analogue audio?
It doesn't, but that doesn't mean it couldn't. The signal sent via Lightning could be anything, and it's smart enough to know what's connected to it, and what to send. This isn't a lot different than the current iPod Shuffle that knows whether it's being charged, or sending and receiving audio over the same pins. In the end, a microchip is controlling everything, and this goes back to the days of video output by the iPod headphone jack, and the use of credit card readers and other devices on the iPhone/iPad jacks.
However, I don't think Apple would hose to do this, even though it's possible. Best to push the DAC out into the attached product than fix the technology inside the device, and create yet a new standard that doesn't really gain them anything in this transition.
I don't think it would create a new standard to still keep the DAC in the iPhone. With USB 3.0 they will be adding 8 more pins to female Lightning port, which is more than enough for being able to supply analog audio in/out, digital signals, and power at the same time. Having the Lightning connector allow for a few pins to work with a DAC isn't a big deal, but that doesn't mean I'm saying it's going to happen or that it's even a feasible solution. Putting analog pins that will also be used for other things inside the iPhone could introduce interference, but that also doesn't mean I'm saying it's impossible.
I believe that Apple's longterm goal is to make an iPhone with zero ports, even ditching the Lightning connector eventually. Wireless charging, synching and audio only.
No ports means fewer damaged iPhones and a sleeker, thinner design.
Wouldn't wireless audio mean a battery powered earphone? The earphone receiver would need power from somewhere. Gaining weight on the earphone wouldn't be welcomed by me anyway as I don't use headphones where the weight of a battery might not be significant as an addition.
Comments
And while they are at it, I hope the Micro SD card slot follows suit. Or perhaps that is more like an iPhone 7S feature?
the trolls here are pretending they won't be able to plug in their legacy gear, and the obvious, rational, sane response is to use an adapter.
your concern trolling is almost as bad as the haters and whiners.
2) While I believe that Apple can go thinner with the current quality in durability and audio for their iPhone's 3.5mm jack, we need to keep in mind that not all components are the same. Does having extra channels for the mic input and controls (over just stereo channels out) affect the size of the component in terms of thickness? What about its thickness for a top of the line smartphone v a $12 Chinese MP3 player?
I think you must mean the SIM slot as Apple have never given people the option of adding to the base storage.
While they are at it they should drop the camera as not everyone uses that feature just as not everyone uses the headphone socket. That would considerably benefit simplicity as people would no longer have to wonder whether or not they should take a photo or a movie or how to compose a shot. It would allow for a much cleaner design and there would be no requirement for a hump and it would free up internal space for more battery capacity and other innovations.
A camera module that plugs into the lightning port could be sold for those people who happen to want to take photos.
They're not going to fit everyone's use case, there is no magic. They can try, but undoubtably, someone will be left behind.
For your argument to be comparable, we'd have to wait for a display with photoreceptive pixels inlaid that can then be used in place of having a separate, FaceTime camera, if and when the quality is comparable. Then Apple saves space by removing the front-facing camera module. Perhaps by then, the Home Button and Touch ID would be using the display, as well, so that the chin and brow of the device can be reduced significantly.
Another (very remote) possibility for reducing the total size used by the cameras, could be only use a single camera for both FaceTime and iSight. Additionally, perhaps they may be able to layout the camera at a 90° angle (using mirrors?) so that it fits flat inside the iPhone so that the lens can be flush again with the device.
PROBLEM SOLVED:
No that's the worst thing Apple can do, because as long as consumers have the choice, developers will focus on the least common denominator, i.e. the cheapest solution for the customer, who is always looking to pay less not more. It will delay the Lightning audio revolution, and that's bad for everyone.
It doesn't matter what you understand the problem to be, it's all about the space inside the phone, whether Apple wants to make the phone thinner now, or over time, or are content to leave it where it is.
No. It just adds one more spring contact along the barrel within the same physical dimensions as a "standard" TRS headphone jack.
It doesn't, but that doesn't mean it couldn't. The signal sent via Lightning could be anything, and it's smart enough to know what's connected to it, and what to send. This isn't a lot different than the current iPod Shuffle that knows whether it's being charged, or sending and receiving audio over the same pins. In the end, a microchip is controlling everything, and this goes back to the days of video output by the iPod headphone jack, and the use of credit card readers and other devices on the iPhone/iPad jacks.
However, I don't think Apple would hose to do this, even though it's possible. Best to push the DAC out into the attached product than fix the technology inside the device, and create yet a new standard that doesn't really gain them anything in this transition.
These taking rumors for truth close to a year out from the product launch OTOH has been asinine for a while now....
Wouldn't wireless audio mean a battery powered earphone? The earphone receiver would need power from somewhere. Gaining weight on the earphone wouldn't be welcomed by me anyway as I don't use headphones where the weight of a battery might not be significant as an addition.