I wonder why Apple chose a headphone port instead of a 2nd USB

[Mac 128]

If anything, I would argue that since Apple wants to go wireless with everything, all the more they should include as few ports as possible. More ports would simply be a crutch that get people to stick with wired solutions for as long as possible.

This one paragraph undermines the entire argument for the audio port. If Apple is really trying to move everyone to wireless, and wants consumers to use wireless headphones and to sell their wireless Beats headphones, as their marketing clearly implies, keeping the audio jack is only a crutch that "get people to stick with wired solutions as long as possible". Meanwhile, Apple is maintaining 5 different MacBook products when only 3 are necessary, because they insist on offering only one port.

But you're right, I certainly don't understand Apple in this issue. Until proven wrong, I will continue to see this just as the short lived original aluminum MacBook that removed the FireWire port, only to reinstate it less than a year later.

 

[zhenya]

I don't buy the argument that Apple is trying to move everyone to wireless, so it holds no water with me in discussing the headphone jack.

The fact that Beats makes bluetooth headphones is beside the point. It's incidental to the business that Apple bought for the streaming service. The vast majority of headphones that Apple sells are still wired.

The Macbook is not trying to be wireless, it's just build on the honest assessment that most mobile users don't use many accessories. They charge and they use headphones. And with USB-C, if they want, they can now dock from a single connector to do anything else they need.

 

[Mac 128]

I think most everyone needs headphones to hear anything on a plane over the engine noise ... and you are required to turn OFF your wireless interfaces for the duration of the flight ... so no bluetooth headphones on plane flights?

No, that is incorrect. Only cellular radios must be turned off during flight. Bluetooth and Wifi are perfectly serviceable, and indeed encouraged so you will pay for the carriers wifi service. Indeed I believe Bluetooth and wifi can be on during takeoff and landing as well, though the rMB will have to be stowed, so that makes it moot anyway.

Indeed this plays into Apple's marketing as well. There's nothing worse than being tangled in your headphone wires tethered to your laptop while you or your seat mates attempt to exit the row.

 

[Mac 128]

I don't buy the argument that Apple is trying to move everyone to wireless, so it holds no water with me in discussing the headphone jack.

The fact that Beats makes bluetooth headphones is beside the point. It's incidental to the business that Apple bought for the streaming service. The vast majority of headphones that Apple sells are still wired.

The Macbook is not trying to be wireless, it's just build on the honest assessment that most mobile users don't use many accessories. They charge and they use headphones. And with USB-C, if they want, they can now dock from a single connector to do anything else they need.

The marketing disagrees with you. Apple is selling this as a totally wireless computer. Sorry.

 

[PDFierro]

The marketing disagrees with you. Apple is selling this as a totally wireless computer. Sorry.

I know I and a lot of other people would be extremely upset if we had to buy new headphones in order to listen privately on the rMB. I don't have wireless headphones and many people don't either. Look at the outcry there was over only 1 port. Actually, I remember posting on here on event day and some people actually thought they removed the headphone port because of the "one port" feature, and some people started to go ballistic.

I don't think your argument holds weight. You can pitch it as a wireless computer but have a headphone port. It'd be really ridiculous if it didn't have one.

 

[zhenya]

The marketing disagrees with you. Apple is selling this as a totally wireless computer. Sorry.

No, not at all. Some in this forum are. Wireless is merely a footnote in Apple's own marketing, acknowledging the fact that the target audience for this device is already making use of cloud technologies that make computers like this feasible. The primary feature points of the Macbook are its size and weight.

Apple's marketing is a lot more savvy than to pitch a 'wireless' campaign for a computer that still has two important ports.

 

[Mac 128]

I know I and a lot of other people would be extremely upset if we had to buy new headphones in order to listen privately on the rMB. I don't have wireless headphones and many people don't either. Look at the outcry there was over only 1 port. Actually, I remember posting on here on event day and some people actually thought they removed the headphone port because of the "one port" feature, and some people started to go ballistic.

I don't think your argument holds weight. You can pitch it as a wireless computer but have a headphone port. It'd be really ridiculous if it didn't have one.

