iPhone 7 and the Audiophile Case For Lightning Headphones

[Mac 128]

First of all headphones will be wireless. Bluetooth will be the standard connection for listening to music. Cables will only be used for charging or if the battery runs low. A lightning connected pair of headphones will always need a DAC and an amplifier. With all this electronics in the headphones it's no big deal to add a small battery and a blutooth circuit.
In consequence the headphones will not have a fixed cable anymore and I don't believe there will be any lightning port in the headphones. In my opinion the headphones will provide an usb-c port. So you can connect them with any standard usb-c cable to any usb-c port for charging and/or listening. To connect them with the lightning port on iPhone you will use a standard lightning-to-usb-c cable that can also be used to connect with the new macbooks and charge the iPhone form a usb-c charger. The current lightning-to-usb cable and usb-charger will simply be replaced with usb-c versions as usb will be completely replaced with usb-c on any device.

Agreed headphones will not have fixed cable anymore. That's already starting to become the norm with 3.5mm headphones, and BT headphones.

But, not all headphones will be wireless. In the short term that's going to be a lot more expensive. There's going to be a quality gap as well. And in the long term, there are always going to be people who won't be comfortable using wireless products next to their heads, and no matter how good the battery a need to plug in the headset. Some people just aren't going to be interested in a product they have to remember to keep charged.

Headphones may eventually use USB-C ports for connectivity, but in Apple's world, Beats may use Lightning, or offer both USB-C and Lightning so that Apple customers can daisy chain their headphones and share a connection, just as they do now, and still be compatible with Android and PCs. Flip the included USB-C to Lightning cable around and it works on an Android letting other Android users daisy chain. If it's wireless, then both Apple and Android customers can tap into it.

The New MacBooks will almost certainly have Lightning ports which will give Apple customers the ability to plug in Lightning equipped headphones natively, as well as charge them, and also charge the MacBook with the same cable used on the iPhone (while leaving all the USB-C ports free). And depending on what's coming with the iPhone via smart connector charging, and likely eventually wireless charging, the headphones can be charged in the iPhone just like the Apple Pencil can be charged in the iPad. And look at the Apple Pencil solution to charging without the iPad -- a double ended female Lightning adapter. I'd expect to see something similar used on the headphones.

For most manufacturers, USB-C ports on the headphones likely make the most sense, but I'll bet initially there will be a lot of proprietary headphone connectors, and Lightning is fine as far as that goes. If the point is to make sure someone who uses Lightning headphones doesn't get caught out without the ability to charge the headphones, or use them when the battery runs out, then I'd wager that for the next couple of years, such a person is going to have a better chance of finding a Lightning cable than a USB-C cable anyway, as well as a compatible USB-A charger or laptop to plug it into.

 

[steve62388]

Some people just aren't going to be interested in a product they have to remember to keep charged.

Wouldn't it be great though to have a wireless charging mat and you just plonk all your devices down on it at once? Headphones, phone, tablet, watch, speakers, whatever else the future brings!

 

[Mike_313]

Agreed headphones will not have fixed cable anymore. That's already starting to become the norm with 3.5mm headphones, and BT headphones.

But, not all headphones will be wireless. In the short term that's going to be a lot more expensive. There's going to be a quality gap as well. And in the long term, there are always going to be people who won't be comfortable using wireless products next to their heads, and no matter how good the battery a need to plug in the headset. Some people just aren't going to be interested in a product they have to remember to keep charged.

Headphones may eventually use USB-C ports for connectivity, but in Apple's world, Beats may use Lightning, or offer both USB-C and Lightning so that Apple customers can daisy chain their headphones and share a connection, just as they do now, and still be compatible with Android and PCs. Flip the included USB-C to Lightning cable around and it works on an Android letting other Android users daisy chain. If it's wireless, then both Apple and Android customers can tap into it.

The New MacBooks will almost certainly have Lightning ports which will give Apple customers the ability to plug in Lightning equipped headphones natively, as well as charge them, and also charge the MacBook with the same cable used on the iPhone (while leaving all the USB-C ports free). And depending on what's coming with the iPhone via smart connector charging, and likely eventually wireless charging, the headphones can be charged in the iPhone just like the Apple Pencil can be charged in the iPad. And look at the Apple Pencil solution to charging without the iPad -- a double ended female Lightning adapter. I'd expect to see something similar used on the headphones.

