It says that all previous Lightning cables will still work, it just that the enclosure will be smaller
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.
iPhone 7 May Feature Flush Camera, Stereo Speakers and Thinner Lightning Port
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My comment was in reference to the post I replied to concerning wireless music quality. There is absolutely nothing wrong with enjoying music from your phone and that is not what I was implying.
This is why Trump is leading in the polls. People keep bringing up Trump in situations where Trump has nothing to do with the conversations we're having.
1. It's a rumor
2. My reply was a joke
3. No, I'm not assuming a new incompatible port maybe on the close horizon. A thinner port does not mean it's a new proprietary port we have to deal with.
Silly me, I thought iPhone 7 might actually be something to look forward to. But so far it's trivial stuff that's rumored. Yet again Apple leverages it's ability to do the least amount of changing as they get Fat and Happy from astronomical profits. All without much effort at all. It's quite the accomplishment.
Ya but what about music in the car? I don't want to have to buy a new car stereo that supports bluetooth when AUX works great as is.
Thank you. I had already been corrected a few times.
unsure how I missed it. It's right there in the body of the post lol.That said I'm unsure why this "bullet point" about a thinner port is even relevant to the end user, but hey, who am I to judge?
[doublepost=1456987168][/doublepost]
At worst you'd need an adapter. This isn't n defense of a decision to drop the jack. But you wouldn't need an entirely new head unit. And in the extremely unlikely event that an adapter isn't made, there are Bluetooth to 3.5mm dongles that also exist for relatively cheap (as cheap as $5 according to Google). Some of the nicer (more expensive) ones even recognize you still need a way to plug your phone in so there is a sub input for charging on the unit itself. Either way, it's an investment on top of buying a new phone for sure.
[doublepost=1456987810][/doublepost]
My yurbuds have an L shape, as do most sport headphones I've seen, and I can guarantee they rotate based on sometimes the cable being in a different orientation when I pull it out of my pocket than it was on its way in. I have no real way to gauge or measure how much strain was placed o the cable, but I can say they're rather well reinforced. For lack of a better word (I am about to get embarrassingly un-technical), the rubber spring, which I've seen on many 3.5mm jack likely helps with this longevity. I actually bought a pair with a braided cloth cord hoping to minimize tangling which did NOT have this feature (same manufacturer and all) and it began to fray at that spot within two months. These other headphones I've used almost daily in the gym for over four years. Anecdotal, yes, but I thought I would mention it.
Last edited:
when a 3,5 mm cable breaks, most of the time your headphones are done.
I have got some decent headphones with no replaceable leads... And MOST of the headphones on the market have no replaceable leads.Not if you've got a half decent set of headphones with replaceable leads.
Nope. Not A LOT. Just A FEW.
And anyway, I don't think I've ever had a Lightning connector break on any of my iDevices.
The fragmentation is because of all the different handset styles and features, and the handset makers/wireless companies doing their own modifications to Android. If Google had tighter control on the Android OS, like Apple does with iOS, this fragmentation would not be a problem.
Apple can dictate specific screen resolutions and other hardware features at the OS level without having to be the only provider of iOS devices. They can always license the OS to other handset makers who will just be limited in their ability to change stuff and cause this fragmentation.
Try again, buddy.
The thing that gets me about the removal of the headphone jack is that ALL the solutions lack simplicity. Get a lightning adapter for your old headphones. Move to bluetooth, which requires charging your headphones too. Or buy lightning headphones, which will require an adapter to plug into EVERY SINGLE OTHER headphone jack in the world. The reason I moved to Apple was because their products "just worked."
Also, there is this bizarre notion that Samsung would follow suit in removing the headphone jack. And replace it with what? Micro USB headphones? So now my friend is listening to his Galaxy, and he says "hey, you gotta hear this song!" I can't just plug my Lightning headphones into his Galaxy, and he can't plug his Micro USB headphones into my iPhone.
It's just ridiculous. It's like people don't remember ten years ago when you had to use proprietary headphones to listen to music on your phone. I don't want to go back there again!
Also, there is this bizarre notion that Samsung would follow suit in removing the headphone jack. And replace it with what? Micro USB headphones? So now my friend is listening to his Galaxy, and he says "hey, you gotta hear this song!" I can't just plug my Lightning headphones into his Galaxy, and he can't plug his Micro USB headphones into my iPhone.
It's just ridiculous. It's like people don't remember ten years ago when you had to use proprietary headphones to listen to music on your phone. I don't want to go back there again!
