10 ms·

Courage

131 points by duck 10y ago

andrewvijay 10y ago
It was courageous to make a leap of faith and all that but not so courageous when it is at 160$. It's just ridiculous. Waiting for Xiaomi to show their courage at 20$
- ebbv 10y ago
  Everyone keeps making this point but I don't get it? It's not like the AirPods are required. They are including Lightning EarPods and an adapter in the box for $0.
  - yoz-y 10y ago
    Also there will be Beats headphones available for less and probably tons of other headphones from other makers that will follow suit.
    - ghshephard 10y ago
      Aren't they just bluetooth headphones? Given the airpods are backwards compatible, I just assumed they were vanilla bluetooth. Can't the hundreds (thousands?) of ones that already exist just pair with the iPhone?
      - yoz-y 10y ago
        Apple has made their own Wireless implementation on top of bluetooth using their W1 chip. They said they will be putting it into the airpods and three new Beats headsets. I wonder what is it actually doing though. It is not impossible that the bluetooth is used as a fallback mechanism for backwards compatibility.
        ghshephard 10y ago
        Gruber makes it clear, http://daringfireball.net/linked/2016/09/08/airpods-hands-on http://daringfireball.net/linked/2016/09/08/airpods-hands-on, the only thing proprietary is the pairing between the iPhone and Airpods with the case. Other than that, these are just plain bluetooth headphones. They will work fine with other devices, and other devices will work fine with the iPhone 7. The W1 chips is just a bluetooth chip designed by Apple.
  - andrewvijay 10y ago
    Absolutely. But it feels good to pull Apple's leg in someway or the other.
  - elmigranto 10y ago
    > for $0 It's not actually 0, you pay for everything, including a paper instructions are printed at. It just so happens everything's consolidated under a single position in the receipt reading "iPhone". And I would think 3.5mm EarPods are somewhat cheaper than lightning ones.
    - throwanem 10y ago
      Considering that the phone runs seven hundred bucks, it might as well be zero. The phrase "penny wise, pound foolish" fairly somersaults to the tip of one's tongue, doesn't it?
    - ebbv 10y ago
      They didn't raise the price of the iPhone. It's the same as it was last year. It's $0.
- rimantas 10y ago
  Will those $20 headphones switch seamlessly between devices, stop playing when not in the ear, have beam forming microphones, charging container, charge for 3hours in 15 minutes?
  - kyriakos 10y ago
    Probably that and more. Xiaomi is actually really good.
  - falcolas 10y ago
    The seamless switching is going to be handled by the devices (thus the comments about pairing being shared via iCloud), not the headphones alone. Beamforming with two microphones creates a plane of enhanced sound, so anything directly in front (or behind) of you will be as enhanced as your voice is. 15 minutes of not having access to your headphones is not a trivially short amount of time, nor is 3 hours a reasonably long amount of time. I've had conference calls and remote coding sessions last longer than that, not to mention music listening periods.
  - andrewvijay 10y ago
    They will not do. That's okay though. I can switch off music by myself. Audio quality and ease of use are the only things that matter in head phones for me. And correction: charge was said to be 5 hours in the keynote.
  - WayneBro 10y ago
    Probably not. But I bet the $20 pair will work a lot longer than 5 hours per charge. I have wireless headsets that last 20 hours on a charge. 5 measly hours is ridiculous and it makes all those other features "not worth it".
  - J5892 10y ago
    No, but they'll sound 10x better, and won't fall out of my ears every time a soft breeze grazes my head.
waldfee 10y ago
Yeah sure. money does not come into the equation at all
paulrosenzweig 10y ago
Is Bluetooth less open to innovate on than the 3.5mm jack? I agree that it's important to be able to create hardware add-ons "without Apple's permission", but wouldn't most of those use cases just use Bluetooth today?
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  There's orders of magnitude of difference in complexity between Bluetooth and 3.5mm jack. Also, last time I heard, you couldn't even use Bluetooth to transfer files from an iPhone to a non-Apple device, so there's that. EDIT changed "data" to "files", because that's what I meant.
  - pavel_lishin 10y ago
    > Also, last time I heard, you couldn't even use Bluetooth to transfer data from an iPhone to a non-Apple device, so there's that. What? Isn't it just a protocol?
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      There's protocol, and then there's implementation. https://www.quora.com/Why-does-iPhone-not-pair-with-other-non-Apple-devices-via-Bluetooth-to-transfer-files https://www.quora.com/Why-does-iPhone-not-pair-with-other-no... I don't have an iPhone, but my cow-orker whose friend has one tells me that it's still the case that you can't transfer files between an iPhone and a non-Apple device over a Bluetooth connection.
      - x1798DE 10y ago
        I can confirm this, I've never tried before but my wife has an iPhone and I wanted to transfer something from her phone to mine in an area where neither of us had good service. Apple has some "AirDrop" nonsense that uses bluetooth to set up a direct wifi file transfer between iPhones, but to transfer directly to a non-iPhone, you need a third-party app, generally installed on both phones. I doubt my wife will get another iPhone, especially without a 3.5mm headphone jack.
blackfede 10y ago
It was necessary to remove the jack to be sure to sell the new headset. I wonder if it will be available just one, as spare :-) It's all about removing connection ports, on the iphone and on the mac to be sure that you will be using just something that they can control.
- rimantas 10y ago
  It's a pity they made that terrible mistake of including adapter so the whole evil plan is now thwarted.
  - blackfede 10y ago
    Maybe they are less curageous than they think? Or not enaugh evil :-)
spaceisballer 10y ago
I'll agree the courage statement was a bit silly and me laugh when I watched it go down. I for one am totally ok with the headphone jack going away. I have wireless headphones and I have wired headphones I'll make it work. More often than not the wired headphones become the hassle, whether it's tangled cords or just keeping them out of the way. I'm sure there are plenty of people who use wired headphones every day but there are also plenty of people who just have this unused hole in their phone. The earpods look great but are a bit steep for me. The way they pair looks great. It's definitely an Apple product, looks nice and is convenient (and perhaps a bit pricey but not ludicrously so). Also the battery life is great (when compared to similar independent wireless earbuds) and that case is an awesome way to charge/not lose them. Apple it obviously trying to go to wireless everything and removing cables. Now they need to make wireless charging happen. If I could set my phone down on my desk and charge it and never again have to plug something in again, that would be great.
- pavel_lishin 10y ago
  > there are also plenty of people who just have this unused hole in their phone. Having a useless hole doesn't inconvenience them, but taking it away inconveniences a large swath of people who use it daily.
  - repomies691 10y ago
    Well, you can always choose another phone. Except you can't really, because you want Apple. For any other manufacturer there wouldn't be any discussion about the missing plug, people would just laugh it off and choose another phone model.
    - andromeduck 10y ago
      Yeah the Moto Z and LeEco already sold millions without a headpone jack before the this week
      - joekrie 10y ago
ebbv 10y ago
That moment was absolutely the ultimate in Apple Reality Distortion Field in recent years, but this article is also over the top hyperbole. The reality is the audio jack did take a significant amount of internal volume on the phone, and there are advantages to using wireless headphones. In a few years I won't be surprised if most Android phones also forego the audio jack. If you really think it was a huge mistake for Apple to do this, short Apple stock. The market will reflect it. Otherwise, it may be annoying but it was probably the right thing to do in the long term and you're just repeating the same silliness of the people who cried about the lack of floppy drive on the iMac or the lack of ethernet port on the MacBook Air.
