I and many more don't want an ***** dongle! Much less have to shell out out more Apple tax
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.
Intel Wants to Replace 3.5mm Headphone Jack With USB-C Audio
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No, headphones will have an analogue port, and a digital port, and they will work with whatever device you need to use.
Some BT headphones now have both wired options so that they can be used with device, even if the wireless power runs out.
... this is just what the industry really needed..
Apple's secret plan for economic success: Get rid of a well established, many years old standard. Sell pricy adapters (opional). Say, that the new iPhone/iWhatever would "just not have been possible" using the old, well established port/cable/peripherals...
They have done this with us for years..
Apple's secret plan for economic success: Get rid of a well established, many years old standard. Sell pricy adapters (opional). Say, that the new iPhone/iWhatever would "just not have been possible" using the old, well established port/cable/peripherals...
They have done this with us for years..
It doesn't help to get rid of a port if it requires the owner to buy an adaptor just to be able to do what they used to. That just causes added frustration to the person using the device.
So long as the problem is solved across all future audio devices (industry standard), then it's not a bad thing to move away from analog audio. Maybe this is Intel's plan?
I really hope Apple doesn't force people to Lightning while the rest of the industry figures out a global solution. They need to be active in setting up that industry standard.
So long as the problem is solved across all future audio devices (industry standard), then it's not a bad thing to move away from analog audio. Maybe this is Intel's plan?
I really hope Apple doesn't force people to Lightning while the rest of the industry figures out a global solution. They need to be active in setting up that industry standard.
So you'll have two wires coming out of the headphones? That seems even worse than using an adapter.
The problem with this is that many of us on this forum may have a couple of high end headphones or earphones while at the same time having our disposable ones where we don't care at all if they break or wear out because we will simply buy more. Something like this could literally force people to not even buy your product...that 3.5 mm jack is that important to me and others.
I'm starting to get better acquainted with bluetooth earphones but they are not the best in audio quality yet.
I'm starting to get better acquainted with bluetooth earphones but they are not the best in audio quality yet.
How are you putting this only on Apple, when this is Intel's effort? It's clear to me the rumor about Apple doing it was typical of major tech shifts -- Apple is on the forefront of where the rest of the industry is headed, with or without Apple.
There are several solutions to this problem. Currently you plug whichever cable you need into your headphones. But imagine this, a single cable with a tiny USB-C type connector that passes audio and digital over a single cable. The plug connector could utilize three sides, with a fold-out 3.5mm jack on one side, a USB-C connector on the other, and a Lightning connector on the third. And that's the ultimate in compatibility. Alternately, for those who don't use Apple or PC products, a connector with just two plugs and adapter for those rare times it's needed for the other. The possibilities are endless based on the user's needs ...
Three wires. It's a TRS connection.
I want everyone to consider something: All recorded music and/or movies you've ever "consumed" had at least this in common: Somewhere in the chain of production, at least one one set of headphones and probably many more were used. These headphones all have a 1/4" (or rarely 1/8") TRS-male connector. Also in the production -if a professional studio was used- you would find a patchbay. These also use balanced TRS or TTY connections. Balanced XLR connector are also the standard connector for professional microphones. There are reasons that these things are standard. And these reasons will hold water much longer than any crisis-creation going on at Intel or Apple. Just to show how I give back to my community, I'll throw up a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_audio
[doublepost=1461873826][/doublepost]
I think the reasoning is that people can no longer appreciate or concentrate on listening. That's going to be a problem; endless multitasking, busywork, and distraction from art. This is all R&D time and money that could be spent on developing a nMP. Eliminating a simple headphone jack is as dumb as removing the ethernet jack. If people don't know why, then nothing I point out will help, and they'll continue to buy MacBooks with one USB port.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dante_(networking)
I'm not worried about digital audio output via either USB-C or Lightning - regardless of which port the source device uses and which plug the destination device has, an adapter can deal with the difference between USB-C and Lightning - the digital signal moving across those connectors is the same. If your headset wants digital (has a built in DAC), it'll have it.
