21 ms·

The End of Headphone Jacks, the Rise of DRM

457 points by dwaxe 10y ago

cdnsteve 10y ago
The also just made it so their phone no longer works with millions of car audio systems that have an auxiliary input jack. Not all of us have 2016's with fancy Car Play or Android Auto.
- poopsintub 10y ago
  Bluetooth has been common if not standard, in even low-end models for the past 3-4 years.
PaulHoule 10y ago
This is the first time I've heard that argument. It's a good one.
- wccrawford 10y ago
  Except that there are adapters that convert to that same old jack, and so you haven't really lost anything. Yet, anyhow. If they ever lock you down to only approved headphones, then we've got a real problem, and not just for being able to do what you want with your music.
  - dogma1138 10y ago
    You can control what songs can be decoded with what adapter. You can control the bit rate and quality. You can effectively make songs that only play on certain headphones or songs that play better quality when you have your beats plugged in. This isn't the first time this has been brought up this was the first thing everyone had in mind when the rumors about Apple ditching the headphone jack first appeared.
    - rimantas 10y ago
      As if they cannot control what iPhone outputs to 3.5.
      - dogma1138 10y ago
        Not really, they can't tell what headphones are plugged in they might be able to determine some very coarse profile but even that is highly questionable. With audio being pushed through lighting port in a digital format Apple knows for sure what device is connected to it, and even if you spoof the device id they can still use DRM because the device decodes the digital signal and if it doesn't have the correct set of keys or decoding configuration it would not be able to play the audio.
  - 0x0 10y ago
    As the article mentions, it's probably super easy for iOS to refuse to route audio to the adapter if it so chooses, for example when playing certain "fairplay" encrypted content. How convenient.
    - mbreese 10y ago
      Wouldn't it be just as easy to refuse to route to a physical audio jack as well? I don't see how the loss of the physical jack changes that scenario.
      - 0x0 10y ago
        It matters because the jack is no longer the default output device that customers expect to always work.
        nchelluri 10y ago
        Maybe you can open my eyes a bit, because right now that seems like splitting hairs to me. One way or another, the audio is cut off. Just because it's another jack/plug customers won't be upset?
        0x0 10y ago
        I think it's an easier "sell" to refuse third party headsets connecting through a legacy adapter, compared to refusing to use the bundled headsets that came in the box.
      - calinet6 10y ago
        The difference is in how smart the jack can be. First, it's under legal/licensing restriction, which means you have to pay to play (ignore the adapter for now; it's inconvenient and can also be detected as a particular kind of 'unlicensed' device). Second is the subtler stuff -- like how the jack can now communicate about the music and the device with the phone, so you really could do things like have exclusive Apple music releases only playable on Beats, or (behind the scenes) have a higher quality version play on your Beats than your other headphones, reinforcing the illusion that the new port and devices are "better" than the old analog one (which is impossible). Or have advertising play on radio, except on headphones that have paid a premium to be "ad-free." It also opens up much more positive possibilities, like the phone knowing the frequency profile of the headphones that are plugged in and automatically using the right equalizer settings to make it sound great. Or, simply wireless devices being able to charge through the port when plugged in. Or having headphones with memory that can keep a few hours of music on them 'synced' by plugging in so you don't even need your iPhone to listen. So all in all, it's a set of tradeoffs, giving up some freedom and simplicity, for the opportunity of more possibilities in the future. It's difficult to say exactly how it will be used, but the realist point of view is that it's all ending up as the same analog sound in the end; there's only so much that can be revolutionized. Time will tell.
  - ddt_Osprey 10y ago
    If they ever... Boiling frogs, my friend. Boiling frogs.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- nlawalker 10y ago
  You can't close the analog hole, though. As long as we're listening to music via physical speakers manipulating air pressure, there will always be an unencoded electrical audio signal somewhere in the system. Now, when we start getting DRM-enabled bone conductors implanted in our jaws...
  - icoder 10y ago
    Right! And this point is exactly why the comparison with video DRM in the article is a bit weak, because video will normally be split into a signal per pixel before becoming analog, making it impractical to access the full unencoded video signal. This, plus the fact that most copyrighted audio will be playable and copyable through unprotected channels for a while (Spotify / YouTube on PC / Android) I don't think this move has anything to do with DRM.
  - moyix 10y ago
    Exactly. Nothing stops someone from pulling open their AirBuds and recording the analog signal that drives the speaker.
zepto 10y ago
http://www.apple.com/shop/product/MMX62AM/A/lightning-to-35-mm-headphone-jack-adapter?fnode=94076bf4300fc94de38ac0dce6111bffeb1641842210382677ece98e45d55bb5dfe114c8b3c2ecb222de3df55d5e0b52aedf2fb9744a0d879dd7551e2d0c9dc34f5a2ff6bb54cecedd46fcbfeecd3e00f337b3dee2e343eec5759acccf1c45a5 http://www.apple.com/shop/product/MMX62AM/A/lightning-to-35-...
- 0x0 10y ago
  This adapter requires the cooperation of the OS to function.
  - intrasight 10y ago
    The headphone jack also requires the cooperation of the OS to function
    - aikah 10y ago
      an OS cannot deny an analog jack. An OS can however deny an digital adapter.
      - zepto 10y ago
        Not true. The os switches off the analog jack when the internal speaker is used or when sound is routed to a Bluetooth headphone or speaker. Clearly the OS can deny an analog jack.
        aikah 10y ago
        my point is, an os can check whether an analog jack is authorized to work or not, an analog jack is an analog jack. On the other hand, a DRM system can be implemented with any digital accessory.
        zepto 10y ago
        Also not true - there is no reason they couldn't implement a digital handshake over 3.5mm jacks to identity approved devices. It's just wires.
api 10y ago
This is interesting but personally I think this move is more about Apple being able to take more profit from its Beats brand and from any third party speaker maker that now has to license to work with iOS. Of course I guess they can also sell "premium DRM" snake oil to recording companies now, because nobody can tap audio from hardware. That's totally impossible right? Apple just loves to tax their ecosystem. They also have a huge fetish for eliminating connectors, plugs, etc. even when they are well past the point of diminishing returns there.
zelias 10y ago
There's a lot of potential for anti-competitive practice here -- for example, Apple could theoretically prevent the Spotify app from transmitting audio over Bluetooth or Lightning, forcing users into the Apple Music ecosystem.
- amazingman 10y ago
  And if they do, they'll end up in antitrust courts in multiple countries while paying out a crushingly large and sustained PR cost.
  - pjmlp 10y ago
    Usually such cases only apply to monopolies and Apple is very far from being one, considering the world market.
    - jdmichal 10y ago
      Antitrust law is not just about monopolies, and it does not only apply to monopolies. Also, the world market wouldn't matter, because any individual case would be brought in a specific legal jurisdiction, where only that specific jurisdiction's market would be relevant.
- isseu 10y ago
  They could have done this long ago..
- rimantas 10y ago
  And why would they do that? You can listen to your Spotify as much as you want as long as you buy iPhone.
mead5432 10y ago
I understand the argument that forcing content through a proprietary jack opens the door for controlling said content and has huge implications for hardware manufacturers and the way people use their stuff. What I am having a hard time understanding is why is that any different than the OS influencing what gets sent to the 3.5mm jack? It isn't like apps running in iOS had to interact with APIs to do all the other things (e.g. camera) but not the jack. Is it?
- kabdib 10y ago
  Exactly; Apple has always controlled what can be sent to the DAC on the audio jack. (I don't know if it has a dedicated DAC, but even if it shares with the speaker, the device knows when something is plugged into the jack). How secure are these dongles? Will we see third party ones, or do you need key material from Apple before they will light up? The Xbox is full of this kind of thing, btw (most peripherals require a "security chip" that just needs to handshake; purely revenue protection, and nothing to do with security).
  - frandroid 10y ago
    You mean, purely "revenue security".
    - kabdib 10y ago
      Exactly.
- onli 10y ago
  My understanding is that it is about what is the output. The 3.5mm jack outputs the regular audio data. You could just make it output encrypted data, but that is the same as removing it, all the headphones won't work. If you replace it with a proprietary system you can add in DRM, like not outputting anything if the connected device (which can be an adapter) is not certified. Everything has to get transformed into regular data at one point, but the content mafia is trying since many years to control as many parts of the system as possible. This is one further step. I could be a bit off the mark here, not my area.
the_other 10y ago
This reads slightly hyperbolic. I suspect Apple will fight against DRM on music for quite some time having made the decision to remove it. In the past the Apple's designs needed to respect a vast pre-existing ecosystem of headphones, amps and assorted other audio gear. Dropping the socket largely takes them out of that ecosystem, but today the success and reach of their devices exerts pressure on that ecosystem to move in Apple's direction too. That pressure does the rest of the ecosystem a significant disservice: the interoperability of the devices, cables and practices in that ecosystem provides so much utility!
- ourmandave 10y ago
  I thought they might be trying to get rid of the 3.5 mm jack to make a thinner phone but the 7 is the exact same size as the 6. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/0/apple-iphone-7-full-specs-key-features-uk-price-and-release-date/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/0/apple-iphone-7-full-... Maybe this is an evolution to a super thin iPhone 8.
  - bphogan 10y ago
    I'd heard that it caused camera interference, which I don't understand. But the more plausible thing I heard was that they needed some room for that new haptic thing they put under the home button.
javajosh 10y ago
Isn't this tacitly assuming that Apple will be able to single-handedly eliminate the headphone jack? I think it is quite likely that post-Jobs Apple has finally overstepped it's bounds, and despite it's good qualities the iPhone 7 will be a relative dud. In which case the iPhone 8 will (reluctantly) put the jack back.
- Klathmon 10y ago
