In Europe if the Iphone 7 comes with a 256GB storage will cost 1200€. A price of a Macbook. Jesus!!!
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 Plus Said to Have 256GB Option and Larger 3,100 mAh Battery
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
People tend to forget if Apple remove something they often replace it with something else. This discussion would make a lot more sense if you take that into consideration. For example would you prefer:
- Headphone jack or wireless charging?
- Headphone jack or 10% more battery life?
- Headphone jack or dual-lens depth sensing near-SLR quality camera?
All of a sudden I'm thinking the headphone jack is a sacrifice I'm willing to make in order to gain one or more of the features above.
It's not out of the question either. That headphone jack takes up an awful lot of space on the inside..
- Headphone jack or wireless charging?
- Headphone jack or 10% more battery life?
- Headphone jack or dual-lens depth sensing near-SLR quality camera?
All of a sudden I'm thinking the headphone jack is a sacrifice I'm willing to make in order to gain one or more of the features above.
It's not out of the question either. That headphone jack takes up an awful lot of space on the inside..
People tend to forget if Apple remove something they often replace it with something else. This discussion would make a lot more sense if you take that into consideration. For example would you prefer:
- Headphone jack or wireless charging?
- Headphone jack or 10% more battery life?
- Headphone jack or dual-lens depth sensing near-SLR quality camera?
All of a sudden I'm thinking the headphone jack is a sacrifice I'm willing to make in order to gain one or more of the features above.
It's not out of the question either. That headphone jack takes up an awful lot of space on the inside..
How about headphone jack or 1% more battery life? That thing is not 10% of the size of the battery.
You are right, it isn't, but it's about the positioning and layout of the device's internals. If you look at this pic, you can see that the headphone jack "pushes" the battery up (as batteries don't come in irregular shapes - it has to be rectangular).
If the headphone jack wasn't there, there'd be room for the battery to 'extend' downwards by around 10% extra, which translates to approximately an hour extra usage per charge.
You are right, it isn't, but it's about the positioning and layout of the device's internals. If you look at this pic, you can see that the headphone jack "pushes" the battery up (as batteries don't come in irregular shapes - it has to be rectangular).
If the headphone jack wasn't there, there'd be room for the battery to 'extend' downwards by around 10% extra, which translates to approximately an hour extra usage per charge.
I'll take the headphone jack over 10% battery. I have plenty of battery, it beats having to drag around a converter by a mile.
Ironically now I have cloud music and TV - I barely use 16gb... Used to fill up my 64gb. But I suppose it depends on your phone provider I have unlimited data in the UK.
Well not true they can design batteries however they need.... but the cost would be important I am sure.
Lol I love how everyone here jumps to conclusions. My thousands of songs are from binders of cd's I've collected over the years & fwiw, I support artists & their music. I purchase albums directly from iTunes.
By free I meant streaming Pandora, or the free version of Apple Music, or SiriusXM in my truck. I paid for iTunes Match for about a year & it's not what it's cracked up to be. Maybe for others but not me
Or just keep the converter attached to your headphones, then you can enjoy both. I imagine it will look like a nicer version of this:
Who doesn't use a bluetooth headset? Most people actually. BT headphones are still too premium for the mainstream, and too poor quality for the audiophiles.
As I've said before, the more apt analogy is the third-gen iPod shuffle. That too required a new pair of headphones, and it pissed people off!
IF this rumor does come to pass... there will be no 64gb, lol- so you better rethink your strategy! ;0)
Just like when they added 128gb on the top end they switched from 16,32,64 to 16,64,128... this time they'll likely switch from 16,64,128 to 32,128,256.
Which is awesome!!!!! It used to sting, paying $100 for a 16gb bump to mid tier storage, if that same $100 will soon get me an extra 96gb instead, I'll be sooooooo pleased. =)
My earphones cost £200, so I'd definitely need an adaptor or the 3.5mm socket left intact.
