Pretty sure the magic trackpad requires bluetooth 4.0 AND El Cap, not backwards compatible. There other devices on the market that require BT 4.0 and not compatible with earlier versions of BT.
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 Surveying MacBook Pro Users About Headphone Jack and Other Ports
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Pretty sure the magic trackpad requires bluetooth 4.0 AND El Cap, not backwards compatible. There other devices on the market that require BT 4.0 and not compatible with earlier versions of BT.
what? youre saying it the wrong way.
if you buy a bt4 device today.. then tomorrow, mbp is updated to bt5.. the device will work on the newer computer.. your bluetooth 4.0 device (headphones) hasn't been rendered obsolete as you were saying in the first post.. they will still work on the newer tech.
[QUOTE="MagnusVonMagnum, post: 23597899, member: 110964"
What fracking part of "NOTHING uses USB-C right now" don't you get????
Ask the people that bought that goofy Macbook with one USB-C port how much they're enjoying having splitters, adapters and hubs on their "ultra-portable". It's fracking MESS. No thanks. Wait until things transition before removing the most common computer port on Earth.[/QUOTE]
Somebody has to be the first. What faster way to spearhead the adoption of USB-C than a laptop with only USB-C ports and nothing else to fall back on?
And I would assume the people who bought the MacBook have weighed the pros against the cons and felt they could live with only 1 port. For me, I would probably get that adaptor, and leave the power cable, hdmi cable and a USB dock hooked to it permanently. This would allow me to attach all my peripherals to my MacBook just by plugging in one cable (even power).
It's probably very much livable for me.
What fracking part of "NOTHING uses USB-C right now" don't you get????
Ask the people that bought that goofy Macbook with one USB-C port how much they're enjoying having splitters, adapters and hubs on their "ultra-portable". It's fracking MESS. No thanks. Wait until things transition before removing the most common computer port on Earth.[/QUOTE]
Somebody has to be the first. What faster way to spearhead the adoption of USB-C than a laptop with only USB-C ports and nothing else to fall back on?
And I would assume the people who bought the MacBook have weighed the pros against the cons and felt they could live with only 1 port. For me, I would probably get that adaptor, and leave the power cable, hdmi cable and a USB dock hooked to it permanently. This would allow me to attach all my peripherals to my MacBook just by plugging in one cable (even power).
It's probably very much livable for me.
For, like, the zillionth time: the headphone jack is not a data port. It is a connection to a power amplifier meant to drive physical moving coils with the output of the on-board DAC.
It is a piece of the real, physical, world, just like the display and the built-in mic.
well it's not slower.
why being dense on purpose?
and again:
there isn't a single wireless solution for networking right now that is faster than standard gigabit hardwired network.
Even wireless AC is slower than Gigabit network.
and wireless isn't flawless. while many can be quite good, even modern wireless has drawbacks other than speed that can be a non-starter
Reliability: Network Packets are more prone to failure over wireless due to any sort of interference, signal degradation, etc.
shared bandwidth: Unlike Gigabit network that has a gigabit switch with a robust backplane, Wireless is shared, each individual wired connection is not.
So any place where you're doing production work, need dedicated and consistent speed, and cannot have any packet loss at all, with the best latency, you cannot rely on wireless for this, Especially in a corporation / high volume workload.
as for the "USB_C". I love the idea of the "single port to rule the world". I'm on board with that. BUT. we're about 10-15 years off from that. It also doesn't address that USB-C / USB-3 was NOT INTENDED AS A REPLACEMENT FOR NETWORKING. So removing a network port (as an example and replacing it with a dongle has some significant drawbacks right now, including costs, dongles and the sort. You cannot just take a USB cable and plug it into your network to get connected. That is NOT THE INTENTION OF USB-C!
Well it can't replace every port -- it can't replace the headphone port Lightning headphones are plugged into without an adapter. That's why Apple will also include a Lightning port on their Macs, eventually replacing the headphone jack completely. So two-ports to rule them all.
Lightning is GARBAGE. It's a propriety port created by Apple that NO ONE ELSE USES. It's not "superior" to other things out there. Most Lightning cables, ports and devices run at USB2 speeds (16+ year old technology; in other words ANCIENT). USB-C is the future. Even Thunderbolt III is carried over the same port (i.e. your entire PCI Bus). Why would it even be a good idea for Apple to continue using this port when EVERYONE ELSE (and every airport in the world) will use USB-C?
