iPhone 7 no headphone Jack Petition

[lagwagon]

In fact, only 56% of people listen to music on their smartphones in the first place - and we havent even deducted from this the ones who only do it on speakerphone or bluetooth.
https://www.npd.com/wps/portal/npd/...o-listen-to-music-according-to-the-npd-group/

Posts article from 2013 and claims it as fact for 2016.

Do you realize music streaming has grown so much since then? More and more people listen to music on their devices as a result. Also Apple has their own music streaming service now, increasing the likelihood of people listening to music on their iPhone.

 

[turbineseaplane]

The fact is, I'm working out at my gym and of the 80% of people wearing headphones at all, 50% are white earbuds. 30% are wireless BT (largely Beats, or earbuds), 20% are wired headphones, with approx. 5% being non-white earbuds, and the rest are largely Beats. Major gym, probably 200 people here at the moment.

Me too - The bus, the train, the sidewalk, the gym - White ear buds all over.

Do we know what percentage throws them in a drawer vs uses them?

Nope..but I have no issue with that uncertainty and value people sharing anecdotal evidence as that's all we have on this sort of topic.

So thank you!

 

[Osamede]

Posts article from 2013 and claims it as fact for 2016.

Do you realize music streaming has grown so much since then? More and more people listen to music on their devices as a result. Also Apple has their own music streaming service now, increasing the likelihood of people listening to music on their iPhone.

What are you - the Apple or Spotify marketing dept? Streaming is not expanding anything. People have been listening to music they bought and now they rent it. Itunes did not exist before it had a "radio" button? Sure.

Look half of people listen to music on these things and there is no reason to think that Apple users would differ in any way. They are not martians.

All you offered so far on the white crapbuds so far is anecdotes on anecdotes on subjective opinions. But fact is only half of people even listen to music on these devices in the first place. So you can forget about "most". Like I said, this a matter of basic logic and reading comprehension, not anecdotes or opinions of the uninformed.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Look half of people listen to music on these things and there is no reason to think that Apple users would differ in any way. They are not martians.

Actually, different company customer bases within an industry are routinely quite divergent in their behavior. There's a reason companies market things certain ways (to appeal to different interests within the same general category)

But fact is only half of people even listen to music on these devices in the first place.

Which devices?
iOS devices?
In what year?
Where is that link?

Bring some data or your opinion is no more valid than anyone else's chief, sorry.

 

[Osamede]

A
Bring some data or your opinion is no more valid than anyone else's chief, sorry.

Actually Im the only one here who provided real data - professional data. And it exploded your random claim of most people having white earbuds in their ear. Because in fact barely over 50% even listen to music at all.

So keep asking for data - you just got some. But your comprehension of data is about as ...good....as your ability to parse the difference between the words "many" and "most".

 

[turbineseaplane]

Actually Im the only one here who provided real data - professional data. And it exploded your random claim of most people having white earbuds in their ear. Because in fact barely over 50% even listen to music at all.

So keep asking for data - you just got some. But your comprehension of data is about as ...good....as your ability to parse the difference between the words "many" and "most".

What data?
That link? There was no detail I could find!

Was that talking about iOS devices?
That is what I'm talking about

Also - I'm talking about "for people that do use headphones with their iOS device".
For that group, I strongly suspect over half use those included earbuds quite a bit. It's also not a situation of exclusivity. Many people use multiple pairs of headphones with their devices depending upon what they're doing (walking, working out, traveling, podcasts at home, etc, etc)

Not sure where you pivoted to "of people that have an iOS device..who uses headphones at all" - Obviously there's no point in talking in this context about people that doesn't do anything with headphones period...

 

[lagwagon]

What are you - the Apple or Spotify marketing dept? Streaming is not expanding anything. People have been listening to music they bought and now they rent it. Itunes did not exist before it had a "radio" button? Sure.

Look half of people listen to music on these things and there is no reason to think that Apple users would differ in any way. They are not martians.

All you offered so far on the white crapbuds so far is anecdotes on anecdotes on subjective opinions. But fact is only half of people even listen to music on these devices in the first place. So you can forget about "most". Like I said, this a matter of basic logic and reading comprehension, not anecdotes or opinions of the uninformed.