- randcraw 10y ago
  No, don't short their stock. Show your displeasure by selling your iPhone and BUYING SOMETHING ELSE. What idiot owns Apple stock?
  - tigroferoce 10y ago
    Is your decision about a phone based upon the audio connector?
    - randcraw 10y ago
      Of course, among several other criteria, some surely more important. But my thoughts on the audio connector are independent of my thoughts on Apple's stock value, and everyyone else's. Imagining that you can constructively send a message of displeasure to Apple about changes to their audio jack by shorting their stock... this is what's nuts.
  - MagnumOpus 10y ago
    Owning Apple stock is quite rational even if you think Apple products are bad value-for-money. As a shareholder, the huge profit margins of selling proprietary earbuds for $170 all accrues to you! 8% earnings yield with massive user lock-in - wouldn't you want to be on the side that gets the money rather than on the side that hands it over?
TeMPOraL 10y ago
Losing a 3.5mm jack is not just an audio issue - this port is also the simplest way to make phone talk to external hardware add-ons.
- ygra 10y ago
  Which ... is kinda what the article also noted, yes.
- blockross 10y ago
  Precisely. I wonder in which proportion this decision was made to prevent shop owners from using these small credit card readers connected to the audio port and push Apple Pay down their throat. That's the first thing I thought about after the initial laugh and I'm surprised it's not talked about more. Not saying it's the main reason but I can't believe it was not mentioned during the decision-making process.
  - throwanem 10y ago
    > I wonder in which proportion this decision was made to prevent shop owners from using these small credit card readers connected to the audio port and push Apple Pay down their throat. As far as the hardware's concerned, a Square reader is a microphone. Microphones work via the Lightning adapter. I see no a priori reason to imagine that a Square reader won't work that way, too.
tempodox 10y ago
It comes down to two words: Horse manure. Color me a coward.
chaostheory 10y ago
Wasn't one reason for losing the headphone jack to help further waterproof the iPhone? That said, for even the best current bluetooth headphones, the sound quality isn't that great. Does the bluetooth standard need an update in that department, because there's a large difference in sound between bluetooth mode and being plugged in for these headphones?
- andromeduck 10y ago
  That's mostly compression and bitrate at the low power levels required. It's probably also why they had to do their own chip.
- pixl97 10y ago
  While I can say I'm an expert on headphone jacks... It seems like the input port for them is very simple and would not be difficult to waterproof.
nickysielicki 10y ago
Can we just take a moment and be happy about the fact that we're on the edge of an era where every smartphone charger will work with every phone? Edit: Google is leading me to believe this might not actually be the case? Are they just rebranding USB-C as "Lightning", or is Apple seriously going with another proprietary standard?
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  Something Apple is actively working against? RE your edit - Lightning is not USB-C, it's Apple's propertiary thing.
  - nickysielicki 10y ago
    That's so incredibly disappointing. Why does Apple have to ruin standards? They already have their Marketplace locked down. If they don't like third party peripherals, they can accomplish it through other means. I hope they die a harsh and painful death over the next decade. Cheap phones will only get better and better. Frankly, I don't know how anyone who is tech-savvy can rationalize rewarding behavior like this.
    - ska 10y ago
      USB-C wasn't ready when Apple needed it, to be fair, it wasn't just a lock in play. Thunderbolt was a good idea (from Intel, not Apple) but most vendors were too (licensing) price sensitive to pick it up.
- robin_reala 10y ago
  Lightning was Apple’s replacement for their Dock cable, and it was dramatically better than that as it was reversable and far less fragile. USB-C added reversibility to USB, but it came out well after Lightning.
- Dobbs 10y ago
  Lightning has long been an Apple proprietary standard. It has been on the last 3-4 generations of iPhones iirc. It has some advantages over USB Micro. Like being reversible.
ookblah 10y ago
i think it was more like convenience. there was another article where schiller talks about having to remove the jack so that they could get the components to fit or something, specifically the haptic engine and also maintain water resistance. i don't want to be making comparisons to steve jobs (okay, i actually am haha), but i feel like he would never let this fly and just tell them to figure out how to get all the components to fit or don't do it at all. i feel like it was a lazy engineering decision to do it this way. one where the solution is based on convenience of design rather than what is best for the users.
- weaksauce 10y ago
  Absolutely. This is lazy work lead by a man that knows manufacturing logistics well but doesn't have the balls to stand up against jony. Besides... how thin of a phone do people really want? I think most people would be excited with more battery life and a 3.5mm jack to sacrifice a bit of thinness.
- lucozade 10y ago
  You may be right but I think it's very unlikely. Firstly, they already fit a jack into the same form factor and this wouldn't have been the first water resistant device with an audio jack i.e. these were solved problems. I don't believe they would go through all this effort because they couldn't be bothered to work out how to fit an audio jack back in. If I were to guess it's either because they just like the idea of one connector that does everything (I get the impression that's what Thunderbolt was for). Either that or this a step towards a fully wireless strategy. As I quite like the idea of the latter, I'm going to assume it's that until evidence refutes it.
afandian 10y ago
Does anyone know how Lightning headphones work? Is there an analogue line in there (I think I read somewhere that pins can switch modes?) so they're just traditional passive headphones with a different plug? Or is there a DAC in the wired headphones?
- rvense 10y ago
  I've seen some assert that they just use some of the extra pins to pass normal audio. The adaptor is entirely dumb. And that you might get some extra noise because now your headphone jack is also a high-speed digital connection.. Someone might make "active" headphones with their own DAC, but disregarding those noise-cancelling cans that so many people seem enamored with, that's going to venture into audiophile nonsense very quickly.
jwr 10y ago
The problem with the disappearing 3.5mm jack is, as usual, a problem that only a few geeks like us care about. Taking myself as an example: I can't use the Apple earbuds, they immediately fall out of my ears. Which is why I use either large over-ear headphones (MDR7506), large over-ear noise-cancelling headphones (BOSE) for work in noisy places, or in-ear headphones that stay put even when running (Sol Republic Relays). And I want to have the flexibility of using any of those. Every wireless option I've ever tried sucked badly. Some really badly. In various interesting ways. But "most people" (I love that phrase) won't care. It seems the included apple earbuds are good enough for almost everyone.
- booleandilemma 10y ago
  I'm sure BOSE (and other popular headphone-manufacturing companies) will be producing a line of bluetooth-enabled headphones in response to Apple's decision, if they aren't already.
  - degenerate 10y ago
    And after everyone's purchased the apple ones, BAM, they release Beats by Dre plugs, only $599
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- TillE 10y ago
  Headphones aren't a niche geek thing, though. Apple bought a company that sold millions of wired headphones and successfully marketed them as trendy fashion items. When Apple sees kids walking around with Beats headphones, what device do they think it's plugged into? It's all smartphones.