It's a tiny hair smaller? Not good enough.
It makes Apple money selling dongles and tying Apple users to Apple brand (and licensed) equipment that makes Apple more money? There's your real answer.
It's bad for the customer. It's bad for the planet. It's Apple's Lightning that's slow as molasses! Woohoo!
And why would they do that? And how would they ****ing sell it to the consumers?
"Times have changed. We're long past single-purpose ports (never mind the fact that the 3.5mm jack on the Macs is not one) and have replaced the headphone jack on the MacBook Pro with the multi-purpose Lightning port, which can output audio (only digitally), charge your device (except not on the Mac), output video (except not on the Mac) and many more things (that you can do with USB/Thunderbolt now)."
Apple already sells Lightning peripherals with the Mac. For most Macs its convenience. But why do they need to "sell", or market it to the consumer anyway? Most consumers don't use Thunderbolt, yet there it is on most Macs. Lightning just gets added to the very small space left over after they include 4 USB-C ports on the MBP, which doesn't provide enough room for anything else they're eliminating.
The Retina MB benefits the most since in addition to Lightning providing a dedicated wired headphone port for Apple's new Lightning EarPods (currently not compatible with anything else), but an optional charging port leaving the one USB-C port free for data connections, as well as an optional USB 3 data port keeping the USB-C port free, and compatible with Apples Lightning adapters, so no need for an iOS device user to buy more dongles.
The MBP doesn't benefit as much, but I just can't imagine Apple explaining to a new iPhone 7 customer that the new Lightning headphones can't be used on their new MBP without an adapter. If Apple removes the headphone jack from the Mac, I can't see them ignoring their own Lightning standard.
[doublepost=1474905139][/doublepost]
Technically it is a data port on the MBP. It provides a digital optical output meant to provide data to an outboard DAC in a separate device.
Last edited:
what about thunderbolt though?
that's for networking, right? i think IP over thunderbolt has been in os x since mavericks and thunderbolt networking has since been updated for seamless integration between osx & windows.. and usb-c integrates thunderbolt.
that said, it's only what i think to be the case and i don't actually work at, nor intend to work at, a place with some giant wired network.
I used my headphone jack every day on my MacBook Pro retina. I am looking forward to upgrade for newer macbook pros I hope Apple do not remove headphone jack.
i don't think they'll remove the jack from MBP for a few more years.. they'll let the iphone switch people over to wireless headphones then once most of the people do that, they'll remove the 3.5mm from mac.
(in my assessment)
If Apple removes USB 3 ports, Lightning, HDMI, SD card and headphone jack ports, then I'm not going to upgrade to a new Macbook Pro in 2-3 years. I may end up getting a Surface Book. This is not the same as removing the CD drive. I hardly ever used it on my old 2009 Macbook Pro, and when I upgraded to a 2013 retina Macbook Pro, I didn't miss it. I can count on one hand how much I've used the Super Drive. But I use the headphone jack, I only have USB cords and drives, and I use the Thunderbolt port for my big monitor. I can tolerate using Thunderbolt/USB dongles for ethernet, but I cannot take any more dongles for USB 3 or a freaking headphone jack!
You realize those USB drives are 100% compatible with USB-C by just using a different cable? In 2-3 years replacement cables will cost very little. And you realize Thunderbolt will be delivered over USB-C now? So again, you're not adding dongles so much as buying new cables. HDMI will also be delivered over USB-C as well. I wouldn't be surprised to see Ethernet delivered over USB-C too. And in 2-3 years you may be using wireless headphones anyway. So I'm not really following your dilemma.
Nope.
Technically, on the MBP there is an optical TOSLink output that happens to share a hole with the 3.5mm headphone jack.
Those are by all intents and purposes electrically, physically and logically distinct except for literally sharing a hole.
When we talk about "headphone jack" we are not talking TOSlink - they are two different animals, they do two entirely different things, so different I can't literally think of anything more different.
[doublepost=1474992437][/doublepost]
I'd say yes, fundamentally, because you can replace a digital data port with another digital data port of comparable bandwidth and latency, but you can't replace a electrical amplifier with a digital data port - no more than you can replace the touchpad with a data port.
You can only physically kick it along with the DAC outside of the mainboard and/or, if you happen to have a DAC on board already to drive the speakers, duplicate it for no particular reason except perhaps to make the device 5% thinner.