LOL.....sigh.

I don't even know where to begin with your post.

More people will listen to music on their device because of streaming. Because A they have access to more music at any time because of it and B all that music no longer needs to be stored on the phone. So it's vastly more convenient and more likely more listen to music today on the go from their device (not when your weak article from 3 years ago was written) What may have been a true statistic 3 years ago doesn't mean it's true today, especially when it's never been so easy to have 35+ million songs available at all times without taking up storage. Where is your "basic logic" on that?

You mention "it's about basic logic and reading comprehension" but lack both yourself.

 

[turbineseaplane]

deleted

 

[lagwagon]

So keep asking for data - you just got some. But your comprehension of data is about as ...good....as your ability to parse the difference between the words "many" and "most".

Says the person who can't comprehend that the article he linked was from 2013 and no longer relevant.

 

[turbineseaplane]

@Osamede

Just re-reading through here - What is your actual contention about any of this anyhow?
I'm not even sure what we're arguing about anymore.

Are you thinking there will be some big problem if they axe the headphone jack?
Or what is the main point here?

If Apple does remove the headphone jack, they will have done that with a lot of data in hand (that you and I don't have). They don't just "do things" without thinking it through. They routinely map out products years down the pipeline...

They may very well know that most people do one of the following:

1. Use Apple provided headphones (won't be a problem if they offer/box-in lightning headphones)
2. Use Bluetooth - Also not a problem
3. Connect directly with higher end headphones/aux jack/etc (solved with an adapter)

Done.

There is no issue and they can reap whatever benefits they would like to get from having no more 3.5mm jack to deal with.

 

[MrAverigeUser]

There is one very CLEAR argument PRO 3,5 and against Lightning for headphones:
The 3,5 mm is reliable as hell, the lightning not at all.

You might say you never had problems…

BUT:

until now, you use Lightning exclusively when at home or in the office for charging or data transfer - and NOT for rough activities like jogging, other type of sports or so. The Lightning jack is NOT as reliable as the 3,5mm jack.
If they go for Lightning jack for HP, this will provoke a "Lightning-jack-broken-Gate"

I think they will perhaps go bluetooth. So more possibilities to hack your Phone in using the bluetooth protocol and much more power consumption. the other way round is more realistic: To go wireless charging. This is more annoying because it is easier to handle a phone that has just a little cable for charge than being forced to have it all the time on a "Wireless" charger - which itself is in fact as wired as the iPhone before, but takes much more place…

But Phil Schiller and his Marketing Dpt. will invent again some pseudo-advantages of wireless charging and most of the lemmings will believe it….

edit: Perhaps they will go for both: Bluetooth HP AND wireless charging. This would eliminate the one and only jack and make a "Water-resistant" iPhone much more easier to realize.

 

[turbineseaplane]

I think they will perhaps go bluetooth.

Me too - Will be fine by me.

I'm about half between BT & Plugged in Ear Pod usage these days (time of year actually matters oddly I've noticed), so basically nothing will change.

If I have to buy lightning Ear Pods - That's fine too.

 

[adamhenry]

Put me down for BT. If I had to use wired HPs, I would probably stop listening to music with my phone.

 

[bird_nest]

Watch the video I posted in the previous page. It explains one very good reason it benefits the consumer the audio listening experience.

https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...ne-jack-petition.1948735/page-4#post-22549699

There are also other benefits, such as more room inside the already cramped iPhone for other things (such as new additional tech, or more battery.), It's easier to waterproof without the headphone jack, the possibility of smaller bezels, thinner, lighter.

Thanks for the reply, appreciate it. I've watched the video and the single advantage I took away from it is a possible improvement in audio quality. I'd perhaps be up more excited about this if the connection Apple opted for wasn't propriety; I don't use my headphones solely with my phone, and having to carry around a 'lightning to whatever' adapter really doesn't seem like progress to me. If Apple had used USB C over lightning I'd be less against the idea.