For most manufacturers, USB-C ports on the headphones likely make the most sense, but I'll bet initially there will be a lot of proprietary headphone connectors, and Lightning is fine as far as that goes. If the point is to make sure someone who uses Lightning headphones doesn't get caught out without the ability to charge the headphones, or use them when the battery runs out, then I'd wager that for the next couple of years, such a person is going to have a better chance of finding a Lightning cable than a USB-C cable anyway, as well as a compatible USB-A charger or laptop to plug it into.

You are making some good points here. I personally don't like wireless headphones myself. But I think Apple won't care. They have defined the future to be wireless. And hare fiercely heading down that road. They will offer an adapter for 3.5 mm headphones as an accessory for 30$.
If Apple cared about the price people have to pay for their headphones, they would keep the 3.5mm jack. If they drop it they expect their customers to pay at least 120$ for a pair of headphones. And that will be why there wont be any in box earphones any more.
The quality of any digital headphone connection mainly depends on the codec. And here Apple's iOS currently doesn't support aptX as the standard quality-codec for Bluetooth connections. And AAC on the other side is very uncommon in Bluetooth sound devices. So too often Bluetooth connections transmit the low quality codec of the sbc Bluetooth profile. Here Apple could improve the quality simply by supporting aptX codec. But who knows maybe they think they can push AAC in the market.
I don't think Macs will have an lightning connector. What would be the point here? There are no lightning-lightning cables in the market. What could you do with them? Connect two iOS devices? Lightning is the port for iOS devices on the way to usb-c. lightning will not be around for 10 years like the old connector. It will be replaced by usb-c within next 2 years.
Further they won't change a single porpose 3.5 mm headphone port into an single purpose lightning port. No way. All ports in the upcoming macs will be 100% usb-c. If they decide for a dedicated port They will keep the 3.5 mm jack.
No one wants proprietary headphone-connectors. It's a mess for all partys: customers, smartphone & headphone manufacturers. There is nothing to gain for anyone. And there already is usb-c around. Why start anything proprietary? This won't happen. And that is why I am almost sure that the only devices you will see with lightning ports will be iOS devices.

 

[Mac 128]

You are making some good points here. I personally don't like wireless headphones myself. But I think Apple won't care. They have defined the future to be wireless. And hare fiercely heading down that road. They will offer an adapter for 3.5 mm headphones as an accessory for 30$.
If Apple cared about the price people have to pay for their headphones, they would keep the 3.5mm jack. If they drop it they expect their customers to pay at least 120$ for a pair of headphones. And that will be why there wont be any in box earphones any more.
The quality of any digital headphone connection mainly depends on the codec. And here Apple's iOS currently doesn't support aptX as the standard quality-codec for Bluetooth connections. And AAC on the other side is very uncommon in Bluetooth sound devices. So too often Bluetooth connections transmit the low quality codec of the sbc Bluetooth profile. Here Apple could improve the quality simply by supporting aptX codec. But who knows maybe they think they can push AAC in the market.
I don't think Macs will have an lightning connector. What would be the point here? There are no lightning-lightning cables in the market. What could you do with them? Connect two iOS devices? Lightning is the port for iOS devices on the way to usb-c. lightning will not be around for 10 years like the old connector. It will be replaced by usb-c within next 2 years.
Further they won't change a single porpose 3.5 mm headphone port into an single purpose lightning port. No way. All ports in the upcoming macs will be 100% usb-c. If they decide for a dedicated port They will keep the 3.5 mm jack.
No one wants proprietary headphone-connectors. It's a mess for all partys: customers, smartphone & headphone manufacturers. There is nothing to gain for anyone. And there already is usb-c around. Why start anything proprietary? This won't happen. And that is why I am almost sure that the only devices you will see with lightning ports will be iOS devices.

We are mostly in agreement here. I think it's clear that Apple is going to leverage improvements to wireless audio starting with the newly announced BT 5.0 standard. Everyone keeps discussing this move in terms of what's currently on the market today, and at best that mostly represents two year old technology that was available at the time those products went into development. So, it's not just Apple, wireless is the future of audio for all but the most professional studios -- but obviously there's a lot of improvement needed to the current technology before that becomes an effective reality.