  - rimantas 10y ago
    Ok for most of those who do not use Apple headphones adapter provided will solve their problem. So those who still have the problem are: those who have gazillion headphones and use them all; those whose cars for some reason don't have USB connection; and those who like to charge the phone while listening to the music.
jwoldan 10y ago
I think there is some truth to the "we needed to make space for the other changes we wanted to make" argument, but I think that applies even more so to the next iPhone (8?). I think Apple made the 7 as good as they could, but in some sense it's the sacrificial lamb for what they want to do next.
uptown 10y ago
I don't have a problem with them removing the headphone jack. I do think some aspects of Apple's messaging is tone deaf. Their "affordable" JBL bluetooth headphones they mentioned during the presentation? $200. That's real money for a huge portion of their customer base. But I do think they removed it to allow the iPhone 8 to have space for dual cameras, and wireless charging (they said they see the future as wireless) and I'm fine with that.
rollinDyno 10y ago
I've been using bluetooth enabled hearing aids since the beginning of the year and it has been a great experience being able to play music straight into my ears without having to take earphones out my pocket and disentangle them. The difference is normal people won't keep them on when they're not listening to music, but that's what Apple wants. This is an opportunity to place their hardware in the next step for computer interaction which is going to be conversational assistants (voice and audio). This would give them the opportunity to be always listening and collecting more information about what surrounds you.
- ableal 10y ago
  > the opportunity to be always listening Some ten years ago Google quietly dropped a publicly proposed functionality (I forgot what they called it) whereby the search page would listen to your room and provide supplemental info to the TV program you were watching, etc. Someone must have pointed out it was rather creepy, but it seems to just have been ahead of its time ...
downandout 10y ago
I don't understand why they didn't simply say that it's about better sound quality than analog can provide. They could have chosen a better word to focus on: Fidelity. "Apple customers deserve better than the same analog headphones they've been listening to since the beginning of music". They could have at least swayed the Apple loyal with that position - the thought would have been that they're getting something better than everyone else has. At the very least there wouldn't be justifiable headlines mocking what they said.
- mobiuscog 10y ago
  Because it's not ?
- degenerate 10y ago
  Pretending that $170 gets you better sound would put them in an even worse position. The world hasn't heard what they sound like yet, and I'm sure they sound great. But they won't sound $170 better than the regular wired ones. Apple would get slammed even harder by using that selling point. Besides, high fidelity is the selling point of their overpriced Beats brand, which they will position as a better version of the Apple ones after everyone's spent their money on it.
  - downandout 10y ago
    I was talking about the lightning ear buds that come with it, not the wireless ones.
- TillE 10y ago
  It's all analog in the end. That's how you move the drivers. As the article says, it really makes very little difference whether the analog signal is coming from a few centimeters away (built-in DAC) or a few feet away (as normal).
BFatts 10y ago
How long, do we suppose, before the government steps in and orders that all phones support the 3.5mm jack? I don't think it'll be long... Well, because government
- elmigranto 10y ago
  I believe there is EU regulation requiring that all phones use MicroUSB for charging, but Apple doesn't seem to care. (I might be wrong, though.)
  - logician76 10y ago
    No the regulation is that all chargers use USB, the other end of the cable doesn't matter. The situation that arose out of that is that you can charge pretty much any phone with any USB charger, which was the intent. I'd like Apple to have chosen a USB standard for the other end of the cable, however to be honest, the lightning connector and it's counterpart look a lot more robust than USB-C or micro/nano USB. USB-C is also quite a bit bigger than lightning. So perhaps some day we'll see USB adopt lightning as a standard if that is at all possible. iPad Pro lightning supports USB3 speed, so we know lightning can do USB3.
tomasf 10y ago
"See, it’s that last part that must bother them. The idea that someone, somewhere, is doing something with an iPhone that they haven’t anticipated, like making a thermometer or payment system or 3D scanner. Someone who hasn’t paid for a license to attach that thing to their phone." Nonsense. They still include an adapter, so you can just connect those devices to that jack instead. Or use Bluetooth, which doesn't require a license. Or, you know, Wi-Fi.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
simonbarker87 10y ago
I'm amazed at the rage around this, a good friend of mine is about as anti Apple as the come and back in July he asked what I, a Mac and iPhone user, thought of them removing the headphone socket in the then rumoured 7. I said I was, and still am, largely indifferent. He on the other hand was full of praise for Apple, he said he can't remember the last time he or his wife plugged head phones in to their phones and with bluetooth headphones being so cheap now (he as some of the MPow £20 ones) there is no reason to keep a piece of legacy equipment around for nostalgia purposes. I was amazed given his usually anti Apple stance, but then I remembered that while he is anti Apple he is very pro progress, any kind of progress and technology change. Try something, see if it works and then move forward or try something else. The phone market has become relatively stale, this is at least a company attempting (along with Motorola let's not forget) something radical. I didn't think it was radical but based on the online eruption it clearly is, people seem to have forgotten that there's a lot that's not great about 3.5 headphones that, I think, equally balances out the issues with wireless only. If you don't like it that much then just don't buy the phone, if enough people do that then Apple will respond to market forces and backtrack. No one is forcing you to buy an iPhone.
- iambateman 10y ago
  By contrast, I (and hundreds of millions of other people) use the headphone jack every day. Aside from having a cord to your ears, I can't think of anything that's not great. If I wanted noise cancelling headphones, I could get some with batteries. Also what if I want to charge and listen to music simultaneously? I guess that's no longer an option with wired headphones?
  - simonbarker87 10y ago
    At the risk of coming over as flippant and rude, don't buy the phone if it's that much of a problem. There is no reason you have to have an iPhone, there is no right/law that says Apple must maintain an old standard if they don't want to. Also, I'm sure Belkin/Anker will be making a little splitter that enables you to plug 3.5mm headphones and a lighting cable in at the same time. Many lighting docks already have 3.5mm jack socket in them for this purpose since when the phone is in the dock you can't plug headphones in.
BFatts 10y ago
Phones are already so thin, it's getting crazy. Soon we'll be talking about phone-cuts (like a paper cut) and phone-cut-gate will be the story. Seriously, I'd be fine with a phone that is almost 2cm thick for great battery life.
BatFastard 10y ago
The last sentence summed it up. "It’s not a conspiracy theory, it’s a business plan." Apple has a habit of killing tech they can't control. Headphone jack is eliminated so they can license and control what talks to the phone. Safari is intentionally the worst browser for HTML5 so that people don't go around the app store. Flash is banned from browsers because then you have to go thru the app store and give them your 30%. You have to have a Mac to write apps for iOS or Macs, why because it increases their sales. So drink the cool aid if you must, but recognize it as great business plan that encourages you to buy only apple licensed products
- Yhippa 10y ago