  I just don't see that happening. To be completely honest, literally 0 of the people I know with iphones have anything other than official Apple headphones. Even when they break, they go into an apple store and buy new ones. There will be lots of complaining, but for most people this won't change anything except the annoyance of not being able to charge while using the headphones without an adapter (which is the only reason I see the average joe complaining about this change).
  - rimantas 10y ago
    Exactly. It's quite annoying to see this no-problem blown so out of proportion (it sure will cause some problems for some people, but considering the whole user base that's negligible) but if one was to judge by the complaints it sounds like it affects all.
  - javajosh 10y ago
    The headphone industry was generating $2.3B in revenue in 2013 [1], with premium headphones making $1B of that. Needless to say, the world is much larger than your friend group. [1] https://www.npd.com/wps/portal/npd/us/news/press-releases/premium-us-headphone-market-surpasses-$1-billion-in-2013-according-to-npd/ https://www.npd.com/wps/portal/npd/us/news/press-releases/pr...
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - hbosch 10y ago
      I wonder how much of that "premium" segment is owned by Beats? Regardless of their quality, this CNN article[0] claims that beats owns a quarter of the total headphones market and over half of the "premium headphones" segment. These other stats claim that Apple & Beats, combined, account for 70% of future purchase plans for teens.[1] Th definitely have the edge with regards to marketing. And also, looks like just recently Bluetooth headphones are outselling wired headphones.[2] With Apple controlling Beats, and Beats nearly controlling the headphones market, I still think this problem will end up affecting a mere niche demographic one year from today. -- 0. http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/13/tech/beats-headphones-audio-market/ http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/13/tech/beats-headphones-audio-ma... (from 2014. Also, beware opening on mobile, it's banner heavy for me) 1. http://www.statisticbrain.com/headphone-industry-market-share-statistics/ http://www.statisticbrain.com/headphone-industry-market-shar... (March 2016) 2. http://iphone.appleinsider.com/articles/16/07/28/bluetooth-headphone-sales-surpass-others-for-first-time-with-apples-beats-in-top-spot http://iphone.appleinsider.com/articles/16/07/28/bluetooth-h... (July 2016)
matthewhall 10y ago
Just saying drm sucks. Apple calls in digital resources management not rights
agentgt 10y ago
> Besides, with only Apple earbuds currently supporting the Lightning audio connection, the only way to connect an iPhone 7 to a recording or mixing device will be over the suboptimal Bluetooth connection or a dongle provided by Apple. If you are recording stuff from your iPhone using the 3.5mm jack you are already suboptimal perhaps even to the bluetooth. For one you are going through the iPhone DAC (luckily the iphone DACs are pretty descent) then through a generally crappy mini amplifier. If you are doing this you are expecting suboptimal or really don't care about the music quality. I'm not audiophile and hardly care about extreme music quality but If you are mixing/recording you shouldn't be adding artifacts. If you do care about quality recording you either tranfer content off the iphone, bypass the phone jack (aka amplifier), or bypass even the DAC (and get a stream directly). There are several products that already do this on the market for the existing iPhone. (It would be nice if some one would comment instead of downvoting. I don't know if my comment is inappropriate or factually wrong... or just in the way... seriously who records stuff off their iPhone? I'm not disagreeing with the intent of the article just that I doubt audio/music experts are going to be affected by this change)
- 6stringmerc 10y ago
  I think you are factually correct and pointing out an over-reach by the EFF regarding the framing of the subject. The EFF likes to narrow an argument down to the point where they can safely ignore individual caveats, preferring to portray things as "universal rights" issues on the larger level. It's their tactic, from what I've noticed over the years. I've had reasonable results using the headphone output on both iPhone and iPad with music-creation specific programs intended to create quality / usable output (e.g. Figure & GarageBand). The switch to this iPhone7 setup is bad for me because I have purchased several portable devices that use a dongle - well, now a chain of dongles - to allow me to use them with the device. As in, with my Akai LPK25, I use a USB cable to the Camera Connector, and then an adapter to Lightning, then into an iPhone. Then I use a pair of headphones to listen directly to what's going on. In the iPhone7 setup, now I need Bluetooth headphones if I intend to use one of my hardware devices, at least in theory. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth, both because I don't trust the latency / connectivity until I try it, and second, I don't feel like shelling out $$ for Bluetooth headphones that may or may not be to my studio-type work. This isn't a grand conspiracy of DRM or Apple or the Music Industry in that regard, it just looks like more of a cash grab of the 'because we can' type nature, which I don't believe should be all that surprising.
audunw 10y ago
I'm not convinced. The record industry has already given up on DRM except for streaming. A lot has to happen before DRM is applied to headphones. Audio is not like video, where it's hard to get a decent copy from the screen. With audio you can always just hook up to the analog output to the speakers themselves and get a copy indistinguishable from the original Fighting for DRM on headphones would be an uphill battle in so many ways, and I'm not sure the record industry is stupid enough to waste the effort. They've already seemed to learn what everyone know: piracy is solved by making the content easily, universally available at a reasonable price. Piracy is tedious. Just make a better service and the customers will come to you.
- taeric 10y ago
  I would not be so quick to assume they have "given up." Merely that they have so far not had large success.
- TD-Linux 10y ago
  The movie industry has not given up, and videos also produce audio.
  - FreeFull 10y ago
    In fact, you're not even allowed to press Bluray video discs commercially without using Bluray's DRM
- gpvos 10y ago
  >I'm not sure the record industry is stupid enough to waste the effort. The record industry has made so many stupid attempts at DRM, I don't think anyone has been able to keep count.
- 6stringmerc 10y ago
  Agreed; Apple has a very cozy relationship with the major music industry (see also: paying for exclusive content to best its market-competition) and while yes, this proprietary lock-in does have genuine DRM concerns, I don't think it's nearly as overwhelming as portrayed. I appreciate staying 'concerned' with DRM creep and issues of ownership vs. licensing (something the EFF loves to conflate when convenient for their arguments), but going "Chicken Little" is a bit much. They've already got their DMCA 1201 case in progress to kill DRM. Back to the headphone lock-in: Is it profiteering from customers who really like the Apple ecosystem? For sure! Is it just another instance of using music to sell something else with even higher profit margins? Sure! Will it result in a doom-and-gloom future where thousands of music fans are rounded up, sued, and punished for finding a work-around on their own? Seems very unlikely.
slicktux 10y ago
So, apple gets rid of the headphone jack and the fear of the END of headphone jacks propagates. . . This is somewhat depressing and frustrating; depressing because one companies' decision has the potential to influence other companies implementations that therefore will affect us all? Frustrating because homogenization is apparently that simple to implement? I guess this quote by who knows who is ever so true. . . "there is no profit in the current paradigm. . .you have to create problems to create profits", unfortunately.
- jshevek 10y ago
  I don't disagree, but I believe the 3.5 millimeter jack was destined to be replaced eventually (not universally, but in common usage) by USB type-c regardless of Apple's move.
electic 10y ago
The real issue here is this might be anti-competitive, and go as far as being an anti-trust issue. Apple can now limit who makes headphones for the iPhone and the ones that are "allowed" could end up seeing their headphones far more expensive than the Apple and Beats brands. This is all because 3rd party brands will have to pay licensing fees to Apple to use the port. So we could end up seeing headphones that are 20%+ more expensive compared to Apple or Beats headphone units. Sounds anti-competitive to me....
- Anechoic 10y ago
  I might buy the argument if Apple didn't include an adapter with the phone.
  - electic 10y ago
    Which is a hassle. If you are making headphones now in 2016 and beyond, you are going to have to deal with the lightening port to be competitive in the iPhone accessory market.
    - jowiar 10y ago
      This wasn't a push to use the lightning port -- it was a push for accessory makers to ask "First, can we make this wireless?". Lightning isn't really long for this world, either -- (not sure if it goes in 2 or 4 years, but I'd bet pretty heavily against it surviving for 6). The next iteration of the watch is probably self-sufficient, no phone needed, and will require BT accessories.
      - stock_toaster 10y ago
        I agree. I think the endgame is no lightning port at all -- with inductive or wireless charging instead, and icloud (or wifi) for sync and backups.
      - electic 10y ago
        Well again, that is another problem. BT headphones have proven to be a pain to deal with in the past. Pairing especially is a huge issue. Instead of working with the industry on that, they went with a proprietary solution which is implemented in the W1 chip. If you want to use that...you have to pay licensing fees.
aroman 10y ago
> Besides, with only Apple earbuds currently supporting the Lightning audio connection This is just factually incorrect. Even before today's announcement lightning headphones have been available from multiple independent headphone makers, including Bose and Phillips[0]. https://www.google.com/amp/www.mirror.co.uk/tech/dont-panic-apple-fans-already-8791870.amp?client=safari https://www.google.com/amp/www.mirror.co.uk/tech/dont-panic-...
- cr1895 10y ago
  You can also output digital audio to USB through Apple's Camera Connect Kit, which allows you to use an external DAC/amp for whatever headphones you want.
  - brokenmachine 10y ago
    I wonder how long Apple will allow that loophole to exist...
- GarrisonPrime 10y ago
  How about "only Apple earbuds or Apple-approved devices"? Surely, the point is Apple can easily control what works and what doesn't. Whatever the situation is today is no comfort against the potential abuses of the future.
  - hbosch 10y ago
    They have been doing this with headphones for a while now. I became acquainted with this when I had some headphones with play/pause, volume controls, and a mic for my iPhone 4S. After the 4S, I bought an Android phone and was sad to learn the volume controls over the 3.5mm connector were Apple proprietary and the only thing I could do with my $150 Klipsh 'phones as play/pause or answer calls - the volume rocker becoming totally useless.
