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.Getting rid of the audio jack is absolutely stupid. I want to make that clear.
But holy hell.. Including the converter dongle for free is a step forward for Apple. Seriously. Especially if it doesn't fall apart in 2 weeks forcing you to buy another on their site for a ridiculous price.
It's small, but its progress.
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.
.Continue to not understand this on any level.
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.
3.5mm is over. Bluetooth is the future. Glad it's going away.
Don't think they'll be even mentioning it.can't wait to see how they spin this.
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.
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.So the MacBook pros will be all USB C and the iphone will have a sole lightning port. How fucking dumb is this
You just know iDevices won't use USB-C for no real reason other than it would severely impact Apple's MFi licensing program. There's no other logical reason for it.
Definitely one of my biggest issues with Apple devices. USB-C is so damn good too.
Including the dongle with the phone solves the problem for most people.
Not including Lightning headphones would be kind of an embarrassment though. You can't take away the audio port and then pack in a set of headphones that won't even work with the phone natively.
USBC is also substantially bigger than lightening.
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.
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.
Makes all my points and then some. Quality post.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?
I've fully transitioned to Bluetooth, but even with that said, it's to early to remove the headphone port.
With that said however, if it improves wireless headphone technology, then I won't complain.
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.
Bluetooth has been around for over two decades and it's now the future? OK.3.5mm is over. Bluetooth is the future. Glad it's going away.
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.
So they can make licensing fees. It's a benefit to Apple, not you.I don't understand the benefit to this? So the phone can be thinner? That's literally the only advantage. Why would anyone want that?
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.
but they aren't getting rid of wires, they're just making you use a dongle.
also, bluetooth sucks more
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.
Moto Z is 5.19mm with USBC...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:
Moto Z is 5.19mm with USBC...