The bigger picture isn't the licensing fees for the connectors; it's that an industry that makes its money on silicon wants to push "active" silicon into every product that uses simpler, "passive" tech - how dare loudspeaker and headphone makers leave silicon out of their products!! It's not a matter of who charges less for the license - the cost of the circuitry is higher than the license cost. It's a simple enough business proposition, and as more and more people use headsets with active circuitry (Bluetooth, noise-canceling), it's easier for Big Silicon to "pick off the stragglers."
The thing that bothers me most at the moment is analog audio via USB-C. This particular aspect of USB-C hasn't changed in these updated specs. A device may provide an analog output via USB-C, but doing so requires additional internal circuitry to switch between digital and analog output. Analog output is optional. There's no assurance, if your analog headset has a USB-C plug on the end, that you'll get analog audio when you plug into a USB-C port. For that matter, how do you know whether a USB-C plug-equipped headset requires a digital or analog input? Presuming the manufacturers are kind enough to provide them, we have to search for little icons adjacent to the port or moulded into the plug. In the absence of labels, we can only try it and see what happens.
To me, this seems comparable to using the same plugs and sockets for both AC and DC mains power. OK, it's not grossly unsafe, as connecting an AC-powered device to DC mains power would be (or using the same connectors for AC power distribution regardless of the line voltage or frequency).... But one of the key points of using dissimilar connectors is to help ensure compatibility/prevent incompatible use. (I concede, it's more directly analogous to using RCA connectors for analog audio, analog video, and S/PDIF digital audio - at least color-coding has been used consistently in those cases, and the jacks are dedicated-use.)
The bigger picture isn't the licensing fees for the connectors; it's that an industry that makes its money on silicon wants to push "active" silicon into every product that uses simpler, "passive" tech - how dare loudspeaker and headphone makers leave silicon out of their products!! It's not a matter of who charges less for the license - the cost of the circuitry is higher than the license cost. It's a simple enough business proposition, and as more and more people use headsets with active circuitry (Bluetooth, noise-canceling), it's easier for Big Silicon to "pick off the stragglers."
The thing that bothers me most at the moment is analog audio via USB-C. This particular aspect of USB-C hasn't changed in these updated specs. A device may provide an analog output via USB-C, but doing so requires additional internal circuitry to switch between digital and analog output. Analog output is optional. There's no assurance, if your analog headset has a USB-C plug on the end, that you'll get analog audio when you plug into a USB-C port. For that matter, how do you know whether a USB-C plug-equipped headset requires a digital or analog input? Presuming the manufacturers are kind enough to provide them, we have to search for little icons adjacent to the port or moulded into the plug. In the absence of labels, we can only try it and see what happens.
To me, this seems comparable to using the same plugs and sockets for both AC and DC mains power. OK, it's not grossly unsafe, as connecting an AC-powered device to DC mains power would be (or using the same connectors for AC power distribution regardless of the line voltage or frequency).... But one of the key points of using dissimilar connectors is to help ensure compatibility/prevent incompatible use. (I concede, it's more directly analogous to using RCA connectors for analog audio, analog video, and S/PDIF digital audio - at least color-coding has been used consistently in those cases, and the jacks are dedicated-use.)
Well, of course. Come on now ... You can't honestly say that it would be a surprise, could you?
This is the standard move with any device or port that Apple removed from an existing piece of hardware: Give the people a dongle of some sort to shut them up ... And make them pay for it, too.
- Removed the DVD drive. Sell an $80 USD external USB DVD drive.
- Switched from 30pin port for iOS devices to Lightning port. Sell a $29 Lightning to 30-pin adapter, and $39.00 0.2m equivalent of same.
- Remove FireWire port. Sell a $29.00 TB to FW adapter.
- Remove RJ45 network port. Sell a $29.00 TB to GbE adapter.
- etc.
- Remove 3.5mm jack. Sell a $29.00 USB-C to 3.5mm adapter.
