iPhone 7 - 3.5mm to lightning, the real story is not "Courage"

Discussion in 'iPhone' started by akash.nu, Sep 25, 2016.

  1. akash.nu macrumors 604


    May 26, 2016
    I know we've all discussed about it at length but just to help out some of our non audiophile members, Apple clearly lied when they said that the audio jack was removed because they have courage...

    I think this video here nails it down.

  2. stulaw11 Suspended

    Jan 25, 2012
    Theories is all this is.

    Waterproofing is a certainty. The others are best guesses.

    Wireless charging is a bum argument. It simply doesnt work that well or charge as fast. I have yet to see anyone really use wireless charging except at night because it is too slow to top off during the day. It's judt not ready to be used by the masses in its current form.

    He then argues that you cannot pick up headphones if you forgot yours or on a trip (or a square reader), but again, argument is bum as you have the 3.5mm adapter in the box, or can buy one anywhere for $9. And Square will CERTAINLY produce a lightning version; and they give them away from free as is so Im not sure how that'a a legit concern.
  3. akash.nu thread starter macrumors 604


    May 26, 2016
    The lightning royalty charge is the main reason. Water resistant business is just a bonus on top.
  4. stulaw11 Suspended

    Jan 25, 2012
    Oh please. He said they charged some Chinese companies $500 per cable. You REALLY think Apple needs $500 for each type of headphones? How many headphones could possibly be out there?

    Let's say there are even 5,000 different headphone versions out there who want to be used for the new iphones; likely WAY overestimated.

    So if they make an extra $2.5 million on MFI certification. That's honestly your opinion of the deciding factor for a company valued around $550 billion?

    And lets not forget people using the adapter on their old ones not buying new headphones. So that's a ridiculous argument about royalties making it the deciding factor.
  5. akash.nu thread starter macrumors 604


    May 26, 2016
    You do realise all over the world there are hundreds, if not thousands, of companies that make iPhone accessories yeah?! And the fee is per item. That's a huge revenue stream we are talking about.

    With all the NDAs in places you won't know the actual figure but it will be in a few millions at least.
  6. stulaw11, Sep 25, 2016
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2016

    stulaw11 Suspended

    Jan 25, 2012
    Again, even 5,000 versions; say it s a few million.

    Apple is worth $550 BILLION. If you think a million or 2 is the deciding factor thats naive. It probably cost them more than that in R&D and retooling the new phone than that.

    Is may be ONE of the factors, but I doubt the main one. They clearly wanted to make this phone waterproof to compete with Samsung and had to sacrifice the 3.5 jack; since people complain Apple is falling behind in features to Android manufacturers.

    They lose 50 times that royalty if people aren't buying $700 to $1,000 iphones all together and go to Android. Do the math if they lose say average $850 phone and lose 50,000 people to Android. A LOT more than royalties from headphones.

    The bonus is making a few million on MFI royalties
  7. JoeyD74 macrumors 6502

    Oct 31, 2014
    Is the sound quality better on the 7 vs the 6 because of the connector?
  8. 960design macrumors 68030

    Apr 17, 2012
    Destin, FL
    The 'real' story is Apple is moving away from wires, one step at a time.
    iCloud backup, no longer need to plug in to iTunes, now wireless headphones, next wireless charging.
    Cables are very 1855 ( before Tesla was born ).

    The iPhone 6s is a fantastic phone, no real need to update to a 7 if you are not ready for wireless headphones.
  9. akash.nu thread starter macrumors 604


    May 26, 2016
    How are you getting these numbers? Each of the companies can make multiple accessories, and they have to pay separately for each of them. Which means it's substantial amount. It doesn't matter how big a company is, they exist for the soul purpose of making profit and if they can do it by not spending any money in manufacturing or even doing anything extra then why wouldn't they?
  10. akash.nu thread starter macrumors 604


    May 26, 2016
    No, in fact when digitally tested its tiny bit worse.
  11. akash.nu thread starter macrumors 604


    May 26, 2016
    Apple is not moving away yet, then they'd have had a proper charging solution. Unable to charge while listening to music is point blank horrendous solution. I'd expect better solutions from a company like apple that boats on providing solutions that users ain't aware of apparently.
  12. stulaw11 Suspended

    Jan 25, 2012
    And if Apple loses even 50,000 people to Samsung because Samsung's phones are waterproof, and lets say $850 per phone average ($700-$1,000 per phone) how much are they losing? $42.5 million in phone sales.

    They HAD to do it to compete and keep people buying their phones another year and not get behind on phone features.

    You really think they are getting anywhere near $42.5 million in royalties on some headphones (and that is ULTRA conservative saying only losing 50,000 people to Android/Samsung)? :rolleyes: The royalties is certainly the extra perk here.
  13. whosgt macrumors member

    Sep 11, 2016
    If I was a multi-billionaire I wouldn't care about a few million I guess. But then again, I'm not a multi-billionaire... probably for that very reason :).
  14. akash.nu thread starter macrumors 604


    May 26, 2016
    Nobody knows the actual figures, but you'll be amazed how much companies make just from royalty. Even apple knows that the smartphone market in the western world has saturated to the point where users know what they want. People have made their choices. Platform switches ain't really happening as much anymore. So that's not really something they need to worry about. That's why both apple and Samsung are investing more in India and China.
  15. stulaw11 Suspended

    Jan 25, 2012
    It's not that they're losing money doing it, but per my above comment they WERE losing people to waterproof Samsung phones (and other Android manufacturers).

