My main concern is: how are we going to charge the iPhone while using lighting earbuds?
I'm curious about how Apple will solve that in case they're effectively removing the standard headphone jack.
Otherwise, I don't have a problem with it.
Is this seriously a question? Two words: pass through. Either on the cable connector, or on the headphones themselves. Or on the 3.5mm adapter if using one. Or, on a right angle adapter which so many people already buy for use with their current 3.5mm headphones. For those who actually do this, there will be many options for them. As well as potentially Apple's smart connector for inductive charging as an alternate method.
wonder how good this would sound seeing as the port only carriers a digital signal. that mean they would have to include a D/A converter in the casing. smallest chips i see is still fairly big and limited at 20bits.
You're aware they currently make wireless earbuds that are about the same size as regular earbuds? And each one of those contains a DAC, DSP & amp, as well as a BT radio, antenna, and battery. And those have received excellent reviews for sound quality.
Oh BT wireless! So many advantages compared to the analog jack! Everything we've always wanted! Lower quality Bluetooth sound, the super convenient process of pairing and unpairing when moving from phone to computer to car, another device to charge, plus more batteries to dump on landfills! Can't wait!
I didn't say BT, but wireless. And there are great BT out there now with AptX codec. To think that wired will live on indefinitely is foolish at best. Wireless is the future, and things like the new BT5 standard will drive further adoption as performance increases and many of the current issues are addressed.
AptX has been out for 5 years. It has never been supported on the iPhone because it has to be licensed. Arguably the next best thing is Apple's AAC over wireless, but very few headphones support this. Until now. We are just caught in another good ol' codec war, besides saving some space inside the phone, this is really what it is all about.
Let's see if this really makes the 7 a better phone than the 6S. All change is not growth, as all movement is not forward.
But a possible solution to that predicament is wireless charging from a distance. Where your devices are constantly charging within 15 feet or whatever from a dock.
If Apple managed to design a wireless charger that would work from 15 feet, you would be extremely unhappy with your monthly electric bill.
Why? What would drive the problem of high electricy draw resulting in a high electric bill?
A. 15ft range Are you saying that it would take a lot more electricity, compared with wired charging, to make 15ft wireless charging possible? Sure. It's a good point. A big drawback, if you think in conventional terms. I would think Apple or whoever comes up with the idea, would have thought of that drawback and only release the product once the drawback is addressed. Did you see the Apple patent for such a design like this, wireless charging from a distance? They have filed one. I know all patents don't make it to their products, but a lot do.
B. Constant charging Are you saying that the electric bill would be high because things would be constantly charging within those 15ft? Again, I'm sure if you were the design engineer you would think of a way that shuts off charging or emition or reduces emition once the devices are charged. What's the difference between charging 10% here and there as opposed to doing a full charge from 1% to 100%? The cost in electricy is the essentially same because the use is the same. You might argue the efficiency difference, and say it uses more electricity for wireless charging, but a final product would have such a marginal difference that won't affect your electric bill in a drastic way. It wouldn't be twice as much, or 50% higher or 30%, maybe an insignificant amount more. You're charging a phone battery after all, not powering a refrigerator. It'd be like filling up your gas tank every time you're at 3/4 full instead of waiting till you're at empty, you still drove the same amount of miles and used the same amount of gasoline; doesn't matter that you "constantly" refueled.
Or what are you thinking that will make the electric bills so much higher?
If Apple managed to design a wireless charger that would work from 15 feet, you would be extremely unhappy with your monthly electric bill.
Why? What would drive the problem of high electricy draw resulting in a high electric bill?
A. 15ft range Are you saying that it would take a lot more electricity, compared with wired charging, to make 15ft wireless charging possible? Sure. It's a good point. A big drawback, if you think in conventional terms. I would think Apple or whoever comes up with the idea, would have thought of that drawback and only release the product once the drawback is addressed. Did you see the Apple patent for such a design like this, wireless charging from a distance? They have filed one. I know all patents don't make it to their products, but a lot do.