History shows this wouldn't be the first time. First Apple dropped SCSI, Serial and ADB, and there was a huge outcry from people who had to buy adapters, and new hardware. Then they removed the floppy drive and there was a huge outcry that people had to buy new external drives. Then they removed the DVD-ROM drive, and again another outcry. Only when they removed FireWire did they reverse their decision.

But you're skipping over the point I continue to make, which is nobody's headphones are obsoleted, they can easily continue to use their existing headphones by buying a simple adapter, with the added benefit of better audio quality. This is he same solution that Apple has been offering since they started removing legacy tech from all of their devices. In order to use my current USB drives, I will have to buy "C" adapters, or buy new drives.

And here's my anectdotal evidence -- which is proof of nothing -- I have never plugged headphones into any of my MacBooks, and I don't know anyone who has. So from my point of view this isn't even an issue.

 

[Mac 128]

No, not at all. Some in this forum are. Wireless is merely a footnote in Apple's own marketing, acknowledging the fact that the target audience for this device is already making use of cloud technologies that make computers like this feasible. The primary feature points of the Macbook are its size and weight.

Apple's marketing is a lot more savvy than to pitch a 'wireless' campaign for a computer that still has two important ports.

I'm not going to debate what's on Apple's on website with you. Wireless is far more than a footnote. It's got it's own section, as well as being the 5th thing on the main page after size & weight, keyboard, display, and forcetouch -- none of which has anything to do with ports.

Indeed this is what Apple says about ports, 6th down on the list: "as long as we were going to include a port for charging" -- thats all that needs to be said right there -- 'hey we didn't want to include a port, but we had to include one for charging, since a port is better than wireless charging at this point'.

So believe what you want but you're wrong.

 

[zhenya]

as well as being the 5th thing on the main page after size & weight, keyboard, display, and forcetouch -- none of which has anything to do with ports.

That's all that needs to be said here.

 

[ixxx69]

That's all that needs to be said here.

Huh?

Why are people fighting this? The future is wireless, and the MBr is on that evolutionary path. You can debate whether it succeeds at that, or whether it works for you, but there is no debate about Apple's intentions.

 

[tbirdparis]

I'm not going to debate what's on Apple's on website with you. Wireless is far more than a footnote. It's got it's own section, as well as being the 5th thing on the main page after size & weight, keyboard, display, and forcetouch -- none of which has anything to do with ports.

Indeed this is what Apple says about ports, 6th down on the list: "as long as we were going to include a port for charging" -- thats all that needs to be said right there -- 'hey we didn't want to include a port, but we had to include one for charging, since a port is better than wireless charging at this point'.

So believe what you want but you're wrong.

I think it's pretty obstinate to hammer the point that since Apple talks about encouraging embracing the wireless computing lifestyle by including just one USB C port, there's therefore no possible logic to including a headphone port. It doesn't strike me as strange or out of line with the proposition they're putting on the table with the rMB, at all. I barely even think of it as a port, it's just a standard feature present across the entire product range, iPads to iPhones, for headphones. There doesn't appear to be a new world of computing future on the horizon where wireless headphones are seen as some logical evolution that will eventually be the only thing everyone wants to use. Indeed, wireless headphones have been around for so long now that if it was truly a wheel that needed to be reinvented, every single manufacturer of headphones would have phased out their wired models by now. But that doesn't seem to be happening, so why make a choice that forces people to go down a path with dubious benefits? Apple clearly believes that wireless connectivity for _computing_ tasks is something worth encouraging, but if they believed that wireless headphones were also an inevitable future, the headphone port would probably have disappeared on iPhones a few generations ago already.

 

[zhenya]

Huh?

Why are people fighting this? The future is wireless, and the MBr is on that evolutionary path. You can debate whether it succeeds at that, or whether it works for you, but there is no debate about Apple's intentions.

Follow the thread of conversation. Is Apple really making a thing about the Macbook being wireless? Not really. It's there, but it's ancillary to the primary selling points which are the size and weight. Apple isn't 'selling this as a totally wireless computer' as claimed here above because, well obviously it's nothing of the sort.

