Apple May Replace 3.5mm Headphone Jack on iPhone 7 With All-in-One Lightning Connector

[Mac 128]

I'm a music teacher, and I'm constantly plugging my phone into 1/8" jacks all over the city to play musical examples for classes. I don't want to have to have an adapter with me at all times or be screwed. One of my least favorite iPhone features from earlier generations was the recessed headphone jack of the original iPhone. Having an adapter at all times was a major pain.

With all due respect, I don't think you are Apple's target market. Unless you just upgraded to a Rose Gold iPhone 6S Plus, and post several dozen selfies on your Instagram account everyday, too. ;-)

 

[Mac 128]

So right off the bat that's a negative for anyone still wanting to use their existing analog devices. I'm also skeptical it would be $19 since the 30 pin to lightning adapter is $29, and bulky as well.

And yet hasn't stopped Apple yet. Your skeptical concerns are not my problem. $19 or $29, Apple will price it to drive business towards what they are trying to accomplish.

Anything to back up the claim of improved quality beyond just your opinion? Sorry to not trust your ears.

It's a subjective opinion, just like all of yours. I don't care whether you trust my ears or not. At the end of the day that goes to the basic point I've been making.

Sure, but now that's two things to lose plus wired headphones are bigger than a dongle.

If you can't keep track of your headphones, and a tethered dongle, then that's not my problem or Apples.

On the flip side, if you use the phone with different kinds of 3.5 gear you're looking at buying multiple adapters or constantly carrying it with the phone.

Apple doesn't care if you need to use your phone with different kinds of gear. That's not their target customer. And that's the point I'm making. Professionals always have to give up functionality for the average need. I wish Apple hadn't taken Ethernet out of the MacBook Pro. But what can I do? Buy an adapter. It's the exact same argument for those of us with Ethernet requirements.

The same can be argued for wifi or bluetooth or the speaker and mic. "Redundant" or not, a feature is worth leaving on and taking up the space if enough people use it.

Well I should stop discussing this with you now, because for Apple to do this, my whole point is they have determined enough people don't need it anymore.

And the reason you don't leave off the 3.5 is because the majority of users need it to interact with the phone when they don't have their lightning adapter.

Then don't leave off the Lightning adapter. You also have to make sure you have your headphones with you. I don't know anybody that carries their headphones with them. I'd much prefer to use the built-in speaker and mic. And given that's how the Watch works, I'd guess Apple knows that's true for most as well.

You're argument is Hey, you can use lightning! Without a flash, Hey, you can use lightning and hook up an external flash!

Not the same. Sorry. There's a quality issue involved with using an integrated flash. An external flash takes up more room, and slows down the picture taking progress. Not so with headphones. Nobody has to get their adapter plugged in immediately before they miss the start of an audio recording. Just turn the speaker on if that's the rare exception.

Because they have in the past. Lightning dock is just one example, and you're basing it on your own personal opinion.

You're basing all of this on your own personal opinion. You maybe have some facts to back this up? I don't, since I don't have access to any of Apple's internal data. Besides, I have yet to see an external dongle that's worse than the original built-in. What were you thinking?

The consumer ALREADY has that option. Instead of having decent DAC for everything, now the user would have to pay extra for an adapter just to get what they already have.

Yup. Wouldn't be the first time. I refer you to my afore mentioned Ethernet adapter. On the flip side, if the majority of Apple's customers have migrated to Bluetooth headphones, then that's a lot of people who don't need that HQ buil-in DAC, much less the 3.5mm jack.

You're off topic, the question is why would you need to remove 3.5 to use external DAC. And you never answered that question. The answer is you don't need to remove it.

Don't be obtuse. The whole discussion is about making the device thinner, and creating more room inside the phone to allow them to do that and continue to add new features. So you you do need to remove it.

But they will still have to include incompatible headphones. Putting DAC in that is going to increase their costs, more so if they include one at least as good as what is in the phone (which you seem convinced they'd do). If they really cared about improving quality, a better DAC would probably be cheaper than including lightning headphones with every phone. Not to mention that the headphones need to put the DAC somewhere.

Who cares? You really think spending more for an accessory is going to prevent the average Apple customer from buying an iPhone. I don't. Show me some statistics that prove it and then we'll have something to debate. Right now, I'm looking at Apple's past history and I don't see it as a problem. Anyway, not everybody needs a better DAC, and the headphones will put the DAC wherever they need to. Good headphones are pretty bulky, so I expect there's lots of places to put it. Besides, the increased cost to add Lightning EarPods to the iPhone will be offset by reduced costs, volume, and the increased sales in Beats headphones, and MiFi licenses to Apple.