    That loss oh phone sales at say $850 average per device, is costing them a TON more than headphone royalties.
    --- Post Merged, Sep 25, 2016 ---
    Youre just talking yourself in circles now. AGAIN it is very simple. They were bleeding sales of phones because the #1 issue on the internet was waterproof; people went nuts over it when Sansung introduced it. All the sudden Samsung was competing with Apple in sales volume.

    Apple was also likely spending a TON of money repairing phones for water or the home buttons breaking, or even 3.5mm jacks stop working, on Applecare.

    So not only did they stop people from leaving and lost sales on very expensive phones to begin with, but they lowered their repair costs too. No amount of royalties you concoct will come close to those numbers.
  16. xraydoc macrumors demi-god


    Oct 9, 2005
    The DAC is now part of the headphones itself (or, in Apple's case, it's in the connector). If a company uses a higher quality DAC, the headphones have potential to sound even better.
  17. bufffilm Suspended


    May 3, 2011
    It's not guesses.

    Apple does get $$$ when a third-party producer decides to make lightning cables.

    Plain and simple.

    I'm sure there are other 'reasons' to go Lightning besides royalties...but money is a major reason. And anyone who does not see that is ignoring a truth.
  18. stulaw11, Sep 25, 2016
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2016

    stulaw11 Suspended

    Jan 25, 2012
    Not what Im saying at all. All Im saying royalties was secondary here to selling phones; competing with what Samsung was offering as Samsung has been taking over sales the past few years.

    Again multiply the number of iphone users who left times say $850 average device costs. If you think royalties on MFI on some headphones (even say 5,000 versions of headphones that get approval which is a crap ton) comes anywhere close that sales figure in losses, that is simply naive.

    If Apple lost even 50,000 sales to Samsung that is WAY more of a loss than any headphone royalties on even a few thousand sets of headphones if that many even exist.

    Now Apple can say our phone is waterproof too, no reason to leave. The royalties was a great second, sure. But selling phones is a lot higher profit than MFI royalties on headphones could possibly be in even in the best light on the numbers.
  19. Cindori, Sep 25, 2016
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2016

    Cindori macrumors 68040


    Jan 17, 2008
    This video is ridiculous.
    Does the fee's play in Apple's favor? Maybe.

    But you have to ask yourself, was the headphone jack going to stick around forever?
    And why would anyone expect Lightning earphones to become a thing when Apple is explicitly pushing for Bluetooth solutions?

    In time, when wireless charging is good enough. the Lightning port will also disappear. The current state of ports is just a transition and not the endgame.

    I also don't see anyone presenting the argument that Apple also will lose money because of losing customers who prefer a phone with headphone jack. By being the first company to make the switch they are taking that hit. Surely more than what they gather from a few vendors fees.

    I'm glad they're not playing it safe.


    Cars with aux inputs - ever heard of Bluetooth?
    Square payment dongles won't work? They have Bluetooth models since way back...
  20. akash.nu thread starter macrumors 604


    May 26, 2016
    "If" , basically that means the responsibility is being passed over to the headphone manufacturer and the cost to the consumers, by removing a perfectly working solution just in the name of becoming "modern".
  21. iceterminal macrumors 68000


    May 25, 2008
    Dallas Tx.
    Where do you even get this information. Digitally tested? With what? WHere? Who? How was the test performed? To what level quality was it subjected to?
    You can't just make up stuff.

    I have the 6+, and audio over lightning (digital) is far superior than over the 3.5mm(1878 technology) to me. The volume is louder, and the sound is clear and more crisp. Its not muddied by the analog/digital conversion.
    I get that some people are crying really hard and pouting like children because they aren't getting what they want from someone else. But I'm ok with not having 1878 technology in my 2016 smart phone.
  22. kevink2 macrumors 65816

    Nov 2, 2008
    It most likely depends on the quality of the DAC that companies put into their lightning compatible headphones. Rather than using the one in the iPhone, it is now with the headphone. Premium products might put in higher quality ones than Apple put in older phones. Cheap vendors will likely put in inferior DACs.

    Now, if someone buys an inferior converter for an existing premium headphone, there you will likely notice a difference.
  23. akash.nu thread starter macrumors 604


    May 26, 2016
    I'll try to find the video. The test was substantial enough.
  24. Arran macrumors 601


    Mar 7, 2008
    Atlanta, USA
    Personally, I think most consumers will go with bluetooth.

    I can't see anyone buying expensive wired headphones that can only be plugged into a lightning port. What if they change to a non-apple phone next year? What if they want to use them on a non-apple system (or even an Apple MacBook - since macbooks don't have lightning ports either!). What if they want to plug them into an airplane seat jack?

    In a couple of years wired headphones will be history.
  25. apolloa macrumors G4

    Oct 21, 2008
    Time, because it rules EVERYTHING!
    Is this the video that the guy agrees with the internal space argument? Which is an hilarious argument to make, Apple argued about something they made entirely themselves and refuse to change, because it makes them more money, keep a design thinner and you reduce material costs.

Share This Page

31 September 25, 2016