Which brings me to my next point, by the time USB-C is as ubiquitous as USB-A, wireless will be the standard for most everyone. Almost no one is presently using USB-C, and for those who do, it's mainly for charging and with older peripherals via adapters. And that's how it's going to be for at least a couple more years. Meanwhile Apple will drop the 3.5mm Jack in favor of Lightning as early as September.

And I totally disagree with you about Lightning on the MacBook, if for only one reason: Apple will not require a new iPhone customer to use an adapter on their new Mac, in order to plug in their new Lightning headphones. The port will be there for convenience of nothing else, but there are many other benefits as I have clearly stated. Lightning is not a single purpose port like the 3.5mm headphone jack, it will have all the benefits of Lightning 2, which can handle the same bandwidth as USB 3.0. That's the reason it makes a good replacement, especially on the rMB.

And there don't need to be Lightning to Lightning cables, but the fact there are none now means nothing. There were no USB-C to Lightning cables when the rMB was introduced either, for almost a year! I actually don't see a need for Lightning to Lightning, but it's certainly not impossible to keep all of the USB-C ports free on a Mac for other purposes.

Will Apple switch to USB-C? Maybe in two or three years, which is within the same ballpark as 30-pin to lightning. But, it will be at least that long before USB-C is ubiquitous enough to make that transition palatable to iOS users who already have a drawer full of Lightning cables and peripherals they would have to replace, and by that time likely unecessary as Apple transitions completely to wireless. And when Apple pulls that 3.5mm Jack, they will likely do everything they can to put compatible Lightning headphone ports on every device they sell which might use them. 2-3 years is a long time to make customers use adapters for new controversial technology they want their customers to embrace now.

I agree smart headphone makers will incorporate USB-C ports into their headphones, and I even suggested Beats will incorporate both, since they have to serve a broader market than Apple. But they will cater to Apple customers as well, and that likely means at least one Lightning port. Other headphone makers may likewise see the advantage of that as well. Again, if there's a Lightning port on the headphone, and the Mac, then Apple customers only have to carry one cable with them to power any device Apple makes, or use them with any other Apple device without the need for adapters. As an Apple customer being put into the position of upgrading my headphones, that's a powerful motivation. If I have to buy an adapter to use my new iPhone Lightning headphones with my Mac, as well as a second adapter to use with any 3.5mm equipment, and still carry two different cables and chargers to power all those products, it's going to be a much harder pill to swallow.

 

[Mike_313]

We are mostly in agreement here. I think it's clear that Apple is going to leverage improvements to wireless audio starting with the newly announced BT 5.0 standard. Everyone keep discussing this move in terms of what's currently on the market today, and at best that mostly represents two year old technology that was available at the time those products went into development. So, it's not just Apple, wireless is the future of audio for all but the most professional studios -- but obviously there's a lot of improvement needed to the current technology before that becomes an effective reality.

Which brings me to my next point, by the time USB-C is as ubiquitous as USB-A, wireless will be the standard for most everyone. Almost no one is presently using USB-C, and for those who do, it's mainly for charging and with older peripherals with adapters. And that's how it's going to be for at least a couple more years. Meanwhile Apple will drop the 3.5mm Jack in favor of Lightning.

And I totally disagree with you about Lightning on the MacBook, if for only one reason: Apple will not require a new iPhone customer to use an adapter on their new Mac, in order to plug in their new Lightning headphones. The port will be there for convenience of nothing else, but there are many other benefits as I have clearly stated. Lightning is at a single purpose port, it will have all the benefits of Lightning 2, which can handle the same bandwidth as USB 3.0. That's the reason it makes a good replacement, especially on the rMB.

And there don't need to be Lightning to Lightning cables, but the fact there are none now means nothing. There were no USB-C to Lightning cables when the rMB was introduced either, for almost a year! I actually don't see a need for Lightning to Lightning, but it's certainly not impossible to keep all of the USB-C ports free on a Mac for other purposes.

Will Apple switch to USB-C? Maybe in two or three years, which is within the same ballpark as 30-pin to lightning. But, it will be at least that long before USB-C is ubiquitous enough to make that transition palatable to iOS users who already have a drawer full of Lightning cables and peripherals they would have to replace. And when Apple pulls that 3.5mm Jack, they will likely do everything they can to put compatible Lightning headphone ports on every device they sell which might use them. 2-3 years is a long time to make customers use adapters for technology they want their customers to embrace.

