> I went through a ton of iterations and debugging to get this to work. The hardest parts were the electrical design and getting everything to fit inside the phone.
Crikey! How many iphones did he drill holes in?
> I also ended up having to buy lots, and lots, and lots of spare parts. I went through 3 complete iPhone 7s, a handful of screens, and countless internal components (mostly bottom cable assemblies and taptic engines).
3. Ok, that's dedication.
> I feel like I got extremely lucky about finding space inside the phone. There was inexplicably a lot of extra room in the lower left hand corner, right where I wanted to put the headphone jack.
Suspicious... almost like their engineers left room to change their minds about the jack at the last second if they wanted to :)
Someone pointed out on Reddit last night - that it seemed obvious to him that Apple likely removed the headphone in the iPhone 7 to get the controversy out of the way ahead of the iPhone 8, which wouldn't have any room in it for a headphone jack - and for which said controversy would be a distraction against launching a new flagship device.
It also could be that quite a few of their designers managed to stay below their volume budgets, and they didn't want to risk a redesign, given their (presumably) strict deadlines.
Alternatively, the space was set apart as a hedge against the AirPods not being ready at he time of the launch of the iPhone 7 (yes, they were late, but not _that_ late. Presumably (again) they knew they could make them when they made the decision to remove the headphone from the iPhone 7)
However, chances are they are the Bluetooth headphones Apple makes the most money on, and that early adopters of the new iPhone are the most likely to buy them.
Inducing (extra) demand for Bluetooth headphones and then leaving the market for such headphones to others in a period where your most 'able and willing to spend' customers enter your shop isn't the best of ideas.
(1) (nitpicking) it wouldn't completely surprise me if they were, though, because Apple has exactly one product, whereas its competition tends to create zillions of 'different' products.
I find AirPods to be one of the most amazing devices I've owned. Using them is a pure joy. No joke. From the feeling of the case opening and closing, to the sound of them dropping into the case, to the instant pairing when you put them in your ear.
the hedging might have something to do with the W1 chip[0] improvements in the AirPods that provided for fast and consistent bluetooth pairing that Apple cared about more so than relying upon 3rd party bluetooth experience in a headphone connector-less flagship phone.
I don't understand this. Why would the controversy be any less when releasing the iPhone 7 without a headphone jack vs the iPhone 8? Aren't they both new flagship models?
The author of the original Reddit comment[0] meant that Apple wanted to bear the brunt of the controversy early on so that the missing headphone jack would already be "normal" and not the center of attention when the iPhone 8 releases.
The iPhone 7 is a small iteration over the iPhone 6S where as the iPhone 8 is a new design. I think they expect the iPhone 8 to be a much more important/larger release and that is probably true.
The new iPhone is set to be released this year which makes it the 10th anniversary of the original iPhone. It's also (supposedly) a much larger redesign than previous models. I think it makes sense for them to rip the band-aid off early. Especially considering that most reviews for the AirPods have been overwhelmingly positive, it's good to get the negative press out of the way early. Smart move on their part, I think.
Because the iPhone 7 was released a year ago, and people are generally over it now. I say people, not enthusiasts. Now, the feature can be released in the iPhone 8 and it's not a big deal.
But that doesn't explain why it would be preferable to remove the headphone jack in 2016 and have people be used to it by 2017, rather than the same but a year later.
Whether there is technically room for a headphone jack means nothing to a consumer who would like to have one on their iPhone. As far as I can see there is no difference from the consumer's point of view which year the change happens in.
> But that doesn't explain why it would be preferable to remove the headphone jack in 2016 and have people be used to it by 2017, rather than the same but a year later.
Perception. People focus on something more when it changes, and there's only so much focus to go around. Remove the headphone jack a year earlier, and it's not a "change" that it's still missing from the next model. So focus/attention can be more concentrated on new features that Apple brings to the newer "10th anniversary" iPhone.
"Yeah, but it still doesn't have a headphone jack" is a rational reaction, but not the one that most people will have. It's irrelevant background noise, compared to the shouts of "Look at all the new shiny!", which is the reaction that Apple's going for.
w.r.t. empty space: I once met an RF engineer that specialized in cell antennas. He said the first 1/4 of the project was doing complex RF simulations of many design iterations. The last 3/4 of the project schedule was spent defending the empty space around the antenna that enabled it to work. Said in jest, but I suspect it contained a lot of truth.
You should check his video on this, the guy also casually bought a dremmel, a printer and a fucking microscope (stereoscope?) in the process of making this....
You can buy the cases without phone internals easily in the markets in Shenzhen. I don't think the guy drilled in a "live" iPhone 7, from what I can tell in the video, but he did go through a lot of parts trying to get his headphone jack and later the headphone-lightning connector to fit into the phone.
To be honest I expected the discussion to be more on the idea of customising electronics, either functional or ideological.
The irony of owning the only iPhone 7 that has a headphone jack from a company that has a slogan that says "think different" is just too rich to not be pointed out. This is the embodiment of the hacker mentality, not satisfied with the status quo and constantly pushing the evenlope.
I eagerly await the day when we can "compile" physical objects and electronics like we can with software. Who will care if the next iPhone have a headphone jack when you can make your own?
Remember how Modular phones have terribly failed? Essential is now trying the same but not sure where it'd get with that!
That said, Don't you think even now we've got wireless streaming with bluetooth or wifi which Headphones can make use of to move forward with headphone jack missing?
> Remember how Modular phones have terribly failed? Essential is now trying the same but not sure where it'd get with that!
I would not call Essential phone a modular phone. The idea is to sell addons to the phone. The phone itself is the antithesis of modular. It cannot even be opened without destroying it. It got 1/10 repairability score from iFixit: https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Essential+Phone+Teardown/967... .
Essential reminds me of Handspring who made palm PDA's with an expansion slot (which is what the essential technically has). I feel like its going to end up like Palm by folding back into Google.
They were few and far between but I've got a few of the "cool" modules, a huge GPS, an SD card reader, a memory bank, and the "good technology" MP3 player.
Good actually pivoted from hardware to making an exchange compatible mail client for PalmOS to compete with Blackberry.
The slick Vizor Edge unit had a removable springboard slot, which triples the sub-cm thickness.
Handspring then made the Treo, which was competitive for what it was until WebOS and iPhone came along to spoil the party.
> Don't you think even now we've got wireless streaming with bluetooth or wifi which Headphones can make use of to move forward with headphone jack missing?
If BT didn't cut out/die and had decent quality I'd agree with you. I've tried multiple headphones, but my experience says it's just not there yet.
If you have to push users to using a new technology, instead of letting them pick it up on their own because it's obviously better, that tech might not be as ready as you think it is.
Not really — wireless audio quality is significantly worse and less stable and wireless electronics are significantly more expensive. It's a feature in search of a purpose.
My air pods/air buds/ whatever Apple calls them, they cut out a lot. Sometimes only one at a time, sometimes both. Sometimes they don't connect to the phone at all despite being fully charged.
My older plug in headphones with the adapter? Works every time.
That's funny because my AirPods work great for me and I barely notice them most of the time yet I have piles of old headphones and earbuds that have crimped cables or knots and they cut out all the time. I even have two sets of great headphones (cans) and one of them needs a little bit of wiggling to get it to play 100%.
Seems like a trade-off in either case and I'm willing to try the wireless thing until it becomes a pain. So far, it's been a pleasure.
You have a point on the expensive but the rest is factually not true. Modern BT codecs are CD quality and modern BT chipsets will cut out less than the movement of a headphone cable in your pocket will.
I think if we're talking about compilation as an analogy we're talking about being able to customize the phone to very specific specifications before it's manufactured (battery size, camera type, headphone jack, etc) and then having the phone constructed in the same sealed kind of way any modern phone is made. That might be interesting if the manufacturing process could be made cheap enough.
Exactly. I think the most common usecase would be to choose between different case thicknesses with the ability to add an additional battery in this space.
The best hypothesis, IMHO from those I've read, to why Apple ditched the jack, was to get a share of the market for headphones - either through their own headphones (Apple-branded and Beats), or through MFI.
In any case, now without the jack, they now get a share of any accessory you connect. The adapter, and any 3rd party adapters and headphones, need to be certified as MFI, which includes buying and incorporating the Apple MFI chip (forgot the name) into the design.