  The only item that deviates from this is Apple Music. I wonder why they built that app for Android as opposed to continuing to wall it off within iOS.
  - BatFastard 10y ago
    Apps like Apple Music do better with the maximum number of subscribers. Why close off your business to 80% of potential users. Though as someone who has business apps on the AppStore and the PlayStore, the AppStore generates a LOT more business for us.
    - petra 10y ago
      That's the theory , but:The Apple Music App is pretty shitty. Hangups, bluetooth doesn't work well, the App takes 800MB ram , etc. (bw the phone has 2GB ram and snapdragon 615, and most things run well on it) - and it's just a music app . So their Android strategy isn't clear. Maybe it's just something to convince you that Apple is better, or something to get some leverage in the industry. IDK. So i
      - BatFastard 10y ago
        They never seem to get products that are not on their base right. Like iTunes for Windows is an abomination...
kristofferR 10y ago
This jack-off move by Apple could perhaps be justified as courage by Apple if they were moving to a newer standard - like USB C. Instead they moved to a proprietary port that they only partially support. It'll be great to be denied the option of using the same non-wireless headphones on my iPhone as on my Macbook (unless they also implement Lightning ports on the Macbooks, which would be horribly confusing). Thanks Apple!
- andromeduck 10y ago
  That's one way to look at it. Another would be that they moved to Bluetooth while also providing a means of backwards compatibility with the lighting to 3.5 adapter as well as a pair of lighting headphones for those who prefer that.
ath0 10y ago
Can you spot the mistaken assumption? It's right here: "Data doesn’t need to go to the headphones, nor do the headphones need to send data back. Digital-to-analog conversion has to be done eventually, because speakers don’t produce sound waves with 1s and 0s." True for speakers, but headphones are often more than dumb speakers at this point. They're active noise cancelling devices. They're a component of immersive video (why do people buy 5.1 surround systems when they could just wear headphones?). Or even if you have the standard earphones from the box: do you ever pause the sound, skip a track, or answer a call using the buttons on the cable? If so, you're sending data back to the phone. Surprise! What other forms of interactivity could we open up if we broke the "one-way, stereo audio only" assumption explicitly? Don't get me wrong - my preferred earphone vendor doesn't even have Bluetooth support yet and I don't really want to buy another pair of custom Etymotics. But despite that, I recognize there are real experience-driven reasons to do this.
iamthepieman 10y ago
I don't get this quote "They’re able to do this because no one can do anything about it. " You can not buy a phone without a headphone port. I don't see what a big deal this is. Is there another situation besides two that I'm missing? 1. Apple is right. There is a big advantage (or at least no/inconsequential downasides) to replacing the 3.5mm audio jack. In a year or two everyone has forgotten about this and people are wondering when 3.5mm is going to finally die. 2. Apple is wrong. The 3.5mm jack shows back up on iphone 8,9,10 or however long it takes them to realize they were wrong. In the meantime they lose market share over this and even after the hoopla has died down people are still speaking with the wallets by not buying an iphone.
- throwanem 10y ago
  Where is the place, in such a reasonable analysis, for the kind of conspiracy theory and histrionics that make up such a delightful part of the tech community's response to every Apple product release?
- BatFastard 10y ago
  I know a number of people in the music business who swear they will never buy another apple product because of the 3.5 jack business. Lets see if they stick to it.
  - J5892 10y ago
    Some will. Most will complain about it and buy an iPhone anyway because it's such a hassle to switch between iPhone/Android.
ChicagoBoy11 10y ago
I'm surprised at how in the minority I seem to be, but I felt that this was generally a step in the right direction. I couldn't help but think back about the hundreds of memes we've seen about "tangled earphone cords" over the past several years, or how many times I myself struggled with wires of my headphones. When it comes to using the "headphone jack" for what it was initially intended to do, I can't help but think it is pretty clear that the right way to go about this is wireless. Some of the comments against it seem to mirror the comments about the removal of a physical keyboard when the initial iPhone came out -- undeniably true, but really missing what the future will inevitably look like. Just think about the prototypical Apple-system user, with his Macbook, iPhone, and Apple Watch. With bluetooth earbuds, he could, at least in theory, seamlessly transition from listening to any of his devices, without having to "plug" anything in anywhere. That's an advantage. That's what you'd expect "the future" to be like. We're getting rid of cords everywhere, I just don't understand why the "headphone" is now somehow special! There is the other argument, which I find a lot stronger but still ultimately not really compelling, and that is that by getting rid of the 3.5mm jack Apple removes the ability for people to plug into their phone without the licensing fee for their technology. But is there anything specific to the 3.5mm that makes some tech possible and others not? I don't think so. Is it pretty convenient? Undoubtedly. But, again, I can't think of how Bluetooth couldn't just as easily transfer that kind of data. And, with the added bonus that now you aren't limited to ONE such device. Will it be more inconvenient for 3rd party manufacturers at first? For sure. But I don't see how this move inherently PREVENTS equipment from being used on the phone. It certainly does so in its present iteration, but in the long term, why couldn't manufacturers adapt to using wireless communication? Make no mistake, Apple is pushing the boat out on this. But they single-handedly have the market power to do this kind of thing. When they got rid of the keyboard, everyone also came out and said it'd be terrible for the enterprise. But, by being lights-out better than the competition and anticipating a trend, they set the tone for what smartphones would look like ever since. Haven't heard an argument cogently explaining why we shouldn't simply expect the exact same thing this time around.
- themihai 10y ago
  My only issue is that quality is trashed. The L and R airpods get out of sync. There is no solution for that yet on wifi let alone bluetooth. They basically trash quality for little convenience so you end-up paying more for worse quality. It may be fine for phone calls (using one airpod only) but for music is just stupid. The future of audio is wireless but I doubt it's a pair of bluetooth earphones.
DCKing 10y ago
The thing is, had Apple announced the exact same thing but replaced the Lightning-connector with USB Type C, everything would have been sort-of-okay. Yeah, losing legacy support sucks but there's at least a decent argument to be made for the advantages of going digital audio only [1]. More importantly, USB is also an open, well-known standard that everyone can develop for, whilst the Type C connector covers all technical and functional requirements Apple has for the connection [2]. Would it have been "courageous" to take this step, cutting out legacy and receiving all the criticism for cutting out our favourite audio connection? I guess you could call it that, it's a big step to take. But Apple didn't. They announced it with their own propietary standard that you have to pay them money for, and doesn't work on any other manufacturer. They are creating their own little bubble of peripherals because they have the market power to do so. It's pure douchebaggery, and them calling that courage is supreme arrogance. [1]: That is in fact the Apple tried to make to distort the discussion. This post is not about this argument though. [2]: Or could even support Apple's additional requirements on the same connector with protocol extensions. (I made this point in the other iPhone thread too, sorry for reiterating it.)
gamuni 10y ago
This is why I don't buy Apple products. Ever.

