-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Deutsche Bank analysts expect no headphone jack + include dongle for iPhone 7
- Thread starter Vanillalite
- Start date
- Status
Monochromaticx
Member
I really hope other phone manufacturers don't follow suit
The Real Abed
Perma-Junior
They've included adapters before. My original Mac mini (G4, 2005) came with a display adapter for VGA monitors for people who were following their "BYOKDM" suggestion.
twinturbo2
butthurt Heat fan
Will it have wireless charging? I just got the Mophie wireless charger/battery pack for my iPhone 6 and I love how I can just plop it onto the charging board without cables.
Coreda
Member
I see a lot of posters making the comparison to other adapters and examples of ports that were replaced but unlike those this isn't an 'upgrade' to better tech, it's just an inconvenience.
The alternative doesn't provide better audio nor does it solve a problem people have. It's not an advancement, and if anything will make more switch to poorer quality solutions like Bluetooth audio.
NullPointer
Member
.
Will happily ditch this ecosystem at the next opportunity. I have no desire for a thinner phone or removing perfectly fine tech just because.
To be fair an all digital lightning headphone solution would be a theoretical improvement. That said 95% will be using shitty BT headphones like you said.
Like many others I think this is a really stupid move. All it does is benefit Apple's pockets.
This isn't going to usher in a revolution of wireless headphones where battery life is improved tenfold and audio quality is indistinguishable from a wired set of headphones.
One thing that I don't see mentioned too often is just the actual interface for connecting wired headphones and wireless headphones. Obviously the wired connection is simple, plug it in and boom, you're ready to go. There's just no way a wireless set of headphones can beat that kind of efficiency. Going through menus to pair a set of headphones is annoying. Not to mention that in my experience with wireless headphones there is sometimes that problem of the connection dropping between paired devices. That's a significant problem when compared to wired headphones which never have that issue.
I try to be open minded about change but this just seems like a load of bullshit. Can't wait to see the spin at the keynote.
This isn't going to usher in a revolution of wireless headphones where battery life is improved tenfold and audio quality is indistinguishable from a wired set of headphones.
One thing that I don't see mentioned too often is just the actual interface for connecting wired headphones and wireless headphones. Obviously the wired connection is simple, plug it in and boom, you're ready to go. There's just no way a wireless set of headphones can beat that kind of efficiency. Going through menus to pair a set of headphones is annoying. Not to mention that in my experience with wireless headphones there is sometimes that problem of the connection dropping between paired devices. That's a significant problem when compared to wired headphones which never have that issue.
I try to be open minded about change but this just seems like a load of bullshit. Can't wait to see the spin at the keynote.
show me your skeleton
Member
can't wait to see how they spin this.
The Maverick
Member
What is the hook of the iPhone 7? A collective step backwards, in my opinion. I won't get a phone without a headphone jack. The second I think about switching, Apple does something to change my mind.
Can't wait to see the spin and defense force. I remember when folks on here said it would never happen, they couldn't be that dumb.
Can't wait to see the spin and defense force. I remember when folks on here said it would never happen, they couldn't be that dumb.
lol
Bluetooth won't be the winner when this is done, not without SERIOUS work on it.
Don't think they'll be even mentioning it.
faceless007
Member
Because I'm lazy I'm just going to repost myself:
There are certain aspects on which a wired connection will virtually always beat a wireless connection: latency, signal quality, lack of interference, lack of expensive radio/receiver components, no need for separate power source, etc. Now thankfully wireless tech has progressed to a point where in a lot these cases wireless can be good enough or so close to wired performance that it doesn't matter for many or most common use cases, or that the tradeoff is worth it is simply for the convenience factor. But that doesn't change the fact that wireless is inherently inferior to wired on those aspects, and for those who care about those aspects, it shouldn't be surprising that they want wired to continue to be available as an option.
So I still don't see why those who prefer wireless solely for the convenience (it can't be for any of those other aspects) see this as a threat or something that needs to be change because, as many have pointed out, they already have wireless tech widely available. Every iPhone already has Bluetooth and (if you don't care about sound quality) there are plenty of Bluetooth headphones already available. So what specifically are you angling to change?