That's not the argument.

OK so what is? It's my argument.

How much do you think a 3.5 jack adds to the cost of the phone anyway, considering it already needs a DAC for the speaker?

It doesn't matter. Even if it's a penny it's a lot considering Apple's volume. And more importantly they want the space. Something you don't seem to get.

Arbitrarily, no. Would they make a decision that would make a majority of users unhappy? Based on their track record, absolutely.

Again, tell me what they have have intentionally made worse?

You can assert whatever you want but you have no facts to back it up.

Nor do you.

You "know" that but somehow you also "know" that hardly anyone is still using 3.5? Your argument is nothing more than "I use a feature, so everyone uses it!" and "I don't use a feature, so hardly any anyone uses it!" Claims pulled out of your ass are pointless.

And that's exactly what your argument is. Right back at your own ass!

Anything is possible eventually but we're talking about a product that is scheduled to ship in the next 12 months.

So you're an electrical engineer specializing in DACs? My apologies /s

Absolutely they have. But in the vast majority of cases they were dumping standards while replacing them with something superior, which isn't the case here. And even then, not all of those were good decisions.

Based on nothing more than your opinion.

Funny, aren't plenty of people using third party bluetooth headphones, car stereos, and other devices? Why is apple spending money to support those competitors? Oh wait, could it be because compatibility makes their phone a better and more appealing product? I'm kind of blown away that such a stupid question is even being asked. And no, I'm not convinced that apple has research showing that a minority of users are using 3.5.

Apple doesn't make car stereos as far as I'm aware. And why should they support a standard the Google uses? Again this is all uninformed option based on nothing but your own personal experience and selfish need.

You threw out a really low bitrate as an example. I was simply disagreeing that it's a typical example.

Yes, you brought up iTunes, and I demonstrated that iTunes still offers and extremely low bitrate as the DEFAULT conversion. Talk about changing the argument.

You can speak for yourself, but I disagree with that generalization.

It's clear you're basing your opinion your own bias, so no surprise there.

So save pennies and then charge the consumer $19-29+ because their phone does less. Great to see that you're only looking out for how Apple can shaft the consumer. Not to mention that they will still include headphones which are now more expensive for them to build. I just don't see how they get a cost savings out of removing 3.5 jack but adding DAC internally to their headphones.

That's right. You're so fond of bringing up Apple's past history of making inferior products to replace superior built-in functionality, well that goes both ways. Apple has a history of saving pennies for themselves by adding extra burden to the consumer who doesn't seem to care. If Apple supplies a 3.5mm jack, then a customer can buy anybody's headphones. If they save money by eliminating the jack, not only can they charge more for the headphones they sell to make up for the added expense of including one, but they will be in a position to offer them over their competition, along with all of the adapters. Not to mention the increased buying power from buying all those extra DACs & Lightning connectors. Keep in mind they will also be dropping the 3.5mm plug on the wired headphones, so there's a savings there as well. This is all basic economics. You may disagree with this path, but Apple has done it many, many times over the decades.

Probably not the majority, how many "pennies" do they have to save by leaving out a jack to make up for each lost sale? Call me crazy but if I can spend a few pennies to make a product better, I'm going to do that.

Who cares. One penny over a million products saves $10,000. You're the one who keeps insisting that Apple will make a worse product in exchange. I don't share that view.

Again, assumption with nothing to back it up.

That's all you've been doing from your first post. At least mine just makes common sense. The MiFi vendors will be held to a standard set by Apple in order to get certification, and I expect Apple to set its usual high bar. I'm sorry you've been unhappy with some of Apple's previous efforts in this regard, but I've yet to run into an adapter product that has let me down for my needs over a previously built-in version.

 

[uid15]

So right off the bat that's a negative for anyone still wanting to use their existing analog devices. I'm also skeptical it would be $19 since the 30 pin to lightning adapter is $29, and bulky as well.



Anything to back up the claim of improved quality beyond just your opinion? Sorry to not trust your ears.



Sure, but now that's two things to lose plus wired headphones are bigger than a dongle.



On the flip side, if you use the phone with different kinds of 3.5 gear you're looking at buying multiple adapters or constantly carrying it with the phone.



The same can be argued for wifi or bluetooth or the speaker and mic. "Redundant" or not, a feature is worth leaving on and taking up the space if enough people use it.