 

[Mac 128]

so why make a choice that forces people to go down a path with dubious benefits?

And that's what defeats your argument. It's OK to remove data ports, which means Apple has to expand their MacBook product lineup in a shrinking laptop market, despite the dubious benefits to the consumer, yet touching the audio port is taboo?

Again, their marketing suggests otherwise. As Abazigal suggests, leaving the port only only encourages use on a laptop Apple claims sought to use of every bit of space as minimally as possible, only offering a port because they had to. It's ridiculous to suggest that they HAD to include a 100 year old vestigial audio port. They chose to include it, at the expense of something far more practical which would have helped streamline their product offerings for the users who still need a bit more. As a stockholder, it seems like foolish move.

It's not like Apple follows the heard when it comes to technology. If they see wireless audio as the way of the future, as they are marketing it, then they don't hesitate to dump the technology everybody else is using at the drop of a hat. The fact is they are going out of their way to suggest that this MacBook is the smallest and lightest possible, while offering reasonable battery life, and a full-sized keyboard, with nothing but the essential ports. Then they feature Wireless as a major selling point, second only to design -- positioning an entire web page promoting it as the second tab on the main webpage, which extols bluetooth audio as a major feature. Yet they still include an obsolete port, at the expense of a more professional user who would get greater utility out of a second data port, and the audio user who would get greater quality out of an outboard DAC, which wired or wireless is the way of the future.

But I do agree that Apple has its own agenda here. Whatever it is, we'll see if the next MacBook adds a second port when the MBA is also likely discontinued.

 

[ixxx69]

Follow the thread of conversation. Is Apple really making a thing about the Macbook being wireless? Not really. It's there, but it's ancillary to the primary selling points which are the size and weight. Apple isn't 'selling this as a totally wireless computer' as claimed here above because, well obviously it's nothing of the sort.

Another person who takes every word said literally or gets bogged down in meaningless semantics to either be argumentative or to try and save face.

As you seem to understand, Apple doesn't "sell" technology, they sell solutions. So whether wireless is "ancillary" as a product specification, the present state of wireless technology/services is a key component to the product's success in making it smaller and lighter.

When the engineers were sitting around deciding on the design goals for the MBr, they debated how many ports to include. And they concluded that they could get away with a single port because of wireless.

And if you don't think Apple won't strip ports from everything they make as fast as the progress of wireless will practically allow, you haven't been paying attention. Ports are confusing to users, take up space, cost money, become faulty, and are subject to compatibility issues between different port types.

That has nothing to do with whether I agree or not about getting rid of the audio port at this juncture. But, if it was between having a second USB port (and using a headphone adapter as needed) and having a headphone jack, personally I'd take the additional USB port.

 

[soupcan]

Apple could've easily fit 2 more USB-C ports on the MacBook yet they didn't. Anyway, if you need more ports get a MacBook Air. You get more power, more ports and more battery, the only thing you'll be missing is a Retina Display. Thing is though, Apple didn't update their Airs with this year's WWDC, so we're possibly looking at a refresh/redesign coming in later this year, hopefully with a Retina Display.

 

[Elise]

One day we're all going to laugh about this ports issue and wonder what the problem was. Might take a long time mind, but we will!

 

[tbirdparis]

And that's what defeats your argument. It's OK to remove data ports, which means Apple has to expand their MacBook product lineup in a shrinking laptop market, despite the dubious benefits to the consumer, yet touching the audio port is taboo?

Again, their marketing suggests otherwise. As Abazigal suggests, leaving the port only only encourages use on a laptop Apple claims sought to use of every bit of space as minimally as possible, only offering a port because they had to. It's ridiculous to suggest that they HAD to include a 100 year old vestigial audio port. They chose to include it, at the expense of something far more practical which would have helped streamline their product offerings for the users who still need a bit more. As a stockholder, it seems like foolish move.