The two most common complaints I see about Bluetooth audio, and which some people are insisting Apple will push for massive improvements in tech should this change come to pass, are 1) sound quality and 2) battery life. Well, for 1) I feel like if sound quality is important to you, you simply shouldn't be bothering with wireless in the first place, because the act of encoding and compressing an audio stream to transmit over noisy wireless airwaves only to be decompressed on the other end by yet another DAC you don't control is always going to introduce some level of degradation, full stop. The universal analog 3.5mm interconnect is inherently superior in this regard and always will be. If you don't care about that or think BT audio is good enough for your ears, then fine, I'm not saying you're wrong to think that, but again, you already have BT, so the removal of the headphone jack would literally not benefit you at all, in which case, why would you push for it?
And for 2) battery life, the processes and limitations of rechargeable battery tech have been exceedingly well understood for over a decade now, as more and more consumer devices have come to use them, and the limitations (especially with regard to physical space and capacity) are the same as they have always been. The widespread adoption of portable game consoles, followed by the smartphone, and followed by tablets, have made it so it's not uncommon for households to own upwards of four or five devices with rechargeable batteries all needing daily charges. And yet, they're all still using essentially the same batteries. So the idea that wireless audio specifically, is finally going to be the thing that ushers in an unforeseen breakthrough in mass market rechargeable tech strikes me as patently absurd. If that were going to happen, wouldn't it have happened with the smartphone, which is closing in on 10 years old? Doesn't it seem more likely that if there were an obvious path to better batteries that Apple would have chased that path for the iPhone at some point in the last ten years, instead of for the relatively niche market of bluetooth headsets?
No, the idea that Apple is pushing for this because they want to improve wireless tech doesn't pass the sniff test. There are too few meaningful improvements to make there. It seems totally obvious to me that (if Apple does this) the reason is precisely the first point in the article: they want to close the analog loop, add hardware DRM to audio, and finally (not mentioned but should be obvious) push new Beats headphones with proprietary (Lightning) connections. And like that, Apple owns your entire audio delivery ecosystem end to end. Say goodbye to using different headphones according to your preferences; you'll use the ones Apple says you can use.
Anyone want to take a stab as to how that outcome benefits consumers?
There are certain aspects on which a wired connection will virtually always beat a wireless connection: latency, signal quality, lack of interference, lack of expensive radio/receiver components, no need for separate power source, etc. Now thankfully wireless tech has progressed to a point where in a lot these cases wireless can be good enough or so close to wired performance that it doesn't matter for many or most common use cases, or that the tradeoff is worth it is simply for the convenience factor. But that doesn't change the fact that wireless is inherently inferior to wired on those aspects, and for those who care about those aspects, it shouldn't be surprising that they want wired to continue to be available as an option.
So I still don't see why those who prefer wireless solely for the convenience (it can't be for any of those other aspects) see this as a threat or something that needs to be change because, as many have pointed out, they already have wireless tech widely available. Every iPhone already has Bluetooth and (if you don't care about sound quality) there are plenty of Bluetooth headphones already available. So what specifically are you angling to change?
The two most common complaints I see about Bluetooth audio, and which some people are insisting Apple will push for massive improvements in tech should this change come to pass, are 1) sound quality and 2) battery life. Well, for 1) I feel like if sound quality is important to you, you simply shouldn't be bothering with wireless in the first place, because the act of encoding and compressing an audio stream to transmit over noisy wireless airwaves only to be decompressed on the other end by yet another DAC you don't control is always going to introduce some level of degradation, full stop. The universal analog 3.5mm interconnect is inherently superior in this regard and always will be. If you don't care about that or think BT audio is good enough for your ears, then fine, I'm not saying you're wrong to think that, but again, you already have BT, so the removal of the headphone jack would literally not benefit you at all, in which case, why would you push for it?
And for 2) battery life, the processes and limitations of rechargeable battery tech have been exceedingly well understood for over a decade now, as more and more consumer devices have come to use them, and the limitations (especially with regard to physical space and capacity) are the same as they have always been. The widespread adoption of portable game consoles, followed by the smartphone, and followed by tablets, have made it so it's not uncommon for households to own upwards of four or five devices with rechargeable batteries all needing daily charges. And yet, they're all still using essentially the same batteries. So the idea that wireless audio specifically, is finally going to be the thing that ushers in an unforeseen breakthrough in mass market rechargeable tech strikes me as patently absurd. If that were going to happen, wouldn't it have happened with the smartphone, which is closing in on 10 years old? Doesn't it seem more likely that if there were an obvious path to better batteries that Apple would have chased that path for the iPhone at some point in the last ten years, instead of for the relatively niche market of bluetooth headsets?
