But the "audiophile" can already do that, also having a 3.5 jack doesn't stop them. Again, switching the connector isn't going to inherently improve sound quality. With lightning connector, it's entirely possible that many headphones include DAC that are worse than what is currently in phones. If Apple really wanted to improve sound quality, it would make much more sense to just put better DAC in the phone.
Except that 3.5 isn't antiquated tech. It's old but not outdated since it can pass audio as well as any other jack that exists ... 3.5 is capable of passing the highest quality of audio that we have available (and then some), the only room for improvement is making a jack that is smaller, and in that case it's not just making tons of existing gear obsolete but potentially ending up with something that isn't as sturdy and prone to breakage. If there's some advantage a different jack could have other than being smaller I'd love to hear it.
Of course an audiophile can plug into a Lightning jack currently. But it's redundant. Apple already provides this ability through Lightning, yet they offer a dedicated single function audio jack as well. And it takes up a lot of room for a mobile device starved for more battery.
Apple is unlikely to make any adapter they offer worse than their built-in DAC. In fact I feel like the DAC in the Apple Lightning dock is actually superior to that used in the phone. Third party, non-MiFi adapters, on the other hand you bet. But anyone buying one of those will likely not even notice, and to the extent they will, are already having this experience with similar third party adapters and chargers. So it's not really Apple's problem to compensate for unauthorized peripheral products a customer choses to purchase.
Apple could easily move back to 2.5mm jacks which were the standard for mobile phones at one point. But that doesn't solve the redundancy problem, and the internal circuitry takes up almost as much room. There was a time when the 1/4" headphone jack was the standard, only the move to mobile devices changed that. And there was a period where most high quality headphones came with adapters. And people needed to use adapters in order to navigate a world of hybrid equipment. As far as I know it didn't put any manufacturers out of business who still included 1/4" jack in their rack equipment. The new $1200 Denon amp I have now in fact has a 1/4" headphone jack. So I don't see the relevancy of this argument. Adapters are a fact of life in todays world, and have always been in the world of audio.
Why do you need to remove the 3.5mm socket to use an outboard DAC?
Because it takes up a lot of internal space, performs only one function, and is redundant to a port that does everything the dedicated audio jack does, and likely better.
It is not "progress" to use a better quality outboard DAC. People have been doing that for years... And it is cumbersome.
It IS progress to improve the DAC inside the phone. The iPhone could have a MUCH better camera if it was external and plugged into the Lightning jack, but that isn't progress either.
Of course outboard DACs are better than what is in the phone today. But if Apple releases an adaptor with a DAC that is better, than the adaptor will have to be small enough that they could've just put it in the phone to begin with.
The iPhone is what it is today because it converged so many devices. Now we're going to pull the iPod out of it to save 1/40th of the space inside the case? Surely the audio is more than 1/40th the utility of the device.
Bluetooth audio doesn't even enter the equation for me. It can't even come close to the current DAC's wired output. It drains the phone AND the headphones. It has a LONG way to go.
Improving the quality of the DAC inside the phone puts the cost burden on Apple and increases the cost of the phone, regardless if it must be miniaturized to a size capable of fitting inside the phone. Besides, it's not about the size of the DAV, it's about the size of the 3.5mm audio jack. And it's something not everybody needs or wants -- why should I pay for an improved internal DAC for you, when I use Bluetooth, or my Apple earbuds? Adding an external camera is not as convenient as a simple inline dongle that at most extends the length of a customer's headphone cable. And for most, they will simply upgrade to a pair of Lightning headphones if the adapter is an issue. If most of Apple's customers only use Apple products, why would they cater to other manufacturers standards, especially if it's at increased cost? Most of the headphones I see at the gym are Bluetooth. And you're kidding yourself if you're listing to 128bit mp3s, or streaming audio and think your high quality wired headphones are in anyway superior to Bluetooth. And if you're listening to lossless audio more critically then I would think you should probably embrace a pair of Lightning headphones.
I also share your fears. Lower end headphones will need to absorb the extra cost of an onboard DAC and the MFI licence fee to use the Lightning connector so corners will have to be cut elsewhere if the cost to consumers is kept the same. They could even end up sounding worse or costing a fair bit more to acheive a similar sound quality.
So Apple instead will absorb the cost to improve the quality of it's onboard DAC? It's unlikely the average consumer would not pay an additional $10 to Apple for an iPhone, nor would they refuse to buy a pair of headphones for $10 more. Apple has steadily raised the price of their iPhone docks by $10/generation since the iPhone 4, which are evidently so successful they now offer them in 5 color choices. More likely a customer will start looking at Bluetooth headphones if they think $10 Lightning headphones are too expensive. Or they may opt for the non-Lightning model and instead buy a higher quality adapter. But switching to Android, Samsung, or Windows over it is not likely a realistic option. And considering the audio quality which most customers experience from compressed mp3s and streaming music, they are not likely to notice a drop in audio quality -- which probably accounts for the fact that wireless Bluetooth headphones are by far the most widely used headphone in any gym I've been in this year. The Watch is only going to accelerate that trend.
Modern consumers understand you get what you pay for. And to the extent brand and style trump it, then quality will take an acceptable leap -- which likely explains why Beats are some of the most expensive and widely used headphones in the world.
