If it's a wireless future why are there wired headphones in the box?

[Alvi]

I don't really get why it's so dramatic, yes I wouldn't mind having a headphone jack, but I barely use it anyway.

I always use my EarPods when I'm walking somewhere or I go to the gym and when I don't my car has Bluetooth and it's really nice, it automatically connects to my phone every time I start the car. At home I got an older Apple TV on my home theatre system in the living room and on my other sound system I have a little D-Link thingy that turns it also into an AirPlay Music receiver. (They can even play the same thing at the same time, which is really really nice)

I will probably plug my Lightning to 3.5mm Jack adapter directly into my Bose noise cancelling headphones (that I exclusively use when I fly) and they will stay in their case forever, there are no real (predictable) cases in which I will need a headphone jack.

 

[Steve686]

Maybe because they aren't even available until October anyway and it would be anarchy if Apple waited until October to launch the 7 series.

 

[lordofthereef]

Apple didn't have that much courage...

 

[C DM]

duh... it's a wireless future..

We are in the present man...

As much of a joke as that is, it likely comes close to reality. At some point wireless will be taken for granted like regular wired headphones, but we are sort of in the earlier stages of that (that supposedly Apple wants to move along by dropping the jack).

 

[lordofthereef]

i have not seen detailed specs on the airpods to know if it's same old Bluetooth or something else... They did say they made a chipset because nothing existed that could do what they wanted to do... But even if it's Bluetooth, using a universal standard is okay, BT5 is supposed to be 2x distance and 4x speed over 4.x so I don't think Bluetooth is dead...

And the phones still have to be able to communicate with a billion BT devices besides Apple airpods... So there's that.

Did you catch the remark about Apple being the #2 watch maker in the world behind only Rolex in terms of revenue and #1in smart watch? With their first product, in their first year... With a product naysayers universally said was awful. That smart watches would never catch on....

It's innovation..... Not coincidental.

The term they used was total revenue. Which isn't surprising since Apple watches are rather expensive. I'm not knocking it, but they choose their wording wisely.

They didn't brag about their adoption being better than android. They didn't brag about the numbers they sold last year (but did mention they hit one billion).

I honestly don't see a whole lot of innovation in yhis new phone except for the CPU itself which they basically glossed over. The thing is faster than a gen year old Mac Pro... crazy.

 

[rawlus]

agree with you on your points - but an apple watch is less expensive than most swiss watches. i still think its pretty significant that you can enter a market youve never been in before and become #1 or #2 for your first try with a product that nobody has really seen before.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

It is a wireless future. Apple is just prepping for the transition w/ the Airpods. I wouldn't expect Apple to include Airpods and Lightning earbuds are not easy to track down so does seem to be a requirement to include in box. In a fantasy world Apple would let customers opt-out of the pack-in EarPods for a $15-20 credit. It would be a true consumer and Eco- friendly gesture.

 

[Mac 128]

Apple should have included something like this in the box, rather than the Lightning adapter, which would have pushed their agenda toward wireless better, and bundled it with the 3.5mm Earbuds for compatibility with all current Apple products. I'm imagining the same custom W1 chip and motion activated controls as the AirPods.

The situation Apple has created now is one in which customers are discouraged from using the Lightning headphones because of the compatibility issues, and for many the included adapter won't be adequate to address concerns like charging while listening on the airplane, necessitating buying an additional adapter anyway, thereby dissipating all of the good will they tried to create by giving away the $9 adapter in the box.

 

[Zetaprime]

Apple should have included something like this in the box, rather than the Lightning adapter, which would have pushed their agenda toward wireless better, and bundled it with the 3.5mm Earbuds for compatibility with all current Apple products. I'm imagining the same custom W1 chip and motion activated controls as the AirPods.

The situation Apple has created now is one in which customers are discouraged from using the Lightning headphones because of the compatibility issues, and for many the included adapter won't be adequate to address concerns like charging while listening on the airplane, necessitating buying an additional adapter anyway, thereby dissipating all of the good will they tried to create by giving away the $9 adapter in the box.

Some of us hardly ever use the earbuds or get on a plane. I haven't been on a plane in 15 years, so I surely don't care about that. When I listen to music at home where I can charge my phone I don't play music on it since I have better options for listening.

 

[StarShot]

Much like wireless charging, it doesn't come with the wireless charger.