B. Constant charging Are you saying that the electric bill would be high because things would be constantly charging within those 15ft? Again, I'm sure if you were the design engineer you would think of a way that shuts off charging or emition or reduces emition once the devices are charged. What's the difference between charging 10% here and there as opposed to doing a full charge from 1% to 100%? The cost in electricy is the essentially same because the use is the same. You might argue the efficiency difference, and say it uses more electricity for wireless charging, but a final product would have such a marginal difference that won't affect your electric bill in a drastic way. It wouldn't be twice as much, or 50% higher or 30%, maybe an insignificant amount more. You're charging a phone battery after all, not powering a refrigerator. It'd be like filling up your gas tank every time you're at 3/4 full instead of waiting till you're at empty, you still drove the same amount of miles and used the same amount of gasoline; doesn't matter that you "constantly" refueled.
Or what are you thinking that will make the electric bills so much higher?
I wouldn't worry about it. Apple is going to stay with tethered charging until their solar supplementation patent becomes a reality.
Maybe that's why the 2017 iPhone is supposed to return to all glass...for all of the solar receptors they intend to put under the front and back panels.
It should be abundantly obvious by now:
1) Apple is obsessed with 100% renewable energy, and is doing more with solar than anyone. 2) They've snubbed their nose at the gimmicky "wireless" charging solutions. 3) They have the patent, and have been working on this idea for a long time.
Why? What would drive the problem of high electricy draw resulting in a high electric bill?
A. 15ft range Are you saying that it would take a lot more electricity, compared with wired charging, to make 15ft wireless charging possible? Sure. It's a good point. A big drawback, if you think in conventional terms. I would think Apple or whoever comes up with the idea, would have thought of that drawback and only release the product once the drawback is addressed. Did you see the Apple patent for such a design like this, wireless charging from a distance? They have filed one. I know all patents don't make it to their products, but a lot do.
B. Constant charging Are you saying that the electric bill would be high because things would be constantly charging within those 15ft? Again, I'm sure if you were the design engineer you would think of a way that shuts off charging or emition or reduces emition once the devices are charged. What's the difference between charging 10% here and there as opposed to doing a full charge from 1% to 100%? The cost in electricy is the essentially same because the use is the same. You might argue the efficiency difference, and say it uses more electricity for wireless charging, but a final product would have such a marginal difference that won't affect your electric bill in a drastic way. It wouldn't be twice as much, or 50% higher or 30%, maybe an insignificant amount more. You're charging a phone battery after all, not powering a refrigerator. It'd be like filling up your gas tank every time you're at 3/4 full instead of waiting till you're at empty, you still drove the same amount of miles and used the same amount of gasoline; doesn't matter that you "constantly" refueled.
Or what are you thinking that will make the electric bills so much higher?
I wouldn't worry about it. Apple is going to stay with tethered charging until their solar supplementation patent becomes a reality.
Maybe that's why the 2017 iPhone is supposed to return to all glass...for all of the solar receptors they intend to put under the front and back panels.
It should be abundantly obvious by now:
1) Apple is obsessed with 100% renewable energy, and is doing more with solar than anyone. 2) They've snubbed their nose at the gimmicky "wireless" charging solutions. 3) They have the patent, and have been working on this idea for a long time.
You didn't address any of my questions, but ok.
You could be right, could be wrong. The solar panel patent was in 2010, a newer one came out 2016. So it's plausible.
There's long distance wireless charging patents from Apple too. In 2010, one for the iMac being the hub. Another patent came out in 2015. They snubbed their nose at the earlier tech, where the phone has to be positioned a specific way and how much slower it charged. But the Apple Watch has inductive charging, so that's a contradiction too, right. It's interesting.
Not sure why you just dismissed the idea so rapidly.
Difference between what I'm saying and you're saying is: Me: It's possible. Could be. What about this, what about that. You: No. It's this this. It's that. They're going to be doing this. It's blatantly obvious.
The connector looks completely different to the connector on the Apple Lightning cable, or the audio jack on the Apple Ear Pods for that matter. Doesn't necessarily mean it isn't genuine, but it's lacking key elements of Apple's current cable design.
I don't know if Apple's planning to ditch the 3.5mm jack, it's not implausible, but I don't think this specific unit is something they would ship.
Yeah, my first thought was that it looks too big and somewhat off ballance in terms of design. But I think one has to expect a size increase, due to more technology being packed into it. I mean, there's gotta be like a little audio interface in there, basically. and since it's gonna be in a lot of pockets around the world, rounded edges sort of makes sense too. The clean cut hard edges on Apple's current connectors are not that pocket friendly, imo.