I agree smart headphone makers will incorporate USB-C ports into their headphones, and even suggested Beats will incorporate both, since they have to serve a broader market than Apple. But they will cater to Apple customers as well, and that likely means at least one Lightning port. Other headphone makers may likewise see the advantage of that as well. Again, if there's a Lightning port on the headphone, and the Mac, then Apple customers only have to carry one cable with them to power any device Apple makes, or use them with any other Apple device without the need for adapters. As an Apple customer being put into the position of upgrading my headphones, that's a powerful motivation. If I have to buy an adapter to use my new iPhone Lightning headphones with my Mac, as well as an second adapter to use with any 3.5mm equipment, and still carry two different cables and chargers to power all those products, it's going to be a much harder pill to swallow.

I think our statements are clear and all we can do from now is wait and see what apple will do.

 

[Burger Thing]

Exactly, if this is a real problem to solve, besides the options we're all discussing in threads like this, the very best one would be to put the better quality DAC and AMP INSIDE the iPhone. It has to have both anyway, so that it can work as a phone.

Since our ears can only hear analog (something this article seems to neglect to really pin down with recurring spin of "all digital"), the conversion happening INSIDE vs. about 3 inches away is likely negligible in terms of yielding any better quality (by preserving the digital signal further down the pipe). That can make sense when the distance is measured in feet or meters, not a few inches.

What this is doing is creating redundancy. iPhones still must ship with a DAC & AMP and now there will be another DAC & AMP in the cable or headphones OUTSIDE the iPhone too. And we are expected to pay for that redundancy... and roll with the adapters necessary to make the same headphones work with everything else, including Apple's own Macs. Even this same biased "tow the company line" article, references how powering these better external DACs & AMPs with the iPhone battery will burn the battery more quickly. Is that what we want? "Thinner" with faster battery burn.. and an adapter(s) in tow so we can use the same headphones with anything else?

Why? What is in this for us consumers? This very slanted/biased article tries it's best to imply the answer is better quality audio by making it seem like that is attained by jettisoning 3.5mm and using Lightning. But the reality is that the better quality is driven by the better DAC & AMP in high-priced headphones, which, if desired by audiophiles, already exists and can be used in exactly the way described here.

End result: if we could hear how much better it will sound in our own headphones, and it was obviously better, this switch away from 3.5mm would be more palatable. But options like Lightning-terminated and Bluetooth wireless headphones have been out a long time, getting relatively little press or consumer adoption because we can't obviously hear any or much difference. Some of us argue that Apple must lead us... must force this change upon us (because, apparently, we are too ignorant to be able to clearly hear the superior new alternative so we could naturally shift to something better). But I think one only hears the difference when better DACs & AMPs are involved, not because of which port is used. Put the same quality DAC & AMP INSIDE an iPhone and the most ubiquitous audio jack in the world would send audio to our ears that sounds just as good.

I continue to believe this is just Apple doing two things:

• "thinner" is colliding with physical limits but still getting Apple priority. So the way to "thinner" is now kicking utility OUT of devices. This year it is 3.5mm. How long until it's the camera (already protruding) and/or battery? If one wants to spin the "antiquated" argument, both camera and battery are OLDER technologies than 3.5mm.
• Apple is playing the Sony game again- push proprietary on consumers to make lucrative profits selling adapters, new headphones and licensing B2B deals. If Apple really believes we need this change because it's better for us, the best option would have been to put the superior DAC INSIDE an iPhone. Then let consumer hook up via the same 3 options already available in iPhones today. Instead, there's a LOT of profit in trying to get millions to tens of millions married to a proprietaryö connector.

The first one is no surprise- doesn't thinner trump all with Apple? The second has obvious cash grab implications but it also sets up it's own impending collision with the first. Tip your current iPhone up and look at the size of the Lightning jack vs. the "thinness" of the phone you have now. How long until Lightning "as is" is too thick to remain in use?

This!

In isolation of using some kind of earbuds with only an iPhone, nobody feels much effect with how the buds terminate. And "crappy" will likely nullify any arguments of actually hearing better sound.

