You obviously do not fly very often...wireless headphones are still not an option when flying comercial airlines...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple May Replace 3.5mm Headphone Jack on iPhone 7 With All-in-One Lightning Connector
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Hmm, no I don't fly THAT often but I fly sometimes and I have used Bluetooth headphones on both international and domestic flights without a problem.
I wear bluetooth headphones on all of my flights, International, and domestic for the last 3 years. I've never had a problem with them, other than one flight attendant telling me they needed to be in the off position during takeoff one time.
By the way, I also carry a small bluetooth transmitter in my carry on, that allows me to listen to the in-flight movie on my BT headset as well. No one has ever said anything about either of them.
Last edited:
I fly like maybe once a year. I am sure I will survive without the ability to use for bluetooth headphones for that few hours.
I listen to music all day at work to drown out the din (work was so brilliant that they put a bloody arcade next to my cubie, I am a writer, for chrissakes). It is the ONLY way that I can do my work. Unless there is a second lightening port so that I can charge AND listen, AND there are in-ear ear buds available with lightening connectors, I am totally screwed.
This is a bad thing on many levels. First is removing access to all the earphones and speakers in existence now. Second I need to charge AND listen to music at the SAME TIME. How will you do this with only one port? Bad idea.
There has been rumors flying around that the next iPhone, the iPhone 7, won't have a headphone jack. At first, I thought this wasn't likely, as lots of people (including myself) still use it. After some research, however, I realized that the chances of them removing it are more likely than I thought. I know the new iPhone isn't due to be released for another 8-9 months, and none of this could be true. I'm just wondering, why would they remove it? Thickness isn't an issue, as the iPod touch is 1mm thinner, yet still has a headphone jack. So why?
It's not necessarily just about the size of the connector opening on the side of the iPhone, at least initially. More importantly is the amount of room the 3.5mm connector takes up inside the phone. The connector is large enough that Apple already moved it from the top to the bottom in order to free up more room at the top, for cameras and sensors, etc. if Apple wants to make a device thinner, the internal components have to be spread out. At a certain point after miniaturization, there's nowhere for those components to spread out without elmininating things. And even if the device doesn't go thinner, but adds more power drawing features (like always listening Siri), they are likewise going to need additional room to increase the battery capacity, at the expense of something else inside the phone.
And none of this addresses likely the most important reason for Apple to remove it -- pushing customers to wireless audio and Lightning connected audio products, all of which benefits Apple's other products and services. While we can debate the similarities of removing the 3.5mm Jack vs. removing the floppy disk drive from the iMac, one thing remains certain -- Apple knows that unless a customer has no other convenient choice to use legacy technology, they are probably going to resist adopting the new technology. Did Apple remove the floppy disk drive because it was unnecessary, old and dying technology that nobody was using? Or did they remove it because it allowed them to design a better-looking product without accommodating a rather sizeable device that took up a fair amount of internal real-estate for what it does, which also allowed them to lower the price of the iMac? I'll wager from everything we've seen over the years from Apple, it was the latter. Apple put a substantial amount of R&D into changing the 30-pin connector to a Lightning connector, and I'll bet they would have put that off as long as possible, except they needed to free up internal space for new components, and increase the battery. It also had the benefit of allowing them to better gain control over licensing of the technology, and MiFi certification. So which was more important?
Currently Apple has Lightning audio certifications, but there aren't a lot of licensees making many products for it, despite the fact the iOS devices will support them already. Why should a manufacturer make a proprietary product for a device that can also use a legacy 3.5mm connection, which is far cheaper to manufacture? Add to that with Apple's current audio standard, there's not a lot to be gained for the average consumer by switching from the internal DAC to a higher quality external one. But if Apple plans on launching a much higher quality audio standard, there may be a compelling reason for a consumer to upgrade to a Lightning audio device -- if only via an adapter to use with existing audio products. And whether there actually is a benifit to this higher standard, it will make a great marketing spin, especially since the customer won't have a choice in the matter anymore. But that's a hard sell when there's no products for the consumer. It's a chicken and egg thing. I remember when the iMac came out, there was literally one USB compatible printer available that didn't work very well, and one USB floppy drive, which was notoriously difficult to get. This is one reason I think Apple might remove the 3.5mm Jack from the rumored early release of the new 4" iPhone -- it should kick developers into high gear to get products ready for the iPhone 7 update.
Another benifit is that Apple can then eliminate ports on their other products, like Macs, and replace them with proprietary Lightning ports which not only provide a dedicated audio port, but make that port far more useful by providing the option of alternately powering a device, providing USB 3 data speeds, and serve other functions in the same space, while also generating more license fees and profits for Apple.