And the reason you don't leave off the 3.5 is because the majority of users need it to interact with the phone when they don't have their lightning adapter.



You're argument is Hey, you can use lightning! Without a flash, Hey, you can use lightning and hook up an external flash!



Because they have in the past. Lightning dock is just one example, and you're basing it on your own personal opinion.



The consumer ALREADY has that option. Instead of having decent DAC for everything, now the user would have to pay extra for an adapter just to get what they already have.



You're off topic, the question is why would you need to remove 3.5 to use external DAC. And you never answered that question. The answer is you don't need to remove it.



But they will still have to include incompatible headphones. Putting DAC in that is going to increase their costs, more so if they include one at least as good as what is in the phone (which you seem convinced they'd do). If they really cared about improving quality, a better DAC would probably be cheaper than including lightning headphones with every phone. Not to mention that the headphones need to put the DAC somewhere.



That's not the argument.



How much do you think a 3.5 jack adds to the cost of the phone anyway, considering it already needs a DAC for the speaker?



Arbitrarily, no. Would they make a decision that would make a majority of users unhappy? Based on their track record, absolutely.



You can assert whatever you want but you have no facts to back it up.



You "know" that but somehow you also "know" that hardly anyone is still using 3.5? Your argument is nothing more than "I use a feature, so everyone uses it!" and "I don't use a feature, so hardly any anyone uses it!" Claims pulled out of your ass are pointless.



Anything is possible eventually but we're talking about a product that is scheduled to ship in the next 12 months.



Absolutely they have. But in the vast majority of cases they were dumping standards while replacing them with something superior, which isn't the case here. And even then, not all of those were good decisions.



Funny, aren't plenty of people using third party bluetooth headphones, car stereos, and other devices? Why is apple spending money to support those competitors? Oh wait, could it be because compatibility makes their phone a better and more appealing product? I'm kind of blown away that such a stupid question is even being asked. And no, I'm not convinced that apple has research showing that a minority of users are using 3.5.



You threw out a really low bitrate as an example. I was simply disagreeing that it's a typical example.



You can speak for yourself, but I disagree with that generalization.



So save pennies and then charge the consumer $19-29+ because their phone does less. Great to see that you're only looking out for how Apple can shaft the consumer. Not to mention that they will still include headphones which are now more expensive for them to build. I just don't see how they get a cost savings out of removing 3.5 jack but adding DAC internally to their headphones.



Probably not the majority, how many "pennies" do they have to save by leaving out a jack to make up for each lost sale? Call me crazy but if I can spend a few pennies to make a product better, I'm going to do that.



Again, assumption with nothing to back it up.

Corrrrr, you've been busy piecing together all those quotes hey? It amuses me the extreme lengths and amount of time people spend on proving a "point".

 

[diamond.g]

So why shouldn't apple get rid of both ports and use wireless for everything?

 

[Abazigal]

So why shouldn't apple get rid of both ports and use wireless for everything?

I believe that apple eventually will, once the technology is there. But I believe Apple will also gradually introduce these changes one by one, to avoid turning the customer off.

 

[johnyj]

is this iPhone 7 unboxing for real ?

 

[QquegChristian]

I love the assumption on this thread that the "bulk" of iPhone users are using Bluetooth headphones. I'd be surprised if the actual number is over 10%.

iPhones are MASS market devices. We're talking everyone and their mother.

A middle-aged couple at Target just asked me if I was worried that my Apple Watch would give me cancer. (Wrist cancer?)

That's a very common concern with older generations and wireless devices.

My grandparents both have iPhones. They also have wired Bose noise cancelling headphones. I guarantee they don't even know what Bluetooth is.

Apple's market expands FAR beyond the Beats generation. This is how they've become the richest company in the world.

I will say this though... I'd bet there are 3x as many people using the bundled EarPods than anything Bluetooth. So they wouldn't be affected... But not because of Bluetooth leading the market or anything.

My friend uses the EarPods, but he also plugs into a tape adaptor in his car. He also loses the EarPods like crazy cause he's always traveling. I just gave him my pair a few weeks ago. Then he lost those. He bought a $5 pair of earbuds at 7 Eleven.

I'd imagine there are a lot of doofuses like him, otherwise they wouldn't have a bin of $5 earbuds at the checkout counter of every gas station.

I don't think this rumor is true... Or rather, I bet it is because the new 4-inch phone will lose the 3.5mm and be insanely small. Same way the smallest MacBook gives people the option to lose all ports in exchange for portability.