131 points by duck 10y ago

It was courageous to make a leap of faith and all that but not so courageous when it is at 160$. It's just ridiculous. Waiting for Xiaomi to show their courage at 20$

ebbv 10y ago
Everyone keeps making this point but I don't get it? It's not like the AirPods are required. They are including Lightning EarPods and an adapter in the box for $0.
- yoz-y 10y ago
  Also there will be Beats headphones available for less and probably tons of other headphones from other makers that will follow suit.
  - ghshephard 10y ago
    Aren't they just bluetooth headphones? Given the airpods are backwards compatible, I just assumed they were vanilla bluetooth. Can't the hundreds (thousands?) of ones that already exist just pair with the iPhone?
    - yoz-y 10y ago
      Apple has made their own Wireless implementation on top of bluetooth using their W1 chip. They said they will be putting it into the airpods and three new Beats headsets. I wonder what is it actually doing though. It is not impossible that the bluetooth is used as a fallback mechanism for backwards compatibility.
      - ghshephard 10y ago
        Gruber makes it clear, http://daringfireball.net/linked/2016/09/08/airpods-hands-on http://daringfireball.net/linked/2016/09/08/airpods-hands-on, the only thing proprietary is the pairing between the iPhone and Airpods with the case. Other than that, these are just plain bluetooth headphones. They will work fine with other devices, and other devices will work fine with the iPhone 7. The W1 chips is just a bluetooth chip designed by Apple.
- andrewvijay 10y ago
  Absolutely. But it feels good to pull Apple's leg in someway or the other.
- elmigranto 10y ago
  > for $0 It's not actually 0, you pay for everything, including a paper instructions are printed at. It just so happens everything's consolidated under a single position in the receipt reading "iPhone". And I would think 3.5mm EarPods are somewhat cheaper than lightning ones.
  - throwanem 10y ago
    Considering that the phone runs seven hundred bucks, it might as well be zero. The phrase "penny wise, pound foolish" fairly somersaults to the tip of one's tongue, doesn't it?
  - ebbv 10y ago
    They didn't raise the price of the iPhone. It's the same as it was last year. It's $0.
rimantas 10y ago
Will those $20 headphones switch seamlessly between devices, stop playing when not in the ear, have beam forming microphones, charging container, charge for 3hours in 15 minutes?
- kyriakos 10y ago
  Probably that and more. Xiaomi is actually really good.
- falcolas 10y ago
  The seamless switching is going to be handled by the devices (thus the comments about pairing being shared via iCloud), not the headphones alone. Beamforming with two microphones creates a plane of enhanced sound, so anything directly in front (or behind) of you will be as enhanced as your voice is. 15 minutes of not having access to your headphones is not a trivially short amount of time, nor is 3 hours a reasonably long amount of time. I've had conference calls and remote coding sessions last longer than that, not to mention music listening periods.
- andrewvijay 10y ago
  They will not do. That's okay though. I can switch off music by myself. Audio quality and ease of use are the only things that matter in head phones for me. And correction: charge was said to be 5 hours in the keynote.
- WayneBro 10y ago
  Probably not. But I bet the $20 pair will work a lot longer than 5 hours per charge. I have wireless headsets that last 20 hours on a charge. 5 measly hours is ridiculous and it makes all those other features "not worth it".
- J5892 10y ago
  No, but they'll sound 10x better, and won't fall out of my ears every time a soft breeze grazes my head.

waldfee 10y ago

Yeah sure. money does not come into the equation at all

paulrosenzweig 10y ago

Is Bluetooth less open to innovate on than the 3.5mm jack? I agree that it's important to be able to create hardware add-ons "without Apple's permission", but wouldn't most of those use cases just use Bluetooth today?

TeMPOraL 10y ago
There's orders of magnitude of difference in complexity between Bluetooth and 3.5mm jack. Also, last time I heard, you couldn't even use Bluetooth to transfer files from an iPhone to a non-Apple device, so there's that. EDIT changed "data" to "files", because that's what I meant.
- pavel_lishin 10y ago
  > Also, last time I heard, you couldn't even use Bluetooth to transfer data from an iPhone to a non-Apple device, so there's that. What? Isn't it just a protocol?
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    There's protocol, and then there's implementation. https://www.quora.com/Why-does-iPhone-not-pair-with-other-non-Apple-devices-via-Bluetooth-to-transfer-files https://www.quora.com/Why-does-iPhone-not-pair-with-other-no... I don't have an iPhone, but my cow-orker whose friend has one tells me that it's still the case that you can't transfer files between an iPhone and a non-Apple device over a Bluetooth connection.
    - x1798DE 10y ago
      I can confirm this, I've never tried before but my wife has an iPhone and I wanted to transfer something from her phone to mine in an area where neither of us had good service. Apple has some "AirDrop" nonsense that uses bluetooth to set up a direct wifi file transfer between iPhones, but to transfer directly to a non-iPhone, you need a third-party app, generally installed on both phones. I doubt my wife will get another iPhone, especially without a 3.5mm headphone jack.

blackfede 10y ago

It was necessary to remove the jack to be sure to sell the new headset. I wonder if it will be available just one, as spare :-) It's all about removing connection ports, on the iphone and on the mac to be sure that you will be using just something that they can control.

rimantas 10y ago
It's a pity they made that terrible mistake of including adapter so the whole evil plan is now thwarted.
- blackfede 10y ago
  Maybe they are less curageous than they think? Or not enaugh evil :-)

spaceisballer 10y ago

I'll agree the courage statement was a bit silly and me laugh when I watched it go down. I for one am totally ok with the headphone jack going away. I have wireless headphones and I have wired headphones I'll make it work. More often than not the wired headphones become the hassle, whether it's tangled cords or just keeping them out of the way. I'm sure there are plenty of people who use wired headphones every day but there are also plenty of people who just have this unused hole in their phone. The earpods look great but are a bit steep for me. The way they pair looks great. It's definitely an Apple product, looks nice and is convenient (and perhaps a bit pricey but not ludicrously so). Also the battery life is great (when compared to similar independent wireless earbuds) and that case is an awesome way to charge/not lose them. Apple it obviously trying to go to wireless everything and removing cables. Now they need to make wireless charging happen. If I could set my phone down on my desk and charge it and never again have to plug something in again, that would be great.

pavel_lishin 10y ago
> there are also plenty of people who just have this unused hole in their phone. Having a useless hole doesn't inconvenience them, but taking it away inconveniences a large swath of people who use it daily.
- repomies691 10y ago
  Well, you can always choose another phone. Except you can't really, because you want Apple. For any other manufacturer there wouldn't be any discussion about the missing plug, people would just laugh it off and choose another phone model.
  - andromeduck 10y ago
    Yeah the Moto Z and LeEco already sold millions without a headpone jack before the this week
    - joekrie 10y ago

ebbv 10y ago

That moment was absolutely the ultimate in Apple Reality Distortion Field in recent years, but this article is also over the top hyperbole. The reality is the audio jack did take a significant amount of internal volume on the phone, and there are advantages to using wireless headphones. In a few years I won't be surprised if most Android phones also forego the audio jack. If you really think it was a huge mistake for Apple to do this, short Apple stock. The market will reflect it. Otherwise, it may be annoying but it was probably the right thing to do in the long term and you're just repeating the same silliness of the people who cried about the lack of floppy drive on the iMac or the lack of ethernet port on the MacBook Air.