No, the idea that Apple is pushing for this because they want to improve wireless tech doesn't pass the sniff test. There are too few meaningful improvements to make there. It seems totally obvious to me that (if Apple does this) the reason is precisely the first point in the article: they want to close the analog loop, add hardware DRM to audio, and finally (not mentioned but should be obvious) push new Beats headphones with proprietary (Lightning) connections. And like that, Apple owns your entire audio delivery ecosystem end to end. Say goodbye to using different headphones according to your preferences; you'll use the ones Apple says you can use.
Anyone want to take a stab as to how that outcome benefits consumers?
Kill Your Masters
Member
This is pure money grabbing nothing more.
Y'all 3.5mm haters have fun with beats lightning/wireless though.
I am sure audio manufacturers will follow up though, but at a hefty price. And suddenly the audio market will become fragmented as fuck with lightning, usb-c and 3.5mm solutions. I have enough cables and battery packs that I carry already, and it doesn't sound like fun to add a bunch of dongles to it as well not to mention how shitty those were back in the day when dumb phones had them.
Just so I can listen to spotify/mp3 quality music over digital which is apparently far superior than analogue lol.
Fun times ahead.
Y'all 3.5mm haters have fun with beats lightning/wireless though.
I am sure audio manufacturers will follow up though, but at a hefty price. And suddenly the audio market will become fragmented as fuck with lightning, usb-c and 3.5mm solutions. I have enough cables and battery packs that I carry already, and it doesn't sound like fun to add a bunch of dongles to it as well not to mention how shitty those were back in the day when dumb phones had them.
Just so I can listen to spotify/mp3 quality music over digital which is apparently far superior than analogue lol.
Fun times ahead.
No way Apple puts in restrictive "Apple only" digital music device DRM. That's a huge gift to Samsung and Android. I don't like losing the headphone jack and I'm not buying an iPhone without a headphone jack unless Apple offers a compelling alternative. I think it's worth It to wait and see what they announce. I use my ear buds every day.
If they include a dongle to convert to 3.5mm, how does that close the analog loop? How am I then forced to use only Apple-approved headphones?
This isn't 1999.....I think most music companies have pretty much given up on the analog loop, and most DRM. Improved DRM isn't going to improve slowing music sales or stop the inevitable shift towards streaming.
Nastrodamous
Member
So the MacBook pros will be all USB C and the iphone will have a sole lightning port. How fucking dumb is this
witchedwiz
Member
But it will have two lightning port, or you have to choose between charging and headphone?
Indeed. Those expensive lightning headphones I bought for my iPhone can't even be used on my expensive MacBook without another dongle. Wise move, Apple. Take me to this dongle-based future with a quickness.
USBC is also substantially bigger than lightening.
Until they lose it, or leave it behind at home, attached to their headphones.
Whereas now you can just grab a cheap pair of headphones almost anywhere, you'll now need to find somewhere that sells these adapters cables which will be much harder to find (and likely more expensive than a cheap pair of 'tide me over' headphones)
Substantially bigger? Come on. I just took this photo (top: ipad lightening port, bottom: Macbook charger cable):
The main issue with the headphone jack was the thickness and depth it needs internally. USB-C and Lightning have no such issue.
faceless007
Member
Obviously if they do something they've never done before then any speculation I make based on their past behavior goes out the window, but if that's the case I literally don't know what purpose there is for the switch in the first place. It doesn't appease the weird wireless-fetishists clamoring for it (and like I already said, those people already have BT anyway so why do they care) and including it as a pack-in would make the phone's margins take a small hit.
Maybe the plan is to use the dongle for a transition period but eventually (years out) discontinue it and start pushing Lightning-connector headphones ("We heard nobody likes dongles and we agree. So now we got rid of it and made it one simple connector so you never have to worry about losing it or breaking it!") Apple has historically launched products that packed in several accessories and then overtime whittled them down until they only shipped with the minimum needed to use them. I don't know that's their plan, I'm just guessing because nothing about these rumors make sense to me. I'm going to be very curious how they try to spin it at the reveal.
Substantially bigger? Come on. I just took this photo (top: ipad lightening port, bottom: Macbook charger cable):
The main issue with the headphone jack was the thickness and depth it needs internally. USB-C and Lightning have no such issue.
Yeah that's absoltuely "substantially bigger" from the point of view of a potentially 5.9mm thick iPhone 7. Also comparing the female port with the male USB C is kind of misleading. One has to be bigger than the other.
Yup substantially bigger:
Makes all my points and then some. Quality post.