Yeah, I understand the argument for a larger connector, but the rounded edges looks more like what I think is a Belkin cable I have at home. You may not think the current connectors are pocket friendly, but they are a consistent design across all of Apple's cables. Maybe they're about to change their basic design for cables, but I don't think they will at this point.
Also, I think they could avoid the larger connector, but moving the DAC (or DACs) to the ear pieces themselves, like the Bluetooth earbuds people have mentioned elsewhere. Or they could put it in the connector where the left and right channels diverge. Or maybe they have a really small one that fits on the Lightning control chip that goes in the Lightning connector on the cable.
Basically, there are a lot of possibilities, but until we actually see what they show in September, we really don't know what it's going to look like. I just don't think that picture is it.
Comments
You're aware they currently make wireless earbuds that are about the same size as regular earbuds? And each one of those contains a DAC, DSP & amp, as well as a BT radio, antenna, and battery. And those have received excellent reviews for sound quality.
Let's see if this really makes the 7 a better phone than the 6S. All change is not growth, as all movement is not forward.
A. 15ft range
Are you saying that it would take a lot more electricity, compared with wired charging, to make 15ft wireless charging possible? Sure. It's a good point. A big drawback, if you think in conventional terms. I would think Apple or whoever comes up with the idea, would have thought of that drawback and only release the product once the drawback is addressed. Did you see the Apple patent for such a design like this, wireless charging from a distance? They have filed one. I know all patents don't make it to their products, but a lot do.
B. Constant charging
Are you saying that the electric bill would be high because things would be constantly charging within those 15ft? Again, I'm sure if you were the design engineer you would think of a way that shuts off charging or emition or reduces emition once the devices are charged. What's the difference between charging 10% here and there as opposed to doing a full charge from 1% to 100%? The cost in electricy is the essentially same because the use is the same. You might argue the efficiency difference, and say it uses more electricity for wireless charging, but a final product would have such a marginal difference that won't affect your electric bill in a drastic way. It wouldn't be twice as much, or 50% higher or 30%, maybe an insignificant amount more. You're charging a phone battery after all, not powering a refrigerator. It'd be like filling up your gas tank every time you're at 3/4 full instead of waiting till you're at empty, you still drove the same amount of miles and used the same amount of gasoline; doesn't matter that you "constantly" refueled.
Or what are you thinking that will make the electric bills so much higher?
Maybe that's why the 2017 iPhone is supposed to return to all glass...for all of the solar receptors they intend to put under the front and back panels.
It should be abundantly obvious by now:
1) Apple is obsessed with 100% renewable energy, and is doing more with solar than anyone.
2) They've snubbed their nose at the gimmicky "wireless" charging solutions.
3) They have the patent, and have been working on this idea for a long time.
You could be right, could be wrong. The solar panel patent was in 2010, a newer one came out 2016. So it's plausible.
There's long distance wireless charging patents from Apple too. In 2010, one for the iMac being the hub. Another patent came out in 2015. They snubbed their nose at the earlier tech, where the phone has to be positioned a specific way and how much slower it charged. But the Apple Watch has inductive charging, so that's a contradiction too, right. It's interesting.
Not sure why you just dismissed the idea so rapidly.
Difference between what I'm saying and you're saying is:
Me: It's possible. Could be. What about this, what about that.
You: No. It's this this. It's that. They're going to be doing this. It's blatantly obvious.
Yeah, I understand the argument for a larger connector, but the rounded edges looks more like what I think is a Belkin cable I have at home. You may not think the current connectors are pocket friendly, but they are a consistent design across all of Apple's cables. Maybe they're about to change their basic design for cables, but I don't think they will at this point.
Also, I think they could avoid the larger connector, but moving the DAC (or DACs) to the ear pieces themselves, like the Bluetooth earbuds people have mentioned elsewhere. Or they could put it in the connector where the left and right channels diverge. Or maybe they have a really small one that fits on the Lightning control chip that goes in the Lightning connector on the cable.
Basically, there are a lot of possibilities, but until we actually see what they show in September, we really don't know what it's going to look like. I just don't think that picture is it.
Yeah the lightning plug is soooo hueje! How does Apple xpekt whimpz and betah manlets to even lipht?