randcraw 10y ago
No, don't short their stock. Show your displeasure by selling your iPhone and BUYING SOMETHING ELSE. What idiot owns Apple stock?
- tigroferoce 10y ago
  Is your decision about a phone based upon the audio connector?
  - randcraw 10y ago
    Of course, among several other criteria, some surely more important. But my thoughts on the audio connector are independent of my thoughts on Apple's stock value, and everyyone else's. Imagining that you can constructively send a message of displeasure to Apple about changes to their audio jack by shorting their stock... this is what's nuts.
- MagnumOpus 10y ago
  Owning Apple stock is quite rational even if you think Apple products are bad value-for-money. As a shareholder, the huge profit margins of selling proprietary earbuds for $170 all accrues to you! 8% earnings yield with massive user lock-in - wouldn't you want to be on the side that gets the money rather than on the side that hands it over?

TeMPOraL 10y ago

Losing a 3.5mm jack is not just an audio issue - this port is also the simplest way to make phone talk to external hardware add-ons.

ygra 10y ago
Which ... is kinda what the article also noted, yes.
blockross 10y ago
Precisely. I wonder in which proportion this decision was made to prevent shop owners from using these small credit card readers connected to the audio port and push Apple Pay down their throat. That's the first thing I thought about after the initial laugh and I'm surprised it's not talked about more. Not saying it's the main reason but I can't believe it was not mentioned during the decision-making process.
- throwanem 10y ago
  > I wonder in which proportion this decision was made to prevent shop owners from using these small credit card readers connected to the audio port and push Apple Pay down their throat. As far as the hardware's concerned, a Square reader is a microphone. Microphones work via the Lightning adapter. I see no a priori reason to imagine that a Square reader won't work that way, too.

tempodox 10y ago

It comes down to two words: Horse manure. Color me a coward.

chaostheory 10y ago

Wasn't one reason for losing the headphone jack to help further waterproof the iPhone? That said, for even the best current bluetooth headphones, the sound quality isn't that great. Does the bluetooth standard need an update in that department, because there's a large difference in sound between bluetooth mode and being plugged in for these headphones?

andromeduck 10y ago
That's mostly compression and bitrate at the low power levels required. It's probably also why they had to do their own chip.
pixl97 10y ago
While I can say I'm an expert on headphone jacks... It seems like the input port for them is very simple and would not be difficult to waterproof.

nickysielicki 10y ago

Can we just take a moment and be happy about the fact that we're on the edge of an era where every smartphone charger will work with every phone? Edit: Google is leading me to believe this might not actually be the case? Are they just rebranding USB-C as "Lightning", or is Apple seriously going with another proprietary standard?

TeMPOraL 10y ago
Something Apple is actively working against? RE your edit - Lightning is not USB-C, it's Apple's propertiary thing.
- nickysielicki 10y ago
  That's so incredibly disappointing. Why does Apple have to ruin standards? They already have their Marketplace locked down. If they don't like third party peripherals, they can accomplish it through other means. I hope they die a harsh and painful death over the next decade. Cheap phones will only get better and better. Frankly, I don't know how anyone who is tech-savvy can rationalize rewarding behavior like this.
  - ska 10y ago
    USB-C wasn't ready when Apple needed it, to be fair, it wasn't just a lock in play. Thunderbolt was a good idea (from Intel, not Apple) but most vendors were too (licensing) price sensitive to pick it up.
robin_reala 10y ago
Lightning was Apple’s replacement for their Dock cable, and it was dramatically better than that as it was reversable and far less fragile. USB-C added reversibility to USB, but it came out well after Lightning.
Dobbs 10y ago
Lightning has long been an Apple proprietary standard. It has been on the last 3-4 generations of iPhones iirc. It has some advantages over USB Micro. Like being reversible.

ookblah 10y ago

i think it was more like convenience. there was another article where schiller talks about having to remove the jack so that they could get the components to fit or something, specifically the haptic engine and also maintain water resistance. i don't want to be making comparisons to steve jobs (okay, i actually am haha), but i feel like he would never let this fly and just tell them to figure out how to get all the components to fit or don't do it at all. i feel like it was a lazy engineering decision to do it this way. one where the solution is based on convenience of design rather than what is best for the users.

weaksauce 10y ago
Absolutely. This is lazy work lead by a man that knows manufacturing logistics well but doesn't have the balls to stand up against jony. Besides... how thin of a phone do people really want? I think most people would be excited with more battery life and a 3.5mm jack to sacrifice a bit of thinness.
lucozade 10y ago
You may be right but I think it's very unlikely. Firstly, they already fit a jack into the same form factor and this wouldn't have been the first water resistant device with an audio jack i.e. these were solved problems. I don't believe they would go through all this effort because they couldn't be bothered to work out how to fit an audio jack back in. If I were to guess it's either because they just like the idea of one connector that does everything (I get the impression that's what Thunderbolt was for). Either that or this a step towards a fully wireless strategy. As I quite like the idea of the latter, I'm going to assume it's that until evidence refutes it.

afandian 10y ago

Does anyone know how Lightning headphones work? Is there an analogue line in there (I think I read somewhere that pins can switch modes?) so they're just traditional passive headphones with a different plug? Or is there a DAC in the wired headphones?

rvense 10y ago
I've seen some assert that they just use some of the extra pins to pass normal audio. The adaptor is entirely dumb. And that you might get some extra noise because now your headphone jack is also a high-speed digital connection.. Someone might make "active" headphones with their own DAC, but disregarding those noise-cancelling cans that so many people seem enamored with, that's going to venture into audiophile nonsense very quickly.

jwr 10y ago

The problem with the disappearing 3.5mm jack is, as usual, a problem that only a few geeks like us care about. Taking myself as an example: I can't use the Apple earbuds, they immediately fall out of my ears. Which is why I use either large over-ear headphones (MDR7506), large over-ear noise-cancelling headphones (BOSE) for work in noisy places, or in-ear headphones that stay put even when running (Sol Republic Relays). And I want to have the flexibility of using any of those. Every wireless option I've ever tried sucked badly. Some really badly. In various interesting ways. But "most people" (I love that phrase) won't care. It seems the included apple earbuds are good enough for almost everyone.