Which is entirely in their right of course, but it is a consumer hostile move.
I just re-watched the "courage" part of the iPhone 7 keynote where Apple gave their reasons for removing the headphone jack. There were three:
1) Lightning is a great connector for audio.
2) The headphone jack takes a lot of space and they want to use that space for other stuff.
3) Apple has a "vision of how audio should work" on phones and they want to "get there as soon as possible." That was a lead-in to talking about Airpods
Note that they underscored that #3 was the "most important" reason they made the move.
#2 always made sense to me and I gave Apple a bit of a pass on removing the jack for that reason, but this thread's article shows that it was bogus, at least for the iphone 7.
That leaves #1 and #3, both of which involve Apple taking a a bigger cut of headphone sales. While #1 is true, it's not where the rest of the audio market is. And #3 (remember their "most important" reason) basically can be translated to "We want to sell you Airpods."
So it seems it really could have been all about Apple making more money, not about their users. Possible exception being long-term benefits created by moving the market in a particular direction.
(disclaimer: Android user, who prefers using bluetooth headphones anyway, but at least that means I don't have a horse in this particular race... :) )
With floppy drives most people agreed it was a natural progression. Sure many argued it was premature, but most of us thought it was an eventuality that the floppy drive would disappear. That's not the case with wired headphones, I expect to be using them until the day I die.
#2 really isn't bogus, at least in the way you described it. In the video, he mentions that he broke the screen two or three times in trying to get everything to fit. Now that everything fits, what happens if he drops it? Could Apple engineer up a way to prevent a high failure rate on the LCD display? Maybe, but there's no way to know.
On top of this, the author had to remove the "barometric vent". I don't find a lot of use in having an altimeter or barometer in my smartphone, but I do know that some apps take advantage of it (Dark Sky). Apple probably wants it to push some activity tracking feature, like the number of steps you've taken.
Sure, those objections are fair, but we are talking about someone who had to work with what Apple gave him as a starting point.
Apple itself would have had a lot more latitude in design since they specify the layout, and because of that, I think it is also fair to say that the article still provides strong evidence that if Apple were doing it, they probably could have included a headphone jack without compromises.
True, if Apple wanted to they could have changed the design. But, if we're going to talk about what Apple could have done with the design, I'm sure that we have many more grievances than the headphone jack. Thicker body for more battery is the classic complaint that comes to mind.
That being said, the iPhone 6/6s are the same size as the 7 from what I can see. The only obvious changes are waterproofing, headphone jack, taptic engine, and lack of physical home button.
Well, it's not strange that he can't fit anything more in the device without taking something out. That's not evidence that there couldn't have been made room for something in the design stage though.
>The best hypothesis, IMHO from those I've read, to why Apple ditched the jack, was to get a share of the market for headphones - either through their own headphones (Apple-branded and Beats), or through MFI.
The "best hypothesis"? That's the classic "lock-in" conspiracy theory. And Apple makes pennies on the headphones compared to what they make from the iPhones (and what they could lose in iPhone sales if the removal of the port proved unpopular) for that to be any great motive.
How about: making the phones waterproof with one less difficult to tackle port, less width/height needed for the new port hence thinner phones, envisioning a wireless future (what with AirPods and co).
The fact that there are pushing AirPods (which don't care for the jack at all) and that Apple gives a free conversion to mini-jack with each new iPhone, means that the theory "it's all about selling headphones/licenses for lighting headphones" is moot.
> How about: making the phones waterproof with one less difficult to tackle port, less width/height needed for the new port hence thinner phones, envisioning a wireless future (what with AirPods and co).
If some guy (he's obviously talented, but still a guy) can fit one inside an already manufactured iPhone 7, the company designing the phone obviously would have no problem fitting it in the dimensions it holds.
> The "best hypothesis"? That's the classic "lock-in" conspiracy theory. And Apple makes pennies on the headphones compared to what they make from the iPhones (and what they could lose in iPhone sales if the removal of the port proved unpopular) for that to be any great motive.
> The fact that there are pushing AirPods (which don't care for the jack at all) and that Apple gives a free conversion to mini-jack with each new iPhone, means that the theory "it's all about selling headphones/licenses for lighting headphones" is moot.
Doesn't the fact that Apple being the company selling the AirPods (for a mighty hefty fee I might add) at least suggest the opposite of "moot", since they're making a lot of money on new headphones by removing the jack?
You state and agree with all the factors needed to draw the conclusions of the "conspiracy theory" (or what I'd call market sense), yet you arrive at the opposite one, why is that?
>If some guy (he's obviously talented, but still a guy) can fit one inside an already manufactured iPhone 7, the company designing the phone obviously would have no problem fitting it in the dimensions it holds.
The company is not forever planning on using the same dimensions of the current model -- but they can still plan ahead the removal.
Besides, the "some guy" doing a mod doesn't have to meet the same guarantees (re: waterproofness, air-circulation inside etc) for the device, as Apple has.
>Doesn't the fact that Apple being the company selling the AirPods (for a mighty hefty fee I might add) at least suggest the opposite of "moot", since they're making a lot of money on new headphones by removing the jack?
You can still use any old pair of wired headphones with the free provided adaptor. So the removal doesn't force anyone to buy AirPods -- or any other of the tons of bluetooth headphones.
> You can still use any old pair of wired headphones with the free provided adaptor. So the removal doesn't force anyone to buy AirPods -- or any other of the tons of bluetooth headphones.
While it may in a dry sense be true that the removal doesn't _force_ anyone to buy AirPods, I will strongly suggest that their customers aren't convinced that the adapter solution is sufficiently comparable [1].
> since they're making a lot of money on new headphones by removing the jack
Well, such a condition would rely on this being true and accurate. I'm not really confident there's any data that suggests how people are listening to music on their iPhone 7s at the moment, and really nothing to draw a conclusion from except "anecdata". The simpler explanation in my mind is that Apple wanted a thinner phone, and they did what they needed.
There was an article a few days ago from Xiaomi's Indian Product Manager who commented on the removal of the Headphone Jack on one of the Mi Phone releases. His insight was that despite what people say ("I don't care about thickness"), their surveys and testing overwhelmingly showed that consumers have a preference towards thinner phones.
With this in mind, to me it seems more reasonable that Apple just decided to ditch the jack less they be caught making the fat phone. Your personal preferences may differ, but I think the more reasonable and sustainable conclusion is simply that Apple is chasing the thin phone.
> Well, such a condition would rely on this being true and accurate. I'm not really confident there's any data that suggests how people are listening to music on their iPhone 7s at the moment, and really nothing to draw a conclusion from except "anecdata"
Whether at a sum that decision was lucrative or not is inconsequential, as that comes down to how the market responds to their decision, but what you can argue is whether they make more off headsets now than before.
Before they bundled regular corded buds, and you purchased new ones when your old ones broke. Now they sell $180 USD AirPods, and Beats, and bundle (IMO) clunky adapters. While I don't have data on this, I'm fairly confident in assuming their decision was made on this basis. The question is if this turned out as they hoped in sales.
> The simpler explanation in my mind is that Apple wanted a thinner phone, and they did what they needed.
How so, when there was obviously space enough for an end-user to fit a jack inside the final product?
> How so, when there was obviously space enough for an end-user to fit a jack inside the final product?
Looking at the iFixIt teardowns[0], where is this space supposedly at? If you remove electronics, sure, maybe you could fit it, but there very definitely is components where he put the headphone jack.
The iPhone 6s and the iPhone 7 are exactly the same thickness. There is even a big gap where the headphone jack was, that the author used to retrofit his own. The decision to remove it was not driven by here-and-now technical requirements.
> There is even a big gap where the headphone jack was
Not really, there was a little bit of space near the old jack, and he removed a critical part of the barometer to make the rest of the space. If you're removing parts you can't exactly claim that it was empty space.
That's one consideration. The other consideration is what they DO with that thickness (e.g. re: battery, other electronics taking the extra space, etc).
This conspiracy theory is ridiculous. Apple must make 100x more money from iPhones than it does from AirPods and MFI combined. There is zero reason to degrade the value of iPhones to increase the value of accessories.
And taking out the headphone jack doesn't do much for AirPods, the iPhone still has wired headphones either way.