- q3k 10y ago
  They're not independent - they license the proprietary Lightning standard from Apple at a fee [1] [2]. As a potential headphone manufacturer you can't even know the exact agreement (including terms and royalties) without signing an NDA. [1] - https://developer.apple.com/programs/mfi/ https://developer.apple.com/programs/mfi/ [2] - https://mfi.apple.com/MFiWeb/getFAQ.action#1-1 https://mfi.apple.com/MFiWeb/getFAQ.action#1-1
aluhut 10y ago
I don't get it. The customer base of Apple has no problems spending huge amounts of money. Why should they need to be controlled in such a way?
- trhway 10y ago
  >The customer base of Apple has no problems spending huge amounts of money. exactly, and thus it is probably to control other manufacturers' access to that customer base. With digital non-public interface to headphones, you'd have to buy a license to produce such headphones. Basically extending "in-app purchase" 30% house cut to hardware accessories. Or another example from history - PC architecture vs. PS2.
ybrah 10y ago
if a certain artist's musics is not easily accessible because of DRM or whatever reason, Ill just find something different to listen to. There is no shortage of good local bands anywhere in the world so I'm not worried
EGreg 10y ago
I like how the last paragraph started with "one more thing". :)
jezfromfuture 10y ago
Fud nothing changed really apart from a connector linkbait articles still exists
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
draw_down 10y ago
I don't like this change but I think the argument that it's about DRM is pretty silly.
jasonlingx 10y ago
You can still get a headphone jack via a lightning adapter which comes with every iPhone 7...
- jonlucc 10y ago
  I'm not positive but I think that requires Apple to do that indefinitely (they won't) and/or to approve the third party lightning->aux adapters.
protomyth 10y ago
I guess Android phones will probably go for something based off USB-C. I wonder if Apple will approve an adapter from lightning to some other digital connector?
- Roritharr 10y ago
  Already happened: http://www.androidpolice.com/2016/06/09/moto-z-doesnt-3-5mm-headphone-jack/ http://www.androidpolice.com/2016/06/09/moto-z-doesnt-3-5mm-...
otterley 10y ago
What about the fact that Apple ships a Lighting-to-3.5mm-stereo-analog adapter in the box? As far as I can tell, there is no practical difference from the previous scenario, other than that you need to plug in the dongle to make analog recordings. I agree with a lot of what EFF does, but in light of the adapter provided, they're blowing this issue way out of proportion.
- em3rgent0rdr 10y ago
  They may be providing that for backwards compatibility to ease consumers' transition. That doesn't diminish the concern about DRM.
Kenji 10y ago
> It advertises that the move helps make the phone more water-resistant. Absolute, utter nonsense. I have a 3 year old Samsung Galaxy S4 Active that sports an open headphone jack and can be SUBMERGED in water without any problems. I don't want to have any heavy batteries sitting over, on or in my ears. Let alone the trash DAC and amplifier that these bluetooth devices have.
Yetanfou 10y ago
That Apple wants their users to only use 'approved' peripherals with their stuff (i.e. only those from which they get a share of the profits) under the guise of 'user experience' and 'convenience' does not mean the rest of the world will suddenly give up on their analogue headphones. Apple users will be able to buy dongles (which have to be Apple-approved, so Apple will still get their share of the profits leading to higher prices which Apple-users are willing to bear to be part of that exclusive community) to connect their analogue headphones, the rest of the world will happily keep plugging those 3.5mm jacks into their phones and tablets and radios and other devices. As an aside, what a strange creature is man that he wants to replace a device which is analogue by nature - ears not being digital after all - with a digital counterpart which is clearly sub-optimal, overly complex and fraught with potential restrictions. Meanwhile that same man will brag to his friends about the analogue turn table he purchased on which he plays his analogue records for that true analogue experience, claiming a much warmer sound that is clearly superior to that produced by digital players which 'chop the sound into bits which takes away from the experience'. Bizarre, but profitable.
- cr1895 10y ago
  >As an aside, what a strange creature is man that he wants to replace a device which is analogue by nature - ears not being digital after all - with a digital counterpart which is clearly sub-optimal, overly complex and fraught with potential restrictions Well, if you're hearing it it's ultimately become analog. The question is where does it become analog. I can legitimately understand that many people would like that it happens at your ear and you don't have wires.
  - notyourwork 10y ago
    As much as I disagree with Apple's decision, I agree with your point.
    - cr1895 10y ago
      I mean, I listen from digital output through my 6s probably 90% of the time since the built-in amp doesn't cut it, but I'm also finding this whole thing ridiculous. I'll certainly not be upgrading to a 7.
exabrial 10y ago
Other people getting screwed: Custom IEM wearers. I had a $300 set of Alclair Audio IEMs made so I can use an in-ear audio system on stage while making live music. These use impressions that an audiologist takes of your ear canals for an _exact_ fit that completely seals your ear. There's not a snow-balls chance in hell I would have these be wireless, or a proprietary standard: 1) Latency. Anything over 2ms is not acceptable for live music. That's the difference between a band sounding "in-time" to "needs practice" 2) We use various tablets, phones to control the mix to our ears, and sometimes in between sets, listen and review music. 3) Removing the 3.5mm pretty much means Apple is exiting professional audio because it's now incompatible with 100% of everything. 4) There is no way in hell my $300 pair of custom-molded IEMs bound to a standard that Apple is going to change in 3 years. Not only would I have to replace my IEMs, but any equipment that's not Apple would have to be updated to match. Not going to happen.
- azinman2 10y ago
  So use the dongle?
  - snerbles 10y ago
    Does the dongle add latency?
    - BinaryIdiot 10y ago
      Unlikely; the audio had to be converted from digital to analog on the phone previously so now that's being moved to a dongle so it's still the same process (roughly). If it does add latency I would bet it's very unnoticeable (like sub milliseconds when compared to the built-in solution).
      - makomk 10y ago
        Entirely possible. Onboard DACs use I2S which adds basically zero latency; one of the ways of getting audio out over Lightning is to use USB which requires additional latency-causing buffering. It's possible that there's another lower-latency way of getting audio out over Lighting but only Apple knows.
zonovar 10y ago
I am paranoid I know, however the first thing I thought is that, as headphone can be used in a reverse way as microphones, that Apple made a secret deal with the NSA (or else...) so they will be able in a Bluetooth range to connect (as Bluetooth is far away from being secure) and listen to people. Those plugs all around are just free and easy tool for spies. Of course they could also listen to non encrypted conversations during phone calls between people using encrypted channels/tools. Am I the only one thinking about that?
michrassena 10y ago
The discussion seems to be easily diverted into one about audio, but I think something that I've not seen in discussion about this issue is the way some app makers have used the analog audio port as a data jack. I've long had the impression this was a workaround that was begrudgingly tolerated by Apple. Though we've all heard about how heavy-handed their app store policies are, so maybe I'm imagining things. But anyway, how does this new port affect the use of those devices and how does it affect future devices? Are there Lightning-only devices in the works, does Lightning allow the same sort of communication that the analog port did? Plugging the audio jack seems to be Apple closing a loophole. It's not at all different from soldering RAM on motherboards to close the after-market RAM upgrade loophole and force customers to decide at purchase time how they'll use the computer in the future. Either they'll by too-low spec'd machine and have to upgrade sooner, or buy high spec'd and pay more upfront. Either way Apple wins. Their phones don't have card slots but my $50 LG phone does, so it's not a question of capability. When you can add 32GB of storage for $15, that money doesn't go to Apple. The truly bothersome thing is how in denial people are about Apple's true intentions, or maybe it's simply that they own Apple stock. Apple's a public company, this is profit motivated pure and simple. Whether this move will also coincide with the interests of the customer remains to be seen. (edit for typos and clarification)
- AceJohnny2 10y ago
  Though I can't find the reference offhand, Apple said the adapter would support other "audio jack" tools, specifically calling out the Square payment dongle.
- TheGRS 10y ago
  Yea the one that comes to mind for me would be the card swiper by Square and other companies. That thing is amazing for small businesses, especially mobile food carts. I'm starting to see many are moving over to the card reader however, which I'm not sure if that is lightning-based or not. Anyway, I think that is a great point. Smart phones need a good serial port for 3rd-party hardware. USB would work, but everyone uses a different standard. Is the lightning port any easier or more difficult to work with? I imagine there's some sort of cost to using a proprietary port like that as well.
csense 10y ago
The lack of a headphone jack is simply yet another excellent reason not to buy an iPhone. What confuses me is why so many people continue to buy Apple products when they're overpriced, locked-down and treat developers like crap.
- usaphp 10y ago
  How is Apple iPhone more overpriced than other flagship devices from say Samsung? Last I heard the note 7 costs more than the iPhone.
  - catdog 10y ago
    Most other manufacturers in contrast to Apple do not only sell these overpriced "flagship devices" which few people really need these days but also offer devices in a more reasonable price range. The biggest problem is that others often copy stupid or customer unfriendly decisions Apple makes, leading to a lot less choice if you want to avoid it.
    - usaphp 10y ago
      I absolutely don't understand your logic. > "which few people really need these days" According to sales figures people do need/want them. > "The biggest problem is that others often copy stupid or customer unfriendly decisions Apple makes" And how is that Apple's fault that other companies try to copy what works for them?
    - djrogers 10y ago
      > Most other manufacturers in contrast to Apple do not only sell these overpriced "flagship devices" which few people really need these days but also offer devices in a more reasonable price range. Like the 5 lines of iPhone that Apple offers[1]? [1]http://www.apple.com/iphone/compare/ http://www.apple.com/iphone/compare/
      - brokenmachine 10y ago
        Spoilt for choice!! Five overpriced options to choose from!
X86BSD 10y ago