Anyone know if the phone will ONLY accept an Apple wireless charger? About 2 weeks ago I briefly had a Samsung Galaxy Note 7. At the time I also bought their wireless charger pad which changed the phone over night. When the fires started, I turned the whole mess in for a full refund. Wondering if I should have kept the wireless charger for my new 7 coming on the 16th?

 

[rui no onna]

They won't sell iPhone's like they used to, the iPhone 7 is going to be way off prior launches. It's simply too expensive and too underfeatured. The only hope Apple has is that the carriers have their new no-money-down monthly installment plans which rip off customers but allow them to get into a phone they can't afford. Nice to see Apple supporting a scam akin to student loan debt and revolving credit cards.

Meh, I'm sure there are a number of smartphone manufacturers who will be happy to have Apple's slow sales especially at Apple's profit margins. Slow for Apple still means tens of millions of units a year.

That said, even prior to device installments, we had the 2-year subsidy model. The new installment plan method just gets rid of the mandatory $199-399 downpayment but it's essentially the same. I'd even argue the delineation between service cost and device cost is better as now, the phone prices aren't being obfuscated by carrier subsidies (which we in turn pay via higher monthly service fees).

 

[bniu]

headphones: $30, charging cable: $20, charger: $20

How about Apple knock $70 off the prices and just give us the phone? I have enough cables and chargers and headphones lying around, don't need any more of those things. If Apple's so big on the environment, how about quit bundling all those extras in?

 

[Armen]

Jony Ive talks about a wireless future. Phil Schiller says the #1 reason they got rid of the headphone jack is "courage". But Apple didn't put its money where it's mouth is. They didn't show courage by putting wireless earbuds in the box (and throwing in the adapter for those who still want to use wired headphones). If Apple wanted to show true courage why didn't they make a pair of cheaper wireless in the box with AirPods as an upsell? Not all wireless headphones are super expensive. I don't see how Apple can say wireless is the future but then stick proprietary wired headphones in the box. No evidence that there's anything special about these lightning EarPods. So mixed messaging in Apple's part.

It's to help people "ease" into the future

 

[menist]

Anyone know if the phone will ONLY accept an Apple wireless charger? About 2 weeks ago I briefly had a Samsung Galaxy Note 7. At the time I also bought their wireless charger pad which changed the phone over night. When the fires started, I turned the whole mess in for a full refund. Wondering if I should have kept the wireless charger for my new 7 coming on the 16th?

Was on the same boat with the Note 7 lol. Returned it right after the recall announcement. Didn't get the wireless charger though. If Apple were to release a wireless solution this year, I doubt that wireless charger would work since it requires qualcomm, Apple move away from qualcomm for intel this year, hence no CDMA for GSM/Att/Tmobile iPhones.

 

[lagwagon]

Jony Ive talks about a wireless future. Phil Schiller says the #1 reason they got rid of the headphone jack is "courage". But Apple didn't put its money where it's mouth is. They didn't show courage by putting wireless earbuds in the box (and throwing in the adapter for those who still want to use wired headphones). If Apple wanted to show true courage why didn't they make a pair of cheaper wireless in the box with AirPods as an upsell? Not all wireless headphones are super expensive. I don't see how Apple can say wireless is the future but then stick proprietary wired headphones in the box. No evidence that there's anything special about these lightning EarPods. So mixed messaging in Apple's part.

Courage wasn't the #1 reason. It was the word he used to sum it up into one word. And it's more in reference of having the courage to be bold enough to remove the jack in the first place.

They include the wired headphone in the box because not everyone uses or wants to use wireless just yet, and they are the freebie give away headphones. No company would include $150 headphones for free in the box. That's just silly to expect that.

Read this article as it explains in pretty good detail right from some head hardware people at Apple why the jack was removed. https://www.buzzfeed.com/johnpaczko...headphone-jack?utm_term=.kcXVAwVg2#.bt63793XD

 

[s15119]

Because it is not yet the future. Thus the word future.

 

[Analog Kid]

cause apple is cheap why else?

Because their customers are cheap.

Including something like the AirPods would have increased the cost of the iPhone by about $100 or so assuming Apple was willing to take a hit on their overall margin. $100 for something that many customers may not use because they already have a headset they're happy with.

 

[steve knight]

Because their customers are cheap.

