3 ms·

Perhaps cynical, perhaps a baseless conspiracy. I'll own up to that. But I don't think it's such a massive stretch, nor would I put it past Apple to do such a t

by switz 5y ago

Perhaps cynical, perhaps a baseless conspiracy. I'll own up to that. But I don't think it's such a massive stretch, nor would I put it past Apple to do such a thing.

chrisseaton 5y ago
> But I don't think it's such a massive stretch I think the fact that they sell a simple and compact adapter which restores the functionality for less than ten dollars makes me think it cannot be to sell Bluetooth headsets.
- sangnoir 5y ago
  HN rules state that I should take the most charitable reading, however, my first thought after reading your comment was "Is this satire?" Restoring previous functionality for "less than ten dollars" would certainly fit into a nefarious scheme for selling Bluetooth headsets - those who do not want bluetooth headsets are still forced to buy something: buying a less expensive item is still buying. Self-cannibalization is not an old trope.
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    > those who do not want bluetooth headsets are still forced to buy something But they even included them in the box for several years - they didn't charge extra for them. They wouldn't do that if they were trying to force people to buy Bluetooth. Now years later and after most people moved to Bluetooth voluntarily they're not needed and would be wasteful to include.
    - danShumway 5y ago
      > They wouldn't do that if they were trying to force people to buy Bluetooth. Apple removed a headphone jack and provided a stopgap solution in the form of a dongle that was easy to lose and that provided a noticeably worse experience than a normal jack (the inability to charge and listen at the same time). Once consumers started to come into the Bluetooth ecosystem, Apple raised the gates behind them and stopped providing that stopgap solution. This is pretty normal. For example, if you want to change your privacy policy, make an optional change at first, and then shift it to be opt-out, and then finally make it mandatory. When you introduce a new policy or change to your products, use the optional nature of that change to shut down complaints. Even though they're not strictly required to, at least some people will migrate (after all, some people were buying Bluetooth headphones before the removal of the jack), and you can use that as evidence to support introducing further changes that make it harder and more annoying not to migrate. Eventually, the numbers will look good enough that you can stop pretending it's a choice at all. And how does that work out in practice? Well, Apple now controls ~70% of the totally wireless headphone market, and AirPods are arguably one of their most important product categories. > they're not needed and would be wasteful to include This is a level of charity towards business press releases that I just don't really know how to connect with. I don't mean this as a gotcha question or anything, but do you believe Apple when they say the reason new iPhones are shipping without chargers is to help the environment? I thought we all took it as a given that all of the companies saying stuff like this were full of crap.
- 45ure 5y ago
  >I think the fact that they sell a simple and compact adapter which restores the functionality It does not restore the functionality. You cannot use the wired headphones via the adapter, and simultaneously charge the phone. The adapter was sold on the tagline of 'courage' by instilling the myth that 3.5mm jacks were verboten in the ecosystem. To suggest it was an altruistic act, is absurd. It was a calculated bet, like everything else they do, e.g. iPhones have yet to feature USB-C.
acomjean 5y ago
I don’t think it’s too cynical. In light of recent emails released in the epic lawsuit, it’s clear Apple makes decisions based on profit over functionality. (iMessage for android). People want to believe they’re altruistic but they are a business after all.

by switz 5y ago

Perhaps cynical, perhaps a baseless conspiracy. I'll own up to that. But I don't think it's such a massive stretch, nor would I put it past Apple to do such a thing.

chrisseaton 5y ago

> But I don't think it's such a massive stretch I think the fact that they sell a simple and compact adapter which restores the functionality for less than ten dollars makes me think it cannot be to sell Bluetooth headsets.

sangnoir 5y ago
HN rules state that I should take the most charitable reading, however, my first thought after reading your comment was "Is this satire?" Restoring previous functionality for "less than ten dollars" would certainly fit into a nefarious scheme for selling Bluetooth headsets - those who do not want bluetooth headsets are still forced to buy something: buying a less expensive item is still buying. Self-cannibalization is not an old trope.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  > those who do not want bluetooth headsets are still forced to buy something But they even included them in the box for several years - they didn't charge extra for them. They wouldn't do that if they were trying to force people to buy Bluetooth. Now years later and after most people moved to Bluetooth voluntarily they're not needed and would be wasteful to include.
  - danShumway 5y ago
    > They wouldn't do that if they were trying to force people to buy Bluetooth. Apple removed a headphone jack and provided a stopgap solution in the form of a dongle that was easy to lose and that provided a noticeably worse experience than a normal jack (the inability to charge and listen at the same time). Once consumers started to come into the Bluetooth ecosystem, Apple raised the gates behind them and stopped providing that stopgap solution. This is pretty normal. For example, if you want to change your privacy policy, make an optional change at first, and then shift it to be opt-out, and then finally make it mandatory. When you introduce a new policy or change to your products, use the optional nature of that change to shut down complaints. Even though they're not strictly required to, at least some people will migrate (after all, some people were buying Bluetooth headphones before the removal of the jack), and you can use that as evidence to support introducing further changes that make it harder and more annoying not to migrate. Eventually, the numbers will look good enough that you can stop pretending it's a choice at all. And how does that work out in practice? Well, Apple now controls ~70% of the totally wireless headphone market, and AirPods are arguably one of their most important product categories. > they're not needed and would be wasteful to include This is a level of charity towards business press releases that I just don't really know how to connect with. I don't mean this as a gotcha question or anything, but do you believe Apple when they say the reason new iPhones are shipping without chargers is to help the environment? I thought we all took it as a given that all of the companies saying stuff like this were full of crap.
45ure 5y ago
>I think the fact that they sell a simple and compact adapter which restores the functionality It does not restore the functionality. You cannot use the wired headphones via the adapter, and simultaneously charge the phone. The adapter was sold on the tagline of 'courage' by instilling the myth that 3.5mm jacks were verboten in the ecosystem. To suggest it was an altruistic act, is absurd. It was a calculated bet, like everything else they do, e.g. iPhones have yet to feature USB-C.

acomjean 5y ago

I don’t think it’s too cynical. In light of recent emails released in the epic lawsuit, it’s clear Apple makes decisions based on profit over functionality. (iMessage for android). People want to believe they’re altruistic but they are a business after all.