I'd also argue that anybody offended by the audio quality in current mobile devices (not just iPhones) already has better non-lightning equipment they can use. I also disagree that the current headphone jack is cause for concern regarding waterproofing (Sony's Xperia phones etc).

More physical space inside the phone is always good, but I don't think these phones really need to be thinner (this is a personal preference of course). If anything I'd like them to be thicker to improve battery life.

The removal of the headphone jack reeks of solving a problem that doesn't exist - the major advantage being Apple will be able to license their lightning technology and make an extra buck selling adapters.

 

[Mac 128]

I'd perhaps be up more excited about this if the connection Apple opted for wasn't propriety; I don't use my headphones solely with my phone, and having to carry around a 'lightning to whatever' adapter really doesn't seem like progress to me. If Apple had used USB C over lightning I'd be less against the idea.

I don't really understand this recurring argument. You're against adapters, but you'd be OK buying and using an adapter if it were 3.5mm to USB-C? Makes no sense.

I'd also argue that anybody offended by the audio quality in current mobile devices (not just iPhones) already has better non-lightning equipment they can use.

What do you mean? The non-Lightning audio quality of the iPhone is fixed by the internal DAC and amp. So it doesn't matter what the quality of the non-Lightning equipment connected to it is, as it's limited to quality output by the iPhone -- garbage in, garbage out.

More physical space inside the phone is always good, but I don't think these phones really need to be thinner (this is a personal preference of course). If anything I'd like them to be thicker to improve battery life.

The removal of the headphone jack reeks of solving a problem that doesn't exist - the major advantage being Apple will be able to license their lightning technology and make an extra buck selling adapters.

Again, I'm not following you ... you've stated that making more room inside and improving the battery life would be a good thing and/or a reason to make the iPhone larger. So, instead of making it larger to add features, Apple is removing single function, space consuming, redundant features. So clearly they are solving a problem that does in fact exist -- they need room to add features, and improve battery life to better address current and these future power concerns. Apple will be able to license Lightning technology, but don't see a thing on Blue Tooth. Wireless is certainly more attractive than wires, and removing a cheap analogue means to listen to music on the iPhone is only going to drive demand and competition resulting in improved products and lower prices, something which Apple doesn't profit from at all unless customers buy Beats BT headphones. Indeed it would be the stupidest move Apple could make, removing a widely used audio standard only to create ill will amongst their customers by grabbing for an extra buck. Keep this in mind -- if Apple is doing this, most likely all the major Android manufacturers are in the same boat and just don't want to be the first to remove the 3.5mm jack. If Apple did this, and Android didn't follow suit within a year, the backlash would be palpable. That alone suggests a far more reasonable explanation than mere price gouging of their customers.

 

[bird_nest]

I don't really understand this recurring argument. You're against adapters, but you'd be OK buying and using an adapter if it were 3.5mm to USB-C? Makes no sense.

It's not rocket science. A 3.5mm to USB C adapter will work with any device with a USB C port (Android, Windows, Linux, Mac etc etc). A 3.5mm to Lightning port adapter will work solely with iOS devices. I'd advocate ditching the 3.5mm jack if Apple also went ahead and replaced the Lightning port with an (objectively superior) USB C port. Doing so would also encourage other manufacturers to follow suit. I'm guessing you'd be against retiring the Lightning connector, though?

What do you mean? The non-Lightning audio quality of the iPhone is fixed by the internal DAC and amp. So it doesn't matter what the quality of the non-Lightning equipment connected to it is, as it's limited to quality output by the iPhone -- garbage in, garbage out.

Sorry I didn't explain that very well - my point was that audiophiles (i.e. anybody who actually cares about the sound quality of the iPhone) will not currently be using an iPhone to listen to their music - they'll already own expensive (non iPhone based) equipment. I'm not trying to argue that the sound quality won't improve when the DAC/Amp is externalized, just that it's a feature few are asking for. You describe the internal DAC/Amp as garbage I/O but for Joe Public it's perfectly fit for listening to music when on the go, and it's super convenient because it's a standard that's been around for ages. Just because something is old doesn't mean it needs to be replaced!