I'm going to agree with you on the points that most do NOT own a bt set of headphones & that they have rotten audio quality, but quibble with you over then calling them "premium", lol. I will NEVER own bt headphones because I ummmm, what's the word?? Oh yeah... ENJOY music. I'd go convert all my mp3s from 320kbps down to 16kbps or stab myself in the ears if I wanted a worse audio experience... & it would be free!!
The people using headphones based on Bluetooth are suckerfish chumps that know NOTHING about music & only value the idea of someone noticing they don't have wires... which I guess makes them feel cool.
Are you suggesting that they get rid of the lightning port as well? I can't see where you find 10% in that picture.You are right, it isn't, but it's about the positioning and layout of the device's internals. If you look at this pic, you can see that the headphone jack "pushes" the battery up (as batteries don't come in irregular shapes - it has to be rectangular).
If the headphone jack wasn't there, there'd be room for the battery to 'extend' downwards by around 10% extra, which translates to approximately an hour extra usage per charge.
What if Apple shipped the iPhone 7 with a 2.5 mm headphone jack? Would everyone still be so upset?
You need an adapter for that too.
If it is a small lightning adapter, and they deliver lightning headphones/EarPods with the iPhone 7, I would not mind at all. One connector less on the phone.
But I would not mind if apple leaves out a mechanical home button/touchid either.
Most of that is just cladding which can be shrunk down or removed. You can see from this image that the headphone jack is quite a lot taller than the lightning port. Either way, once it's gone it will leave a lot of space for battery or other gadgets and gismos.
But it won't t get you a bigger battery on the iPhone 7. Apple will use this space to slim down the iPhone further instead of giving a better battery.You are right, it isn't, but it's about the positioning and layout of the device's internals. If you look at this pic, you can see that the headphone jack "pushes" the battery up (as batteries don't come in irregular shapes - it has to be rectangular).
If the headphone jack wasn't there, there'd be room for the battery to 'extend' downwards by around 10% extra, which translates to approximately an hour extra usage per charge.
But my guess is that the 3.5 mm is not going anywhere on the iPhone 7 and 7s.(perhaps 2.5 mm)
It wil be removed with the iPhone 8. So we' ll have 2.5 years to get used to the idea and apple and headphone manufacturers to develop lightning based headphones.
Yes, the 3.5 mm socket is taller. No, it's not 10% of the battery taller.Most of that is just cladding which can be shrunk down or removed. You can see from this image that the headphone jack is quite a lot taller than the lightning port. Either way, once it's gone it will leave a lot of space for battery or other gadgets and gismos.
If it gets removed before the iPhone reaches 6.1mm thickness then we can assume it was removed to make space as opposed to making the device thinner, since the iPod Touch 5 & 6 are this thin and have a headphone jack. Also there is no point in going 2.5mm - it will only complicate things because you'll again need an adapter for the vast majority of headphones, so that's out.
Also this idea has been around for a while now.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/14...le-ditch-the-headphone-jack-on-future-iphones
It takes for-freaking-ever to sync a 128GB device right now if a restore from backup is needed. I shudder to imagine how long it would take to sync a 256GB device if they don't increase the transfer rate between the device and iTunes.
If this is true, then hopefully they do something with the lighting port and cable too, and if they will, it lends weight to rumours of a new design of the Lightning port that incorporates audio as well ... Maybe a Lightning to USB 3.0 cable to go along with that? That would be nice.
If this is true, then hopefully they do something with the lighting port and cable too, and if they will, it lends weight to rumours of a new design of the Lightning port that incorporates audio as well ... Maybe a Lightning to USB 3.0 cable to go along with that? That would be nice.
True.
It is a balance of whether it's feasible to create a custom battery like that one vs how much space you could expand to with an irregular battery.
In the case of the Macbook, there was tonnes of space they could have expanded into due to the shape of the Macbook itself. In the case of the iPhone which is pretty much a flat rectangle, there's very little advantage of creating a custom-shaped battery over a much much cheaper rectangular one - ie there's not many gaps to fill/unused space which is why I said it has to be a rectangle.
Here's the graphic Apple provided but I do believe it is exaggerated to make the point.