Actually, after thinking about it a bit more, people would be a lot better off just waiting for a third-party multi port adapter or mobile dock to be released. Although probably more expensive than a single port dongle from Apple, at least it would offer flexibility with multiple ports.
Funny ... Ports essentially are being moved to external accessories. One port to rule them all, and in the darkness bind them (or blind them, depending on your point of view.)
LOTR reference for bonus XP. Ding! My nerd cred just gained a level.
Last edited:
Yep! Both USB-C and Lightning ports are flimsy in compared to an 1/8" TRS. Sticking a DAC on headphones is absurd, expensive, and will only cause the non-standard headphones to end up in the dump sooner. And you're going to need a lot more shielding in your new cables. No more string-buds. This will be the audio equivalent of the CFL bulb.
Because I use headphones a lot. And if I am away somewhere and I forgot to bring the headphones I can pick up a cheap pair for less than $10 that I dont care if they get lost/broken.
Instead of me paying for ONE chip set, hosted in the device, I will have to buy a chip set with every pair of headphones.
This is why I bought the iPhone SE, dont want the bulk of the 6, dont want the missing headphone of the 7.
I dont want a thiner device, give me a fatter one with 2-3 days battery life
I dont want to loose the ports, that just means buying adaptors, hubs, more power supplies and it becoming a mess.
Of course intel wants this, they sell chips and the more they can sell the better. They don't care that this will make peoples lives ******** so long as they make more money.
I love the idea but the reality will be very different.
The 3.5 mm jack is smaller. Yes it's taller but it's smaller. Getting rid would then require pass through power to charge and listen. Removing the DAC internally still requires a DAC externally so there is nothing simple especially as most headphones would then require an adapter and ANOTHER DAC to use the port.
I would like to see it as an option not 'the only option'. But I know that is not what will happen.
I feel like there is no justification as audio quality is not an issue and it's only a size issue that no phone design can't solve in other ways. It seems like a way to sell more headphones, apple certainly has a reason to owning beats. That should result in a class action lawsuit if it's not implemented in the right way.
I also don't see any other part of the audio industry following the trend either. There is very slow turn over in audio gear, most 50 year old stuff is relevant or desirable.
I see this trend as only a cheap low end segment that might fail to get traction especially if the DAC isn't included internally with an adapter for ordinary headphones.
[doublepost=1461913310][/doublepost]
The 3.5 mm jack is smaller. Yes it's taller but it's smaller. Getting rid would then require pass through power to charge and listen. Removing the DAC internally still requires a DAC externally so there is nothing simple especially as most headphones would then require an adapter and ANOTHER DAC to use the port.
I would like to see it as an option not 'the only option'. But I know that is not what will happen.
I feel like there is no justification as audio quality is not an issue and it's only a size issue that no phone design can't solve in other ways. It seems like a way to sell more headphones, apple certainly has a reason to owning beats. That should result in a class action lawsuit if it's not implemented in the right way.
I also don't see any other part of the audio industry following the trend either. There is very slow turn over in audio gear, most 50 year old stuff is relevant or desirable.
I see this trend as only a cheap low end segment that might fail to get traction especially if the DAC isn't included internally with an adapter for ordinary headphones.
[doublepost=1461913310][/doublepost]
Sorry but Bluetooth is both poor quality and connectivity is dire or a huge hassle, it's hot the standard anyone wants especially if your headphones don't have a huge battery or huge adapter to use better quality cans.
Yep, I'm with you on this one. Don't get me worng, I totally understand the desire to have a digital audio standard, but the 3.5mm audio jack is so universally compatible, restricting it to something else will result in it actually being compatible with less things, not more. So while I'm a tech junkie, and I love progress, I do still feel like replacing the most universally supported audio interface is a downgrade and not an upgrade, simply because so many things will no longer be compatible with it. (and let's face it, while you could use adaptors, it not only defeats the object of the fractions of a mm in device thickness that it saves, because you have to carry the adaptors around with you anyway, so you haven't really saved space, and have actually made it less convenient). Plus in regards to the analog/digitial argument for doing this, it doesn't really solve that issue either, because the adaptor method will still in all actuality just be an analog signal being passed through a socket with the shape of a digital port, so no improvement in audio quality either.