Again, I'm not following you ... you've stated that making more room inside and improving the battery life would be a good thing and/or a reason to make the iPhone larger. So, instead of making it larger to add features, Apple is removing single function, space consuming, redundant features. So clearly they are solving a problem that does in fact exist -- they need room to add features, and improve battery life to better address current and these future power concerns.

I'll expand on this for you... I personally don't think these phones need to be any thinner and would be happy for them in fact to grow a little in size to accommodate bigger batteries, regardless of what they decide to do with the audio jack. Yes, I understand this is a personal subjective preference. I agree that the removal of the 3.5mm jack and internal DAC will create some extra space inside the chassis but I disagree that the 3.5mm jack is redundant (at least whilst the Lightning connector is still in play). As to what features they can add in place of the 3.5mm jack - who can tell at this point - but I doubt they'd create so much more room as to drastically improve battery life without making the phone thicker anyway. If anything it's likely any battery size increase made by removing the 3.5mm jack will be offset by the extra power consumption of an external wired DAC/Amp - they'd need to make the phone thicker or sacrifice elsewhere anyway.

Apple will be able to license Lightning technology, but don't see a thing on Blue Tooth. Wireless is certainly more attractive than wires, and removing a cheap analogue means to listen to music on the iPhone is only going to drive demand and competition resulting in improved products and lower prices, something which Apple doesn't profit from at all unless customers buy Beats BT headphones. Indeed it would be the stupidest move Apple could make, removing a widely used audio standard only to create ill will amongst their customers by grabbing for an extra buck. Keep this in mind -- if Apple is doing this, most likely all the major Android manufacturers are in the same boat and just don't want to be the first to remove the 3.5mm jack. If Apple did this, and Android didn't follow suit within a year, the backlash would be palpable. That alone suggests a far more reasonable explanation than mere price gouging of their customers.

I'm in agreement that wireless is more attractive than wired, the Bragi Dash wireless earpod things look great... but they're expensive - 3.5mm jack headphones are cheap and I imagine most people already own multiple headphones with 3.5mm jacks. I agree, Android and the competition will follow suit, but they won't be using Lightning ports will they!

 

[Mac 128]

It's not rocket science. A 3.5mm to USB C adapter will work with any device with a USB C port (Android, Windows, Linux, Mac etc etc). A 3.5mm to Lightning port adapter will work solely with iOS devices. I'd advocate ditching the 3.5mm jack if Apple also went ahead and replaced the Lightning port with an (objectively superior) USB C port. Doing so would also encourage other manufacturers to follow suit. I'm guessing you'd be against retiring the Lightning connector, though?

And just how many USB-C ports are there on audio devices right now? Even if Apple went USB-C, it would likely take 5-10 years before all the devices someone might want to plug a set of headphones into would come close to having a native USB-C port such that an adapter would not be needed. But yes, if Apple goes with Lightning, and USB-C takes off for audio, that would be one more adapter they would need on top of USB-C to USB-A, and USB-C to 3.5mm adapters.

On the other hand, the 30-pin docking connector was pretty ubiquitous near the end. Giving a reason for manufacturers to adopt another Apple standard again, for the not so insignificant Apple installed user base seems just as likely, MiFi licensed or pirated. Looking at the iPod heyday, I'd say there weren't a lot of problems between micro-USB devices, 30-pin dock and 3.5mm. Whether lightning proves as popular again in my mind is irrelevant, since the goal here is ultimately wireless. I don't necessarily have a horse in the race, but all things considered, I'd rather not have to replace all my Lightning cables and accessories anytime soon. Moreover, I like Lightning better than USB-C as a connector. And, based on the fragmentation of current USB physical connectors, I'm rather dubious that the USB-C connector will remain unchanged for mobile devices past the next 5 years, in which case it's just more fragmentation that's going to require more adapters.