It's not like Apple follows the heard when it comes to technology. If they see wireless audio as the way of the future, as they are marketing it, then they don't hesitate to dump the technology everybody else is using at the drop of a hat. The fact is they are going out of their way to suggest that this MacBook is the smallest and lightest possible, while offering reasonable battery life, and a full-sized keyboard, with nothing but the essential ports. Then they feature Wireless as a major selling point, second only to design -- positioning an entire web page promoting it as the second tab on the main webpage, which extols bluetooth audio as a major feature. Yet they still include an obsolete port, at the expense of a more professional user who would get greater utility out of a second data port, and the audio user who would get greater quality out of an outboard DAC, which wired or wireless is the way of the future.

But I do agree that Apple has its own agenda here. Whatever it is, we'll see if the next MacBook adds a second port when the MBA is also likely discontinued.

Not sure how you can call the headphone jack obsolete. In fact, you can't really. A thing isn't obsolete just because it's been around for ages, it's obsolete when it's not longer used, useful or supported, which is far from the case at this time. Apple watch the market a lot more closely than any of us do, and it seems pretty easy to figure out what their position on the supposed obsolescence of the 1/8 jack is: it's present on every relevant device they sell.

To be honest, I don't think Apple even think of the headphone jack as a "port" in any meaningful way. It's just a dumb headphone jack and yes, they clearly included it by choice. But it's really not hard to see why: wireless headphone tech has been around for a very long time and it has not so far changed the world. Doesn't look like it's going to any time soon either. What's even more clear is that Apple themselves have decided they don't care about pushing an industry-wide move to wireless headphones, at all. We all know what they do when they decide one technology is the future and another one is to be retired... If they truly believed in the inevitability of wireless headphones for all, there is hardly another company on earth better positioned to have pushed for this a long time ago. There's no way they are not totally aware of the tectonic shift that would happen in the tech world if they removed wired headphone jacks from the iPhone, and by that logic, from all of their machines. But they have not done so, and thus their position on the matter could not be more clear. They of course offer full support for bluetooth headphones, just like everyone does, but it's clear that they have no intention of drawing a line in the sand on this matter for the time being.

And that's my point. They clearly have a vision of what they see as the wireless world of computing and, at least currently, putting an obligation on customers to compel the use of wireless headphones (or adaptors) doesn't appear to be a part of that vision. It would appear that they don't see an increased value to customers by "encouraging" the adoption of wireless headphones right now, indeed it looks much more like they've watched the very long history of that market and decided that wireless and only wireless headphones are _not_ an inevitable future scenario. But just because they've decided they don't want to make the "floppy disk" call with respect to wireless headphones, doesn't at all mean they aren't allowed to see value in "encouraging" customers to adopt the use of other types of wireless tech that they _do_ believe is part of an imminent future. And needless to say, when Apple decide to make this kind of paradigm-shifting choice, they don't pull their punches. They chose to make a point, offering the market a machine that boldly challenges potential customers to see if they can (and indeed, want) to move into this style of digital life. If they had included two USB C ports, they would simply have not made any point at all. And if this choice doesn't work out, they'll obviously revise their approach next time round. But they left the headphone jack alone, just like they have done on every device they sell, I guess because this type of wireless connectivity is purely optional as far as they're concerned.

 

[zhenya]

When the engineers were sitting around deciding on the design goals for the MBr, they debated how many ports to include. And they concluded that they could get away with a single port because of wireless.

I basically agree with what you say, with one crucial addendum; we have the Macbook today 'because of wireless' AND usb-c. Without the latter, we have the Macbook Air, not the Macbook.

 

[zhenya]

They clearly have a vision of what they see as the wireless world of computing and, at least currently, putting an obligation on customers to compel the use of wireless headphones (or adaptors) doesn't appear to be a part of that vision.

I agree. I think they will go to some sort of adaptor before they go wireless. People speak here as if wireless headphones are some sort of panacea, when to me, it looks like they create a bunch of problems which outweigh their benefits. Wireless headphones are bulky, another thing to be charged, and generally have sub-par sound quality to similarly priced wired headphones. Too many negatives for relatively little gain.