I am not sure what is your point. The Android market is fragmented as a result of Google's approach to marketing Android. Each manufacturer can roll their own so when a new version of the reference Android is released it may or may not work with a specific device. Apple choose to control the OS as well as the device; resulting in the ability to ensure iOS will run on any device released meeting the required hardware specs. Both are valid market approaches with their own pros and cons leaving the consumer to devide which is best for them
[doublepost=1457055379][/doublepost]I ha
I have a bluetooth adapter that streams music plugged onto my aux connector. Works great.
The point is you're arguing that Apple's total control over hardware and software is necessary to avoid the circus-level support in the Android ecosystem. Apple being the sole maker of iOS smartphones is not necessary. Their control of the software is all that's really needed, because they can force device makers in line on most issues that cause fragmentation now. Google made concessions way-back-when because they were desperate to get carriers to adopt their platform. Also, the open-source nature of Android works to their disadvantage here. Google can't force things like allowing upgrades to handsets to keep them current (verses having to buy a newer phone to get the newer Android, which carriers like more) because their partners could always say "screw this, we'll just roll our own version of Andoid for our handset without that".
Apple can use it's exclusive use of iOS to stick it to consumers on things like storage space and other specs. If they were having to compete with other handset makers who could run iOS, you'd be getting more for your money. If people wanted 2 GB of RAM in a phone with a 4" screen, and Apple didn't offer it, someone else could potentially. Apple would lose sales and that might influence what improvements happened the next Fall. Right now, the consumer is just SOL if Apple doesn't agree with them.
I am not saying it neccessary, rather it is the path they choose and it resulted in a more coherent approach than seen in the Android world.
Implicit in your arguement is Apple would design iOS to support different screen sizes, ram sizes, connections than they currently do. A more likely scenario is Apple saying "sorry, but iOS doesn't support feature x so your out of luck there licensee..." so a licensee would either have to forgo offering features to differentiate their phone and compete on price; or they would have to write code to add features but risk that breaking the next time Apple releases an update.
Since Apple gains nothing by licensing their OS it's unlikely they will ever do it.
No, they don't have to. That's why i picked those specific specs in my example.
Apple already supports 4" screens and 2 GB of RAM. But they don't have a current gen iPhone in a 4" size (one is assumed coming now, but still a rumor, and we don't know the specs). Also, what if the SE is only 1 GB RAM to differentiate it from the 6S/6S+? Apple likes to set things up for products to prevent their models cannibalizing each other's sales, but that also means if you want a full-spec phone in a small size you just can't have it. It's a policy that's bad for consumers and it works for Apple only because they don't have to worry about anyone else making what they wont.
If there's one thing I've noticed in all my years here it's that there are some people so indoctrinated into the Church of Apple they defend the company even when it means being against the consumer -- themselves. It was much the same during the MacOS clone licensing period.
Last edited:
The internal mic of a phone would have to be amazing to be broadcast quality for an interview- not directional enough... And yes, a lightning-connector mic would be great- but newsroom budget isn't going to stretch to new mics right away. So adapters, right? Wrong; unwieldy and will be a pain to remember. And it'll be a little more important than the wind screen.
Wow. Amazingly prescient of you, not. An adapter that will be "unwieldy" and "a pain to remember"? You mean securely attached to the bottom of the mic where it will be exclusively used? And what constitutes unwieldy? It might actually add additional features to the existing mics, or allow them to attach more ergonomically.
But whatever, you've clearly made up your mind.
....because adapters never come off through loosening up with use or anything, or break- unwieldy, yes- anything I have to add to the phone above adding a mic is a pain and will extend the current mic away from the phone, which makes a connection more fragile.. Yes, a lightning mic would be great and could add better ergonomics- but I haven't seen any on the market yet, have you? If so, *please* post a link. I'll put it on my wish list. Meanwhile, I have a Rode that cost me a couple hundred, which I'll be using until I'm allowed to buy an upgrade- which on our budget, won't be soon.
if you have multiple headsets/accessories you now have to buy multiple adapters or remember to move the adapter over, lest you leave it at home attached to a device you didn't bring. How about just having a 3.5" port on the phone? Same for the (lack of) ports on Apple laptops of late. We're not that starved for space. So far, the only real reason to remove it is because its presence offends some hipster aesthetic.
I'm not as pessimistic about the use of an adapter. In fact in years past I have often found adapters have improved my use of some equipment. We shall see.