Sorry I didn't explain that very well - my point was that audiophiles (i.e. anybody who actually cares about the sound quality of the iPhone) will not currently be using an iPhone to listen to their music - they'll already own expensive (non iPhone based) equipment. I'm not trying to argue that the sound quality won't improve when the DAC/Amp is externalized, just that it's a feature few are asking for. You describe the internal DAC/Amp as garbage I/O but for Joe Public it's perfectly fit for listening to music when on the go, and it's super convenient because it's a standard that's been around for ages. Just because something is old doesn't mean it needs to be replaced!

I agree.

I'll expand on this for you... I personally don't think these phones need to be any thinner and would be happy for them in fact to grow a little in size to accommodate bigger batteries, regardless of what they decide to do with the audio jack. Yes, I understand this is a personal subjective preference. I agree that the removal of the 3.5mm jack and internal DAC will create some extra space inside the chassis but I disagree that the 3.5mm jack is redundant (at least whilst the Lightning connector is still in play). As to what features they can add in place of the 3.5mm jack - who can tell at this point - but I doubt they'd create so much more room as to drastically improve battery life without making the phone thicker anyway. If anything it's likely any battery size increase made by removing the 3.5mm jack will be offset by the extra power consumption of an external wired DAC/Amp - they'd need to make the phone thicker or sacrifice elsewhere anyway.

Well, the 3.5mm audio jack does one thing -- it passes analogue signals in and out of the iPhone via the ADC and DAC, primarily for audio. There are 3 other ways to get audio signals out of the iPhone: Lightning, WiFi, and BlueTooth. And those three ways also do much, much more than pass audio. So in my mind, that makes the 3.5mm jack not only redundant, but inefficient when compared to the space it consumes for the function it provides. As for battery consumption of moving the DAC and amp outside the iPhone, it shouldn't actually consume any more power than it already does internally (depending on the chip of course). So yes, replacing the 3.5mm hardware with an equivalent sized battery should actually increase battery life of the phone. However, you do have a point when it comes to wireless -- as a pair of BT headphones will definitely use more battery power than a wired headphone through Lightning. Since I'm not an engineer, I can't say whether the additional battery will have a noticeable impact on supporting BT audio or not.

I'm in agreement that wireless is more attractive than wired, the Bragi Dash wireless earpod things look great... but they're expensive - 3.5mm jack headphones are cheap and I imagine most people already own multiple headphones with 3.5mm jacks. I agree, Android and the competition will follow suit, but they won't be using Lightning ports will they!

My hope with this move is that it will spur innovation, improvements, and lower prices for wireless. But yes, some people will have multiple headphones, which means multiple adapters, whether Lightning or USB-C, and they will need them for a few years to come. Apple customers will eventually settle into Lightning peripherals and stick with that ecosystem, adapters or no, and Android people will settle into their ecosystem. I don't see why Lightning and USB-C can't co-exist side by side. For instance, I have a couple of BT devices that use micro-USB. Rather than carry around separate cables, I have one cable that has a tethered Lightning tip over a micro-USB connecter. One cable for every situation, and no chance of losing the adapter tip. That's what I imagine for 3.5mm to Lightning and USB-C adapters. Reverse adaptors are going to be more complicated, but we live in a world of adaptors already, so I don't really see it as a major problem, though I do concede that a unified standard is ultimately better. I just don't believe we're there yet, or will be within the next decade, and by that time, for audio any way, wireless just may be everyone's top choice, even to the extent that wireless dongles on the end of a headphone cable rival a previously preferred physical connection.

 

[bird_nest]

And just how many USB-C ports are there on audio devices right now? Even if Apple went USB-C, it would likely take 5-10 years before all the devices someone might want to plug a set of headphones into would come close to having a native USB-C port such that an adapter would not be needed. But yes, if Apple goes with Lightning, and USB-C takes off for audio, that would be one more adapter they would need on top of USB-C to USB-A, and USB-C to 3.5mm adapters.

There are already a lot more USB-C equipped devices than there are Lightning equipped devices, and the gap will only increase. I'm not sure why you'd prefer Lightning over USB-C: they're both small, reversible, and USB-C has the benefit of not only being non-proprietary but also more capable. I'd also argue that Apple's cable design is less durable than their competitors, which is a problem when they've got a monopoly on a proprietary standard.