In the end, Apple is pushing its proprietary tech. AirPlay for wireless audio, Bluetooth for its wireless Beats headphones, HQ audio for its Apple Music service, and software apps, Lightning for itself and its licensee's products, as well as setting up the iPhone for integration into CarPlay, and future technologies. At the same time, the move frees up space inside the iPhone which gives Apple greater design and functionality control.
So it's not just about how large the opening is on the edge of the device, but so much more with the potential to benifit both Apple and the consumer. Not everyone is going to be happy, and it's pointless for Apple to try to please everyone. I hated the change from 30-pin to Lightning -- I've had to buy a lot of new adapters and replace a lot of hardware -- but I love Lightning for its size and convenience. And I welcome any move that pushes manufacturers to innovate more products for it (subject for another post).
Last edited:
Seriously? Why not just switch to an internal DAC that is able to play this "much higher quality audio standard" (assumng the current DAC isn't already)? How many people will want to connect an external DAC to their phone?
There is nothing proprietary about Bluetooth audio. And I'm pretty sure that if Apple really introduces a new audio format, it will not be proprietary either. Introducing a proprietary connector for something as basic as headphones would be just stupid.
I haven't heard a single convincing reason yet how removing this ubiquitous connector would possibly benefit the consumer.
So agree. If Apple took the lead to coordinate a new standard connector I could see it. Maybe.
1) because a higher quality DAC cost more money, whereas a lower quality one, only required to produce sound on the built-in low quality speakers will cost less. So why not pay less and leave it up to the customer? It doesn't matter whether people want to connect a DAC to their phone, which will likely be not much more than a virtually invisible in-line adapter, because this move by Apple is in part about getting the customer to buy their wireless products, or Lightning products. Nevertheless, I can think of one reason why someone might want an external DAC adapter on a wired headphone -- a mini, iPod nano-sized device that allows direct remote control of the device. Currently the built-in controls are limited to skip and pause, and little else.
2) of course there's nothing proprietary about BT audio, that wasn't my intention, so I apologize for your confusion -- they want to sell wireless Beats headphones, and CarPlay systems, and licenses for same to others. It remains to be seen whether their HQ audio is delivered in some new proprietary standard, but you can bet it will be DRM. And it's entirely your opinion as to whether it's stupid. If successful, Apple can laugh all the way to the bank.
3) Again that's your opinion, if you don't see any benifits. I don't necessarily agree with all of these ideas I'm throwing out there, indeed most of them don't benifit the consumer in the least, they benifit Apple -- as do almost all of Apple's design decisions. It's a lot easier to discuss this if one can look at the decision from Apple's perspective, and not the consumers, whether you agree with them or not. In the end you totally ignore my explanation of a key reason Apple might want to eliminate the 3.5mm Jack even if they wanted to include the higher quality internal DAC, and that's to free up internal space for future designs, including better battery life, or better features, which do benifit consumers. So they're not mutually exclusive, it's not just greed, or design arrogance that's making the decision here, it's both.
Last edited:
The existing DAC is already pretty good. A more limiting factor is the analog amplification circuitry, which has more to do with the the restricted power supply in a small mobile device. Moving this to the headphones will not help one bit, unless you only want to use big headphones with their own batteries.
So you think Apple will introduce a phone that only works with proprietary earbuds and not even include a pair in the package? Highly unlikely.
So, in a nutshell you are saying Apple will drop the port regardless of what people want, just so they can force them to buy more expensive accessories they didn't ask for? That would indeed make sense. If that is the case, I hope that this phone flops so hard that heads will roll in Apple's management team.
If there was demand for this, it would exist today since it's perfectly possible to build this for the current Lightning port.
A company that doesn't keep improving products for the consumer will sooner or later fail, no matter how big. There are plenty of examples of companies that lost their way and paid for it.
1) I'm not arguing the quality of the DAC, I'm giving you what I think is Apple's rationale. And headphones may well have their own batteries to do more than they otherwise could powered solely from the iPhone.
2) when did I say Apple wouldn't include a pair of Lightning earbuds with their iPhones? That's how they will make this transition easy. I'd argue that the majority of people who buy Apple products use those ubiquitous white earbuds than any other headphone. But it's not just about headphones. It's about all audio products that consumers buy, and the licenses Apple receives to manufacture them. It's also about buying higher quality headphones to take advantage of so-called HQ audio, or merely status as Beats seems to be largely about.