Yes, as a matter of fact. And @lordofthereef posted this immediately following my original post:
https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...-lightning-port.1959024/page-10#post-22630005
In which he states: "a quick search at least hald a dozen came up ranging from abou $20 to $100+"
Well again, I'm all for leaving the 3.5mm jack on the phone, space permitting. But how exactly do you know the iPhone is not that starved for space? And how do you know the only reason to remove it is aesthetic? Perhaps you can post a link to your source?
While I agree multiple devices requiring adapters will be a headache for some, the question really is for how many? Change is always going to affect someone. If Apple does this, I'm going to guess that for most Apple customers, they have data showing those customers primarily use one set of headphones, wired or wireless, predominantly with their Apple products. At most some small percentage of those customers may require one adapter for the rare use with a non-Lightning equipped device, or to use a preexisting headphone. I personally would only need two, one to plug my new free set of Lightning earbuds into my older iMac at work (new ones will have a Lightning port), and one to plug my Sony noise cancelling headphones into my iPhone on long plane trips. Otherwise, I have been moving my digital life slowly over to bluetooth everywhere I need a connection to my iPhone -- most of the time I'm going to be using my wireless headphones anyway. This move will only encourage more universal wireless adoption, where possible. And cheap third party adapters will be picked up as needed. Many will find they really don't need as many as they think. On the other hand, I've bought dozens of chargers and cables to be able to plug my iDevices into power wherever is most convenient. And I've been through 30-pin dock connectors and now Lightning. And like the former, I would expect them to become so ubiquitous that there will be few places where an adapter is not available should someone need it.
As I said earlier in this thread, if Apple is hurting for interior space why do they keep making the phone thinner? Their actions show this is not about components being crowded.
And I asked before in this thread, and have yet to hear, what is a practical reason for removing it?
It's on the phone now and not hurting anybody, why not just leave it there? There's already a Lightning connector on the phone, so Apple wanting to release Lightning headphones is no reason to get rid of the 3.5 mm jack. The lightning connector that's there is already an official audio output for the device. Heck, they don't even need to release a new phone. They can add Lightning Headphone support to anything going back to the iPhone 5 via an iOS update.
Apple's so fond of dongles, let them release a Y-adapter so we can connect power and headphones at the same time. /smirk
Bingo. The jack is getting in the way of their obsession with thinness. This leads to them not including useful things people actually want ... like a bigger battery ...
No need for a dongle. Pass through technology has been around since the invention of electricity. The adapter will have a simple inline passthrough Lightning connector. Lightning headphones may well come with one too in the connector.
You keep asking for a reason for removing it, then go on about why there is no justification, when you've been given a reason. The bottom line if they do it, they need the space for better battery, new technology and improvements. Otherwise, I'll be just as upset as you are.
As for Apple making their phones thinner, well they just made the 6S thicker than the 6. Go figure. And I don't really see Samsung, or any other phone manufacturer racing to be the first to make a thicker phone. The Samsung flagship Galaxy S7 is .31" and the iPhone 6S is .28". That's 3/10ths of an inch. That should tell you something right there -- Customers seem to want thin phones, and if Apple doesn't give it to them, Samsung will. If Apple needs more room to compete with Samsung, then the redundant, single function headphone jack goes. And what's more, if Apple needs it, so does Samsung. They just won't be the first to do it. I mean, do you honestly think Apple would remove the 3.5mm jack and force their customers down a less convenient proprietary path if their competition weren't also faced with the same dilemma? It would be a death sentence sure to lose them a significant amount of market share, unless the iPhone 7 does something so miraculous no one can live without it.
I don't know what else to tell you. That's enough of a reason right there. Maybe I'm wrong in giving Apple the benefit of the doubt, but until I see what they actually do, I'm going to look for actual reasons why they would do it, not some cynical judgmental viewpoint about the aesthetic needs of hipsters.
Fair enough. In your scenario, Apple would still control all the specifications for a phone. 3rd party vendors could only mix and match whatever specs Apple choses to incorporate; it would still be a very tightly controlled environment to prevent fragmentation since only Apple gets to decide what features are available. That could yield a broader array of iOS devices but I am not sure it would. Licensees would be making much smaller production runs and have license fees on top of their production costs, so either they survive on much smaller margins or price at or near an Apple iPhone; with no guarantee that the next iOS release will work on their phone. I'm not convinced that is a workable business model, since it really doesn't support innovation but merely making niche products with no new features.