I'm pretty sure a company that recently acquired Beats, the notoriously overpriced headphone companies, and sells wireless earbuds at 169$ is most certainly not making "pennies" on headphones.
So this point is not moot, much to the contrary, yours about waterproofing is: three years ago Samsung had a phone with: headphone jack, SD card, removable battery. Lots of other phones have headphone jacks and are waterproof. So that point is moot.
Lastly, I'm pretty sure the rationale for any company's decision is "to sell more stuff", not to "envision a future".
Just to play devil's advocate, those $169 AirPods are by far the cheapest fully wireless earbuds on the market, and at launch were ~$100 less than the only other competitor available. Most estimates peg Apples margin on them in the low single digits...
Given the long lead time on orders for, what, nearly a year now, it seems likely these are not trivial to manufacture.
And these are really tiny computers and highly optimized batteries, so I'd be surprised if the BoM is that low, but determining that is definitely not my strong suit.
And beyond that, there's plenty of more than decent APT-X capable bluetooth headphones on the market at reasonable prices if you aren't looking for "fully" wireless. My Jabra Halo Smart cost me around $80, has audio quality anyone who isn't an audiophile can enjoy and enough battery I only charge them every couple days (mind you, I'm only using them for maybe 1-3 hours a day).
I don't see Apple getting rid of them, especially considering the acquisition of Beats, but the AirPods really feel like the Airport base stations - setting a standard of quality to try and guide the industry along.
>I'm pretty sure a company that recently acquired Beats, the notoriously overpriced headphone companies, and sells wireless earbuds at 169$ is most certainly not making "pennies" on headphones.
Maybe read their financial statements then?
(And I'm pretty sure they lost more money still for buying Beats that they've made from selling Beats products at the moment -- even though both was spare change for them).
The iPhone has an IP67 rating where the Samsung S8 with headphone jack has the higher IP68. The difference between the two is pretty minimal, 30 minutes each and IP68 gives a manufacturer specified amount of extra submersion depth over the IP67's 1 meter limit. (Samsung says an extra half meter). I wouldn't expect to see much if a difference in testing both devices though. That said specific devices may differ based on manufacturing anomalies (more glue on this one, less on that one)
The real difference between Apple and Samsung's IP ratings is going to be corporate risk profiles, not technical capabilities. IP ratings don't in and of themselves make a phone waterproof, they just define what the customer's expectations should be. Apple would have just as much incentive to underrate their phone as they would to accurately rate it.
Noticed how all the link says is that Apple used to sell DRM music?
First, that was a demand from the record companies.
Second, Apple was actually the company whose's CEO took a public stand against DRM in music -- and eventually been able to remove it from their music store.
That's hardly a "documented history" of Apple being active on that front.
That's just an example. When you follow the WP link, you get to another example (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Apple_Inc.#Accusa...). There are plenty. For example, if you want to develop iOS apps, you are forced to buy a Mac. Technically, there's nothing to stop you from running macOS in a virtual machine, but Apple claims it's illegal and that you need to buy hardware from them. Everything, literally everything is well thought out as a way to make customers spend even more money. This is where Apple's marketing genius lies and this is where their huge profits are coming from.
> Apple has adopted the opposite stance creating proprietary hardware and platforms that firmly lock you into their ecosystem and this is one of the reasons why today, despite falling market share, it remains one of the world's most profitable companies.
One doesn't exclude the other. Think about the history of PC. Allowing clones might have been absurd from the point of view of IBM, but it caused a massive revolution that enormously benefited the society.
Companies use vendor lock-in to maximize profits, it's something quite common among big players in the software industry - there is no need to pretend it doesn't exist or that Apple is avoiding it for some reason.
Again, the one time Apple's financial position appeared headed towards bankruptcy was the one time they allowed clones. Their business model doesn't work with licensing, they learned that and will never forget it. They are very careful where they allow their technology to be used.
If you buy a third party set of headphones that use the lightning port, and require mfi status, yeah, they might make only a small amount compared to profit on iphone.
However, I think enough people will just default to another pair of airpods that any potential losses are offset. I have to imagine that was Apple's thinking. They may sometimes be wrong about stuff, but they're not stupid. If it helps move the market towards wireless, it may also push more wireless beats headphones, which are going to be relatively profitable too.
The quick way to look at this might be: How much was Apple making from headphone sales before this move? How much are they making from headphone sales after?
I don't get why I need a waterproof iPhone? I'm not in the habit of getting my personal electronics wet? and if I had the choice between a waterproof iPhone (rarely a concern) and being able to use my headphones without charging them and/or a dongle the choice is clear for me.
Also, I'd buy into the whole "thinner is better" thing if they weren't actually making the screens bigger and the "wireless future" thing is a just a load of overdreamt baloney.
Twice I've revived phones for others that fell (ha) for this unfortunate fate.
Turn off immediately, disassemble as much as possible, rinse in clear water (tap for us, but it is not clorinated/flour), then dry in a bag of uncooked rice for a week or so. Boom. Instant Frankenstein phone.
Feels good to save the world a little (through less waste).
I revived a display on a camera that got wet during a rain on Hawai'i after two years when I read about the "rice method" - it was working the next day. Similarly I saved a phone that went off my pocket into toilet - immediately removed battery, washed in water and packed in a box of rice for a day. Works still like new.
> Similarly I saved a phone that went off my pocket into toilet - immediately removed battery, washed in water and packed in a box of rice for a day. Works still like new.
Done the same thing, without removing the battery or using rice (and done similar things with all kinds of electronics that have gotten wet over the years, again, without a desiccant.) If it doesn't short anything out causing permanent damage, electronics that can get water in them can usually also dry out. Magic rice or anti-bear talismans are not required. A dessicant near the device may help trivially by reducing the surrounding humidity and accelerating evaporation from the device, but just arranging proper ventilation probably works better than using a closed container with a desiccant in most environments.
I wish it was so easy; my camera a few years back, Canon TX1, got wet in one of those rains on Hawai'i and display could never turn on, thought camera was operating normally, taking pictures. I tried to put camera on a sunny place for weeks, didn't help. After two years I read something on forums somewhere about rice. I told myself I don't have anything to lose, so I put rice in a box and immersed camera with display open into it. After a day or so, I took it out and voila, display was working again! Though I must say there was rice dust present on display from inside. Obviously, I would have rather used another desiccant, but where could I buy such thing quickly and in required quantity?
In that it's well established practice and I have a list of people who says it does. Versus a couple of internet grouches and a few guys selling device repair services that say it doesn't.
To me, the science sounds plausible. Power it down, dry it up, introduce a desiccant to mop up what atmospheric moisture there is. Rice may not be the "best" desiccant available but it's commonly available and easily understood by most people.
I'd appreciate it if you and your friend could demonstrate that this is false rather than throwing around snarky rhetoric.
This article [0] appears to support your hypothesis but there's enough discussion in the comments that suggests their results can't be taken as conclusive.
I've read the original Gazelle article [1] too, and their methods are far from being clear or rigorous.
I'd need to see more replication before I'd consider this "myth" debunked.
You think "rice usage" is not a controversial claim in the first place? You are trying to create "negative humidity" with rice. Are you serious right now?
EDIT:
Watch this rant from a guy who works in the repair shop.
No need to watch the whole video, you can see the "results" of the rice "cleaning" in the first couple of minutes.
Uncooked rice works as a desiccant and is found in most homes. If you wrap the phone in a paper towel there is no need to worry about rice residue or rice dust getting into the phone. It does work, but it takes 24-48 hours to dry your phone. Silica gel or other desiccants work better, but most people do not have these in their home.
No... you were the one that was using "everybody agrees it works" as the support of your position. He's offering an analogy that, rightly so, makes your position completely unsupported. If you're willing to say that homeopathy is crap despite the volume of people that support it, then you have to admit the same about your own argument. Provide evidence or support, not appeals to the masses.
Stop being intentionally obtuse. You were the one that said keeping a phone in rice works because "everyone agrees that it works". That's circular logic. He was using that same logic with the example of homeopathy because, much like your rice trick, the only support of homeopathy is that "everyone [who believes it] agrees that it works".
You're wrong. Stop trying to wash it away and just admit it.
It's a common sense to me, but if you want, we can do the math. Should be pretty easy to calculate humidity and rice desiccant properties to end this joke once and for all. Logically, it should be better to let phone dry in open even, instead of creating closed space in the bag of rice.