Interesting. All the whining and crying over a stupid headphone jack. It's almost like the complainers had their genitalia caught in their zippers. Why is everyone cooking up all these reasons for Apple nuking the stereo jack? Apple told you the reason. Where is all the distrust coming from that the complainers don't buy that reason? Space in that phone is at a premium. And nothing they said about the headphone jack was inaccurate. Technology progresses. Old tech dies. Apple has never been afraid to kill obsolete tech to move forward. No one should be shocked or alarmed. And certainly not crying. I'm so tired of the Apple hate. Honestly if you are so alarmed and distraught over a headphone jack please do the rest of us a favor. Do not buy Apple products and stop crying over non issues. If you get cancer then please feel free to shed a tear. But a headphone jack? God some people really need some perspective on life.
- natch 10y ago
  I'm also tired of the haters. But the gratuitous crassness of this comment is a bit too much. There's no need for it. A better approach would be addressing Cory Doctorow and the EFF's point directly by pointing out that the converter cable exists and comes with all new phones. And that when it comes to audio, Apple doesn't tend to deliver bad cables or low quality DACs.
- brokenmachine 10y ago
  The headphone jack is not obsolete. Apple has proved this by including the adapter. If it was really a revolution in amazing tech, they wouldn't have included the adapter because the consumers would be throwing their existing headphones away and flocking to the amazing quality air buds. I have a few pairs of good headphones, and I'd be willing to bet that you cannot compare the quality of those sure-to-be-crap air buds to good IEMs or good wired headphones. I'm not going to eschew the many good headphone manufacturers out there to be locked in to whatever beats poser garbage Apple decides to license its stupid DRM-locked wireless tech to. I'm not shocked or alarmed, I just won't be buying an iphone 7. > Apple told you the reason. What reason did they give?
shmerl 10y ago
Yeah, how Apple of them.
AndrewKemendo 10y ago
Is it possible Apple wants to kill Square because they want everyone to use pay anywhere and are going to release a new card reader dongle soon?
- djrogers 10y ago
  No - the old square reader still works with the dongle (per square) and the new one is wireless anyway.
rayiner 10y ago
HeadphoneJackGate is really a damning indictment of the tech industry. The usability of Apple products for ordinary people has been sliding downhill for years due to trendy-but-idiotic features like hidden UI, flat UI, and gestures (and various abominations combining the three). But the lack of a headphone jack (a total non-issue thanks to the included adapter) is what the tech press gets worked up over...
- spikengineer 10y ago
  The next iphone in 2017 or 2018 probably won't have the adapter. All headphone manufacturers should go and ask for lightning certification. The adapter is just a temporary measure to soothe customers. It won't be supported forever. If apple honestly wanted digital audio they would have used the universal USB-C standard for the future. Apple wants customer lock-in to their platform and using lightning will prevent customers from leaving because these customers have invested a lot in their ecosystem. Ditching the lightning and moving to USB-C was the right thing to do, converting everything to lightning isn't.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    Apple will only drop the adapter when enough people no longer need it. And given that Apple still sells a VGA adapter for the iPhone, it's not like they are likely to stop making it any time soon.
hackuser 10y ago
If you are interested in open hardware, one company working diligently on solutions Purism: https://puri.sm/ https://puri.sm/ You can order laptops now and they are talking about a phone. They even negotiate with OEMs, such as Intel,[0] to provide more open versions of their products, diligently trying to create widespread change. They aren't all the way there,[1] but seem committed to the long run. (I'm not affiliated, and all I know about them is what I read.) ---- [0] https://puri.sm/posts/petition-for-intel-to-release-an-me-less-cpu-design/ https://puri.sm/posts/petition-for-intel-to-release-an-me-le... [1] https://puri.sm/road-to-fsf-ryf-endorsement-and-beyond/ https://puri.sm/road-to-fsf-ryf-endorsement-and-beyond/ - Note that's from Aug 2015
AceJohnny2 10y ago
> When you plug an audio cable into a smartphone, it just works. No, hardware-wise you're still going through a DAC, and the complex audio subsystem of the OS is still deciding, upon receiving the connection signal, to re-route the application audio through that headphone DAC. Or not. Jack or Lightning doesn't change this. > Apple can choose which manufacturers get to create Lightning-compatible audio devices. Sure. Or you can use the included lightning-jack adapter and just use normal, un-DRM'd headphones. >Once Apple gets the ability to add DRM, the record industry gets the ability to insist that Apple use it See my first point: the audio jack wasn't your last guardian of freedom. >In other words, if it’s impossible to connect a speaker or other audio device to an iPhone without Apple software governing it Use the adapter. And see the first point. > the only way to connect an iPhone 7 to a recording or mixing device will be over the suboptimal Bluetooth connection or a dongle provided by Apple. Aha! They finally acknowledge the adapter! But do they acknowledge that it's functionally identical to a built-in DAC? > It's possible that iOS or specific apps will be able to disable the dongle. It's also possible the phone will halt and catch fire if you run an unapproved app. But disabling the dongle would be moronic. For one thing, they'd be incurring the wrath of ADA-defender groups. >the converter you rely on to hear your phone on your hearing aids—just became less useful. See previous point. >But you shouldn’t have to depend on a manufacturer’s permission to use its hardware however you like. Then don't even buy Apple. They've been locked down in so many other ways for a long time. Anyhow. The simple explanation (see Occam's Razor) is that the designers noticed that they were using valuable internal space for a redundant connector (considering the hardware has been able to route audio over Lightning for a long time), and figured they could reclaim that space for something else. Clearly, people disagree with this change. The market will tell.
- _ph_ 10y ago
  And it is worth noting that Apple was rather pushing the record industry to go off DRM and they finally succeeded in it.
  - taigeair 10y ago
    Also people wouldn't buy their products if they forced DRM. Apple likes money.
k-mcgrady 10y ago
1. Apple has already publicly stated this is not about DRM and, at least when it comes to music, they have been very anti-DRM for a long time. 2. Apple earbuds aren't the only one's you can use. There are lots of lightning compatible headphones and they've been around a while. 3. This is not 'The End of Headphones Jacks'. It's one phone manufacturer. Globally iPhone market share is less than 20% so if you want a headphone jack you have a lot of great options.
- jshevek 10y ago
  > Apple has already publicly stated this is not about DRM I'm not sure why anyone considers this relevant. It is not like apple is signing a contract which would allow us to sue them if they "change their minds".
  - k-mcgrady 10y ago
    Not only has Apple stated this isn't about DRM but throughout their recent history they've tended to back up their anti-DRM stance be getting the music labels to drop it at a time when that was pretty controversial. Any statement from them should hold some weight considering this whole debate is a conspiracy theory at best.
    - jshevek 10y ago
      > Any statement from them should hold some weight considering this whole debate is a conspiracy theory at best. Those are two separate issues. Whether or not the "whole debate is conspiracy theory at best" has no bearing on whether a statement like this from apple should hold any weight. Apple's claim may or may not be true, but we should look to other sources of evidence to evaluate this, and completely disregard 'because apple said so'.
      - k-mcgrady 10y ago
        My previous sentence explains why their statement should hold weight. They have backed it up with previous actions.
astral303 10y ago
If there is a 3.5mm dongle available, how is this truly the end of the headphone jacks? The headphone jack is still there, it just has to be accessed via the dongle. It's gone from being physically on the device, but the capability is not gone. I think a post like this undermines EFF's credibility. Steve Jobs has railed against DRM for music and finally was able to get it. iTunes music has been DRM-free for years now. Why would Apple back out on DRM-free music?
hackuser 10y ago
It's frustrating that there's not a (significant) phone vendor committed to both user confidentiality and end-user control (libre/free/open). Apple seems to provide confidentiality, if you buy their marketing, and Google is much more open/free. These should be, IMO, fundamentals of IT, but it's not even a realistic option.
peterkelly 10y ago
> "Other developers must ask Apple for permission to create and sell Lightning-compatible devices" I wonder how well that's going to work in China (and for that matter most of the rest of Asia)
noonespecial 10y ago
I think removing the headphone jack is stupid. But it has zero to do with DRM. Moving the DAC to the other side of a connector changes nothing at all about Apple's ability to implement DRM. There was an Apple controlled DAC in your phone before, now its in a dongle 2cm away. Its annoying but not a diabolical plot.
- kylewpppd 10y ago
  It cannot be about removing the DAC, there's still one for the internal speakers.
  - noonespecial 10y ago
    Certainly not. Its about removing the jack to make the phone slimmer or more aesthetic or more waterproof. Or all of the above. The internal DAC is certainly part of a SOC anyway. The point is that having an Apple DAC in a dongle makes no fundamental difference from a DRM perspective over just using the internal one on old phones. Its not a plot. We're in Texas here, hearing hoofbeats and everyone is insisting that zebras are coming.
    - jshevek 10y ago
      > Its about removing the jack to make the phone slimmer or more aesthetic or more waterproof. Other manufacturers seem to be able to achieve these ends without removing the headphone jack.
jccalhoun 10y ago
It is just so weird to me that apple hates buttons but loves dongles.
kazinator 10y ago
So what? Early consumer computers (including ones from Apple) didn't have audio jacks either; you had to add audio adapter interfaces to have audio at all. It's just going full circle. DRM has nothing to do with whether a device has an analog audio jack. Nobody in their right mind copies audio through the headphone jack output. If an audio output device enforces DRM, that can be done just as well by a built-in analog out as by some bluetooth add-on or whatever. Analog out starts out digital. The audio data flows to some audio chips. Those chips have drivers, and the drivers can be signed, part of a signed OS image, etc. You can make a device that will only play digital-rights-managed content, even if it has analog outputs.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Sidgup1 10y ago
L, R and GND will still exist abd it will be analog signal. Speakers are analog.

