3 ms·

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.