You can watch the video muted btw. PCB condition shows clearly the level of corrosion from just a little bit of moisture.
"If rice is placed in a sealed container, the air in the container will gain or lose moisture until it attains an equilibrium relative humidity (ERH) corresponding to the rice moisture and temperature."
I didn't think I needed a waterproof iPhone either until I got it. I guess I still don't "need" it, but it is really nice to have. I love not having to worry about ruining my phone if I'm out in the rain, getting ready in the morning, hanging out by the pool, using it for recipes in the kitchen, and especially reading/web browsing in the hot tub.
I have to admit ... you do make it sound quite compelling, from a comfort perspective. I suppose my overriding wish is that I could have this cake, and the other cake as well.
Very handy with young kids. Saved mine twice in a year from "OK let me bend over to get you (or some item) out of the tub... damnit, there goes my phone". It'd be even more helpful if we let our kids play with our phones like a lot of people do.
I remember once upon a time, about 20-ish years ago when Nokias where the thing to have. I had one of the smaller ones that came after 3110 (3210?) and was working extra as a bar-something one night. I had a big bucket that pour out deserted drinks and bottles into, and now it was full of everything you can imagine.
I leaned forward while typing an sms and dropped the phone in the bucket and saw the screen during the fraction of a second before I snagged it back. It showed a message along the lines of
"This accessory is not supported"
Then it died. Only to be revived through a bath in rice. Nokia, whaddayaknow.
Yeah I have friends that have done that too. But like I say, if I had a choice between having to be careful with my device vs having to charge/pack an extra device on a continual basis it's a clear one for me ...
I suspect it is a clear one for a lot of people. The problem is that don't think it would be the same choice.
I moved back to Asia last year. And since then the combination of driving a scooter + rain season means my phone is soaked wet a couple times a year (sometimes it just rains and you really have no choice). If it is not waterproof, I have to always bring a backpack with me.
Ever place your phone on a table or bar, and there's gunk on it, and now that gunk is all over your phone? Nothing better than just being able to go to the restroom and rinse it off.
OK, for you maybe. For me I'd much rather have the thinner waterproof phone than a port I never use collecting pocket lint. Making the screens bigger is different in that it's a tangible benefit that a bunch of people are willing to trade size for, but that trend has also reversed itself (the Nexus 6P is smaller than the Nexus 6 for instance).
How do you plan to hold these razor thin phones then? During last years I went from 9.3mm (iPhone 4S) in small formfactor to 8.9mm in 5.0" phone to recent 7.4mm in 5.5" phone. The last one even after almost a year of usage is insanely hard to hold and use naked. It is slippery (metal) and always tend to almost fall when I reach far corners or put it in the pocket. I bought spigen case entirely to have a better grip on this thing, not for the protection I don't really need. With thicker rubber case it is less of ergonomic nightmare and I don't fear that it will slip out. Why on Earth would you want a thinner phone? (I'm not even talking about subpar iPhone batteries)
I've never had this problem or realized it was even an issue. I tend to use my fingers on the back of the phone to hold it. I'd like it to be thinner because it's in my pocket all day.
Just out of curiosity, what's the payoff of having a slimmer, yet ultimately bigger phone?
I guess there's a cohort of iPhone users that never use the jack but in the early days at least it was a compelling feature for many. (remember all those proprietary connectors we had back in 200x?)
The idea here is maximizing both screen space and portability. Obviously contradictory goals but the headphone jack compromises one without helping the other.
>I don't get why I need a waterproof iPhone? I'm not in the habit of getting my personal electronics wet?
Well, it's not like the world revolves around what some particular individual does. Other people might be more clumsy. Or might live in places with frequent rains (from London to the tropics and India), do all kinds of stuff outdoors, etc.
Many people approve of a waterproof phone. And in any case, it's a nice feature to have even when you don't need it. It gives piece of mind for using it to call in the rain for one -- and if you have ever been outside in London or tons of other places you'd have seen the utility.
I'm in Dublin here, I know all about rain ... the problem with these arguments "it's not like the world revolves around people with x point of view" is that you can't necessarily say that it should revolve around people with y point of view. A great many people like the jack too so why should they be discommoded when all you have to do is put your phone in a waterproof case.
Waterproof cases are often bulky, awkward to use, and ugly. Apple is always, always going to choose encouraging forward thinking (wireless) over supporting legacy technologies by adding bulky, awkward covers.
That's not true. They set the precedent for using the jack in mobile phones in the first place because "usability" - before the iPhone nearly all mobile phones had proprietary connectors.
Wires are a definite downside to me and many others. I see this problematic description pop up a lot around here and other sites. What is problematic for you may not be problematic for others or even the majority. This is how we ended up here.
In my own use case, I love the AirPods, I don't think they "blow", and I only have to charge them occasionally since the case keeps them charged. I have yet to experience these downsides that you claim and yet I still have the benefit of not needing wires. You can continue to dislike wireless and say wires aren't a downside but you can't just state it as some kind of universal fact. People are different. Some people will like things that others don't.
Can't it be both? I don't want the wires if they don't have to be there and I don't need them for anything. Apparently, most people agree with that sentiment.
I always thought it was fairly evident that removing the headphone jack in the iPhone 7 was a 'long play' for the next iPhone (8/Pro/Edition/Whatever) that had more of a harder requirement to scrap it.
If everyone who actually cared about it bought e.g. the S8 from Samsung instead, I'm sure Apple would get the message - and bring it back. Since people are still buying it in droves it must not be a real clincher to most people.
The S8+ has a great DAC (as tested on my range of Audio Technica headphones), still supports Bluetooth audio - latest spec, and is a fantastic phone overall, with a design far surpassing the headphone-less iPhone 7.
IMO, Apple engineers have gotten lazy. They removed the port without adding value.
> If everyone who actually cared about it bought e.g. the S8 from Samsung instead, I'm sure Apple would get the message - and bring it back. Since people are still buying it in droves it must not be a real clincher to most people.
That's not a reasonable assumption.
If they had manufactured an alternative iPhone 7 (that was thicker than the regular one, or whatever was their rationalizing for removing it) then we could say that anyone buying the alternative one was communicating their want/need of the jack.
There is significant platform lock-in between iOS and Android, and while you can always switch, there are a lot more factors than the headphone jack, making it - without a gradient - impossible to draw any such conclusions from the data points available.
> There is significant platform lock-in between iOS and Android
I've had an iPhone since the 4, at first because it was the best phone by a long way imo. Now? I imagine switching and would rather pay the premium not to go through that hassle.
I'm super sad that I'll have to use a shitty adapter to have semi decent ear buds (I use sennheiser cx-500 most of the time) - but again not enough to motivate switching. [I've not looked but assume Sennh don't make compatible headphones]
Remove it in the prior version to get all of that discussion over and done with. When the next iPhone comes out, there'll no longer be outrage about it missing a headphone jack.
I own the 7S without the headphone jack and while most of the time I'm fine without it, there are a few instances (mostly on planes or long car) where it really pisses me off. But switching to an alternative device that has a headphone jack would piss me off even more due to other things.
I look at it the same way about the removal of the physical home button from the iPhone 7S - 'train' users/press prior about the potential negatives so you can control more of the conversation when the 'next big phone' comes out that you want make sure makes a good, big impact.
> Remove it in the prior version to get all of that discussion over and done with. When the next iPhone comes out, there'll no longer be outrage about it missing a headphone jack.
Seems reasonable, but if the next iPhone is the massive redesign everyone is expecting, wouldn't have been easier to remove the jack and play it off as a requirement of the new design? "This is the iPhone of the future," etc.
Those were going to be controversial design changes no matter what so, like others have rightly pointed out, do them incrementally to allow all the discussion and annoyance/outrage to pass and not dominate the conversation in the media (both social and professional).
>IMO, Apple engineers have gotten lazy. They removed the port without adding value.
Or you know, they have rather good reasons for it.
Like better waterproofing (Samsung always fails behind iPhone in waterproof tests, and doesn't support fully even the nominal waterproof levels they say they do), thinner feature phones in the roadmap, smarter headphones, etc.
In that video, both phones are subjected to ever-increasing water depths until the S7 dies (very respectably) after five minutes at 35 feet, while the iPhone 7 continues to operate.
