4 ms·

> Maybe now is the wrong time, and Apple is making a mistake. I don’t know. > Patel misses the bigger problem. It’s not enforcement of DRM on audio playback. I

by jccc 10y ago

> Maybe now is the wrong time, and Apple is making a mistake. I don’t know. > Patel misses the bigger problem. It’s not enforcement of DRM on audio playback. It’s enforcement of the MFi Program for certifying hardware that uses the Lightning port. Right now any headphone maker in the world can make any headphones they want for the standard jack. Not so with the Lightning port. > Presumably Apple’s Lightning earbuds will work on iPads, too. But it’s going to suck having to use different headphones (or a dongle) for the Mac than you use with your iOS devices. > Will MacBooks ship with a Lightning port in lieu of a headphone jack? If so, will they ship with headphones? (Probably not, I say. Cough up the extra $29 for a new pair of Apple EarPods.) I'm increasingly irritated by Gruber's increasingly cozy relationship with Apple pitch-people (sometimes even using language only they use, like "with iPhone" or "on iPad"). But this is neither amazing nor apologism. He's ambivalent, at least in the text of this article. He is not defending the decision, extolling it's brilliance, saying Apple's doing the right thing. (To the commenter who's about to say, "Cherry picking!": Please consider the likelihood that your brain is cherry-picking when you see the name "John Gruber.")

diamondtrim 10y ago
I don't know what I need John Gruber is. But I'd say those quotes you pulled are pretty intentionally characterizing the potential (and legitimate) issues somehow acceptable. Why would I want Apple to regulate the third party headphones available to me? The headphone market might be a bit too large to track, but having that many choices isn't a problem in my mind. I'm free to research and select from the myriad options at any price point. Those who prefer to buy Apple endorsed products can go to their store and find Beats or whomever on the shelf. Tell me what advantage is gained by eliminating the other options in be market? And I see no significant advantage to the change in technology itself. Optical ports provide a measurable advantage in sound fidelity over analog, but you haven't seen them eliminate composite or component ports from home receivers, because there are also significant disadvantages in cost and length of optical cables. I don't even follow that there's such gains to be made from switching to lightning... Which leaves me at the obvious conclusion that this is just a ploy to sell more adapters and reap licensing fees from vendors at the expense of their customer. And remarks he makes like "Cough up the extra $29 for a new pair" convey exactly the tone that is bothering us all.
- jccc 10y ago
  "Maybe Apple is making a mistake"? "It's going to suck having to use different headphones"? "Will they ship with headphones -- probably not ... Cough up the extra $29"? I don't know how anyone could see those comments as favoring Apple, diminishing the problems, or somehow seeing them as acceptable. I guess if you start out with the assumption that Gruber is an Apple partisan and nothing more, it's easy to read anything you want into his words. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7013002 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7013002 [EDIT: The link above gives a few quick examples of particularly biting criticism against Apple by John Gruber. Not sure what I've said here that's so objectionable -- perhaps one of you could post a reply?]
- Grishnakh 10y ago
  >Why would I want Apple to regulate the third party headphones available to me? ... having that many choices isn't a problem in my mind. ... Tell me what advantage is gained by eliminating the other options in be market? Is it really not obvious what the advantage is? It's a huge advantage: to listen to music on headphones with your shiny new iPhone, you'll have to either buy some shiny new Beats headphones from Apple for $300, or to use non-Apple headphones you'll have to buy some kind of dongle adapter for $29.95. This is a giant advantage for Apple because it'll improve their profits. The advantage to you is that you can feel warm and fuzzy about being a mindless Apple consumer and having a shiny new iDevice that costs a fortune and only works with other iDevices and forces you to buy new headphones. People like to feel like they're part of an elite in-group. It's very simple: if you don't like the way Apple does business and treats you as a customer, then don't buy their product. The only reason they're able to get away with this kind of thing (using non-standard connectors is something they've been doing a long time) is because people line up like lemmings to buy their iDevices. If you buy an iPhone with no headphone jack, you really have no right to complain about it being missing; it isn't a surprise at this point.
SloopJon 10y ago
Gruber practically begs the question by assuming that 3.5mm is a legacy port in need of replacement, lumping it together with other short-lived artifacts of the PC era like VGA, ADB, and the 30-pin dock connector. As for quotes, cherry picked or otherwise, here are some that jump out: > But I say at some point [3.5mm] will go away > Apple has proven to be very good at timing the removal of established legacy ports. > If it weren’t for Apple we’d probably still be using computers with VGA and serial ports. > surely removing the deep headphone socket can only leave more room for a larger battery > in five years we’ll look at analog headphone jacks the way we look at all the other legacy ports we’ve abandoned.
- jccc 10y ago
  You called Gruber's article "amazing apologism," and I'm responding to that alone. We're pushing things a bit far if we characterize any of the things you've listed here as either amazing or apologism. Gruber is not just arguing pro-Apple and saying this is the right decision. Indeed, he even says maybe "Apple is making a mistake," and goes on to include several serious problems with it. Gruber's post is a reaction to Patel's characterization of Apple's move as user-hostile and "stupid." His reply is not, "Here's why I say Apple is right to make this move." Rather it is, "Right or wrong, and like it or not, here's some sober perspective on why Apple would/could do such a thing."