457 points by dwaxe 10y ago

The also just made it so their phone no longer works with millions of car audio systems that have an auxiliary input jack. Not all of us have 2016's with fancy Car Play or Android Auto.

poopsintub 10y ago
Bluetooth has been common if not standard, in even low-end models for the past 3-4 years.

PaulHoule 10y ago

This is the first time I've heard that argument. It's a good one.

wccrawford 10y ago
Except that there are adapters that convert to that same old jack, and so you haven't really lost anything. Yet, anyhow. If they ever lock you down to only approved headphones, then we've got a real problem, and not just for being able to do what you want with your music.
- dogma1138 10y ago
  You can control what songs can be decoded with what adapter. You can control the bit rate and quality. You can effectively make songs that only play on certain headphones or songs that play better quality when you have your beats plugged in. This isn't the first time this has been brought up this was the first thing everyone had in mind when the rumors about Apple ditching the headphone jack first appeared.
  - rimantas 10y ago
    As if they cannot control what iPhone outputs to 3.5.
    - dogma1138 10y ago
      Not really, they can't tell what headphones are plugged in they might be able to determine some very coarse profile but even that is highly questionable. With audio being pushed through lighting port in a digital format Apple knows for sure what device is connected to it, and even if you spoof the device id they can still use DRM because the device decodes the digital signal and if it doesn't have the correct set of keys or decoding configuration it would not be able to play the audio.
- 0x0 10y ago
  As the article mentions, it's probably super easy for iOS to refuse to route audio to the adapter if it so chooses, for example when playing certain "fairplay" encrypted content. How convenient.
  - mbreese 10y ago
    Wouldn't it be just as easy to refuse to route to a physical audio jack as well? I don't see how the loss of the physical jack changes that scenario.
    - 0x0 10y ago
      It matters because the jack is no longer the default output device that customers expect to always work.
      - nchelluri 10y ago
        Maybe you can open my eyes a bit, because right now that seems like splitting hairs to me. One way or another, the audio is cut off. Just because it's another jack/plug customers won't be upset?
        0x0 10y ago
        I think it's an easier "sell" to refuse third party headsets connecting through a legacy adapter, compared to refusing to use the bundled headsets that came in the box.
    - calinet6 10y ago
      The difference is in how smart the jack can be. First, it's under legal/licensing restriction, which means you have to pay to play (ignore the adapter for now; it's inconvenient and can also be detected as a particular kind of 'unlicensed' device). Second is the subtler stuff -- like how the jack can now communicate about the music and the device with the phone, so you really could do things like have exclusive Apple music releases only playable on Beats, or (behind the scenes) have a higher quality version play on your Beats than your other headphones, reinforcing the illusion that the new port and devices are "better" than the old analog one (which is impossible). Or have advertising play on radio, except on headphones that have paid a premium to be "ad-free." It also opens up much more positive possibilities, like the phone knowing the frequency profile of the headphones that are plugged in and automatically using the right equalizer settings to make it sound great. Or, simply wireless devices being able to charge through the port when plugged in. Or having headphones with memory that can keep a few hours of music on them 'synced' by plugging in so you don't even need your iPhone to listen. So all in all, it's a set of tradeoffs, giving up some freedom and simplicity, for the opportunity of more possibilities in the future. It's difficult to say exactly how it will be used, but the realist point of view is that it's all ending up as the same analog sound in the end; there's only so much that can be revolutionized. Time will tell.
- ddt_Osprey 10y ago
  If they ever... Boiling frogs, my friend. Boiling frogs.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
nlawalker 10y ago
You can't close the analog hole, though. As long as we're listening to music via physical speakers manipulating air pressure, there will always be an unencoded electrical audio signal somewhere in the system. Now, when we start getting DRM-enabled bone conductors implanted in our jaws...
- icoder 10y ago
  Right! And this point is exactly why the comparison with video DRM in the article is a bit weak, because video will normally be split into a signal per pixel before becoming analog, making it impractical to access the full unencoded video signal. This, plus the fact that most copyrighted audio will be playable and copyable through unprotected channels for a while (Spotify / YouTube on PC / Android) I don't think this move has anything to do with DRM.
- moyix 10y ago
  Exactly. Nothing stops someone from pulling open their AirBuds and recording the analog signal that drives the speaker.

zepto 10y ago

http://www.apple.com/shop/product/MMX62AM/A/lightning-to-35-mm-headphone-jack-adapter?fnode=94076bf4300fc94de38ac0dce6111bffeb1641842210382677ece98e45d55bb5dfe114c8b3c2ecb222de3df55d5e0b52aedf2fb9744a0d879dd7551e2d0c9dc34f5a2ff6bb54cecedd46fcbfeecd3e00f337b3dee2e343eec5759acccf1c45a5 http://www.apple.com/shop/product/MMX62AM/A/lightning-to-35-...

0x0 10y ago
This adapter requires the cooperation of the OS to function.
- intrasight 10y ago
  The headphone jack also requires the cooperation of the OS to function
  - aikah 10y ago
    an OS cannot deny an analog jack. An OS can however deny an digital adapter.
    - zepto 10y ago
      Not true. The os switches off the analog jack when the internal speaker is used or when sound is routed to a Bluetooth headphone or speaker. Clearly the OS can deny an analog jack.
      - aikah 10y ago
        my point is, an os can check whether an analog jack is authorized to work or not, an analog jack is an analog jack. On the other hand, a DRM system can be implemented with any digital accessory.
        zepto 10y ago
        Also not true - there is no reason they couldn't implement a digital handshake over 3.5mm jacks to identity approved devices. It's just wires.

api 10y ago

This is interesting but personally I think this move is more about Apple being able to take more profit from its Beats brand and from any third party speaker maker that now has to license to work with iOS. Of course I guess they can also sell "premium DRM" snake oil to recording companies now, because nobody can tap audio from hardware. That's totally impossible right? Apple just loves to tax their ecosystem. They also have a huge fetish for eliminating connectors, plugs, etc. even when they are well past the point of diminishing returns there.

zelias 10y ago

There's a lot of potential for anti-competitive practice here -- for example, Apple could theoretically prevent the Spotify app from transmitting audio over Bluetooth or Lightning, forcing users into the Apple Music ecosystem.

amazingman 10y ago
And if they do, they'll end up in antitrust courts in multiple countries while paying out a crushingly large and sustained PR cost.
- pjmlp 10y ago
  Usually such cases only apply to monopolies and Apple is very far from being one, considering the world market.
  - jdmichal 10y ago
    Antitrust law is not just about monopolies, and it does not only apply to monopolies. Also, the world market wouldn't matter, because any individual case would be brought in a specific legal jurisdiction, where only that specific jurisdiction's market would be relevant.
isseu 10y ago
They could have done this long ago..
rimantas 10y ago
And why would they do that? You can listen to your Spotify as much as you want as long as you buy iPhone.

mead5432 10y ago

I understand the argument that forcing content through a proprietary jack opens the door for controlling said content and has huge implications for hardware manufacturers and the way people use their stuff. What I am having a hard time understanding is why is that any different than the OS influencing what gets sent to the 3.5mm jack? It isn't like apps running in iOS had to interact with APIs to do all the other things (e.g. camera) but not the jack. Is it?

kabdib 10y ago
Exactly; Apple has always controlled what can be sent to the DAC on the audio jack. (I don't know if it has a dedicated DAC, but even if it shares with the speaker, the device knows when something is plugged into the jack). How secure are these dongles? Will we see third party ones, or do you need key material from Apple before they will light up? The Xbox is full of this kind of thing, btw (most peripherals require a "security chip" that just needs to handshake; purely revenue protection, and nothing to do with security).
- frandroid 10y ago
  You mean, purely "revenue security".
  - kabdib 10y ago
    Exactly.
onli 10y ago
My understanding is that it is about what is the output. The 3.5mm jack outputs the regular audio data. You could just make it output encrypted data, but that is the same as removing it, all the headphones won't work. If you replace it with a proprietary system you can add in DRM, like not outputting anything if the connected device (which can be an adapter) is not certified. Everything has to get transformed into regular data at one point, but the content mafia is trying since many years to control as many parts of the system as possible. This is one further step. I could be a bit off the mark here, not my area.

the_other 10y ago

This reads slightly hyperbolic. I suspect Apple will fight against DRM on music for quite some time having made the decision to remove it. In the past the Apple's designs needed to respect a vast pre-existing ecosystem of headphones, amps and assorted other audio gear. Dropping the socket largely takes them out of that ecosystem, but today the success and reach of their devices exerts pressure on that ecosystem to move in Apple's direction too. That pressure does the rest of the ecosystem a significant disservice: the interoperability of the devices, cables and practices in that ecosystem provides so much utility!

ourmandave 10y ago
I thought they might be trying to get rid of the 3.5 mm jack to make a thinner phone but the 7 is the exact same size as the 6. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/0/apple-iphone-7-full-specs-key-features-uk-price-and-release-date/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/0/apple-iphone-7-full-... Maybe this is an evolution to a super thin iPhone 8.
- bphogan 10y ago
  I'd heard that it caused camera interference, which I don't understand. But the more plausible thing I heard was that they needed some room for that new haptic thing they put under the home button.

javajosh 10y ago

Isn't this tacitly assuming that Apple will be able to single-handedly eliminate the headphone jack? I think it is quite likely that post-Jobs Apple has finally overstepped it's bounds, and despite it's good qualities the iPhone 7 will be a relative dud. In which case the iPhone 8 will (reluctantly) put the jack back.