That suggests to me that both phones probably should have been rated IP68.
I think it's a bit hard to make that claim with only one test with only one phone each (And it's a little convenient that the only guy who found the iPhone 7 to be more water resistant is the guy named 'EverythingApplePro').
That said, while you may be right they should be rated the same, that doesn't really help OPs point. Even if they should be rated the same, the S7 has a headphone jack and the iPhone 7 doesn't. If the headphone jack is really the problem then the iPhone 7 should be way better at handling water then the S7, and yet even in the video you linked the iPhone 7 was suffering damage from the same depths the S7 did. I would argue that even if the video is legitimate it's entirely possible he just got a "lucky" iPhone 7 that didn't end-up getting fried from the little water that got in, and the S7 wasn't quite as lucky. From one test you really just can't know.
Problem is same as with Thinkpads. Many People love their iPhone. They want to have iPhone and don't want to be stuck on Samsung for many years on just to send message to Apple.
They haven't added value for their customers but they will be reducing costs for the business going forward and are helping provide a platform for future revenue.
Yeah. Bluetooth and BLE don't need to be part of MFi. MFi is about standards for directly connected devices. Which does really have a place in quality control and not destroying your $1000 rectangle. Not that there aren't fake MFI (or harvested from junk electronics) chips for gas station chargers.
I'd have given Apple the benefit of the doubt if they opened up the W1 chip to other Bluetooth headphone vendors. So far... nothing. Just the AirPods and Beats, along with proprietary Lightning garbage. This was very clearly a user-hostile power grab, and yet people like Gruber keep rolling their eyes at the notion that the headphone jack might still be useful to many people. And what about the things you can no longer do with any dongle, such as headphone use with simultaneous data transfer? My Apogee JAM sits gathering dust because I simply can't use it with my iPhone 7.
I'm not exactly mad at Apple, but I'm starting to think that maybe Android will be the way to go for my next upgrade cycle. It's been a while since I played around with a new OS!
> I'd have given Apple the benefit of the doubt if they opened up the W1 chip to other Bluetooth headphone vendors.
Why??? Why on earth would Apple do that, and why should they need to? The iPhone 7 works just as well or better with regular BT headsets as any other phone does (iow it mostly works, most of the time, but sometimes BT is just kinda crappy).
What possible reason would Apple have to develop a clearly superior BT chipset and then just give it away?
On stage, Apple clearly implied that the future of audio was something along the lines of the W1: easy to pair, high quality, low latency. (With this, who needs wires anymore?) It was billed as a forward-looking, pro-consumer move. But the future of audio won't be proprietary. It can't be, simply because most people don't use iPhones. The way I see it, the fact that Apple won't even license their tech spells out the true intent behind the removal of the headphone jack. They don't want to move technology forward; they just want to lock in their users for expensive audio equipment.
The W1 isn't as proprietary as you seem to think it is - you can still use any bluetooth headset with an iPhone, and you can use AirPods with any standard bluetooth audio player, you just don't get the iCloud sharing and quick device switching capabilities that aren't part of the bluetooth standard.
I think there's a bunch of pretty decent reasons why this makes sense for apple.
- smaller devices reduce shipping costs en masse
- marketting "thinner" devices (though screen is larger?)
- DRM
- No need to provide expensive native DAC
- Owning the headphones market, similar to how google ended up owning "search"
I'm sure there's a bunch more. It makes good business sense for them regardless of what customers (ahem, "consumers") want and with other manufacturers following suit they'll pretty much have no choice.
I'm looking forward to a portable DAC being among the collection of crap I have to put in my pocket in the morning.
> - smaller devices reduce shipping costs en masse
If this were their goal removing the headphone jack is the last thing I'd expect they'd look towards. For starters there's the packaging itself which is way larger than the couple millimeters they could maybe shave off the phone itself.
As someone with high-end headphones and hearing aids that preclude earbuds, I will miss a headphone jack so much I'll probably get my first Android phone over this.
FWIW, there are MFI hearing aids with Bluetooth audio support (along with individual R/L volume control, profile selection and remote microphone support - seems pretty neat) that I've seen some people raving about on reddit. Rather expensive devices, but hearing aids in general are outrageously priced even for low-end models.
I have really good headphones but I just use the dongle. So I've never had an issue. Never lost the dongle cos I tied it to the end of the headphones with a small bit of velcro.
I thought I'd get used to it but after struggling with the dongle at first to use my preferred headphones (Cheapish Sony earbuds that I've found sound better than apple and last 2 years), then losing the dongle and resorting to earpods.
I now just carry two pairs of headphones everywhere, one for my Apple laptop and one for my Apple iPhone.
Even tried the Beats X, W1 chip was all hype it's barely any different from regular bluetooth and juggling with then UI to turn headphones on and off is more tedious than just plugging something in and living with a cable, so those are collecting dust now.
Didn't want to buy another dongle because that would just prove to Apple that people are happy with the dongle.
Obviously the shape of your ear matters a great deal, and the lack of wires makes the comparison a bit harder, but I've found the AirPods much more comfortable than the cheap wired headsets Apple ships (shipped?).
Beats. The only use they have are as a fashion accessory you hang around your neck. You don't play audio through them, not if you value your ears and your music.
Apple playing such tricks for marketshare is exactly the opposite of why Apple was loved. They used to find better ideas that would make the market look sad (magnet power cable instead of friction socket that would break).
I'm surprised I've not seen the phrase "close the analog hole", which was a popular one in the early days of MP3s, used to describe the end-goal of this design.
It kills me that people like you can't see the long play. Haven't you ever watched a sci-fi movie? Do those guys have 7mm thick phones that they carry around everywhere with a cabling dangling out of it? Nope. They have 1mm thin things that are [printed on their sleeve|hover in the air|do some other ridiculous future nonsense].
Now, is the iPhone "8" going to be like that? Clearly not. iPhone 9? Maybe not. iPhone 10? 11?
That's what Apple are pushing towards. Thank god somebody is, or we'd all be carrying around 7mm thick phones for the rest of eternity.
Needs more time to mature away from a 3.5mm jack in to Bluetooth headphones?! Come on.
Edit: I'm not saying you have to like this, just that to say that Apple did it to make a few more bucks on a dongle is cynical to the point of absurdity.
Some Bluetooth profiles can be used on iOS devices without MFI authentication chip on the Bluetooth device. Bluetooth audio/headset devices don't need MFI chip. Devices using Bluetooth serial port profile do need it.
They don't have DRM there yet. But they've opened a possibility of DRMing iPhone audio now. When other manufacturers follow suit, it'll be only a matter of time before some parties will want to make use of that possibility.
You realize they had DRM in iTunes music long ago at the insistence of the labels, and have killed it? Why in the world do you think Apple would add it back?
The best hypothesis is that they removed the headphone jack when they didn't need to, so people would lose their minds in 2016. Notice how there's still space for the jack in the 7.
So in 2017, when they actually need to remove the headphone jack (probably because the phone is more thin than is actually useful), it won't be as big of a deal.
When growth is slowing in your main product, you have to find ways to take up the slack. It's going to be consumer hostile almost by definition, since the goal is to take more money from the consumer.
I don't ever intend to own a phone without a headphone jack. If enough people agreed with me their plan would backfire, but I suspect that's not the case.
I don't buy this. I buy Apple products and Apple accessories. I highly doubt Apple makes significant money through licensing unless you put the numbers.
Removing the jack was a good decision and now, a few months only later, I do appreciate it.
Anti-trust "prohibits a variety of practices that restrain trade".
I don't see how it does that, especially given that they bundle a headphone adapter with the phone.
But they are a major player in smartphone market that they use to leverage themselves into this market. Similar to Microsoft (majority in OS) bundling browsers and media players.
>But they are a major player in smartphone market that they use to leverage themselves into this market
They have less than 50% of market share, so no.
MS had almost 98% of desktop/work OS share (Linux was in its infancy then -- and is not used much for desktop even now--, and OS 8/9 had dropped to insignificant share).
Or, you know, the components that he removed in order to put that jack in...
Seriously... he shows the pieces he had to remove in order to get this working and he compromised the water-proofing of the phone. How is that, in any way, an equivalence to "void" or "empty space"?