booleandilemma 10y ago
I'm sure BOSE (and other popular headphone-manufacturing companies) will be producing a line of bluetooth-enabled headphones in response to Apple's decision, if they aren't already.
- degenerate 10y ago
  And after everyone's purchased the apple ones, BAM, they release Beats by Dre plugs, only $599
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
TillE 10y ago
Headphones aren't a niche geek thing, though. Apple bought a company that sold millions of wired headphones and successfully marketed them as trendy fashion items. When Apple sees kids walking around with Beats headphones, what device do they think it's plugged into? It's all smartphones.
- rimantas 10y ago
  Ok for most of those who do not use Apple headphones adapter provided will solve their problem. So those who still have the problem are: those who have gazillion headphones and use them all; those whose cars for some reason don't have USB connection; and those who like to charge the phone while listening to the music.

jwoldan 10y ago

I think there is some truth to the "we needed to make space for the other changes we wanted to make" argument, but I think that applies even more so to the next iPhone (8?). I think Apple made the 7 as good as they could, but in some sense it's the sacrificial lamb for what they want to do next.

uptown 10y ago

I don't have a problem with them removing the headphone jack. I do think some aspects of Apple's messaging is tone deaf. Their "affordable" JBL bluetooth headphones they mentioned during the presentation? $200. That's real money for a huge portion of their customer base. But I do think they removed it to allow the iPhone 8 to have space for dual cameras, and wireless charging (they said they see the future as wireless) and I'm fine with that.

rollinDyno 10y ago

I've been using bluetooth enabled hearing aids since the beginning of the year and it has been a great experience being able to play music straight into my ears without having to take earphones out my pocket and disentangle them. The difference is normal people won't keep them on when they're not listening to music, but that's what Apple wants. This is an opportunity to place their hardware in the next step for computer interaction which is going to be conversational assistants (voice and audio). This would give them the opportunity to be always listening and collecting more information about what surrounds you.

ableal 10y ago
> the opportunity to be always listening Some ten years ago Google quietly dropped a publicly proposed functionality (I forgot what they called it) whereby the search page would listen to your room and provide supplemental info to the TV program you were watching, etc. Someone must have pointed out it was rather creepy, but it seems to just have been ahead of its time ...

downandout 10y ago

I don't understand why they didn't simply say that it's about better sound quality than analog can provide. They could have chosen a better word to focus on: Fidelity. "Apple customers deserve better than the same analog headphones they've been listening to since the beginning of music". They could have at least swayed the Apple loyal with that position - the thought would have been that they're getting something better than everyone else has. At the very least there wouldn't be justifiable headlines mocking what they said.

mobiuscog 10y ago
Because it's not ?
degenerate 10y ago
Pretending that $170 gets you better sound would put them in an even worse position. The world hasn't heard what they sound like yet, and I'm sure they sound great. But they won't sound $170 better than the regular wired ones. Apple would get slammed even harder by using that selling point. Besides, high fidelity is the selling point of their overpriced Beats brand, which they will position as a better version of the Apple ones after everyone's spent their money on it.
- downandout 10y ago
  I was talking about the lightning ear buds that come with it, not the wireless ones.
TillE 10y ago
It's all analog in the end. That's how you move the drivers. As the article says, it really makes very little difference whether the analog signal is coming from a few centimeters away (built-in DAC) or a few feet away (as normal).

BFatts 10y ago

How long, do we suppose, before the government steps in and orders that all phones support the 3.5mm jack? I don't think it'll be long... Well, because government

elmigranto 10y ago
I believe there is EU regulation requiring that all phones use MicroUSB for charging, but Apple doesn't seem to care. (I might be wrong, though.)
- logician76 10y ago
  No the regulation is that all chargers use USB, the other end of the cable doesn't matter. The situation that arose out of that is that you can charge pretty much any phone with any USB charger, which was the intent. I'd like Apple to have chosen a USB standard for the other end of the cable, however to be honest, the lightning connector and it's counterpart look a lot more robust than USB-C or micro/nano USB. USB-C is also quite a bit bigger than lightning. So perhaps some day we'll see USB adopt lightning as a standard if that is at all possible. iPad Pro lightning supports USB3 speed, so we know lightning can do USB3.

tomasf 10y ago

"See, it’s that last part that must bother them. The idea that someone, somewhere, is doing something with an iPhone that they haven’t anticipated, like making a thermometer or payment system or 3D scanner. Someone who hasn’t paid for a license to attach that thing to their phone." Nonsense. They still include an adapter, so you can just connect those devices to that jack instead. Or use Bluetooth, which doesn't require a license. Or, you know, Wi-Fi.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

simonbarker87 10y ago

I'm amazed at the rage around this, a good friend of mine is about as anti Apple as the come and back in July he asked what I, a Mac and iPhone user, thought of them removing the headphone socket in the then rumoured 7. I said I was, and still am, largely indifferent. He on the other hand was full of praise for Apple, he said he can't remember the last time he or his wife plugged head phones in to their phones and with bluetooth headphones being so cheap now (he as some of the MPow £20 ones) there is no reason to keep a piece of legacy equipment around for nostalgia purposes. I was amazed given his usually anti Apple stance, but then I remembered that while he is anti Apple he is very pro progress, any kind of progress and technology change. Try something, see if it works and then move forward or try something else. The phone market has become relatively stale, this is at least a company attempting (along with Motorola let's not forget) something radical. I didn't think it was radical but based on the online eruption it clearly is, people seem to have forgotten that there's a lot that's not great about 3.5 headphones that, I think, equally balances out the issues with wireless only. If you don't like it that much then just don't buy the phone, if enough people do that then Apple will respond to market forces and backtrack. No one is forcing you to buy an iPhone.

iambateman 10y ago
By contrast, I (and hundreds of millions of other people) use the headphone jack every day. Aside from having a cord to your ears, I can't think of anything that's not great. If I wanted noise cancelling headphones, I could get some with batteries. Also what if I want to charge and listen to music simultaneously? I guess that's no longer an option with wired headphones?
- simonbarker87 10y ago
  At the risk of coming over as flippant and rude, don't buy the phone if it's that much of a problem. There is no reason you have to have an iPhone, there is no right/law that says Apple must maintain an old standard if they don't want to. Also, I'm sure Belkin/Anker will be making a little splitter that enables you to plug 3.5mm headphones and a lighting cable in at the same time. Many lighting docks already have 3.5mm jack socket in them for this purpose since when the phone is in the dock you can't plug headphones in.

BFatts 10y ago

Phones are already so thin, it's getting crazy. Soon we'll be talking about phone-cuts (like a paper cut) and phone-cut-gate will be the story. Seriously, I'd be fine with a phone that is almost 2cm thick for great battery life.