 

[Mac 128]

I agree. I think they will go to some sort of adaptor before they go wireless. People speak here as if wireless headphones are some sort of panacea, when to me, it looks like they create a bunch of problems which outweigh their benefits. Wireless headphones are bulky, another thing to be charged, and generally have sub-par sound quality to similarly priced wired headphones. Too many negatives for relatively little gain.

One could say the same thing about the Watch, but having one more thing to charge doesn't seem to be a hinderance for it. And in case you haven't noticed, the incredibly popular Beats is the very definition of bulky headphones. And yet wireless headphones are the only way to listen to music stored on the Watch. Apple has already eliminated the 1/8" headphone jack and wired headset from it. If the Watch is as popular as people are predicting, then the wireless headphone movement can't be far behind. And Apple is promoting them with the sale of the rMB as a primary option for audio. And I would take a pair of good wireless headphones any day over cheap earbuds. So we likely only need to wait one more generation before the headphone jack becomes a major hindrance to Apple's design scheme of ever smaller and ever lighter.

 

[tbirdparis]

Lol, imagine the design meeting at Apple where someone suggested including a 1/8 jack on the watch. It would have been hilarious except that it never happened. I don't think we can look at the omission of something so obviously objectionable as a headphone jack on a wristwatch as an indicator of Apple's view on wired headphones in general. It's pretty obvious that if there were ever a scenario where wireless connectivity specifically applies to one use case, this is it. However, you're right that if smart watches as a category do in fact really kick off in the next few years, that may indeed be the impetus that drives more and more people to buy wireless headphones and could lead to a tipping point. It's by no means sure but we'll see how it evolves.

 

[Mac 128]

Lol, imagine the design meeting at Apple where someone suggested including a 1/8 jack on the watch. It would have been hilarious except that it never happened. I don't think we can look at the omission of something so obviously objectionable as a headphone jack on a wristwatch as an indicator of Apple's view on wired headphones in general. It's pretty obvious that if there were ever a scenario where wireless connectivity specifically applies to one use case, this is it. However, you're right that if smart watches as a category do in fact really kick off in the next few years, that may indeed be the impetus that drives more and more people to buy wireless headphones and could lead to a tipping point. It's by no means sure but we'll see how it evolves.

The iPod Shuffle has an 1/8" headphone jack that takes up considerable room, and it's smaller than the Watch. All things considered, Apple would probably like to get rid of that jack which takes up a lot of room, when a lightning connector would be far more prudent and useful. But that would mean going wireless, or building the DAC into the headphones. But Apple is not going to invest any more into the shuffle likely at this point. And it's unlikely they are going to invest heavily in wired solutions for Beats products as long as 1/8" remains the standard outside Apple's walls, nor for their own earbuds since wireless seems to be a focus. And they don't tend to reinvent wireless solutions, they just hand you dongles.

So what's Apple to do with the 1/8" jack if the iPhone gets any thinner? It's already too thin for the camera, any thinner and the 1/8" jack will have to go. Once that goes, why keep it around for anything else? Or do you imagine Apple has reached its limits with designing devices to be as small and light light as possible? Have they reached the limits with the MacBook and said enough is enough? Not likely. The 1/8" audio jack is larger than USB-C port, limiting them as to how thin the case becomes. So what then? More wires, or give it the heave-ho? The fact is, the only way to fill a product with more battery and components, while making it ever thinner is to go wireless.

 

[Mac 128]

Not sure how you can call the headphone jack obsolete. In fact, you can't really. A thing isn't obsolete just because it's been around for ages, it's obsolete when it's not longer used, useful or supported, which is far from the case at this time.

Here's the thing, when Apple got rid of the floppy drive, they did it because it was a design problem. Just look at the big G3 All-in-one "molar" design that preceded it. It's beautiful in its ugliness, but Jobs wanted none of the bulky, asymmetric case design that was a requirement of accommodating floppy disks, CDs, and Zip drives. Jobs came in and put a stop to that kind of thinking. In the process the floppy, which was still in wide use and fully supported, especially in the PC world, was eliminated. One of the most widely sold items sold with the original iMac was an external floppy drive. Yet Apple obsoleted it. They did the same thing when they eliminated the DVD drive from their desktops, which was still in widespread use, and is likewise still supported to this day. The fact that Apple makes a DVD drive acknowledges that this is likewise not obsolete, yet they've done it as far as Macs are concerned. Now they've taken away the USB type A ports, also still in wide use and supported, and obsoleted it on the rMB. So just because something is in wide use and fully supported, doesn't mean it's not obsolete.