It's when you try to get more utility out of your crappy or non-crappy headphones that will make a population care. I just took a business trip. I took one set of good headphones. In the course of travel and because they terminated with a thoroughly ubiquitous standard, I easily jacked into many devices I encountered:

• My own iDevices
• My Mac
• The clients Windows computer
• The airlines seatback video screen
• A video conference call device
• A video monitor

Now go on my same trip in this "the future" with the crappy (or non-crappy) earbuds included. Are you carrying 2 sets of headphones/earbuds? Are you carrying adapters? Hassle. For what exactly?

Will all the non-Apple players adopt Lightning so that we can go through this transition and get back to what we have now- a ubiquitous standard that doesn't require us lugging adapters or multiple sets of headphones? NO, because the cheaper "replacement" standard will be USB3 (because Intel is going to build that into their own chipsets). Lightning will never be as ubiquitous, so those who embrace this change will always be rolling with adapters or multiple sets of buds or phones.

And this! That's how I feel. But remember we need to step into the future. Because future is always better. Remember the big, old, clunky Mac Pro? It was replaced by Apple's vision of delivering a 'complete solution':

Can't wait for the iPhone 10: external camera, external GPS and external power pack. For just 999$. In the 0GB version. Memory is available externally for 399$ onwards.

Propaganda

Nothing, and I mean literally nothing in your posted solutions or visions would offer me any kind of improvements over something I already enjoy. They all sound like compromises to solutions in search of a problem to me.

Nope. Just participating in a rumor site like everybody else. Apple has a long, mostly consistent, history from which to extrapolate their future plans. They've even stated this idea of delivering a complete solution to a problem rather than piecemeal approach other companies then to take to technology.

LOL! Just like the complete 4K solution. Shoot your movies in 4K on your phone, edit them in 4K on your iMac and stream and watch them on your TV in ... ah, wait a minute.

And on the software side, FCPX and the dreadful Photo App are certainly some of the most glaring examples of Apples typical piecemeal approach. Delivering complete solution... Ha Ha, thanks for the laugh.

And most importantly: you are contradicting yourself. You repeatedly said, the goal is wireless - and also Apple is delivering complete solutions. So why the detour via Lightning, dongles and whatnot then in the meantime and why not just wait until the complete solution is deliverable?

 

[fpnc]

It seems at least somewhat likely that Apple will continue to support analog audio output directly from the Lightning port.

Then, for most users the only downside would be that you'd need a small and cheap pigtail attached to any existing, analog headphone that you might want to use. Basically, all Apple would be doing is removing the 3.5mm output port, but they'd still have the internal components (DAC, amplifiers) to support analog output. In fact, they could just include that small pigtail adapter with each new iPhone.

Thus, they could save a little space (by removing the 3.5mm port) while still leveraging the analog output that they need for the iPhone's speakers and earphone.

This might be something that would be difficult to support under USB-C, since I'm not certain that standard supports analog outputs.

 

[Mac 128]

It seems at least somewhat likely that Apple will continue to support analog audio output directly from the Lightning port.

Then, for most users the only downside would be that you'd need a small and cheap pigtail attached to any existing, analog headphone that you might want to use. Basically, all Apple would be doing is removing the 3.5mm output port, but they'd still have the internal components (DAC, amplifiers) to support analog output. In fact, they could just include that small pigtail adapter with each new iPhone.

Thus, they could save a little space (by removing the 3.5mm port) while still leveraging the analog output that they need for the iPhone's speakers and earphone.

This might be something that would be difficult to support under USB-C, since I'm not certain that standard supports analog outputs.

No. If Apple were ever going to support analogue audio via Lightning, they would have done it with the 30-pin adapter rather than include a DAC, DSP and amp. It would have been a much cheaper solution for everyone.

Moreover, needing a $10 adapter that does nothing but convert the same analogue audio to a different connector would result in the same backlash that requiring the same kind of pointless adapter the original iPhone required to use most non-Apple headphones.

And USB-C absolutely supports analogue audio, but that's a backward move. If Apple removes the headphone jack, they must offer something better, not just another way to get the same old analogue audio out of the phone. Moreover, it keeps people dependent on cheap analogue hardware and does nothing toward cutting the cord for the future of audio, and power on mobile devices, while simultaneously inconveniencing them to get the same experience they were previously without the need for an adapter.