It's likely the functionality of USB-C will evolve in the same manner as HDMI and USB 2.0, meaning the port will remain the same for years and be backwards compatible. Apple knows this - they're already utilizing USB-C on the latest Macbook.

On the other hand, the 30-pin docking connector was pretty ubiquitous near the end. Giving a reason for manufacturers to adopt another Apple standard again, for the not so insignificant Apple installed user base seems just as likely, MiFi licensed or pirated. Looking at the iPod heyday, I'd say there weren't a lot of problems between micro-USB devices, 30-pin dock and 3.5mm. Whether lightning proves as popular again in my mind is irrelevant, since the goal here is ultimately wireless. I don't necessarily have a horse in the race, but all things considered, I'd rather not have to replace all my Lightning cables and accessories anytime soon. Moreover, I like Lightning better than USB-C as a connector. And, based on the fragmentation of current USB physical connectors, I'm rather dubious that the USB-C connector will remain unchanged for mobile devices past the next 5 years, in which case it's just more fragmentation that's going to require more adapters.

Yes, the 30-pin connector was ubiquitous for Apple devices, but discounting accessories it was never a port that was included anything other than Apple made (iOS) devices. If you'd rather not have to replace all of your Lightning cables I think you can understand people feeling the same way regarding the 3.5mm jack?

Well, the 3.5mm audio jack does one thing -- it passes analogue signals in and out of the iPhone via the ADC and DAC, primarily for audio. There are 3 other ways to get audio signals out of the iPhone: Lightning, WiFi, and BlueTooth. And those three ways also do much, much more than pass audio. So in my mind, that makes the 3.5mm jack not only redundant, but inefficient when compared to the space it consumes for the function it provides.

Fair enough - but again a similar argument can be applied to the Lightning connector, which isn't as capable as USB-C.

As for battery consumption of moving the DAC and amp outside the iPhone, it shouldn't actually consume any more power than it already does internally (depending on the chip of course). So yes, replacing the 3.5mm hardware with an equivalent sized battery should actually increase battery life of the phone. However, you do have a point when it comes to wireless -- as a pair of BT headphones will definitely use more battery power than a wired headphone through Lightning. Since I'm not an engineer, I can't say whether the additional battery will have a noticeable impact on supporting BT audio or not.

Something I've just thought of - are the internal speakers powered by the same DAC/Amp that the 3.5mm jack is? If so removing the 3.5mm jack will have even less impact in terms of increasing physical space inside the chassis as the DAC/Amp will remain in order to drive the speakers. Also, the phone will potentially be powering two DACs/Amps if there's also a wired external one for the headphones?

My hope with this move is that it will spur innovation, improvements, and lower prices for wireless... I just don't believe we're there yet, or will be within the next decade, and by that time, for audio any way, wireless just may be everyone's top choice, even to the extent that wireless dongles on the end of a headphone cable rival a previously preferred physical connection.

I think you frame the pro argument well here and it's definitely something I hadn't considered - the end goal ultimately being wireless. Thinking of it this way definitely makes me less cynical about the (rumoured) decision.

 

[Mac 128]

There are already a lot more USB-C equipped devices than there are Lightning equipped devices, and the gap will only increase.

I don't disagree, but this doesn't address the fact that there will be for many years to come many devices people may want to plug their headphones into that don't have USB-C, or Lightning. Not just computers and phones either. So unless people are only using their headphones with a couple of brand new devices, then they are going to need adapters. And if they are only using their headphones with a couple of brand new devices, then it really doesn't matter whether it's Lightning or USB-C.

I'm not sure why you'd prefer Lightning over USB-C: they're both small, reversible, and USB-C has the benefit of not only being non-proprietary but also more capable. I'd also argue that Apple's cable design is less durable than their competitors, which is a problem when they've got a monopoly on a proprietary standard.

