4 ms·

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 t

by 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.
- bwindels 10y ago
  Also, like mentioned in the article and here before, some applications on iOS that want to implement DRM could identify and block the jack adapter with their audio. "Please use lightning headphones to play this content". Apps from streaming services could be pressured into this by the labels they license their content from. Not tomorrow, but in a few years when lightning headphones have spread a bit.
new299 10y ago
Or you could use standard bluetooth headphones?
- electic 10y ago
  Again, the quality is low on those and pairing is an issue. As said, they could have worked with the industry on that however they went with their own proprietary chip and protocol.
  - usaphp 10y ago
    What makes you think that a quality of Bluetooth headphones is low? Bluetooth channel has more than enough to bandwidth to pass indistinguishable quality audio. And as for pairing issues, I noticed that issue is not in Bluetooth but in poor chips manufacturers use in their cheap products.
jpttsn 10y ago
Apple has a fairly small share of the phone market, which can matter for anti-trust legislation.
usaphp 10y ago
You don't need a license from Apple to make Bluetooth headphones or regular headphones and people will use a connector they already have from Apple. You don't want to use lightning headphones? Use Bluetooth or keep using your existing headphones with the converter that you got with a phone. I think people here are making a bigger deal than it really is.

by electic 10y ago

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.
bwindels 10y ago
Also, like mentioned in the article and here before, some applications on iOS that want to implement DRM could identify and block the jack adapter with their audio. "Please use lightning headphones to play this content". Apps from streaming services could be pressured into this by the labels they license their content from. Not tomorrow, but in a few years when lightning headphones have spread a bit.

new299 10y ago

Or you could use standard bluetooth headphones?

electic 10y ago
Again, the quality is low on those and pairing is an issue. As said, they could have worked with the industry on that however they went with their own proprietary chip and protocol.
- usaphp 10y ago
  What makes you think that a quality of Bluetooth headphones is low? Bluetooth channel has more than enough to bandwidth to pass indistinguishable quality audio. And as for pairing issues, I noticed that issue is not in Bluetooth but in poor chips manufacturers use in their cheap products.

jpttsn 10y ago

Apple has a fairly small share of the phone market, which can matter for anti-trust legislation.

usaphp 10y ago

You don't need a license from Apple to make Bluetooth headphones or regular headphones and people will use a connector they already have from Apple. You don't want to use lightning headphones? Use Bluetooth or keep using your existing headphones with the converter that you got with a phone. I think people here are making a bigger deal than it really is.