 

[SactoGuy18]

Look, if Apple can still build devices thinner than the iPhone 6/6s that accommodates the 3.5" headphone connector with the iPod touch and iPod nano, they don't need to drop the headphone connector with the upcoming iPhone 7 model.

 

[farewelwilliams]

You don't think the speaker and headphones share the same DAC and amp?

I didn't say they had separate DACs.

 

[Mr. Buzzcut]

I didn't say they had separate DACs.

Could have fooled me. What you said:

"no need for digital/analog converter for that port"

meaning, there's still a DAC, just not for that port



What improvement were you describing?

 

[Joegrech]

I've feared this day might come. May have to jump ship.

To be quite honest, I don't think you are even an iPhone user. So yes, stick to your stupid Samsung

 

[Roadstar]

To be quite honest, I don't think you are even an iPhone user. So yes, stick to your stupid Samsung

Do you really think it's that unlikely for someone to switch away from the iPhone that you should automatically assume those thinking about switching haven't even been iPhone users?

 

[Toltepeceno]

Stupendous phone! I've had mine for 6 months, and it's a real gem. $30?!! Woah!

Thanks, I have seen nothing but good reviews.

 

[Mac 128]

I love the assumption on this thread that the "bulk" of iPhone users are using Bluetooth headphones. I'd be surprised if the actual number is over 10%.

iPhones are MASS market devices. We're talking everyone and their mother.

A middle-aged couple at Target just asked me if I was worried that my Apple Watch would give me cancer. (Wrist cancer?)

That's a very common concern with older generations and wireless devices.

My grandparents both have iPhones. They also have wired Bose noise cancelling headphones. I guarantee they don't even know what Bluetooth is.

Apple's market expands FAR beyond the Beats generation. This is how they've become the richest company in the world.

I will say this though... I'd bet there are 3x as many people using the bundled EarPods than anything Bluetooth. So they wouldn't be affected... But not because of Bluetooth leading the market or anything.

My friend uses the EarPods, but he also plugs into a tape adaptor in his car. He also loses the EarPods like crazy cause he's always traveling. I just gave him my pair a few weeks ago. Then he lost those. He bought a $5 pair of earbuds at 7 Eleven.

I'd imagine there are a lot of doofuses like him, otherwise they wouldn't have a bin of $5 earbuds at the checkout counter of every gas station.

I don't think this rumor is true... Or rather, I bet it is because the new 4-inch phone will lose the 3.5mm and be insanely small. Same way the smallest MacBook gives people the option to lose all ports in exchange for portability.

I acknowledge all of your points as valid. And I agree with a few of your assessments. Indeed I'd say the vast majority of Apple customers use their free white earbuds that came with their iPhones any any device the plug into. In fact there was a time when people bought Apple earbuds to use with their non-Apple products because of the status symbol they had become.

And I think those stock earbuds represent the average listen quality Apple is catering to -- which is not that high in my opinion. Clearly your doofus friend doesn't care at all about quality with his $5 headphones from 7-11.

As for wireless, we're all just guessing. Annectdotaly, more than half the headphones at my gym are Bluetooth. And then there's the Watch -- not everyone will use headphones with their watch, but if they do, Bluetooth is the only choice. And that represents a trend toward consumers buying wireless headphones. If the watch is successful, so will Bluetooth headphones.

The doofus has always been around, and believe me, I deal with this all the time, only it's people who lose their Lightning charging cables. Yet that never seems to be a problem, likely because the average Apple customer is not a doofus. Perhaps Apple is trying to teach us responsibility with their products? ;-) I could go into endless stories of people who have broken their iPhone screens multiple times during the year, too. In the end, will the doofus who loses his earbuds all the time learn not to when it's harder to replace them, or replacements cost more? Or will he switch to an Android? Or will he just pay more to be a doofus? The doofuses I know will just pay more, rather than change anything about how they live their lives.

As for the demographics and old folks ... Do your grandparents take a lot of selfies using burst mode? Because that's the kind of thing Apple sees as important, and I think informs their current demographics. Yes old people have an irrational fear of wireless technology and microwave ovens, but I'm not sure they make up the largest demographic Apple is serving. If my 80 year old mom is any indication, adding a Lightning adapter is no problem because she would just carefully pack up everything in their designated carrying cases, and keep everything together for use. She's also got nothing but Apple products to use her headphones on, and I'd probably upgrade her to Lightning if that were the case. But she wears a Bluetooth headset already, so that's not a problem with her thank goodness.