Hence, it's a stupid idea.
Last edited:
So every pair of Bluetooth headphones and wireless speaker systems is a stupid idea? Because they all require duplicate, separate DACs.
I can't imagine what the utility of wireless speakers would be, to be honest, except as a novelty, but Bluetooth wireless earpieces are extremely useful when driving.
Naturally they require their own electronics because, you know, physics.
I can't begin to understand how this would imply that duplicating the electronics in wired headphones is not a useless idea.
Me?
Oh, no, not at all.
To be honest I don't particularly care either way, I don't feel like I'm buying a new Apple laptop in the foreseeable future (if ever again).
It's just that, - and I quote -
I mean, if you can suggest a single advantage that comes from duplicating the electronics except for "we can get rid of the hole and make the machine even thinner" I'm all ears.
Heck, I would be content with "we can get rid of the hole and make it thinner, so there's that at least", but that seems to have been consistently avoided in this discussion.
It's just that this whole thread has brought exactly zero arguments in favor with the exception of "uh, it's... the future" (which is tautological at best, if Apple announces plans to make computers that run on cow dung you could say "that's the future" as well - but I still wouldn't want a bucket of dung under my desk).
So it hasn't helped me seeing how it's a non-silly idea
i think the confusion is your original statement.
it sounds like you were trying to say that listening to music wirelessly is stupid. And honestly that's a far fetched claim
Is wireless going to provide as good quality audio as wired? no.
Does wirless have drawbacks? yes
does wireless offer any compelling features that wired can't, ABSOLUTELY.
there are many places where wireless makes more sense than wired. And many places where wired is better. I don't approve of the move to remove the headphone port because it's an artificial move to force you to wireless or MFI program headphones. But, to claim that wireless is useless is ignorant at best.
I'm not a fan of bluetooth headphones, but one place they have absolutely made life much easier is the gym. I don't care about audio quality when i'm working out. I just care that I can hear my show/ music / sports when I excercised. Wired headphones really are NOT ideal here because of the motions. Try putting your phone on the front of a treadmill to watch something, while jogging? you know where your phone ends up? on the ground.
Or how about when i'm out mowing my lawn? no matter how hard I try, Wired headphones get caught and twisted.
the list goes on.
Sure, you don't have a use for them. ok, there's nothing wrong with that. But calling something useless for others because you odon't find them useful is closed minded.
To be honest I think it kind of is - I consider wireless earpieces very useful for talking while driving, but... I mean, if you have to listen to music how are those any useful?
I mean, if you mow your lawnwhile listening to music sure, but...
Anyway no, we are talking about the removal of the headphone jack, which concerns exclusively wired devices.
I was talking about the duplication of electronics in wired headphones that would result from removing the built-in components.
I think Bluetooth headphones work pretty fine already, don't they?
really? you can't even imagine a scenario? there must be thousands of them.
here are a couple..
- you control the music from your pocket at gatherings.. you don't have to keep walking over to the stereo to do this. (this applies if you're solo too
)- in my case particularly, i work in a fabrication shop both on the computer and on the shop floor.. i don't work with my phone on me (for obvious reasons).. i do (did) use ear protection for a couple hours a day.. with wireless headphones, i replace the ear-mufflers with noise cancelling headphones --and- listen to music..
previous attempts at getting similar functionality was with a nano and a wired set of headphones.. the wire sucked and was even dangerous.. (like, i'm not just saying that to exaggerate.. it really is dangerous to do certain shop work with a wire dangling near your neck)..
---
i can think of 10 more examples right now but i'm not going to type all of them.. you really can't imagine even one situation where wireless speaker > wired speaker ?
And how does 3.5 not fit into that future?
factoring in...
many audio and video professional devices use 3.5 connections (or see conversions to/from say xlr and 3.5). Of interest here with logic pro and FCP. this area the last places apple supports dedicated professional use really. They only run on mac OS and are developed in house. With apple lacking a midline "tower" option, we have either MBP or MP to work with here. Cost or lack of desire keeps a few from MP.
Its kind of nice our nice gear plugs right in. We like consistency. I use the same 3.5 monitors from on site shoot to editing. 3.5 monitors good enough for our mid to high end gear...its good enough for a MBP.
its the smallest connector on the system. Nothing is gained from removal. The its water resistant line of crap for phones not applying here.