Klathmon 10y ago
I just don't see that happening. To be completely honest, literally 0 of the people I know with iphones have anything other than official Apple headphones. Even when they break, they go into an apple store and buy new ones. There will be lots of complaining, but for most people this won't change anything except the annoyance of not being able to charge while using the headphones without an adapter (which is the only reason I see the average joe complaining about this change).
- rimantas 10y ago
  Exactly. It's quite annoying to see this no-problem blown so out of proportion (it sure will cause some problems for some people, but considering the whole user base that's negligible) but if one was to judge by the complaints it sounds like it affects all.
- javajosh 10y ago
  The headphone industry was generating $2.3B in revenue in 2013 [1], with premium headphones making $1B of that. Needless to say, the world is much larger than your friend group. [1] https://www.npd.com/wps/portal/npd/us/news/press-releases/premium-us-headphone-market-surpasses-$1-billion-in-2013-according-to-npd/ https://www.npd.com/wps/portal/npd/us/news/press-releases/pr...
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - hbosch 10y ago
    I wonder how much of that "premium" segment is owned by Beats? Regardless of their quality, this CNN article[0] claims that beats owns a quarter of the total headphones market and over half of the "premium headphones" segment. These other stats claim that Apple & Beats, combined, account for 70% of future purchase plans for teens.[1] Th definitely have the edge with regards to marketing. And also, looks like just recently Bluetooth headphones are outselling wired headphones.[2] With Apple controlling Beats, and Beats nearly controlling the headphones market, I still think this problem will end up affecting a mere niche demographic one year from today. -- 0. http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/13/tech/beats-headphones-audio-market/ http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/13/tech/beats-headphones-audio-ma... (from 2014. Also, beware opening on mobile, it's banner heavy for me) 1. http://www.statisticbrain.com/headphone-industry-market-share-statistics/ http://www.statisticbrain.com/headphone-industry-market-shar... (March 2016) 2. http://iphone.appleinsider.com/articles/16/07/28/bluetooth-headphone-sales-surpass-others-for-first-time-with-apples-beats-in-top-spot http://iphone.appleinsider.com/articles/16/07/28/bluetooth-h... (July 2016)

matthewhall 10y ago

Just saying drm sucks. Apple calls in digital resources management not rights

agentgt 10y ago

> Besides, with only Apple earbuds currently supporting the Lightning audio connection, the only way to connect an iPhone 7 to a recording or mixing device will be over the suboptimal Bluetooth connection or a dongle provided by Apple. If you are recording stuff from your iPhone using the 3.5mm jack you are already suboptimal perhaps even to the bluetooth. For one you are going through the iPhone DAC (luckily the iphone DACs are pretty descent) then through a generally crappy mini amplifier. If you are doing this you are expecting suboptimal or really don't care about the music quality. I'm not audiophile and hardly care about extreme music quality but If you are mixing/recording you shouldn't be adding artifacts. If you do care about quality recording you either tranfer content off the iphone, bypass the phone jack (aka amplifier), or bypass even the DAC (and get a stream directly). There are several products that already do this on the market for the existing iPhone. (It would be nice if some one would comment instead of downvoting. I don't know if my comment is inappropriate or factually wrong... or just in the way... seriously who records stuff off their iPhone? I'm not disagreeing with the intent of the article just that I doubt audio/music experts are going to be affected by this change)

6stringmerc 10y ago
I think you are factually correct and pointing out an over-reach by the EFF regarding the framing of the subject. The EFF likes to narrow an argument down to the point where they can safely ignore individual caveats, preferring to portray things as "universal rights" issues on the larger level. It's their tactic, from what I've noticed over the years. I've had reasonable results using the headphone output on both iPhone and iPad with music-creation specific programs intended to create quality / usable output (e.g. Figure & GarageBand). The switch to this iPhone7 setup is bad for me because I have purchased several portable devices that use a dongle - well, now a chain of dongles - to allow me to use them with the device. As in, with my Akai LPK25, I use a USB cable to the Camera Connector, and then an adapter to Lightning, then into an iPhone. Then I use a pair of headphones to listen directly to what's going on. In the iPhone7 setup, now I need Bluetooth headphones if I intend to use one of my hardware devices, at least in theory. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth, both because I don't trust the latency / connectivity until I try it, and second, I don't feel like shelling out $$ for Bluetooth headphones that may or may not be to my studio-type work. This isn't a grand conspiracy of DRM or Apple or the Music Industry in that regard, it just looks like more of a cash grab of the 'because we can' type nature, which I don't believe should be all that surprising.

audunw 10y ago

I'm not convinced. The record industry has already given up on DRM except for streaming. A lot has to happen before DRM is applied to headphones. Audio is not like video, where it's hard to get a decent copy from the screen. With audio you can always just hook up to the analog output to the speakers themselves and get a copy indistinguishable from the original Fighting for DRM on headphones would be an uphill battle in so many ways, and I'm not sure the record industry is stupid enough to waste the effort. They've already seemed to learn what everyone know: piracy is solved by making the content easily, universally available at a reasonable price. Piracy is tedious. Just make a better service and the customers will come to you.

taeric 10y ago
I would not be so quick to assume they have "given up." Merely that they have so far not had large success.
TD-Linux 10y ago
The movie industry has not given up, and videos also produce audio.
- FreeFull 10y ago
  In fact, you're not even allowed to press Bluray video discs commercially without using Bluray's DRM
gpvos 10y ago
>I'm not sure the record industry is stupid enough to waste the effort. The record industry has made so many stupid attempts at DRM, I don't think anyone has been able to keep count.
6stringmerc 10y ago
Agreed; Apple has a very cozy relationship with the major music industry (see also: paying for exclusive content to best its market-competition) and while yes, this proprietary lock-in does have genuine DRM concerns, I don't think it's nearly as overwhelming as portrayed. I appreciate staying 'concerned' with DRM creep and issues of ownership vs. licensing (something the EFF loves to conflate when convenient for their arguments), but going "Chicken Little" is a bit much. They've already got their DMCA 1201 case in progress to kill DRM. Back to the headphone lock-in: Is it profiteering from customers who really like the Apple ecosystem? For sure! Is it just another instance of using music to sell something else with even higher profit margins? Sure! Will it result in a doom-and-gloom future where thousands of music fans are rounded up, sued, and punished for finding a work-around on their own? Seems very unlikely.

slicktux 10y ago

So, apple gets rid of the headphone jack and the fear of the END of headphone jacks propagates. . . This is somewhat depressing and frustrating; depressing because one companies' decision has the potential to influence other companies implementations that therefore will affect us all? Frustrating because homogenization is apparently that simple to implement? I guess this quote by who knows who is ever so true. . . "there is no profit in the current paradigm. . .you have to create problems to create profits", unfortunately.

jshevek 10y ago
I don't disagree, but I believe the 3.5 millimeter jack was destined to be replaced eventually (not universally, but in common usage) by USB type-c regardless of Apple's move.

electic 10y ago

The real issue here is this might be anti-competitive, and go as far as being an anti-trust issue. Apple can now limit who makes headphones for the iPhone and the ones that are "allowed" could end up seeing their headphones far more expensive than the Apple and Beats brands. This is all because 3rd party brands will have to pay licensing fees to Apple to use the port. So we could end up seeing headphones that are 20%+ more expensive compared to Apple or Beats headphone units. Sounds anti-competitive to me....

Anechoic 10y ago
I might buy the argument if Apple didn't include an adapter with the phone.
- electic 10y ago
  Which is a hassle. If you are making headphones now in 2016 and beyond, you are going to have to deal with the lightening port to be competitive in the iPhone accessory market.
  - jowiar 10y ago
    This wasn't a push to use the lightning port -- it was a push for accessory makers to ask "First, can we make this wireless?". Lightning isn't really long for this world, either -- (not sure if it goes in 2 or 4 years, but I'd bet pretty heavily against it surviving for 6). The next iteration of the watch is probably self-sufficient, no phone needed, and will require BT accessories.
    - stock_toaster 10y ago
      I agree. I think the endgame is no lightning port at all -- with inductive or wireless charging instead, and icloud (or wifi) for sync and backups.
    - electic 10y ago
      Well again, that is another problem. BT headphones have proven to be a pain to deal with in the past. Pairing especially is a huge issue. Instead of working with the industry on that, they went with a proprietary solution which is implemented in the W1 chip. If you want to use that...you have to pay licensing fees.

aroman 10y ago

> Besides, with only Apple earbuds currently supporting the Lightning audio connection This is just factually incorrect. Even before today's announcement lightning headphones have been available from multiple independent headphone makers, including Bose and Phillips[0]. https://www.google.com/amp/www.mirror.co.uk/tech/dont-panic-apple-fans-already-8791870.amp?client=safari https://www.google.com/amp/www.mirror.co.uk/tech/dont-panic-...

cr1895 10y ago
You can also output digital audio to USB through Apple's Camera Connect Kit, which allows you to use an external DAC/amp for whatever headphones you want.
- brokenmachine 10y ago
  I wonder how long Apple will allow that loophole to exist...
GarrisonPrime 10y ago
How about "only Apple earbuds or Apple-approved devices"? Surely, the point is Apple can easily control what works and what doesn't. Whatever the situation is today is no comfort against the potential abuses of the future.
- hbosch 10y ago
  They have been doing this with headphones for a while now. I became acquainted with this when I had some headphones with play/pause, volume controls, and a mic for my iPhone 4S. After the 4S, I bought an Android phone and was sad to learn the volume controls over the 3.5mm connector were Apple proprietary and the only thing I could do with my $150 Klipsh 'phones as play/pause or answer calls - the volume rocker becoming totally useless.
q3k 10y ago
They're not independent - they license the proprietary Lightning standard from Apple at a fee [1] [2]. As a potential headphone manufacturer you can't even know the exact agreement (including terms and royalties) without signing an NDA. [1] - https://developer.apple.com/programs/mfi/ https://developer.apple.com/programs/mfi/ [2] - https://mfi.apple.com/MFiWeb/getFAQ.action#1-1 https://mfi.apple.com/MFiWeb/getFAQ.action#1-1

aluhut 10y ago

I don't get it. The customer base of Apple has no problems spending huge amounts of money. Why should they need to be controlled in such a way?