 

[sh0inerr]

Yes

 

[Mike_313]

Remember the big, old, clunky Mac Pro? It was replaced by Apple's vision of delivering a 'complete solution':

Can't wait for the iPhone 10: external camera, external GPS and external power pack. For just 999$. In the 0GB version. Memory is available externally for 399$ onwards.

I like this MacPro comparison. It shows that apple has left behind a large part of professional users.

 

[zhenya]

And USB-C absolutely supports analogue audio, but that's a backward move.

USB-C does not currently support analogue audio. There is a potential method in the planning stages, but there is no official standard, and what with companies like Lenovorolla releasing phones with usb-c only already, there is definitely the potential for different manufacturers to roll their own solution, making a bigger mess of yet of the situation.

 

[GizmoDVD]

I like this MacPro comparison. It shows that apple has left behind a large part of professional users.

Large? It was never large which is why Apple killed the 17" MBP and made a 13" "Pro".

"Professionals" are a super niche market.

 

[Mike_313]

Large? It was never large which is why Apple killed the 17" MBP and made a 13" "Pro".

"Professionals" are a super niche market.

You got it wrong. Wanted to say, that many pros were left behind. Not that pro is a large part of the market.

 

[simply258]

I've upgraded my iphone every year since 3GS. I will not upgrade to 7 if there is no 3.5 headhone jack. I don't want to carry around any bulky adapter and I want to keep my 800$ worth Headphones and earphones. It's the worst I heard from Apple for many years. It's not progressive at all but much more backward propriatory thinking! Just like in the 90ies with Apple jacks for keyboard, printer and network connectivity. IOS is not dominant in the audio and hifi market and lightning will never be the market standard for hifi audio connectivity. Apple is on the way into a shrinking pseudo elite marketsegment. And this time there will be not creative professionals to stay with the brand.

What if they include a small adapter that has a lightning connector on one end and a 3.5 jack on the other, which you can just keep connected to the headphones, would you still not get it?

 

[SactoGuy18]

I have this feeling that the next iPhone due in September could be among the very first cellphones to support the new Bluetooth 5 standard. That right there means CD-quality transmission of audio to any Bluetooth wireless headphone that supports the new standard. With that new standard, that's why Apple was able to dispense with the 3.5 mm headphone jack.

 

[KPandian1]

the very first cellphones to support the new Bluetooth 5 standard. That right there means CD-quality transmission of audio to any Bluetooth wireless headphone that supports the new standard. With that new standard, that's why Apple was able to dispense with the 3.5 mm headphone jack.

The two are not mutually exclusive - I still do not see the point in getting rid of the mini-jack. I do not need a 5mm thick phone - an external drive that can be 1 GB to 10 GB that thin is more attractive!

There is an internal DAC in every phone anyway! The mini-jack housing seems to be the issue if they are trying get even more thin!

If it is greed, then being able to sell Bluetooth 5 series, expensive headphones, is the issue.

I can't see any point in getting rid of a jack that is a hundred years old and has evolved to match the best analog standards. There are billions of those costing from $1 to $5000 - eliminating them is dumb and stupid.

Ultimately, it is analog signals that reach our eardrums! No digital headphone is going to change that sensory input of the ear.

 

[AsherN]

I have this feeling that the next iPhone due in September could be among the very first cellphones to support the new Bluetooth 5 standard. That right there means CD-quality transmission of audio to any Bluetooth wireless headphone that supports the new standard. With that new standard, that's why Apple was able to dispense with the 3.5 mm headphone jack.

I doubt it, the standard is too new to be in that generation phone, unless Apple took a huge gamble and spec'd out the hardware before the standard was approved.

 

[Rigby]

I have this feeling that the next iPhone due in September could be among the very first cellphones to support the new Bluetooth 5 standard. That right there means CD-quality transmission of audio to any Bluetooth wireless headphone that supports the new standard. With that new standard, that's why Apple was able to dispense with the 3.5 mm headphone jack.

I haven't looked at the new draft specification yet, but there is nothing in the recent announcement from the BT SIG indicating that BT5 will support additional audio codecs or modes. The improvements that were mentioned are for Bluetooth LE, not the "classic" Bluetooth BR/EDR that is used for audio streaming. There was also no mention of updates to the A2DP profile. So, if you think you need "lossless audio", don't get your hopes up quite yet.