by jccc 10y ago

diamondtrim 10y ago

I don't know what I need John Gruber is. But I'd say those quotes you pulled are pretty intentionally characterizing the potential (and legitimate) issues somehow acceptable. Why would I want Apple to regulate the third party headphones available to me? The headphone market might be a bit too large to track, but having that many choices isn't a problem in my mind. I'm free to research and select from the myriad options at any price point. Those who prefer to buy Apple endorsed products can go to their store and find Beats or whomever on the shelf. Tell me what advantage is gained by eliminating the other options in be market? And I see no significant advantage to the change in technology itself. Optical ports provide a measurable advantage in sound fidelity over analog, but you haven't seen them eliminate composite or component ports from home receivers, because there are also significant disadvantages in cost and length of optical cables. I don't even follow that there's such gains to be made from switching to lightning... Which leaves me at the obvious conclusion that this is just a ploy to sell more adapters and reap licensing fees from vendors at the expense of their customer. And remarks he makes like "Cough up the extra $29 for a new pair" convey exactly the tone that is bothering us all.

jccc 10y ago
"Maybe Apple is making a mistake"? "It's going to suck having to use different headphones"? "Will they ship with headphones -- probably not ... Cough up the extra $29"? I don't know how anyone could see those comments as favoring Apple, diminishing the problems, or somehow seeing them as acceptable. I guess if you start out with the assumption that Gruber is an Apple partisan and nothing more, it's easy to read anything you want into his words. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7013002 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7013002 [EDIT: The link above gives a few quick examples of particularly biting criticism against Apple by John Gruber. Not sure what I've said here that's so objectionable -- perhaps one of you could post a reply?]
Grishnakh 10y ago
>Why would I want Apple to regulate the third party headphones available to me? ... having that many choices isn't a problem in my mind. ... Tell me what advantage is gained by eliminating the other options in be market? Is it really not obvious what the advantage is? It's a huge advantage: to listen to music on headphones with your shiny new iPhone, you'll have to either buy some shiny new Beats headphones from Apple for $300, or to use non-Apple headphones you'll have to buy some kind of dongle adapter for $29.95. This is a giant advantage for Apple because it'll improve their profits. The advantage to you is that you can feel warm and fuzzy about being a mindless Apple consumer and having a shiny new iDevice that costs a fortune and only works with other iDevices and forces you to buy new headphones. People like to feel like they're part of an elite in-group. It's very simple: if you don't like the way Apple does business and treats you as a customer, then don't buy their product. The only reason they're able to get away with this kind of thing (using non-standard connectors is something they've been doing a long time) is because people line up like lemmings to buy their iDevices. If you buy an iPhone with no headphone jack, you really have no right to complain about it being missing; it isn't a surprise at this point.

SloopJon 10y ago

Gruber practically begs the question by assuming that 3.5mm is a legacy port in need of replacement, lumping it together with other short-lived artifacts of the PC era like VGA, ADB, and the 30-pin dock connector. As for quotes, cherry picked or otherwise, here are some that jump out: > But I say at some point [3.5mm] will go away > Apple has proven to be very good at timing the removal of established legacy ports. > If it weren’t for Apple we’d probably still be using computers with VGA and serial ports. > surely removing the deep headphone socket can only leave more room for a larger battery > in five years we’ll look at analog headphone jacks the way we look at all the other legacy ports we’ve abandoned.

jccc 10y ago
You called Gruber's article "amazing apologism," and I'm responding to that alone. We're pushing things a bit far if we characterize any of the things you've listed here as either amazing or apologism. Gruber is not just arguing pro-Apple and saying this is the right decision. Indeed, he even says maybe "Apple is making a mistake," and goes on to include several serious problems with it. Gruber's post is a reaction to Patel's characterization of Apple's move as user-hostile and "stupid." His reply is not, "Here's why I say Apple is right to make this move." Rather it is, "Right or wrong, and like it or not, here's some sober perspective on why Apple would/could do such a thing."