For these reasons, while I tend to have a habit of always buying the new iPhone when it comes out even when my old one is fine, this audio jack thing is something that would actually put me off buying an iPhone 7 if they did away with the 3.5mm socket. That being said, I think you may be onto something with having both methods available. (in other words, keep the 3.5mm jack, but allow digital audio to be passed through the lightning connector it has anyway), as this would make for a much more 'best of both worlds' scenario, and then I probably still will buy the new iPhone when it comes out.
As for TypeC, when this was first announced as a new USB standard, I was initially quite excited about it, because it showed alot of promise in terms of things like Apple devices having a cable compatible with everything else, and also loved the fact that it didn't matter which way up you plugged them in, rather than the constant fumbling of original USB. (we've all been there, right?).
However, in practice, what actually came to be with TypeC was that it turned out to be not quite so universal as once thought. (lots of issues with devices getting fried due to the electrical specs being passed through the cables being quite different from device to device). -Some supporting fast charging and others not (which meant the resistor that had to be used in the cables was completely different, and users were often not even aware). But what happened was, devices that didn't support fast charging had to have a resistor in the TypeC cable that let less electrical flow through it, and those that did support fast charging had to use a resistor which allows more to flow through. So of course if you had a fast charging device and a TypeC cable that was for most standard TypeC devices, then you wouldn't get fast charging (because the cable was the bottleneck). Not the end of the world when done that way round, but on the flip-side, if you had a standard charging TypeC device but used a fast charging capable TypeC cable, then too much was being passed through the cable, which is what fried the devices. (many users not even realizing this until it was too late, simply because the cables and sockets are identical, and were thought to be universal). Needless to say, this one has not exactly gotten off to a great start. (shame really, because TypeC could potentially have been great progress).
I think they could probably solve this though through better device detection in the communication protocols, but so far this is not the case yet. (at least not in any standard way for all devices that use a TypeC socket). Good to see the main post in this thread mentioning that detection mechanisms is something they are working on though. Until then though, for Apple devices, the lightning cable seems to make the most sense for any kind of digital data transfer until this TypeC issue is resolved on a more universal level (that part at least isn't really Apple's fault, it's more a flaw in the universal TypeC standard, or lack there of). -For the record though, I will reiterate that I don't mean use lightning cable instead of the 3.5mm audio jack. I just mean instead of making everything TypeC until its universal compatibility issues are resolved. I think if they ever finally get it to the level of universal compatibility that the previous USB standard is (meaning that if the socket fits, it is guaranteed to work, and you can rely on it being safe), then and only then will TypeC ever truly be able to replace it. (I do hope we get there someday though). But it does concern me how the same socket but different specs issue kinda slipped through the net. This was kinda the whole point of specific socket shapes for specific connectors. Even the layman could use them safely without actually being an electrical expert. Anything less is not progress, it's a step backwards.
Last edited:
It's not the price that's the concern. It's the fact that I now have to make sure I have an adapter with me everywhere I want to use my headphones with my iPhone. And I damn well better have that adapter if I want to use the headphones and charge at the same time!
I often plug in my 3.5mm audio and Lightning cables while driving. This actually wouldn't be bad since I can just plug in one cable into the phone instead of two. The audio and Lightning cables would just be plugged into the adapter all the time.
But anywhere else I may want to listen + charge? Meh...
Should I assume you also have problem with this?
Absolutely not
. It allows the charging port to still be used.
Absolutely not
You're really going to have to explain yourself a little better if you'd like to have a discussion. "Ew" tells us nothing. Both allow the charging port to be used (though the 3.5mm plug is more restrictive).
So what exactly are you objecting to with the L-shaped Lightning plug?
I do remember when Apple removed the floppy drive. Heaps of people went mental over it.