 

[Mac 128]

The two are not mutually exclusive - I still do not see the point in getting rid of the mini-jack. I do not need a 5mm thick phone - an external drive that can be 1 GB to 10 GB that thin is more attractive!

There is an internal DAC in every phone anyway! The mini-jack housing seems to be the issue if they are trying get even more thin!

If it is greed, then being able to sell Bluetooth 5 series, expensive headphones, is the issue.

I can't see any point in getting rid of a jack that is a hundred years old and has evolved to match the best analog standards. There are billions of those costing from $1 to $5000 - eliminating them is dumb and stupid.

Ultimately, it is analog signals that reach our eardrums! No digital headphone is going to change that sensory input of the ear.

What if I told you that the iPhone 7 was going to be the size of a credit card? What if I told you technology had quietly advanced to the point behind the scenes that Apple was going to put the equivalent of the iPhone 6s, including battery life into a phone the exact same dimensions of a credit card, with a flawless fold-out screen that is the equivalent size of the 6s?

Would you still want them to increase the size of the phone solely to be large enough to contain the 3.5mm headphone jack hardware?
[doublepost=1466183422][/doublepost]

I have this feeling that the next iPhone due in September could be among the very first cellphones to support the new Bluetooth 5 standard. That right there means CD-quality transmission of audio to any Bluetooth wireless headphone that supports the new standard. With that new standard, that's why Apple was able to dispense with the 3.5 mm headphone jack.

They assume Apple has not had any information about this prior to being publicly announced. Apple is a member of BT SIG that is the review board. I would be stunned if Apple, as well as the other governing members weren't aware of the hardware requirements well in advance of this announcement.

The announcement is primarily for the peripheral makers, not the core members which include Intel, Microsoft, IBM, and other PC companies, who have provided guidance on how BT actually develops for use by third parties.

 

[Burger Thing]

What if I told you that the iPhone 7 was going to be the size of a credit card? What if I told you technology had quietly advanced to the point behind the scenes that Apple was going to put the equivalent of the iPhone 6s, including battery life into a phone the exact same dimensions of a credit card, with a flawless fold-out screen that is the equivalent size of the 6s?

Would you still want them to increase the size of the phone solely to be large enough to contain the 3.5mm headphone jack hardware?

This one takes the cake!

 

[csglinux]

Another article from the same source and on the same topic:
http://www.theverge.com/circuitbrea.../iphone-no-headphone-jack-user-hostile-stupid
http://www.theverge.com/circuitbrea.../iphone-no-headphone-jack-user-hostile-stupid

 

[Mac 128]

Another article from the same source and on the same topic:
http://www.theverge.com/circuitbrea.../iphone-no-headphone-jack-user-hostile-stupid

Just more biased and unsupported FUD.

 

[steve62388]

Another article from the same source and on the same topic:
http://www.theverge.com/circuitbrea.../iphone-no-headphone-jack-user-hostile-stupid

It's hardly authoritative. It's exactly the same babbling that's on this thread, the only difference is this guy has a larger soap box. If you write an article swearing and ranting you're not going to be winning a Pulitzer any time soon.

 

[Xade]

I would be willing to bet you're wrong. Apple won't reverse course once the direction has been set. You might still find a 3.5mm on an entry level model, but they won't add it back in once removed.

Have they ever rolled back any other changes? (Not counting when they decide not to adopt a particular tech and then change their mind, which is a different scenario). I'm thinking FireWire / USB, floppy drives, flash on mobile, optical drives and maps.

Didn't they try this before with a few generations before of the ipod shuffle? The one without the controls on it? That didn't work out too well did it?

 

[Rigby]

Another article from the same source and on the same topic:
http://www.theverge.com/circuitbrea.../iphone-no-headphone-jack-user-hostile-stupid

Heh, this link from the article gives the current situation a distinct Deja Vu element: Replacing a widely used ubiquitous connector with a proprietary one for no good reason:

https://www.engadget.com/2008/09/23/confirmed-t-mobile-g1-has-no-3-5mm-headphone-jack/

Hopefully this move will be as "successful" for Apple now as it was for HTC then.