So now we're looking at the 1/8" audio jack, still in widespread use and supported. The iPhone and iPad have one, and as mobile devices it makes sense, especially since it's a legacy port pre-dating current technology. But of the widespread use of the 1/8" jack, how many people are actually using it on a daily basis on their laptops, or desktops for that matter? An iPhone is carried around with the user, and used close to the face, as is the iPad. But a MacBook, like a desktop is meant to be used in a stationary position, on a desk or table. Even standing up will likely pull a person's headphones out of their ears, much less moving away from it. Even if it's on one's lap, it means awkwardly relocating it and managing the headphone cables to move. A much more efficient solution for using headphones with a laptop, to the extent anyone still does it, is to go wireless. And if someone really wants to use a wired headphone, adding an adapter to use an analogue pair, is not going to add substantially to an already messy situation. So yes, with respect to a laptop computer, it's an obsolete solution. Moreover, invoking Apple's own design mandates, it's inelegant and wasteful of premium design space.

 

[Asthmatic Kitty]

From my limited experience, all bluetooth speakers (and presumably headphones) have a slight audio delay, which makes them really annoying for watching anything video-related. Or have some of them now got to the stage where there's no delay?

I'm perfectly happy with the one port thing - if they got rid of the headphone jack, I simply wouldn't have bought this notebook. We're not even close to the point where the headphone jack can be removed, imo.

 

[tbirdparis]

Here's the thing, when Apple got rid of the floppy drive, they did it because it was a design problem. Just look at the big G3 All-in-one "molar" design that preceded it. It's beautiful in its ugliness, but Jobs wanted none of the bulky, asymmetric case design that was a requirement of accommodating floppy disks, CDs, and Zip drives. Jobs came in and put a stop to that kind of thinking. In the process the floppy, which was still in wide use and fully supported, especially in the PC world, was eliminated. One of the most widely sold items sold with the original iMac was an external floppy drive. Yet Apple obsoleted it. They did the same thing when they eliminated the DVD drive from their desktops, which was still in widespread use, and is likewise still supported to this day. The fact that Apple makes a DVD drive acknowledges that this is likewise not obsolete, yet they've done it as far as Macs are concerned. Now they've taken away the USB type A ports, also still in wide use and supported, and obsoleted it on the rMB. So just because something is in wide use and fully supported, doesn't mean it's not obsolete.

So now we're looking at the 1/8" audio jack, still in widespread use and supported. The iPhone and iPad have one, and as mobile devices it makes sense, especially since it's a legacy port pre-dating current technology. But of the widespread use of the 1/8" jack, how many people are actually using it on a daily basis on their laptops, or desktops for that matter? An iPhone is carried around with the user, and used close to the face, as is the iPad. But a MacBook, like a desktop is meant to be used in a stationary position, on a desk or table. Even standing up will likely pull a person's headphones out of their ears, much less moving away from it. Even if it's on one's lap, it means awkwardly relocating it and managing the headphone cables to move. A much more efficient solution for using headphones with a laptop, to the extent anyone still does it, is to go wireless. And if someone really wants to use a wired headphone, adding an adapter to use an analogue pair, is not going to add substantially to an already messy situation. So yes, with respect to a laptop computer, it's an obsolete solution. Moreover, invoking Apple's own design mandates, it's inelegant and wasteful of premium design space.

From my limited experience, all bluetooth speakers (and presumably headphones) have a slight audio delay, which makes them really annoying for watching anything video-related. Or have some of them now got to the stage where there's no delay?

I'm perfectly happy with the one port thing - if they got rid of the headphone jack, I simply wouldn't have bought this notebook. We're not even close to the point where the headphone jack can be removed, imo.

Yep I agree, wouldn't have bought one either. I think Apple made the right call for the time being at least.