I actually don't care whether Apple removes the 3.5mm jack or not, but I understand why they'd want to and don't see it as big a problem as others clearly do. And to the extent Apple does, we have to assume if the rumor is true, that they have the market research to back up such a significant change, and that it makes financial sense. The dog I actually have in this race is for Lightning to become Apple's preferred headphone connector, specifically to solve a problem on their rather disturbing single-port trend introduced on the retina MacBook. And in order for that to happen, the iPhone has to eliminate the 3.5mm Jack. Once an iPhone customer has their free Lightning earbuds, with no other options than lightning without an adapter, Apple can then put a lightning connector on that MacBook which provides another data port, and power port, instead of just a dedicated headphone jack. And frankly on an iPad Pro which has room for two connectors, I'd rather have two Lightning connectors. This also assumes Apple is not going to turn their backs on Lightning as a mobile standard, in which case it makes sense for them to expand its use across all their products, as they have with their new desktop peripherals, and even the TV remote.

 

[Burger Thing]

The dog I actually have in this race is for Lightning to become Apple's preferred headphone connector, specifically to solve a problem on their rather disturbing single-port trend introduced on the retina MacBook. And in order for that to happen, the iPhone has to eliminate the 3.5mm Jack. Once an iPhone customer has their free Lightning earbuds, with no other options than lightning without an adapter, Apple can then put a lightning connector on that MacBook which provides another data port, and power port, instead of just a dedicated headphone jack. And frankly on an iPad Pro which has room for two connectors, I'd rather have two Lightning connectors. This also assumes Apple is not going to turn their backs on Lightning as a mobile standard, in which case it makes sense for them to expand its use across all their products, as they have with their new desktop peripherals, and even the TV remote.

You made it sound like Apple was forced into their design for the Mac Book. "We really wanted to built in a second Lightning Port but we could not figure out another spot. Poor us, there was no other way designing this thing..."

That Audio Port is so small, fitting into iPod Nenos - Apple could built in 5 of those in their MacBooks if they wanted to.

 

[farewelwilliams]

Could have fooled me. What you said:

"no need for digital/analog converter for that port"

meaning, there's still a DAC, just not for that port



What improvement were you describing?

meaning that port does not require a DAC. less connections to the DAC -> smaller the device. get it now? this is taking up too much time to explain.

 

[Burger Thing]

meaning that port does not require a DAC. less connections to the DAC -> smaller the device. get it now? this is taking up too much time to explain.

The iPod Neno is what? 5.something mm thick and has a port. Thinness and size of the device would not appear -at least not to me- the driving factor in a descision to remove the port. More like forcing people into buying dongles and getting additional profits from manufacturers using 'Lighting' technology.

[Why not removing the GPS chip and the antennas? For most of the customers a triangulated cell tower position is good enough. If you want to have a higher precision, then connect an external GPS via the Lightning Port. We could make the device even thinner]/S

 

[Mac 128]

You made it sound like Apple was forced into their design for the Mac Book. "We really wanted to built in a second Lightning Port but we could not figure out another spot. Poor us, there was no other way designing this thing..."

That Audio Port is so small, fitting into iPod Nenos - Apple could built in 5 of those in their MacBooks if they wanted to.

5 of them, huh? Love to know where you think they'd go, without making the design significantly larger.

Keep in mind you can't put anything under the keyboard.

That said, if Apple put a Lightning connector on the MacBook along with the 3.5mm jack (assuming they could find a place to put it without compromising the size of their design), that would signal a big change to the developer community, as well as the competition, with little gain. And I'm not sure what it could be used for currently. Are there any Lightning devices that would function correctly under OS X with a Lightning to USB adapter? And it would only take the spotlight off the intentional move to USB-C, if they did. Let's say they created drivers for their Lightning HDMI, VGA & SD card dongles, etc. Then customers and Developers would be tempted to use them rather than develop new tools for USB-C.

I certainly don't think I intended to suggest Apple had no choice in the matter. To the contrary, I think it was an intentional choice to only change one standard at a time, and in light of the rumor, I think it was a serious consideration in the rMB's development, which they may have decided to forgo in the production models as the timing wasn't right. Personally, I don't see any move to Lightning audio in any other products until the iPhone goes there first and creates an immediate installed base of customers who have to adapt to the change on their most popular and profitable platform. My guess is Apple doesn't want Lightning perceived as a desktop connector, ahead of USB-C. Therefore, they will position it for headphones when they are ready to launch Lightning audio, which will also support optional data connections after users are safely developing for USB-C. The last Macs to get Lightning therefore will be the iMacs and Pro models until after all have switched over to USB-C and Lightning audio is sufficiently widespread.