One thing I've noticed is there are also some people who can't differentiate discussing Apple's choices with defending them. They are so mad that Apple doesn't do exactly what they want that when someone says "here is a reason Apple may not do that..." they immediately start yelling "fanboy."
I remember all three OS licensing periods. Apple never seemed to like the idea and only flirted with licensing their core OS's in two periods. Apple has always seemed to be about controlling it's eco system and not letting others fragment it. As i said earlier, that has advantages and disadvantages, and a consumer must decide if the good outweighs the bad and buy accordingly.
Battery cells are a uniform length, height, and depth for manufacturing simplicity and other concerns. Space saved from removal of the 3.5mm jack is not going to result in battery going into that space because the battery already is wider than that. See image here:
Making the battery longer into the headphone jacks's space would require removing the other components in this area of the phone including the Lightning Port.
They had to increase the thickness because of the Touch3D display. So the phone internals are really the same thickness as the 6.
Feel like I'm reading a Red Herring here. Its not that customers don't want thin phones, but that desire only reaches to a certain point. They want good battery life and durable phones. The problem is the pursuit of thinness it compromising both of those objectives.
Let's look at some specs:
iPhone: 1715 mAh battery, 7.1mm thickness
Sony Experia Z3 Compact: 2600 mAh battery, 8.6mm thickness
And if you look at the rest of the measurements for the Z3 you'll see it's slightly shorter and narrower than an iPhone, too. So this isn't a case of a wider, flatter internal area, it's pure thickness, and how you make use of interior space. Sony didn't have to remove a headphone jack, or leave out a microSD card slot, to do that.
Here's a group of 13 recent (Android 5.0 or above compatible) smartphones that all have height/width dimensions the same or lower than the iPhone, but with higher battery capacity. They all have 3.5 mm headphone jacks and user-expandable storage.
Also, Samsung like to copy Apple -- that's common knowledge here. If most phone makers are lockstep following the one that's considered the leader, that doesn't mean the direction they're all walking in is the right way. It means they'll all trip over the same potholes.
That's not what redundant means. The 3.5 mm headphone jack is the one and only such jack on the phone. There is no other analog port that can accept a miniplug connector. It's like saying the serial keyboard/mouse ports on PC are redundant with USB. Can you use both for keyboards and mice, sure. But they are completely different ports and buses and using an adapter to connect a USB keyboard to a serial port does not make them the same.
This is a very reasonable response. A lot of it depends on the cost of these licenses and components that are not normal off-the-shelf items (like Ax processors and the Mx co-processors). But I still think there is room for other manufactures, especially if they are producing feature combinations consumers want (like high-performance, small screen) that Apple doesn't (yet) pursue. Or lower cost (from lower margins). If their phones are inferior from lower hardware quality, then they may sink from that. But the point is the marketplace would decide and consumers would -- not Apple.
The reason is money, and it always has been. If those people trying to reason out Apple's thinking are stockholders then I understand, but when it's people who don't really have a stake in the game and are only being punished by it, the end consumers, well that's just being too much in love with the company at that point.
Those type of people like to hate on any perceived threat to Apple's business as it is, even if it's just competition. I remember the discussion on here when Boot Camp came out and those folks threw a fit about how it would be the end of OSX if people could run Windows on Apple's "superior hardware". There were only a few people who saw it as a good thing to have Windows be able to run toe-to-toe on a Mac. My own argument at the time was that there were people who liked Macs but needed to be able to run Windows-only stuff and simply could not buy two computers (like folks buying a machine under workplace/government contract). Without Bootcamp, a Mac would not have been an available option for those purchases but with dual booting those sales could happen. I think a lot of the worry then was really about performance measurement suites that could now be natively run on Apple and Dell/HP whatever side by side for a real price/performance comparison.
What I remember about the last MacOS licensing period (the one Jobs ended when he returned) was people were able to get faster Macs from Power Computing than Apple, and save money on some lower cost components on clone machines, too. There were plenty of fanbois then saying that ATA was lower quality than SCSI and that using these other hard drive types (that had been in use on PCs for decades) was a bad idea. Nothing happened. Maybe SCSI drives were higher quality, but ATAs were certainly good enough for consumer use. All that hand-wringing over quality was for nothing. And Apple even started using those "lowly drives" later on in their own Macintoshes, too. Clone licensing was killed because Apple wasn't competitive enough on the hardware side for the then (and still) price-conscious consumer.