mac_128

christopher126 said:

tipoo said:

The 12" particularly seems on death row. Who would pay 100 dollars more, to lose Thunderbolt 3 and a port and have less power? All to save 0.75 pounds. 

The 13" nTB Pro is a bit better positioned with more powerful processing, and I'm not sure if the Air screen has 500 nits and P3 like it? 

Me.

Where did you get that wireless iPhone dock? ;-)

elijahg said:

polymnia said:

theothergeoff said:

polymnia said:

Alternative idea: Perhaps the plan for iPhone is to phase out a wired connector entirely. It seems to me that once wireless charging gets a big enough foothold, and Bluetooth matures for short range data transmission, there is not compelling reason to continue punching a big hole in the bottom of our iPhones. I'd prefer a completely wireless iPhone that was more waterproof & had more room for battery & functional components.

There is always the bootstrap/SW-reset condition.   the 'I'm not certain my code is correct/confused' iOS state  currently requires connecting to iTunes via cable.  Having promiscuous WiFi mode for resets (button jamming to get it to come up and 'connect to any WiFI to hard reload corrupt SW') seems frought with hacking vectors.

Wireless for data/in-out and power in are pretty simple and have limited and user-controlled' security risks.  Full reset code updating... not so much.

I'm sure there are certain technical issues. But this is something that could be worked on. They make the Watch work without a user accessible cable fallback.

Anecdotally, I haven't used a data cable for restore/troubleshooting in 4 years. I could have given up my cable before that, but being a nerd, I thought the process would work better via cable. Based on my experience managing my iPone wirelessly, I can't imagine going back to cable restores for anything.

They do, but they also have customers return the watch whenever there's a seemingly quite common update failure, see watchOS 5.1. That's in no way good for anyone, especially people located without an Apple Store near, so they have to send off their phone and be without it for a week.

This is not something they have to do. There is a port behind one of the band connectors which Apple could engineer for customers to access in such extreme situations. That said, it's a little complicated for the average consumer. But that doesn't mean it has to be that way for the iPhone. A SmartConnector is all that's needed for an iPhone. The iPad has it already. A SmartConnector can theoretically handle the same USB 2.0 connections that current iPhones offer. Since it would only be in the case of emergencies, there's no real need to worry about using a non-standard dongle -- i.e. SmartConnector to USB-C. And Apple may have other tricks up their sleeves as well for inductive data transfer.

hammerd2 said:
'As rumored, the 3.5mm headphone jack is gone. Users have to shell out for a pair of Bluetooth headphones -- like Apple's AirPods -- or buy a $9 audio adapter.'
Anyone have a link to where I can buy this $9 audio adapter ? 

Did you check Apples website?

chasm said:

mac_128 said:

Still has a 100 year old headphone jack. Curious to see if the iPad rumors come true now ...

 But no FaceID. Maybe next year...

Edit: yup. No headphone jack on the iPad Pro. Gonna be a lot of dongles hanging off that sucker ... 

No there won't. At most, one.

Just as with the iPhone, the Note 9, and an increasing number of smartphones and tablets, the lack of a headphone jack is only an issue to old-man tech pundits and trolls. Five years ago I'd have been a "wah, no headphone jack" person because Bluetooth wasn't really up to par for audio.

That stopped being true about four years ago. AI did a story quite a while back about how well BT headphones were doing -- across the entire audio market -- compared to wired headphones. Since BT 4 came out, this has been a non-issue for the vast majority of people, the same way point-and-shoots used to be something people bought and don't any more.

Nope. Quality of audio is the least of the problem, and seems to be solely your concern as though nothing else matters. There is no wireless BT audio solution for Apple devices that doesn't suffer unacceptable latency issues, unsuitable for gaming and audio production. Neither are "old-man tech pundit" issues.  Whether it affects you, or a large part of the market for iPads or not, it is an issue which those working with  audio and gamers will have to deal with.  Someone recording with a Mic plugged into the iPad, now has no place to plug in headphones to monitor the track, without adding another dongle to plug them in, and they might need another dongle to plug in power. These are just the facts. The iPad is a fantastic device capable of running pro-level audio, and apparently games. The lack of a headphone jack may be an issue for some, and push them in the direction of the MacBook instead, where they might otherwise prefer a tablet. But it's all good, so long as Apple gets the money, I suppose?

zoetmb said:

mac_128 said:

Still has a 100 year old headphone jack. Curious to see if the iPad rumors come true now ...

 But no FaceID. Maybe next year...

Edit: yup. No headphone jack on the iPad Pro. Gonna be a lot of dongles hanging off that sucker ... 

So first you complain that they're using a 100-year-old technology (which isn't accurate anyway) and when you find out that they're not, you're complaining that you have to have dongles.   So what is it that you actually want aside from the ability to complain?  

Uh, what? First of all, I'm stating facts. Secondly, the MBA is actually using technology that dates from 1877 (so 140 years old -- mea culpa). The iPad, dropped it, even though the brand new MBA retained it for some reason. Not good enough for the new iPad Pro, but good enough for the new MBA? I'd like to know the rationale given that the iPad Pro and MBA are likely considered for many of the same use cases, especially since Apple told us when they dropped it from the iPhone that it was old technology and there were much better ways to do the same thing (yet here we are years later). Third, you're the one inferring complaints. So why even respond, other than the ability to complain about your perception that I'm complaining? ;-)