 

[Mac 128]

The iPod Neno is what? 5.something mm thick and has a port. Thinness and size of the device would not appear -at least not to me- the driving factor in a descision to remove the port. More like forcing people into buying dongles and getting additional profits from manufacturers using 'Lighting' technology.

[Why not removing the GPS chip and the antennas? For most of the customers a triangulated cell tower position is good enough. If you want to have a higher precision, then connect an external GPS via the Lightning Port. We could make the device even thinner]/S

The iPod nano is 5.4mm, the iPhone 7.1mm, the iPod Touch 6.1mm. Comparatively the iPhone has a lot more hardware inside it than the either of the other two. While thin is a consideration, I would contend there's more to the internal cubic space which would become available. Also, if Jony has a new tapered design in mind, He's not gonna get much slimmer than 5.4mm on the edge with the 3.5mm connector. You're also assuming that should the Nano survive to another update, that Apple wouldn't want to make it thinner. Should it or the Shuffle hang around, I would expect an even smaller, slimmer design. At <$50 the Shuffle is still a great halo product for Apple.

But for a minute I thought you wanted to be taken seriously. Remove GPS? Sure. Let's just let all the developers rewrite their software just for the iPhone. That makes sense when the worldwide standard for location software uses GPS. Google would eat them alive in marketing. And I see the sarcasm tag, but honestly, does your joke even work? How thick is the GPS chip and antenna? I'd think removing the taptic engine would be easier. I mean who needs that? Most people don't even know what it does. /s

This whole "Apple is an evil villain twirling their mustache and laughing all the way to the bank at the expense of their lemming-like customers" is just the epitome of paranoid pessimism. A plot to get more profits from selling dongles despite a serious inconvenience to some customers, is right up there with lowering their quality standards to save a few pennies without concern their dongles sound worse than their previous built-in chip. Do you still think Apple switched from a 30-pin adapter to Lightning just to sell new dongles, and cables too?

 

[Mr. Buzzcut]

meaning that port does not require a DAC. less connections to the DAC -> smaller the device. get it now? this is taking up too much time to explain.

I get it but I think folks are just pulling stuff from their collective butt to explain how this is somehow a positive (rumored) change. Now you're suggesting removing a circuit trace will finally enable Apple to move forward with the features / functions customers are demanding. Really?

 

[QquegChristian]

This whole "Apple is an evil villain twirling their mustache and laughing all the way to the bank at the expense of their lemming-like customers" is just the epitome of paranoid pessimism. A plot to get more profits from selling dongles despite a serious inconvenience to some customers, is right up there with lowering their quality standards to save a few pennies without concern their dongles sound worse than their previous built-in chip. Do you still think Apple switched from a 30-pin adapter to Lightning just to sell new dongles, and cables too?

I don't think Apple is doing things to sell more adaptors. However, I do think they are valuing form over function to a detriment. But it clearly sells.

 

[farewelwilliams]

Now you're suggesting removing a circuit trace will finally enable Apple to move forward with the features / functions customers are demanding. Really?

No. Stop putting words in my mouth. Less parts -> more durable. You don't know how many times I've heard people getting water into that port and suddenly can no longer hear sound through both the jack and internal speakers.

 

[libmanj]

With all due respect, I don't think you are Apple's target market. Unless you just upgraded to a Rose Gold iPhone 6S Plus, and post several dozen selfies on your Instagram account everyday, too. ;-)

Too true.

 

[farewelwilliams]

The iPod Neno is what? 5.something mm thick and has a port. Thinness and size of the device would not appear -at least not to me- the driving factor in a descision to remove the port. More like forcing people into buying dongles and getting additional profits from manufacturers using 'Lighting' technology.

[Why not removing the GPS chip and the antennas? For most of the customers a triangulated cell tower position is good enough. If you want to have a higher precision, then connect an external GPS via the Lightning Port. We could make the device even thinner]/S

less parts, more durable.

 

[Mr. Buzzcut]

No. Stop putting words in my mouth. Less parts -> more durable. You don't know how many times I've heard people getting water into the 3.5mm port and suddenly can no longer hear sound anymore.

You said it would make for a smaller device which by saying it I'd assume it's a feature that interests you. Stop running around with goal posts.