Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
More Photos Show Off Alleged Lightning EarPods for iPhone 7 [Update: Fake]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I hope you are not right but you probably are. Wireless headphones are an abomination when it comes to actual high end sonic quality.
Indeed. Wire for the Lightning end is thicker than the end going into the volume controller, not to mention a slightly different shade of color. Didn't need an article "update" to figure out that these were not official earbuds. Definitely two different products slapped together and presented in a photo in such a way to make it seem like a single product. It's pretty obvious.
the question is how i can use this earpod when i need to charge?
and the other question is, if somebody suggest me to get bt headphone, how can i use bt headphone in airplane.
and the other question is, if somebody suggest me to get bt headphone, how can i use bt headphone in airplane.
I'm sorry I couldn't help myself from laughing hysterically at you. This article has been updated, because as usual, people like you are beyond gullible. Haha it's fake! Lmao thanks for the laughs. Seriously!
If the DAC is in the phone and everything is going to be analogue, then why the hell to drop the headphone jack?
Great question. As you probably already know, the signal HAS to be converted to analog before the driver (speaker). Makes sense for those whose use cases support the use of wireless though.
Hopefully this rumor is just that. A rumor. I am due for a new high end computer and phone this year. I would rather just buy Apple and not delve into breaking the eco system.
Indeed. Apple as of late has been form over function. Ease of use, used to be king at App$e.
I was wondering a similar thing. Why in the world is it impossible to create a loop w/ the whole earbud and capture the entire thing in one frame? Oh, because it is as fake as a 3 dollar bill.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Think about proprietary and profitability vs. non-proprietary.
And there are so many complaining about iDevices being too thick, right? Hopefully this will allow them to get "thinner" and meet one of the biggest demands of the masses. Maybe even 2 birds with one stone as I can't tell you how often I've heard my iPhone-owning friends whine about not having a tail hanging out of their Lightning ports when listening to music?.. clearly a huge problem that needed to be "solved."
Once we show we'll swallow this pill and still pay up, what do you think gets ejected next? Since camera modules need some physical space to work as camera, the "wart" is here to stay if it has to stay inside the ever-thinning phone. So guess what probably gets ejected next?
And nothing takes up more space than battery, so certainly it will go too.
After all, if we can still be sold a phone sans 3.5mm jack at full price by arguing that a simple adapter solves our problems, certainly simple camera add-ons and battery packs can't be too far behind. When anyone whines about the camera wart, one of the most popular comebacks is that we all put our phones in a case anyway. Why not eject the camera to those cases? Why not build various battery capacities into those cases too?
Both are more "antiquated" than 3.5mm. Both can have every bit of the same arguments about quality improvements if they are externalized. If both can connect via a proprietary port, accessory sales and licensing can be just as lucrative.
Eventually, we pay the current price for an empty box... and apparently we will like it, even rip into each other for not seeing the genius in assembling what used to come inside an iPhone from accessories sold separately.
Straw-man argument. I never mentioned SJ. Tell me how unusable the original ipod was?
I am not the only one who feels this way apparently: http://www.fastcodesign.com/3053406/how-apple-is-giving-design-a-bad-name
Good that's is confirmed, but they look like bad fakes
[doublepost=1468440730][/doublepost]
sure......but it's got worse.
[doublepost=1468440730][/doublepost]
sure......but it's got worse.
Look at the low quality of the manufacturing and the design. These are an obvious knock-off. Not an original Apple product.
But if the functionality of the headphone jack can be doubled up on another port, that's space that can be used for something else without sacrificing too much functionality.
Recently bought cheap (<$40) bluetooth 4.0 Earphones. Clearly not HIFI quality but was surprised how well this worked with both the iPhone and the Watch. If Apple can make one of these with a lightning port, more compact design and equal or better battery live (>4h), think there is zero reason to ever again plug in a headset.
The functionality of the headphone jack is to allow someone with a universally accepted 3.5mm audio plug to connect to the phone. Where are you gonna double that up without some clunky adaptor that is super easy to lose and will probably cost 19.99?
Chances of this are almost zero.
If Apple had any plans to pass through analogue audio through the Lightning connector, they would have done it already on the 30-pin to Lightning adapter. They would have done it on the Lightning Docks.
Doing this would only fan the flames of unrest amongst those that are most opposed to the removal of the headphone jack -- a proprietary dongle that merely changes the shape of the connecter and nothing else. Apple tried that with the original iPhone and there was mass outrage.
The only way to make this work is for the move to Lightning to offer something in the way of improvement. Moreover, giving people a cheap adapter option like this only encourages them to stay with their existing 3.5mm tech, and continue to adopt more, while simultaneously upsetting and inconveniencing them. And that means less demand, competition, innovation, improvement and higher prices for new technology, which ultimately slows the adoption of new technology.