trhway 10y ago
>The customer base of Apple has no problems spending huge amounts of money. exactly, and thus it is probably to control other manufacturers' access to that customer base. With digital non-public interface to headphones, you'd have to buy a license to produce such headphones. Basically extending "in-app purchase" 30% house cut to hardware accessories. Or another example from history - PC architecture vs. PS2.

ybrah 10y ago

if a certain artist's musics is not easily accessible because of DRM or whatever reason, Ill just find something different to listen to. There is no shortage of good local bands anywhere in the world so I'm not worried

EGreg 10y ago

I like how the last paragraph started with "one more thing". :)

jezfromfuture 10y ago

Fud nothing changed really apart from a connector linkbait articles still exists

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

draw_down 10y ago

I don't like this change but I think the argument that it's about DRM is pretty silly.

jasonlingx 10y ago

You can still get a headphone jack via a lightning adapter which comes with every iPhone 7...

jonlucc 10y ago
I'm not positive but I think that requires Apple to do that indefinitely (they won't) and/or to approve the third party lightning->aux adapters.

protomyth 10y ago

I guess Android phones will probably go for something based off USB-C. I wonder if Apple will approve an adapter from lightning to some other digital connector?

Roritharr 10y ago
Already happened: http://www.androidpolice.com/2016/06/09/moto-z-doesnt-3-5mm-headphone-jack/ http://www.androidpolice.com/2016/06/09/moto-z-doesnt-3-5mm-...

otterley 10y ago

What about the fact that Apple ships a Lighting-to-3.5mm-stereo-analog adapter in the box? As far as I can tell, there is no practical difference from the previous scenario, other than that you need to plug in the dongle to make analog recordings. I agree with a lot of what EFF does, but in light of the adapter provided, they're blowing this issue way out of proportion.

em3rgent0rdr 10y ago
They may be providing that for backwards compatibility to ease consumers' transition. That doesn't diminish the concern about DRM.

Kenji 10y ago

> It advertises that the move helps make the phone more water-resistant. Absolute, utter nonsense. I have a 3 year old Samsung Galaxy S4 Active that sports an open headphone jack and can be SUBMERGED in water without any problems. I don't want to have any heavy batteries sitting over, on or in my ears. Let alone the trash DAC and amplifier that these bluetooth devices have.

Yetanfou 10y ago

That Apple wants their users to only use 'approved' peripherals with their stuff (i.e. only those from which they get a share of the profits) under the guise of 'user experience' and 'convenience' does not mean the rest of the world will suddenly give up on their analogue headphones. Apple users will be able to buy dongles (which have to be Apple-approved, so Apple will still get their share of the profits leading to higher prices which Apple-users are willing to bear to be part of that exclusive community) to connect their analogue headphones, the rest of the world will happily keep plugging those 3.5mm jacks into their phones and tablets and radios and other devices. As an aside, what a strange creature is man that he wants to replace a device which is analogue by nature - ears not being digital after all - with a digital counterpart which is clearly sub-optimal, overly complex and fraught with potential restrictions. Meanwhile that same man will brag to his friends about the analogue turn table he purchased on which he plays his analogue records for that true analogue experience, claiming a much warmer sound that is clearly superior to that produced by digital players which 'chop the sound into bits which takes away from the experience'. Bizarre, but profitable.

cr1895 10y ago
>As an aside, what a strange creature is man that he wants to replace a device which is analogue by nature - ears not being digital after all - with a digital counterpart which is clearly sub-optimal, overly complex and fraught with potential restrictions Well, if you're hearing it it's ultimately become analog. The question is where does it become analog. I can legitimately understand that many people would like that it happens at your ear and you don't have wires.
- notyourwork 10y ago
  As much as I disagree with Apple's decision, I agree with your point.
  - cr1895 10y ago
    I mean, I listen from digital output through my 6s probably 90% of the time since the built-in amp doesn't cut it, but I'm also finding this whole thing ridiculous. I'll certainly not be upgrading to a 7.

exabrial 10y ago

Other people getting screwed: Custom IEM wearers. I had a $300 set of Alclair Audio IEMs made so I can use an in-ear audio system on stage while making live music. These use impressions that an audiologist takes of your ear canals for an _exact_ fit that completely seals your ear. There's not a snow-balls chance in hell I would have these be wireless, or a proprietary standard: 1) Latency. Anything over 2ms is not acceptable for live music. That's the difference between a band sounding "in-time" to "needs practice" 2) We use various tablets, phones to control the mix to our ears, and sometimes in between sets, listen and review music. 3) Removing the 3.5mm pretty much means Apple is exiting professional audio because it's now incompatible with 100% of everything. 4) There is no way in hell my $300 pair of custom-molded IEMs bound to a standard that Apple is going to change in 3 years. Not only would I have to replace my IEMs, but any equipment that's not Apple would have to be updated to match. Not going to happen.

azinman2 10y ago
So use the dongle?
- snerbles 10y ago
  Does the dongle add latency?
  - BinaryIdiot 10y ago
    Unlikely; the audio had to be converted from digital to analog on the phone previously so now that's being moved to a dongle so it's still the same process (roughly). If it does add latency I would bet it's very unnoticeable (like sub milliseconds when compared to the built-in solution).
    - makomk 10y ago
      Entirely possible. Onboard DACs use I2S which adds basically zero latency; one of the ways of getting audio out over Lightning is to use USB which requires additional latency-causing buffering. It's possible that there's another lower-latency way of getting audio out over Lighting but only Apple knows.

zonovar 10y ago

I am paranoid I know, however the first thing I thought is that, as headphone can be used in a reverse way as microphones, that Apple made a secret deal with the NSA (or else...) so they will be able in a Bluetooth range to connect (as Bluetooth is far away from being secure) and listen to people. Those plugs all around are just free and easy tool for spies. Of course they could also listen to non encrypted conversations during phone calls between people using encrypted channels/tools. Am I the only one thinking about that?

michrassena 10y ago

The discussion seems to be easily diverted into one about audio, but I think something that I've not seen in discussion about this issue is the way some app makers have used the analog audio port as a data jack. I've long had the impression this was a workaround that was begrudgingly tolerated by Apple. Though we've all heard about how heavy-handed their app store policies are, so maybe I'm imagining things. But anyway, how does this new port affect the use of those devices and how does it affect future devices? Are there Lightning-only devices in the works, does Lightning allow the same sort of communication that the analog port did? Plugging the audio jack seems to be Apple closing a loophole. It's not at all different from soldering RAM on motherboards to close the after-market RAM upgrade loophole and force customers to decide at purchase time how they'll use the computer in the future. Either they'll by too-low spec'd machine and have to upgrade sooner, or buy high spec'd and pay more upfront. Either way Apple wins. Their phones don't have card slots but my $50 LG phone does, so it's not a question of capability. When you can add 32GB of storage for $15, that money doesn't go to Apple. The truly bothersome thing is how in denial people are about Apple's true intentions, or maybe it's simply that they own Apple stock. Apple's a public company, this is profit motivated pure and simple. Whether this move will also coincide with the interests of the customer remains to be seen. (edit for typos and clarification)

AceJohnny2 10y ago
Though I can't find the reference offhand, Apple said the adapter would support other "audio jack" tools, specifically calling out the Square payment dongle.
TheGRS 10y ago
Yea the one that comes to mind for me would be the card swiper by Square and other companies. That thing is amazing for small businesses, especially mobile food carts. I'm starting to see many are moving over to the card reader however, which I'm not sure if that is lightning-based or not. Anyway, I think that is a great point. Smart phones need a good serial port for 3rd-party hardware. USB would work, but everyone uses a different standard. Is the lightning port any easier or more difficult to work with? I imagine there's some sort of cost to using a proprietary port like that as well.

csense 10y ago

The lack of a headphone jack is simply yet another excellent reason not to buy an iPhone. What confuses me is why so many people continue to buy Apple products when they're overpriced, locked-down and treat developers like crap.

usaphp 10y ago
How is Apple iPhone more overpriced than other flagship devices from say Samsung? Last I heard the note 7 costs more than the iPhone.
- catdog 10y ago
  Most other manufacturers in contrast to Apple do not only sell these overpriced "flagship devices" which few people really need these days but also offer devices in a more reasonable price range. The biggest problem is that others often copy stupid or customer unfriendly decisions Apple makes, leading to a lot less choice if you want to avoid it.
  - usaphp 10y ago
    I absolutely don't understand your logic. > "which few people really need these days" According to sales figures people do need/want them. > "The biggest problem is that others often copy stupid or customer unfriendly decisions Apple makes" And how is that Apple's fault that other companies try to copy what works for them?
  - djrogers 10y ago
    > Most other manufacturers in contrast to Apple do not only sell these overpriced "flagship devices" which few people really need these days but also offer devices in a more reasonable price range. Like the 5 lines of iPhone that Apple offers[1]? [1]http://www.apple.com/iphone/compare/ http://www.apple.com/iphone/compare/
    - brokenmachine 10y ago
      Spoilt for choice!! Five overpriced options to choose from!