I've never had a single Apple Lightning cable fail, though I acknowledge the competitor's cables seem to be more substantial. But I don't see the relevance, since most headphones will likely incorporate much higher quality Lightning cables, just as they currently do 3.5mm over what Apple offers. As for why I like Lightning over USB-C? For starters, Lightning is smaller. It's also a single connector that inserts like a flat 3.5mm plug. USB-C is a male/female combo, the plug inserting into a jack, but there's a tongue inside the jack, that inserts into the plug. Perhaps it's a prejudice that goes back to the Mac vs. PC days, when all PCs had male connectors on the motherboard, which if a pin broke or was damage, the whole mother board had to be repaired. Macs were the opposite, the peripheral cables had male pins, so if they broke or were damaged, only the cable had to be replaced. And then there's the ever changing USB connectors, I have on my desk right now 6 USB devices that all have a unique cable connector. I just don't see this kind of fragmentation changing in the future as different technologies develop. And then finally, there's potential compatibility issues between desktop USB-C peripherals and iOS compatible peripherals. In my mind, it's simpler to know you buy a Lightning accessory and it will work on the iPhone, rather than wonder if a particular USB-C device is compatible, or may cause damage. I'll never forget how confusing it was in the 90s with Iomega Zip Drives which had 2-pin parallel PC only drives, combo Parallel/SCSI drives, and 25-pin SCSI only drives.

It's likely the functionality of USB-C will evolve in the same manner as HDMI and USB 2.0, meaning the port will remain the same for years and be backwards compatible. Apple knows this - they're already utilizing USB-C on the latest Macbook.

Well one can hope. I just don't want to bet the farm on it just yet, in the form of investing into native USB-C headphones, which are still going to require an adapter to connect to legacy equipment. While you may be right, I don't think Apple's use of USB-C is the best example given their introduction of Firewire which failed to take off, and ultimately morphed into Firewire 800 which required adapters, and finally Thunderbolt which required more adapters. And in the end, Apple only included one port, which more or less emphasizes their push toward wireless. In my opinion it was too soon to force a computer user to make due with one port, because wireless data is not quite there yet for the kinds of huge media files consumers are used to working with these days. And in that respect it's a pretty good comparison to the transition form wired audio to wireless.

Yes, the 30-pin connector was ubiquitous for Apple devices, but discounting accessories it was never a port that was included anything other than Apple made (iOS) devices. If you'd rather not have to replace all of your Lightning cables I think you can understand people feeling the same way regarding the 3.5mm jack?

I absolutely understand. But If I have to accept that the 3.5mm jack is going away, I'd really rather not replace all of my Lightning accessories just yet for USB-C either. Apple may in fact lose this battle and eventually accept USB-C on all of their devices, but by that time, I will have gotten the use out of my Lightning accessories, and the future of the USB-C connector will be a little more clear.

Fair enough - but again a similar argument can be applied to the Lightning connector, which isn't as capable as USB-C.

I'm not sure how capable Lightning is. It has 17 connectors now with the iPad Pro, and that provides for a lot of bandwidth for a mobile device. USB-C only has 7 more connectors, and I'm not sure there's anything that utilizes all of those pins yet either, especially when 4 of them are dedicated to USB 2.0. Since Apple's Lightning connector allows for dynamic pin configuration, and smart cables and connectors, it may well be a much more capable interface once Apple opens it up further, at least for mobile devices.

Something I've just thought of - are the internal speakers powered by the same DAC/Amp that the 3.5mm jack is? If so removing the 3.5mm jack will have even less impact in terms of increasing physical space inside the chassis as the DAC/Amp will remain in order to drive the speakers. Also, the phone will potentially be powering two DACs/Amps if there's also a wired external one for the headphones?

Yes, I believe there is only one internal DAC and amp which serves all analogue audio needs. However, as far as I know the iPhone does not power the DAC while audio is being streamed over wireless, or Lightning for that matter. It just wouldn't make any sense. That's why the user selects the audio source from a menu, and typically the headphone jack and BT connected device cannot output sound at the same time. So there's no powering two DACs at the same time. Further, if Apple only needs a DAC to power its single, low-quality, mono speaker and earpiece in the iPhone, the DAC and amp can be smaller, much lower quality themselves, and also cheaper to manufacture. Regardless, even now the current DAC and amp take up significantly smaller volume than the 3.5mm jack alone, which measures some 4x4x15mm or 240 cubic mm.