Including something like the AirPods would have increased the cost of the iPhone by about $100 or so assuming Apple was willing to take a hit on their overall margin. $100 for something that many customers may not use because they already have a headset they're happy with.

right because their customers spend more on apple products then pretty much any other brand.

 

[Analog Kid]

headphones: $30, charging cable: $20, charger: $20

How about Apple knock $70 off the prices and just give us the phone? I have enough cables and chargers and headphones lying around, don't need any more of those things. If Apple's so big on the environment, how about quit bundling all those extras in?

Some of the cost of those pieces individually is the additional packaging, shipping, and handling. I think the charger and cable will always be included lest someone switch from another brand and get home with a phone they can't charge. Headphones would have been on the table to stop shipping, I think, except removing the 3.5mm port makes most people's incompatible.
[doublepost=1473552572][/doublepost]

right because their customers spend more on apple products then pretty much any other brand.

Interesting. That comment managed to transmit your tone while carrying no information...

 

[deany]

Jony Ive talks about a wireless future. Phil Schiller says the #1 reason they got rid of the headphone jack is "courage". But Apple didn't put its money where it's mouth is. They didn't show courage by putting wireless earbuds in the box (and throwing in the adapter for those who still want to use wired headphones). If Apple wanted to show true courage why didn't they make a pair of cheaper wireless in the box with AirPods as an upsell? Not all wireless headphones are super expensive. I don't see how Apple can say wireless is the future but then stick proprietary wired headphones in the box. No evidence that there's anything special about these lightning EarPods. So mixed messaging in Apple's part.

Wireless is the future but not quite yet- we are being moved slowly towards it.

Courage yes - stupid no.
If apple had gone 100% wireless on Wednesday with no 3.5mm they would have upset too many folks.

Typical posts-

• They did it to make more money out of us
• I cant use my trusty wired headphones anymore.
• important android migrators (huge market) would think twice.
etc

This is a gradual transition to wireless and apple will win (most) of us over. Wednesday was just the start of the slow process.

 

[DADDYDC650]

It's courage because Samsung and the others didn't have the stones to just delete the mini jack and promote wireless by making something that's been around for 30 years less convenient. Samsung and the others wait for Apple to make these plays, and when they are then proven visionary, they follow along in a me too fashion....

There's really no point in getting rid of the audio jack at this moment. The phone is the same size as the 6s Plus and they could have added stereo speakers regardless. I'm sure they'll sell a bunch of those air pods though....

 

[mtcowdog]

Hilarious question. Batter life. Sound quality. Taketh is one thing. Giveth is another. In this consumer's option, Apple's not there yet. But, that said, it's not a deal breaker. That's all I've got.
[doublepost=1473556457][/doublepost]I'll play. Battery life. Sound quality. Those are big things that wireless hasn't improved upon. Taketh is one thing. Giveth is another. In this consumer's option, Apple's not there yet. But, that said, it's not a deal breaker. That's all I've got.

 

[spinedoc77]

Here's something for you headphone guys to check out, interview with Cook on taking the jack out. http://digg.com/video/iphone-7-spoof-ad

 

[boltjames]

Meh, I'm sure there are a number of smartphone manufacturers who will be happy to have Apple's slow sales especially at Apple's profit margins. Slow for Apple still means tens of millions of units a year.

That said, even prior to device installments, we had the 2-year subsidy model. The new installment plan method just gets rid of the mandatory $199-399 downpayment but it's essentially the same. I'd even argue the delineation between service cost and device cost is better as now, the phone prices aren't being obfuscated by carrier subsidies (which we in turn pay via higher monthly service fees).

Again with this nonsense.

The installment plan is not "essentially the same". In my case it's 2x more expensive. While some may gleefully enjoy a no-money-down $33 a month installment payment in the end they are paying full retail for the phone and in many cases are getting fewer GB of data on their plans. The carrier subsidies have gone away, the hardware is at full retail price, service has stayed flat or has increased in price. It's more expensive.

BJ

 

[Appleaker]

The reason wired is in the box is due to the cost difference - it would mean a significant decrease in profit and to compensate they would have to increase the price. The only other way to include wireless would be to make a budget set of wireless EarPods that were connected and could be charged by plugging into lightning. This would still be expensive and cause confusion as well as decrease sales of AirPods.