CyberMiguel
Banned
The thing with Bluetooth is that it greatly decreases audio quality, since it uses a lossy audio codec (BT-aptX and some even BT-AAC). For example, if you have a CD, when you compress it to M4A (iTunes plus) or MP3 audio, it loses fidelity (and depending on the bitrate, it's a lot). That compressed file then is compressed AGAIN "on the fly" to another lossy compression format (aptX) losing even more quality and then broadcasted to your headphones, via an already saturated 2.4 Ghz band (the same wifi and a hell of a lot other devices uses), which then again may or may not lose some data on the reception.
In fact, it's very easy to notice compression artifacts in any half-decent pair of headphones: listen to cymbals or applauses on an original CD (or FLAC file) and then listen to the same audio in mp3 format with wired headphones. You'll notice a very, very subtle artifact that you could easily dismiss. Now, try listening that very same compressed mp3 file via bluetooth headphones: the artifact becomes clearly discernible and its almost unbearable.
I get that the auxiliary port gives better sound quality then Bluetooth.
I'm content with the sound that I get out of my LG Tone's. Is it better then a wired pair, no. However, when I'm at the gym, I don't care. I love my Tone's there because running with a cord sucks ass, and the audio quality is good enough.
The vast majority of people aren't audiophile's, they're not going to care about everything you typed above. These are people who use the stock apple headphones for crying out loud. As long as they can hear the music, they're good.
Bluetooth has been around for over two decades and it's now the future? OK.
Coreda
Member
Bluetooth sounds terrible through my $400 Bluetooth compatible speakers with AptX (I instead use the USB DAC). The compression artifacts ruin it. If it weren't for those it would be pretty decent for wireless use.
Fudgepuppy
Banned
I don't see a single benefit for the customer of straight up removing the aux-jack.
With Bluetooth, the sound is worse and you're dependent on batteries. Whereas a digital audio-port opens up a whole other level of copyright protection, much like HDCP.
With Bluetooth, the sound is worse and you're dependent on batteries. Whereas a digital audio-port opens up a whole other level of copyright protection, much like HDCP.
My friend has acetal Bluetooth speakers around his house. He puts music on pretty easily in almost any room. They don't sound as good as dedicated audiophile setup but they do sound pretty good. And you just plug in the speaker or use its battery, no other wires or clutter to worry about.
elrechazado
Banned
So they can make licensing fees. It's a benefit to Apple, not you.
Petrae
Member
I was really hoping that this wouldn't happen... but I guess that my upgrade will be to a 6S+ instead of a 7.
I know that I'd lose any dongle before long, and then I'd be fucked unless I dropped coin on a replacement-- and I have no interest in buying wireless/BT headphones.
I can only cross my fingers and hope that enough negativity comes from the 7 that Apple reverses course with its next phone refresh. If not, I may have to jump ship to an Android phone.
I know that I'd lose any dongle before long, and then I'd be fucked unless I dropped coin on a replacement-- and I have no interest in buying wireless/BT headphones.
I can only cross my fingers and hope that enough negativity comes from the 7 that Apple reverses course with its next phone refresh. If not, I may have to jump ship to an Android phone.
show me your skeleton
Member
they can enjoy all the benefits of bluetooth right now, as you are, without the need to remove the headphone jack.
His point is that this kind of step will accelerate the move towards wireless and bluetooth.
I don't really understand the whining and I think this will be a laughable overreaction like bent phone was. (Remember, that was supposed to be the death of Apple.)
This is just utter bollocks, to be frank. You think they'd do that considering the hugely competitive phone market right now? Get a grip.
The12thGripper
Member
I'll probably just buy a discounted 6s instead of the 7 if this turns out to be true.
Jazzy Network
Member
Yo guys those wireless Beats are on sale right now on Best Buy. Go get em!
Not Spaceghost
Spaceghost
Well if you're gonna take away the headphone jack at least give me TWO lightning ports.
I really like charging my phone while actually using it with headphones in a library or something without having to worry about a wireless headset also dying on me.
I really like charging my phone while actually using it with headphones in a library or something without having to worry about a wireless headset also dying on me.
If Apple gives me some version of the "Here One Smart Earbuds" for $100 or less then I won't care about losing the headphone jack.
http://www.gizmag.com/here-one-smart-earbuds-release/44050/
http://www.gizmag.com/here-one-smart-earbuds-release/44050/
Moto Z is 5.19mm with USBC...
Doesn't change my point. It's bigger. Apple and Moto have different design priorities. And Apple has complete control over lightening without having to appeal to a governing consortium.
Honestly if Apple can deliver some dongle like this then most people won't even notice it IMO
- Status