X86BSD 10y ago

Interesting. All the whining and crying over a stupid headphone jack. It's almost like the complainers had their genitalia caught in their zippers. Why is everyone cooking up all these reasons for Apple nuking the stereo jack? Apple told you the reason. Where is all the distrust coming from that the complainers don't buy that reason? Space in that phone is at a premium. And nothing they said about the headphone jack was inaccurate. Technology progresses. Old tech dies. Apple has never been afraid to kill obsolete tech to move forward. No one should be shocked or alarmed. And certainly not crying. I'm so tired of the Apple hate. Honestly if you are so alarmed and distraught over a headphone jack please do the rest of us a favor. Do not buy Apple products and stop crying over non issues. If you get cancer then please feel free to shed a tear. But a headphone jack? God some people really need some perspective on life.

natch 10y ago
I'm also tired of the haters. But the gratuitous crassness of this comment is a bit too much. There's no need for it. A better approach would be addressing Cory Doctorow and the EFF's point directly by pointing out that the converter cable exists and comes with all new phones. And that when it comes to audio, Apple doesn't tend to deliver bad cables or low quality DACs.
brokenmachine 10y ago
The headphone jack is not obsolete. Apple has proved this by including the adapter. If it was really a revolution in amazing tech, they wouldn't have included the adapter because the consumers would be throwing their existing headphones away and flocking to the amazing quality air buds. I have a few pairs of good headphones, and I'd be willing to bet that you cannot compare the quality of those sure-to-be-crap air buds to good IEMs or good wired headphones. I'm not going to eschew the many good headphone manufacturers out there to be locked in to whatever beats poser garbage Apple decides to license its stupid DRM-locked wireless tech to. I'm not shocked or alarmed, I just won't be buying an iphone 7. > Apple told you the reason. What reason did they give?

shmerl 10y ago

Yeah, how Apple of them.

AndrewKemendo 10y ago

Is it possible Apple wants to kill Square because they want everyone to use pay anywhere and are going to release a new card reader dongle soon?

djrogers 10y ago
No - the old square reader still works with the dongle (per square) and the new one is wireless anyway.

rayiner 10y ago

HeadphoneJackGate is really a damning indictment of the tech industry. The usability of Apple products for ordinary people has been sliding downhill for years due to trendy-but-idiotic features like hidden UI, flat UI, and gestures (and various abominations combining the three). But the lack of a headphone jack (a total non-issue thanks to the included adapter) is what the tech press gets worked up over...

spikengineer 10y ago
The next iphone in 2017 or 2018 probably won't have the adapter. All headphone manufacturers should go and ask for lightning certification. The adapter is just a temporary measure to soothe customers. It won't be supported forever. If apple honestly wanted digital audio they would have used the universal USB-C standard for the future. Apple wants customer lock-in to their platform and using lightning will prevent customers from leaving because these customers have invested a lot in their ecosystem. Ditching the lightning and moving to USB-C was the right thing to do, converting everything to lightning isn't.
- rayiner 10y ago
  Apple will only drop the adapter when enough people no longer need it. And given that Apple still sells a VGA adapter for the iPhone, it's not like they are likely to stop making it any time soon.

hackuser 10y ago

If you are interested in open hardware, one company working diligently on solutions Purism: https://puri.sm/ https://puri.sm/ You can order laptops now and they are talking about a phone. They even negotiate with OEMs, such as Intel,[0] to provide more open versions of their products, diligently trying to create widespread change. They aren't all the way there,[1] but seem committed to the long run. (I'm not affiliated, and all I know about them is what I read.) ---- [0] https://puri.sm/posts/petition-for-intel-to-release-an-me-less-cpu-design/ https://puri.sm/posts/petition-for-intel-to-release-an-me-le... [1] https://puri.sm/road-to-fsf-ryf-endorsement-and-beyond/ https://puri.sm/road-to-fsf-ryf-endorsement-and-beyond/ - Note that's from Aug 2015

AceJohnny2 10y ago

> When you plug an audio cable into a smartphone, it just works. No, hardware-wise you're still going through a DAC, and the complex audio subsystem of the OS is still deciding, upon receiving the connection signal, to re-route the application audio through that headphone DAC. Or not. Jack or Lightning doesn't change this. > Apple can choose which manufacturers get to create Lightning-compatible audio devices. Sure. Or you can use the included lightning-jack adapter and just use normal, un-DRM'd headphones. >Once Apple gets the ability to add DRM, the record industry gets the ability to insist that Apple use it See my first point: the audio jack wasn't your last guardian of freedom. >In other words, if it’s impossible to connect a speaker or other audio device to an iPhone without Apple software governing it Use the adapter. And see the first point. > the only way to connect an iPhone 7 to a recording or mixing device will be over the suboptimal Bluetooth connection or a dongle provided by Apple. Aha! They finally acknowledge the adapter! But do they acknowledge that it's functionally identical to a built-in DAC? > It's possible that iOS or specific apps will be able to disable the dongle. It's also possible the phone will halt and catch fire if you run an unapproved app. But disabling the dongle would be moronic. For one thing, they'd be incurring the wrath of ADA-defender groups. >the converter you rely on to hear your phone on your hearing aids—just became less useful. See previous point. >But you shouldn’t have to depend on a manufacturer’s permission to use its hardware however you like. Then don't even buy Apple. They've been locked down in so many other ways for a long time. Anyhow. The simple explanation (see Occam's Razor) is that the designers noticed that they were using valuable internal space for a redundant connector (considering the hardware has been able to route audio over Lightning for a long time), and figured they could reclaim that space for something else. Clearly, people disagree with this change. The market will tell.

_ph_ 10y ago
And it is worth noting that Apple was rather pushing the record industry to go off DRM and they finally succeeded in it.
- taigeair 10y ago
  Also people wouldn't buy their products if they forced DRM. Apple likes money.

k-mcgrady 10y ago

1. Apple has already publicly stated this is not about DRM and, at least when it comes to music, they have been very anti-DRM for a long time. 2. Apple earbuds aren't the only one's you can use. There are lots of lightning compatible headphones and they've been around a while. 3. This is not 'The End of Headphones Jacks'. It's one phone manufacturer. Globally iPhone market share is less than 20% so if you want a headphone jack you have a lot of great options.

jshevek 10y ago
> Apple has already publicly stated this is not about DRM I'm not sure why anyone considers this relevant. It is not like apple is signing a contract which would allow us to sue them if they "change their minds".
- k-mcgrady 10y ago
  Not only has Apple stated this isn't about DRM but throughout their recent history they've tended to back up their anti-DRM stance be getting the music labels to drop it at a time when that was pretty controversial. Any statement from them should hold some weight considering this whole debate is a conspiracy theory at best.
  - jshevek 10y ago
    > Any statement from them should hold some weight considering this whole debate is a conspiracy theory at best. Those are two separate issues. Whether or not the "whole debate is conspiracy theory at best" has no bearing on whether a statement like this from apple should hold any weight. Apple's claim may or may not be true, but we should look to other sources of evidence to evaluate this, and completely disregard 'because apple said so'.
    - k-mcgrady 10y ago
      My previous sentence explains why their statement should hold weight. They have backed it up with previous actions.

astral303 10y ago

If there is a 3.5mm dongle available, how is this truly the end of the headphone jacks? The headphone jack is still there, it just has to be accessed via the dongle. It's gone from being physically on the device, but the capability is not gone. I think a post like this undermines EFF's credibility. Steve Jobs has railed against DRM for music and finally was able to get it. iTunes music has been DRM-free for years now. Why would Apple back out on DRM-free music?

hackuser 10y ago

It's frustrating that there's not a (significant) phone vendor committed to both user confidentiality and end-user control (libre/free/open). Apple seems to provide confidentiality, if you buy their marketing, and Google is much more open/free. These should be, IMO, fundamentals of IT, but it's not even a realistic option.

peterkelly 10y ago

> "Other developers must ask Apple for permission to create and sell Lightning-compatible devices" I wonder how well that's going to work in China (and for that matter most of the rest of Asia)

noonespecial 10y ago

I think removing the headphone jack is stupid. But it has zero to do with DRM. Moving the DAC to the other side of a connector changes nothing at all about Apple's ability to implement DRM. There was an Apple controlled DAC in your phone before, now its in a dongle 2cm away. Its annoying but not a diabolical plot.

kylewpppd 10y ago
It cannot be about removing the DAC, there's still one for the internal speakers.
- noonespecial 10y ago
  Certainly not. Its about removing the jack to make the phone slimmer or more aesthetic or more waterproof. Or all of the above. The internal DAC is certainly part of a SOC anyway. The point is that having an Apple DAC in a dongle makes no fundamental difference from a DRM perspective over just using the internal one on old phones. Its not a plot. We're in Texas here, hearing hoofbeats and everyone is insisting that zebras are coming.
  - jshevek 10y ago
    > Its about removing the jack to make the phone slimmer or more aesthetic or more waterproof. Other manufacturers seem to be able to achieve these ends without removing the headphone jack.

jccalhoun 10y ago

It is just so weird to me that apple hates buttons but loves dongles.

kazinator 10y ago

So what? Early consumer computers (including ones from Apple) didn't have audio jacks either; you had to add audio adapter interfaces to have audio at all. It's just going full circle. DRM has nothing to do with whether a device has an analog audio jack. Nobody in their right mind copies audio through the headphone jack output. If an audio output device enforces DRM, that can be done just as well by a built-in analog out as by some bluetooth add-on or whatever. Analog out starts out digital. The audio data flows to some audio chips. Those chips have drivers, and the drivers can be signed, part of a signed OS image, etc. You can make a device that will only play digital-rights-managed content, even if it has analog outputs.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Sidgup1 10y ago

L, R and GND will still exist abd it will be analog signal. Speakers are analog.