It was a piece of plastic... You really believe that much teeth pulling surrounding the removal of a jack was the rational alternative to a less accurate altimeter?
No. They clearly had reasons to remove the headphone jack. I'm only addressing the mistaken assumption that there was just "extra" space left in the phone. If you're removing the altimeter/barometer conduit, you're essentially removing the capability for the altimeter/barometer to remove air and balance pressure. Since the original phone was waterproof, this was a necessary piece.
The "new phone" no longer has a working altimeter, is not waterproof, and has major structural issues now. Anyone saying that there was just extra space there is being ignorant of the facts shown or is being intentionally disingenuous for some reason.
This is what infuriates me about the whole cargo cult mentality of "design" Apple subscribes to. Its dishonest bait so low information consumers don't question anti-consumer monetization moves. There's a lot of money in headphones and taking over the headphone market via airpods or the mfi chip sales required for iphone lightning to work with minijacks is a ripe market for Apple. Yet, we're being sold on a whole false narrative of "Oh there's no room, sorry."
I think we're going to look back to the dawn of smartphones as being particularly anti-consumer, anti-privacy, and typified by corporate dishonesty.
edit: I see the narrative is "but, but the iphone 8 will be too thin for it, trust me." Then there's no reason to do it now other than crass monetization at the cost of the consumer already invested in wired headphones and being forced to do a pricey upgrade. Not to mention, simply migrating to a thinner analog audio plug like the standard 2.5mm connector which is merely 2mm thick and can use a minijack to 2.5mm adapter can be gotten anywhere and cheaply. That would be a trivial change and allow Apple to make a very thing phone. Instead excepting a DAC on every headphone or having a DAC adapter is clearly a monetization scheme.
> I think we're going to look back to the dawn of smartphones as being particularly anti-consumer, anti-privacy, and typified by corporate dishonesty.
Apple has been a dishonest, anti-consumer, cargo cult designer since the beginning of personal computing and I can't wait until their time is over.
Just one example: The single button mouse. For the longest time the party line was "it's better for reasons", but everybody knew it wasn't which is why the first thing anybody purchased after buying a new Mac was a multi-button mouse. You didn't even have that choice with their laptops unfortunately. Internally, Apple's reasoning for keeping it was that it differentiated them from PCs and they didn't want to appear to be stealing from PC designs.
Regardless of the result and what people think of Apple's decision making process, I find this video to be very inspiring and shows how even black-boxes can be hacked and modified to fit one's needs.
As a developer I was always excited when someone found a better/different way to use my code in a way that is different than I originally intended to, hopefully manufacturers in the future will focus on making it easier to hack and modify their products.
Here's a quick note on bluetooth/digital sound quality, from recent experience.
I'd been playing music on my car stereo (Kenwood, nothing amazing) across bluetooth. I finally got around to picking up a lightning cable to connect directly for charging but thought I'd try playing music across it.
I was instantly struck by how much better the sound quality was.
I don't think the sound output in this case is digital am I right? Lightning still supports analogue output equivalent to the headphones jack for these usecases?
So we're being sold on this idea that digital/bluetooth is "better" but as somebody else points out here that's purely down to the DACs that are in use, but from my personal experience the DACs native to the iPhone are actually pretty good.
I wonder, apart from other motives proposed here, is eventually eliminating expensive analogue circuitry from the iPhone BOM a part of what's going on here?
Bluetooth audio itself uses digital compression to keep the bandwidth low, and has a whole bunch of optional codecs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bluetooth_profiles#Adv...). Your Kenwood may not support the higher quality codecs, meaning it would sound worse than a comparable headphone jack aux cable.
Just because it's lossy doesn't mean it can't sound good, but sure aux and lightning are probably better choices if you're concerned about it sounding good.
The huge audio difference described above is atypical from my experience, so I'd blame the stereo's bluetooth support before bluetooth audio itself.
It's a shame that Bluetooth can't do something like a stream copy. Quality could be better if your phone could pass the raw mp3/vorbis/opus stream over BT. Even with HQ codes like aptX it's pretty silly to be converting 256k mp3 to aptX at similar or higher bitrate.
Isn't that Bluetooth file transfer? Good idea but I guess the idea of a streaming protocol is it addresses realtime concerns in an unreliable medium. Imho that's the kind of thing analogue coding schemes are better at.
Of course this is correct if you being with a lossless file, but if you start with an already lossy file, despite it being possible to sound the same as a lossless file, when you re-encode it with a different encoding, for example ogg -> mp3, you'll lose different parts of the file in the compression algorithm, so it will end up sounding worse.
I can't say I know how the different bluetooth audio codecs work of course.
> Your Kenwood may not support the higher quality codecs, meaning it would sound worse than a comparable headphone jack aux cable.
That implies there's BT audio codecs that sound the same (or I guess better, but I think he/she probably meant "same") as an aux cable. I was saying I don't think that's true, that even the best BT audio codecs are (noticeably) inferior to in-phone-DAC-to-analog connections.
I'm pretty sure the lightning standard doesn't support an analogue signal at all, hence the role of the adapter as a DAC. Around 23mins in the linked video you see the part he's using inside the phone, and it seems more complex than simply matching pins.
In terms of your car stereo, I'd say that'd be an internal DAC, and the quality difference was simply down to a physical connection compared to Bluetooth(probably a previous standard too, the jump from Bluetooth 4.0 to Bluetooth 5.0/W1(as in AirPods) is pretty similar in magnitude to the jump from USB 2 to USB 3/Lighting(Lightning was again Apple adding support for modern features before the standard was finalised)). In the same way that nobody would've seriously dropped a dedicated display port before USB 3, the new Bluetooth standards are opening up audio to replace physical connections.
As I understand it, Apple ultimately ended up dropping the headphone jack due to interference(the DAC was being interfered with) from some internal components in the new design, as well as making waterproofing easier. I'm fairly certain there's no DAC already at this point.
Sorry I should have done a bit more research before posting ... yes it appears that the official line on lightning is that it's digital only, but there are conflicting empirical accounts [0]
Since my 5s still has a headphones jack there is certainly still a DAC there.
It could well be down to the fact that my car stereo has a better DAC on the USB line than it does on the bluetooth line. Or simply an older bluetooth audio standard as you suggest. Actually this is probably the most likely suspect!
Which I think all serves to underline how digital output is not "open and shut" when it comes to sound quality.
Thanks for the additional technical context on why they might be eliminating analogue signal altogether. I'd felt a similar rationale informed their refusal to include a FM receiver from the beginning.
It does make sense from many different perspectives for apple to make this "not their problem". I kind of feel it's a pity from a customer/functional perspective though.
Bluetooth honestly isn't better yet. They should've waited to remove the headphone jack until Bluetooth 5 headsets were out (same bandwith, but much lower power, easier pairing and much better compression). It would've made some sense.
I'm guessing that they thought the headphone was interfering with their design for iPhone 8, and that they wanted to take the PR-hit with the 7. They were in the loop about the Bluetooth 5 spec, so for them it made sense, even if it's too early for consumers.
Bluetooth audio is typically loss-ily re-encoded due to limited bandwidth and has sounded really bad in the implementations I've tried (an iPhone connected to earbuds and a Toyota Prius).
I've had a hard time finding out technical details of Apple's new w1 chips - what increased bandwidth they support, if any. This one case where Apple hiding the tech specs from consumers is pretty irritating.
I'm no audiophile pushing for nonsense like 24/192 downloads, but I do care about music enough to actively avoid overly-compressed audio via bluetooth or Sirius/XM as the sound is grating.
I'm thinking Bluetooth 5.0 will solve this quality issue, but I'm certain there is somebody with actual domain knowledge in this thread to enlighten.
What I'll actually do, since my stereo actually has a headphones line is a qualitative comparison between the headphones jack, usb and bluetooth and I'll get back to you.
This seems like a pretty small set of data to base your conclusion on. Anyway, if fidelity is the concern, most new cars support just directly plugging in your phone via USB.
It's hardly data, it's personal experience. Seems the main thrust of your argument is that if I spend a load of money I'll get better results. Well Duh
But the thrust of my argument was that bluetooth was inferior to a wired connection (and probably inferior to analogue from the jack itself). As other commentators have helpfully pointed out this is due to the poor codecs in use with bluetooth. So there's plenty of extraneous contributed "data" that supports my claim.
