mac_128

maciekskontakt said:

Great. I see two signal terminals (speakers). So how about microphone? Will we see that for headphones for listening and making calls? And how about bypass for charigng as well?

That's a very good point. I was thinking one potential use case was with a wireless pair of headphones like Beats Solo 3, but it clearly doesn't support that.

Looks like it's solely for use with stereo AUX inputs, or strictly music use with voice capable headphones.

applejeff said:

“… offering a way for owners of recent iPhones to connect to 3.5-millimeter headphones and speakers”

The photo shows a cable with a lightning connector on one end and a male 3.5mm jack on the other end. Wouldn’t you need a female 3.5mm jack to plug your headphones into?

Some wired headphones do have 3.5mm jack with removable cords, and most cordless headphones do. Beats even has headphones with two 3.5mm jacks to daisy chain with a friend so you can both listen at the same time -- something for which there's no easy bluetooth solution at the moment. It's just too bad that Beats uses micro-USB to charge the headphones rather than Lightning, so you could theoretically just go Lightning for everything.

However, I think the main purpose of this cable is for jacking into a car stereo or any portable speaker, or audio input AUX jack. 

While this is one less adapter to carry around for a dedicated function, I'd rather just buy a much less expensive 3.5mm male to male cord to use with the free adapter Apple gives you in the box, and be ready for any situation one might find oneself in.

And still no way to use a pair of Lightning headphones on a Mac.

mavemufc said:

Here’s why it’s a bad idea, cost.

But what exactly is the cost? The cost of the TrueDepth sensor comes down, as volume increases over models using it. At the same time, the SE would drop the entire TouchID mechanism, which cost is rising as it is used in fewer models. The edge to edge display increases the costs, but doesn't necessarily have to be OLED, so not necessarily a major cost increase. Hard to make that judgement without more information.

blastdoor said:

Sounds like a good bill.

If it passes Congress (big If), I predict it will be signed. 

I also predict that within a few years, it will be amended. 

The pendulum on this is probably going to swing back and forth for a while before it reaches a steady state. 

I totally disagree -- if congress passes it, I seriously doubt Trump will sign it.

dougd said:

Stands to reason.  Hard to believe Jobs would approve of this joke of a product

Except I don't buy it. Just before Jobs died, Apple released an update to the iPod nano with a dozen custom watch faces. Apple and Jobs were aware the iPod was being worn in this manner and used as a wristwatch, and wanted to encourage it's use. Following his death, that nano model was discontinued, and support for it ended. No more watch updates. Given that Jobs was fully behind the nano being used as a watch, it seems rather unlikely that he wouldn't have backed the Apple Watch. And frankly, I don't believe he didn't discuss it as a possibility. Stranger things have happened, but it's implausible to me that Jobs was both aware of the nano's popularity as a watch and ignorant of that potential being developed further.