BatFastard 10y ago

The last sentence summed it up. "It’s not a conspiracy theory, it’s a business plan." Apple has a habit of killing tech they can't control. Headphone jack is eliminated so they can license and control what talks to the phone. Safari is intentionally the worst browser for HTML5 so that people don't go around the app store. Flash is banned from browsers because then you have to go thru the app store and give them your 30%. You have to have a Mac to write apps for iOS or Macs, why because it increases their sales. So drink the cool aid if you must, but recognize it as great business plan that encourages you to buy only apple licensed products

Yhippa 10y ago
The only item that deviates from this is Apple Music. I wonder why they built that app for Android as opposed to continuing to wall it off within iOS.
- BatFastard 10y ago
  Apps like Apple Music do better with the maximum number of subscribers. Why close off your business to 80% of potential users. Though as someone who has business apps on the AppStore and the PlayStore, the AppStore generates a LOT more business for us.
  - petra 10y ago
    That's the theory , but:The Apple Music App is pretty shitty. Hangups, bluetooth doesn't work well, the App takes 800MB ram , etc. (bw the phone has 2GB ram and snapdragon 615, and most things run well on it) - and it's just a music app . So their Android strategy isn't clear. Maybe it's just something to convince you that Apple is better, or something to get some leverage in the industry. IDK. So i
    - BatFastard 10y ago
      They never seem to get products that are not on their base right. Like iTunes for Windows is an abomination...

kristofferR 10y ago

This jack-off move by Apple could perhaps be justified as courage by Apple if they were moving to a newer standard - like USB C. Instead they moved to a proprietary port that they only partially support. It'll be great to be denied the option of using the same non-wireless headphones on my iPhone as on my Macbook (unless they also implement Lightning ports on the Macbooks, which would be horribly confusing). Thanks Apple!

andromeduck 10y ago
That's one way to look at it. Another would be that they moved to Bluetooth while also providing a means of backwards compatibility with the lighting to 3.5 adapter as well as a pair of lighting headphones for those who prefer that.

ath0 10y ago

Can you spot the mistaken assumption? It's right here: "Data doesn’t need to go to the headphones, nor do the headphones need to send data back. Digital-to-analog conversion has to be done eventually, because speakers don’t produce sound waves with 1s and 0s." True for speakers, but headphones are often more than dumb speakers at this point. They're active noise cancelling devices. They're a component of immersive video (why do people buy 5.1 surround systems when they could just wear headphones?). Or even if you have the standard earphones from the box: do you ever pause the sound, skip a track, or answer a call using the buttons on the cable? If so, you're sending data back to the phone. Surprise! What other forms of interactivity could we open up if we broke the "one-way, stereo audio only" assumption explicitly? Don't get me wrong - my preferred earphone vendor doesn't even have Bluetooth support yet and I don't really want to buy another pair of custom Etymotics. But despite that, I recognize there are real experience-driven reasons to do this.

iamthepieman 10y ago

I don't get this quote "They’re able to do this because no one can do anything about it. " You can not buy a phone without a headphone port. I don't see what a big deal this is. Is there another situation besides two that I'm missing? 1. Apple is right. There is a big advantage (or at least no/inconsequential downasides) to replacing the 3.5mm audio jack. In a year or two everyone has forgotten about this and people are wondering when 3.5mm is going to finally die. 2. Apple is wrong. The 3.5mm jack shows back up on iphone 8,9,10 or however long it takes them to realize they were wrong. In the meantime they lose market share over this and even after the hoopla has died down people are still speaking with the wallets by not buying an iphone.

throwanem 10y ago
Where is the place, in such a reasonable analysis, for the kind of conspiracy theory and histrionics that make up such a delightful part of the tech community's response to every Apple product release?
BatFastard 10y ago
I know a number of people in the music business who swear they will never buy another apple product because of the 3.5 jack business. Lets see if they stick to it.
- J5892 10y ago
  Some will. Most will complain about it and buy an iPhone anyway because it's such a hassle to switch between iPhone/Android.

ChicagoBoy11 10y ago

I'm surprised at how in the minority I seem to be, but I felt that this was generally a step in the right direction. I couldn't help but think back about the hundreds of memes we've seen about "tangled earphone cords" over the past several years, or how many times I myself struggled with wires of my headphones. When it comes to using the "headphone jack" for what it was initially intended to do, I can't help but think it is pretty clear that the right way to go about this is wireless. Some of the comments against it seem to mirror the comments about the removal of a physical keyboard when the initial iPhone came out -- undeniably true, but really missing what the future will inevitably look like. Just think about the prototypical Apple-system user, with his Macbook, iPhone, and Apple Watch. With bluetooth earbuds, he could, at least in theory, seamlessly transition from listening to any of his devices, without having to "plug" anything in anywhere. That's an advantage. That's what you'd expect "the future" to be like. We're getting rid of cords everywhere, I just don't understand why the "headphone" is now somehow special! There is the other argument, which I find a lot stronger but still ultimately not really compelling, and that is that by getting rid of the 3.5mm jack Apple removes the ability for people to plug into their phone without the licensing fee for their technology. But is there anything specific to the 3.5mm that makes some tech possible and others not? I don't think so. Is it pretty convenient? Undoubtedly. But, again, I can't think of how Bluetooth couldn't just as easily transfer that kind of data. And, with the added bonus that now you aren't limited to ONE such device. Will it be more inconvenient for 3rd party manufacturers at first? For sure. But I don't see how this move inherently PREVENTS equipment from being used on the phone. It certainly does so in its present iteration, but in the long term, why couldn't manufacturers adapt to using wireless communication? Make no mistake, Apple is pushing the boat out on this. But they single-handedly have the market power to do this kind of thing. When they got rid of the keyboard, everyone also came out and said it'd be terrible for the enterprise. But, by being lights-out better than the competition and anticipating a trend, they set the tone for what smartphones would look like ever since. Haven't heard an argument cogently explaining why we shouldn't simply expect the exact same thing this time around.

themihai 10y ago
My only issue is that quality is trashed. The L and R airpods get out of sync. There is no solution for that yet on wifi let alone bluetooth. They basically trash quality for little convenience so you end-up paying more for worse quality. It may be fine for phone calls (using one airpod only) but for music is just stupid. The future of audio is wireless but I doubt it's a pair of bluetooth earphones.

DCKing 10y ago

The thing is, had Apple announced the exact same thing but replaced the Lightning-connector with USB Type C, everything would have been sort-of-okay. Yeah, losing legacy support sucks but there's at least a decent argument to be made for the advantages of going digital audio only [1]. More importantly, USB is also an open, well-known standard that everyone can develop for, whilst the Type C connector covers all technical and functional requirements Apple has for the connection [2]. Would it have been "courageous" to take this step, cutting out legacy and receiving all the criticism for cutting out our favourite audio connection? I guess you could call it that, it's a big step to take. But Apple didn't. They announced it with their own propietary standard that you have to pay them money for, and doesn't work on any other manufacturer. They are creating their own little bubble of peripherals because they have the market power to do so. It's pure douchebaggery, and them calling that courage is supreme arrogance. [1]: That is in fact the Apple tried to make to distort the discussion. This post is not about this argument though. [2]: Or could even support Apple's additional requirements on the same connector with protocol extensions. (I made this point in the other iPhone thread too, sorry for reiterating it.)

gamuni 10y ago

This is why I don't buy Apple products. Ever.