There you are putting words in my mouth. I never made any remark about the connector. It's almost like you came to this discussion with a point to disprove already in mind.
More directly to your point, though, I've never experienced problems like one speaker cutting out because the wire is too old with digital connections. I really like digital better because it's mostly either working or not.
if the DAC only exists between the logic board and the analog jack then there is a good chance it isn't being piped back in to the lightning port. Even then, I really doubt an entire pin on the lightning connector is dedicated to analog signal, so a DAC would have to exist on the other end of your lightning cable anyway; I suspect this is where your difference in quality come from.
Last weekend I paid $50 - yes, $50 - for a third party adapter at an airport kiosk after realizing I had forgotten the cheap apple adapter and was staring down a 10 hour flight with incompatible headphones.
It also allows charging while listening to audio, which has also been a hassle to not be able to do, so I gritted my teeth and made the purchase.
The whole situation is comical. Apple getting rid of the headphone jack was a ridiculous move that leaves me with a really bad taste in my mouth about a company who I otherwise have a very positive impression of.
Unfortunately the "vote with $" is very imprecise.
With respect to the headphone jack, a purchase of the phone could be anywhere from "I enthusiastically agree" to "I disagree strongly enough that it almost prevented my purchase" or even "I thought it would be OK, but realized after purchase that I will not buy another phone without a headphone jack."
"Voting with your wallet" is such an imprecise message that I wish people would stop bringing it up. It doesn't work. Customers choose out of the available options, so the real choice is with those who decide what options are available.
In theory if there's a choice missing that consumers would prefer, some other company will step in and fill the void knowing customers will prefer their new offering.
In theory, yes. And it works for the easy things. But one does not simply walk into expensive electronics sector. Between capital requirements for product development and for marketing, it's really hard to make a viable product. People do try - there have been some bottom-up efforts for creating smartphones with features missing from the mainstream (ranging from security to customizability to openness), but they mostly failed.
What I'm saying is - voting with your wallet works for products where it's easy for a random entrepreneur to design a release a new, unique model focusing on unmet market needs. But smartphones are not such a product. Customers always choose out of available options, the difference is in how easy is for the market to iterate on different variants for different market subsegments.
I wish there was a viable alternative. Moving to Android after years and years of purchasing apps and setting my digital life up around apple's ecosystem makes that a nonstarter. It's platform lock-in.
And, I'm not about to stall at a particular model, since I know quite well that the headphone jack isn't likely to come back.
I've switched after 4S [1]. Yes, the lack of bought apps and general apps selection (3 years ago) was pretty disappointing. But I bought a few apps and games, navigation, set up office, video and music as subscriptions and it is working pretty fine. The point is - I've invested like 50$ to 100$ unreturnable overhead costs into Android to completely fill all my needs and and I have a backup iOS account filled with apps for a time when I want to switch back. Also it works on my tablet for now. Basically you can switch for cheap and then return a year or more after if you wish. Also consider that Android flagships cost 50%-75% of iPhone, (Sammy and Sony about the same).
[1] Battery life of new iPhones is not enough for me now and iOS can't function in low-tech, no internet environment where you need to share files and do other "geek" stuff suddenly and without PCs of any kind.
This is how I feel about the USB C dongles too. I forgot the a adapter at the office the other day and couldn't effectively work from home because of that. It's just a bad experience.
I feel your pain here, but at least USB C is on the way to becoming the new standard. Sure, nobody likes a dongle, but it's been a while since someone did a facepalm because they can't use their keyboard since they left their USB to PS/2 converter at home.
The transition is irritating, but eventually you buy a new compatible peripheral (or you leave the dongle permanently attached) and life is good again.
The unforgivable thing about what Apple has done is insist on keeping that proprietary "Lightning" port around. It was a better design than anything else when it debuted (I've thrown away more broken micro USB cables than I can remember), but now it's just a sad shadow of USB C and it needs to go.
When they killed the headphone jack, they had an opportunity to divert everyone's attention away from that loss by sticking a USB C port on the bottom. Instead of people bemoaning the loss of the perfectly good 3.5mm audio jack, they could have been talking about the exciting possibility of a fully-functional USB C / thunderbolt port, and with a "USB C everywhere" approach across all their devices, they might have actually deserved to call themselves brave(ish).
I might have forgiven them if they had gone USB C.
But they launched the 7 without a jack and the latest MacBooks without USB A so their latest phone couldn't connect to the latest MacBook without a single.
I know - lightning to USB A makes sense for legacy laptops but still. It was a bizarre decision, one that I doubt Jobs would have made.
Again, there is no alternative. I need a Mac for iOS development. I also do Android development and I know enough details about how the sausage is made that I don't want to use an Android phone as my daily driver.
So not only do you buy hardware for this toxic ecosystem, but you directly contribute to its success, and still complain about it. Nice.
Android is fine. At least the sausage recipe is available, iOS is a black box that's probably just about as gross inside. You can choose to use technologies that don't disrespect you as a user and a consumer.
iOS is not a toxic ecosystem, I love the OS they also have far superior hardware. Sure, lacking a headphone jack is annoying, but I can live with that. I can't live with Android phones using inferior CPU's and GPU's. I also wouldn't want to use Google's horribly over-engineered OS.
Without going into specifics, I work on some mobile software that does heavy image processing of the live camera feed.
Getting a decent frame rate on shitty Android hardware (even the so-called high-end devices) is quite a challenge. iPhones are so much faster it's not even funny.
Android is far, far worse. I'm actually an Android developer by profession and I use Android phones all day, I wouldn't want to use an Android device as my personal phone in it's current state.
I added the following comment to the blog post. (So the "you" is addressed to the blog OP.) My comment is currently awaiting moderation, so I'm posting it here too just in case it never shows up on the blog.
One of this person’s other projects (the iPhone NVMe exploit) required a custom FPGA board for PCIe sniffing. This guy clearly likes digging into protocols. Would be very very interesting to see what you could collaborate on together.
PS. You might want to adjust the theme so the textbox font color is black / #000. It’s very hard to type with the very light shade of grey it is right now.
> The PCB has a switching chip that switches between connecting the headphone adapter to the phone by default, and then disconnecting it and connecting the lightning jack when something is plugged into it.
Ah but this means you can't listen through the jack and charge your phone at the same time. That's my most missed feature since Apple did away with the headphone jack (I think technically you can still do this with a dongle?). Cool project overall though, kudos to the author.
I know people in most cities with a similar setup, if often a bit more specific to their hobby. I have a similar setup for old deadbug 'tronics and audio gear. Between making geek friends and hackerspaces, most people in the industrialized world have access to this stuff on a reasonable budget with a bit of effort.
He may have recovered the convenience, but maybe not the quality [1]. Whenever I google this I'm amazed at the sheer delusion of the apple fanboy's publishing empire[2] with so many pseudo-technical articles explaining, for example, how a digital output is better than an analogue output and that it does away with a DAC. Hmmm. Disappointed to hear that google will follow with the pixel 2.
Somehow I don't trust most headphone manufacturers to include a decent DAC.
The price of a pair of Beats headphones in no way corresponds with the quality of the drivers inside or the build quality of the unit itself, since they tend to blow most of the profits on fancy marketing and packaging I can't be sure they're not going to cheap out on the DAC too.
Interestingly, many people have been using digital out into a portable high quality dac/amp on a range of devices for many years. Quality blows away anything inside a phone or headphones, and can drive larger headphones, and has an analogue volume control, multi jack outputs and separate battery supply.
I would recommend this option over old school headphone jacks or new "digital" headphones.
I foresee a thriving secondary market in high quality DACs that people can just connect their extant headphones to. I hope this can work just by way way of plugging directly into the lightning port otherise it's another thing for me to charge sigh
Remember the awesome inline-controls Sony used to have on their minidisc players? I wouldn't mind seeing those come back with an integrated DAC and a small OLED display for track info.
This should in theory be possible with current generation technology. I can get this info on my car stereo whether playing across bluetooth or usb, and I could get it on my pebble watch, but frustratingly it's very hard otherwise to find standalone devices that do this. As far as I can make out it's all down to differing bluetooth application profiles and licencing.
Again from a customer point of view very frustrating.