I think you frame the pro argument well here and it's definitely something I hadn't considered - the end goal ultimately being wireless. Thinking of it this way definitely makes me less cynical about the (rumoured) decision.

Well, I have to admit where Apple is concerned, I'm always somewhat cynical. It's not like Apple is some wholly altruistic company. If Apple does this, they are doing it primarily for themselves, even if ultimately the results may better serve the customer. However, I don't believe hey aren't doing it solely to screw their own customers, despite a few are definitely going to feel that way, as I myself have many times in the past. Currently, I feel that way about the fact I have to use an Ethernet adapter on a "Pro" MacBook in a business setting. But, I'm so used to using adapters over the years, I've just come to accept it as a part of life now ... which is probably why I don't see headphone adapters as much of a big deal -- I lived through the 70s & 80s when I needed adapters to use my 1/4" headphones with new 1/8" Walkmans, and then the 80s and 90s when I needed adapters to use my 1/8" headphones with 1/4" equipment, and then the 90s and 2000s when I needed adapters to use my 1/8" headphones with 2.5mm headphones, and then again to use my 2.5mm headsets with 3.5mm phones.

 

[trifid]

The benefit to audiophiles are high end headphones don't have to reply on the weak DAC and AMP currently inside the iPhone. Because they currently do, they are not getting the most out of their expensive headphones. And as the video also explained. Even if you plugged in an external DAC and AMP to a current iPhone, it's still not giving you the full power of the headphones because it still has to route through the weak DAC and AMP inside the iPhone.

Removing it from inside the iPhone allows these headphone manufacturers to make their own Lightning to 3.5mm DAC and AMP (or include them in the actual buckets) and actually get the full power of their headphones that they paid a lot of money for.

Plus they also get the other benefits that removing the 3.5mm can bring as I mentioned earlier in this post.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that's true. There are currently headphones in the market with a lightning port connector that plug into your iPhone and have DAC integrated which bypasses the iPhone's DAC. Here's an example: http://gizmodo.com/these-800-lightning-headphones-make-your-iphones-headp-1747045839

So removing the iPhone's analog headphone jack is not necessary or mandatory thing, you can have both options, analog headphone jack and lightning port for audiophiles that want to bypass the iPhone's DAC.

 

[Bhang]

Rumours are going around that Apple will support built in noise cancellation via added hardware to the cirrus logic sound chip. I know Bose do this via a headphone jack however if Apple built it in you could end up with a cheaper noise cancelling head phone.

Noise canceling can't be done with a chip alone. There need to be mics in the headphones. I works by inverting the phase of an incoming signal in order to cancel out what comes in through the mics.

 

[Damolee]

I'm not giving up Aux connectivity, external speaker connectivity and forking out for an overpriced adapter.

I'm on a 6 atm, I'll go 6+ for a couple of years and then hope Android Auto has taken off enough because I currently enjoy CarPlay.

Vote with your wallet. The switch to lightning wasn't well received but I think they underestimate the sales impact on ditching the 3.5. It's so engrained in peripheral devices & other companies who will financially suffer by changing up, I just can't see them doing it.

I would be very surprised.

 

[jwolf6589]

Some say that the iPhone 7 will lack a headphone jack. I think this would be stupid as bluetooth headphones cost an arm and a leg (if you want something decent) and would require the end user to purchase the headphones, and besides they run on batteries where as the apple earbuds do not. Thoughts?

 

[3568358]

Some say that the iPhone 7 will lack a headphone jack. I think this would be stupid as bluetooth headphones cost an arm and a leg (if you want something decent) and would require the end user to purchase the headphones, and besides they run on batteries where as the apple earbuds do not. Thoughts?

The iPhone 7 will not have the industry standard 3.5 mm headphone jack. More than likely the room will be used for a secondary speaker for better audio, and Apple will include headphones with a lighting plug on the end instead of the 3.5 mm jack.

 

[joeblow7777]

There are other threads in which this is being discussed extensively.