cnocbui

maury markowitz said:

AppleInsider said:

 It's not clear why the endpiece would have to be so big, though one possibility is the presence of an authenticator chip.

Bluetooth audio is an alternative, but its quality is generally weaker and wireless headphones are often more expensive than wired options.

The size is obviously due to the DAC. And this is a problem, because it means it will have the possibility of snapping off. That's bad enough in a 3.5, but obviously worse in the only port on the device.

As to the second statement, sorry, that's utterly bogus. BT sound quality is far beyond the quality of the physical mechanism itself - in other words there is no actual advantage to a cable. You can get really nice sounding BT earphones for $20 on Amazon, ones that are seriously competitive with Apple's in-ear headphones, let alone the buds.

The first time I used a BT headset, from Aukey for $18 if you're looking, I immediately asked myself why anyone would live with a cable. I no longer will, and no one else should either. They snag, get statically charged, pull the phones out of your ear, and demand you be beside your phone. That last one might sound like a joke, but now when i work out I leave my phone on the counter and do a complete workout without touching it once.

If you are happy with $20 headphones, I doubt you have the auditory discernment to be able to state BT sound quality is as good as a connected cable.  It could be if we were talking of BT using the lossless aptX codec, but as far as i am aware, iOS doesn't support or use it, which means iOS BT is lossy.

If Apple make a car, it will have triangular wheels.  You will be able to buy a triangle to - old outdated round wheels adapter for those who just don't get how brilliant Apple's new paradigm is, for a mere $16,000 extra.

redraider11 said:

jetpilot said:

My 2015 $300 Bose noise cancelling headset didn't ship with my 1983 Walkman, but you expect me to just throw that away so I can have an iPhone that is 1mm thinner.  That makes sense only in the mind of an Apple fanboy.  There's a reason why that jack has been around for so long...because it works and it works well.

This is where I insert the quote "if it isn't broke, don't fix it".

Sorry to say this, but technology doesn't care how much your headphones cost or when you bought them. The 3.5 mm jack may work well, but it does have and end of life just like everything else. Those headphones could be a lot lighter if used with a lighting jack because then the iPhone or iPad could then power the noise cancelling effect instead of having to use bulky and heavy batteries. 

One rumor I heard is that the Lightning EarPods could even have noise canceling due to the Lightning jack. Our iPhones already have noise cancelling technology, but due to the dated headphone jack, the EarPods aren't able use the microphone in a way that would be able to do the same thing. So yeah, the headphone jack actually is broke. I'd love to have noise cancelling with any headphones I use. 

So when is the end of life for normal AC power plugs?

larrya said:

ireland said:

Honestly this design wouldn't surprise me. Looks quite Apple. I also think a better design is to put the DAC near the lighting port and away from the in-line controls and the buds. Costs will go up too. Expect a minimum of $39 for Lightning EarPods. Bundled free with the new iPhone (6x) of course.

Me, I must be old-school as I still choose wired headphones (earbuds) over Bluetooth due to high cost, bulk, charging requirements and battery life limitations. Wired means immediate, no pairing, no dead battery ever and no need to think about charging—plug and play. Both have pluses and minuses. Wired are my preference.

Based on earlier information on the Lightning port, there is no need for an external DAC, and I doubt Apple would waste the money to include one unless it's absolutely necessary. Apparently the pins are reassignable to be analog audio. I think this is why the article mentions the possibility of an "authenticator" chip rather than a DAC.  

You are as likely to get those pins reassigned to output analogue audio as the US is to switch to driving on the left, which is also theoretically possible.

latifbp said:

crowley said:

What nonsense.  There are no Euro "fags" saying that competition is unfair, or that Apple don't deserve their success.  But Apple are plenty well rewarded without the need for state aid. Profit is the reward, not corporate welfare. 

Many of you goons speak of Apple's case is 'anti-trust' which by definition means anti-competitive. State aid my ass! It's the EU that is trying to get the aid by double dipping of Apple. Apple doesn't have to choose to set up headquarters in Ireland. They could set up in any country they want anywhere and would be welcomed with open arms. Why? Because they make huge investments into local economies. HUGE! Any country in their right mind would, and obviously have, welcomed Apple with open arms. It's not for nothing. They benefit from Apple... Directly. Then the EU wants to come and step on Ireland's toes and tell them they can't do what they clearly want to do. Now. The investments into the local economies in Ireland is not enough for the EU. The EU wants billions in tax dollars from Apple now too. It's called Double Dipping. If Apple drained the EU's resources then I might get it. But they don't. They provide ample benefit. And then you want them to pay more on top of it. So ungrateful and economically illiterate... All because the EU cannot pay its own bills or make the world operate like a Disney fantasy.

You simply do not have a clue as to what the actual issue is or what you are talking about.

The Irish government did a special tax deal with just Apple and gave them a stupidly low tax rate. That gave them a competitive advantage in the EU that other companies could not avail of.  Of all the companies on the planet ,Apple needs a leg up less than any other company you could name.  The EU has regulations designed to create a level playing field for companies operating in the EU.  The agreement between Apple and the Irish government breached these rules.  I probably pay more taxes to the Irish government than I ought to because of this deal.

There is NO double dipping.  The EU gets no taxes from Apple and wont get any if the Commission finds against the Apple/Ireland deal.  The outcome would be Ireland would have to collect the taxes the agreement allowed Apple to avoid paying.  Apple will be no worse off than any other company that operaties in Ireland and that pays the nominal corporate tax rate.

Even without the special deal, Ireland has about the lowest corporate tax rates in the EU so Apple isn't and wont be hard done by if they have to pay them in full.  They will still be financially better off than they would be elsewhere in the EU.  Ireland chose to join the EU, they weren't forced to, so if they breached the EU's rules then the EU isn't stepping on their toes by telling them to knock it off.

Apple don't pay enough tax in the EU, Australia and probably many other countries - which is one of the main reasons they have accumulated as much cash as they have.  There is no issue of Apple paying 'more on top of' since they never paid a reasonable amount in the first place.

I pay proportionally over 1300 % more tax than Apple does, which is just insane, so personally I will be glad if the EU sticks it to the Irish government.