Hmm, there are good headphone manufacturers though. Shure make decent, relatively cheap in-ear headphones. They also have a lightening port interface set.
The article you mention (2) does not appear to say that it "does away with a DAC". Rather, it correctly states that by using a digital interface the user has choice to select their own DAC, built into the headphones. Users can of course use any USB headset with a USB adapter if they want.
The other article, which you use to support the fact that the external audio is lower quality states "the bottom line is that the difference is going to be completely imperceptible to most people.". And of course, other options than Apple's included headphone adapter are available, which maybe higher quality.
There are many valid reasons why you might not like the iPhone, or might want a headphone jack. However the reasons you've provided don't seem valid to me, unless I've misunderstood something.
> The 3.5mm port is an analog output on the phone. The lightning port is a digital output. Needless to say, all the circuitry in the phone is digital. So accommodating analog technology isn’t ideal.
>By taking out the 3.5mm jack, Apple is removing the need for these two components. The lightning port and lightning input are both digital, so the phone does not need a DAC any more. The iPhone 7 can thus be more battery efficient, and have room for other components (like a bigger battery) in its slim case.
These arguments are deluded. The phone might not need a DAC anymore (hang on, I guess it does for the built in speakers), but the user does. It doesn't help with battery efficiency unless the DAC is powered separately, in which case you have two things to charge. Room for other components? Well if you want a bigger battery why don't you just have an extra one attached to a dongle to charge the phone up with? Why not remove the screen, another digital to analog device, to save space and battery, and just have an HDMI out? I know these are silly examples, but a phone brings convenience - it's convenient if a phone can last all day on one charge, and also convenient if it can interface with headphones.
Stepping back a bit, these articles seem to crop up periodically - I remember similar about the lack of GPS in the first model, the problems with the 4's antennae etc. Getting a bit philosophical here, but I wonder if the same people who refuse to accept valid criticisms of an Apple product also believe in 'good' and 'bad' people who can either do no bad or do no good.
Google translation of the original German page is fairly clear:
> With the saving of the jack socket, Apple deteriorates the output quality of the music on the iPhone. While the output sockets of the iPhone 6S and iPad Air itself perform well in comparison with professional audio interfaces, the output on the new Lightning adapter of the iPhone 7 and 7 Plus reaches only the note satisfactorily.
>The differences should be noticeable in comparison with similar connected headphones in the price class from 100 euros, especially with uncompressed music files with 24 bit. In the case of lossy compressed music pieces (MP3, AAC), however, most users hardly notice a difference. Bluetooth headphones and digital audio interfaces are not affected by the deterioration.
I've used many BT headsets, and I'm not sold on any of them, because it's yet another thing to charge. I've got my nice Shure earbuds that I've been using for 8 years, and I've no desire to get rid of them. Nor do I want to buy an external DAC, which is also another thing to have to keep charged.
The contrast ratio between that gray (#8e8e8e) and the white background is 3.3. At this text size (16px) it fails WCAG AA and WCAG AAA. This means that people with sight issues (and even regular people) will have issues reading the body of the website. You usually want at least 4.5.
This kind of low contrast should only be seen at a minimum of 18px and ideally on bold text.
I haven’t upgraded my iPhone 6 or my wife’s iPhone to latest because of the lack of headphone jack and my disgust with dealing with dongles. Perhaps once wireless headphones are available, I’ll upgrade.
Apple MacBooks are kind of underpowered and not too attractive relative to what’s becoming available in windows land - perhaps it’s time to start switching back from all this Apple stuff I’ve bought into over the years.
Final Cut Pro exports twice the speed of Adobe Premiere on identically spec hardware. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tAtbtQxA2I Haven't done much testing but I would bet this at least compensates for difference in speed if you are video editing. Coding doesn't seem to impact performance that much unless you are compiling. Obviously you don't really game on a Mac. Is there a speed difference? Yes. Is it noticeable? Depends on what you are doing.
Allegedly, one of the big reasons why Apple decided to remove the headphone jack in the iPhone was to save space for other components, so its pretty funny that it actually just resulted in a bunch of extra, unused space right where the headphone jack used to be.
I have no studies to back this up but my Lightening Apple headphones last longer(don't break) then the 3.5mm headphone jack equivalent. I plan the volume quite loud and listen to the over half the day. I have gone through roughtly 4 pairs of headphones in the last year.
I don't miss the headphone jack. At first, I was a bit pissed. Two reasons: I can only use my headphones with the iPhone, so I need to bring two. I can't use any other headphone with the iPhone, so I need to bring the iPhone one.
Why I don't miss it? The old headphone jack is not good. First, it has more risk of either breaking (itself) or putting another force on the entry of the device. Second, the audio transmission sucks. The old jack, for some reason, has lots of interference. I'm having this problem with the iPad and Macbook.
My only issue: I want the iPhone jack to be USB-C compatible, or the iPhone/Macbook Pro standard to be compatible.
Wireless headphones/audio has been around for years. Yes the AirPods design is different but not really the same when comparing an iPhone(without physical keyborad) vs a old Windows Mobile phone(or blackberry).
Removing the headphone jack and putting a proprietary connector instead was a dick move, but the reason I don't buy Apple phones is because a phone costs almost as much as a Macbook Air. I think it's absurd to be this expensive, and I don't want to give Apple my money.
Definitely. Water resistance is almost irrelevant to normal use, as evidenced by the fact that the world has been using non-waterproof mobile phones for close to two decades and people didn't complain that much.
Also, it's not a real trade-off, as currently, everyone except Apple somehow manages to make a waterproof smartphone with a headphone jack.
I guess you don't live in the same country as me where it _always_ rains.
Also plenty of people have have water damaged phones, from using them in bath, dropping then in the toilet or simply forgot to take them out of their pockets before plunging into the ocean. That you don't know these people or don't do it yourself, doesn't mean there are few water damaged phones.
My iPhone 6's headphone jack died on me because I run a decent amount and sweat too much into it. I purchased an iphone 7+ and have been loving the waterproofing (it's great to be able to run with a great camera), except I cracked the glass on the rear camera and now am no longer water proof. So waterproofing/durability is really important to some consumers.
Personally I haven't used the headphone jack on my phone in years and welcome them getting rid of it in new phones if it makes them lighter or thinner.
Not exactly pointless. He released his PCB layouts with the MIT license so it wouldn't be surprising if Chinese vendors started releasing DIY kits. It also proves that Apple totally could have fit a headphone jack into the phone and that the current design is purely for vendor lockin.
It's funny how this is just an electrical engineering video disguised as consumer electronics (not complaining though). In a simple sense, all he did was put the headphone adapter inside of the iPhone (of course he printed his own circuit board and added a switcher). Anyone coming in to the video thinking it's a solution would be misled since it's really only possible if you're willing to fuck with the inside of your phone, obtain the necessary precision tools, learn soldering and other engineering, and then implement (which in itself takes a lot of skill and this guy went through countless parts and broken screens; not to mention he has Shenzen at his disposal and even a factory willing to do small runs for him). Anyway it was fun to watch the process, and maybe cathartic for those lamenting the headphone jack, but certainly not brought back for the average person.
What? I wasn't being dismissive at all. I said "not complaining though", "of course he printed his own circuit board and added a switcher" meaning no shit it was actually much more complicated and impressive, "which in itself takes a lot of skill", "it was fun to watch the process", and I even edited it later to include a screenshot of the circuit board which I found, indicating my interest in the area. The only way you could construe my comment as dismissive is if you willfully ignored everything I quoted. I understand sentiment is hard to read on the internet, but maybe you read over my comment too fast?
The main point of my comment was bemusement at how the title makes it seem different than what it is, which is a nice application of electrical engineering. It's like me saying that "wow, these snacks for children are actually really healthy vegetables, how clever!" My tone was mainly of being impressed rather than dismissive.
Crikey! How many iphones did he drill holes in?
> I also ended up having to buy lots, and lots, and lots of spare parts. I went through 3 complete iPhone 7s, a handful of screens, and countless internal components (mostly bottom cable assemblies and taptic engines).
3. Ok, that's dedication.
> I feel like I got extremely lucky about finding space inside the phone. There was inexplicably a lot of extra room in the lower left hand corner, right where I wanted to put the headphone jack.
Suspicious... almost like their engineers left room to change their minds about the jack at the last second if they wanted to :)