3) and yes, Apple will drop the port because it's what they want regardless of what the customer wants ... They have a long history of doing that, as do many businesses where profit is a driving motive. And who says 3.5mm jacks is what the majority of people want? This is a rumor. If Apple does this, they likely have the research data telling them exactly how much this is going to impact their customers. As for what the consumer is asking for, Consumers upgrade to the latest gear all the time. Most won't care that the next time they have to buy new headphones, because the broke or lost their old ones, or they're out of fashion, or they can afford better quality, or whatever ... Apple is giving them many choices of how to do that, with wireless prices dropping and becoming better, and being largely more convenient, to wired Lightning headphones that will be able to do more than a comperbale legacy equipped headphone, to AirPlay products that auto connect, with NFC simplified pairing, or just a simple adapter to keep using those legacy headphones forever.
4) there's an old axiom -- necessity is the mother of invention. There's no demand for Lightning accessories because there's no need for it, as long as people can keep using their 3.5mm products. I already clearly explained that above. There was no demand for USB and CD-Rs until Apple removed the floppy drive and and replaced legacy ports with USB on th first iMac.
5) I see Apple improving their products In many ways for consumers offering them new an innovative features which allow them to get more use out of their devices. Apple may well be on to losing their way, but I seriously doubt dropping the 3.5mm headphone jack will be the move that does them in.
Last edited:
You said Apple's rationale was to save money on the DAC. But if they include Lightning earbuds in the package, they'll now have to pay for two DACs (one in the phone for the speakers and one in the earbuds), which would be more expensive rather than less.
As long as you can't give us a single reason why consumers would prefer a new proprietary connector, it's pretty much a certainty.
Well, they're already including a pair of earbuds with every iPhone at a cost. So then they're just moving the current DAC to them. But they're NOT upgrading the internal DAC they're downgrading it, which was the original argument I was responding to. So given that scenario, they may indeed save a few pennies. Regardless, there's nothing that says it can't be a loss leader in order to pave the way toward a much more lucrative business in granting licenses to third parties, and benifiting from increased sales of their own products. In fact an increase in DACs for increased sales of Apple's other products might actually provide enough volume to lower the overall cost of this move below what they are currently doing. Certainly they will make money on the assured sales of 3.5mm adapters, and they will surely start saving in other devices like Macs, and iPads and possibly offset the costs. In a company like Apple, these decisions rarely have to be accounted for by a single product.
I've given several reasons why consumers might find some benifit in using the Lightning port (not a new proprietary connector). Whether you personally agree with them or not is not my concern. However, that's not the basis for my comment -- if a customer is NOT using the 3.5mm Jack, or rarely uses it, and Apple has studies which show the majority of their customers aren't using the jack for making audio connections, then it's almost assured that they don't WANT it. Customers using wireless BT accessories already, or AirPlay for instance. I rarely use my 3.5mm jack. When I do use it, it's because Apple gave me a headset I can plug into it, which I do on occasion when I need to make a hands free call and my Bluetooth headset is out of power. But that problem is easily solved if Apple gives me a new set of Lightning equipped headphones. So not only do I not want a 3.5mm port, I don't care if Apple removes it either. If Apple has found the majority of cutomers use their iPhones like me, then they're safe to move ahead and drop the 3.5mm Jack.
Last edited:
CD-R having more than 400x the storage of the floppy might have been a factor. There's no such gain with the lightning port.
It's mostly irrelevant. CD-RWs were incredibly expensive at the time, and few people needed to move more than a few documents routinely on a regular basis, which they could easily do with a floppy disk included with every computer. In other words, most people didn't really need it. By Apple dropping the floppy drive they forced customers to spend money, either on something they already had -- which due to the cost, most people just bought USB floppy drives and just kept going. Some upgraded to CD-RW, paying a premium for it, until Apple included one in the iMac three years later, which they could have already done if they actually needed it. So the net result for the customer was the same as it would be should Apple switch to Lightning, if they intend to continue using their old tech. In other words they don't benifit from it either way, yet Apple does. So nothing has really changed in the equation, even if the benifit to the consumer for the switch to Lightning is ultimately not as great as the move from floppy to CD-RW. In the end, Apple's move away from the floppy drive helped boost the move to USB, and CD-RW by growing a stronger customer demand which helped drive down prices for everyone. A move to lightning will do the same thing, offering more lightning and wireless audio products at lower prices.
You're wrong. When the iMac was released, the floppy disk was already on the way out. Software (such as games) had been distributed on CD-ROMs since the mid-90s, since stacks of floppys were impractical and expensive as a distribution medium. Zip drives and other formats were introduced around that time too because the floppy was getting too small. There was a need for storage media with higher capacities. There is no need for a new headphone connector.
So, now we've gone from alleged cost savings to a loss leader.
I must have missed this.
Are you kidding me? Look around on any street, subway or airplane. I'm beginning to think you're just a troll.
Oh, and please, look up the spelling of "benefit".