Samsung Mocks Apple's Decision to Remove the Headphone Jack in iPhone 7

[Mac 128]

That's not how audio works. All speakers are analog, even Bluetooth ones, so a DAC (Digital to Analog Converter) still has to exist somewhere between the source component and the speakers you play the music through. Right now what happens is the DAC is inside the phone, and then passes the audio to the 3.5mm headphone jack and to the speakers. There's no quality improvements for sending the analog signal through the Lightning connector like Apple is proposing, you're just changing the shape of the port (and making most existing headphones either incompatible, or requiring an adapter). Also, you can see on breakdowns that the 3.5mm jack doesn't really consume that much space in the device, which is why the iPod Touch has been thinner than iPhones but still has the jack - there are other components that take up more space and are preventing the phone from utilizing the loss of the jack component piece.

The real fear from this is that eventually devices may not have a DAC, and will instead outsource that to the headphones themselves (this is the manner that USB headphones work on computers currently when they identify as sound cards upon insertion). That's piss-poor design, and makes finding quality headphones annoyingly more difficult, since you'll have to research the DAC and the speaker sound quality of the cans. It also makes headphones more expensive by buying a duplicate component for each set when you could just buy the DAC once in the price of the original source device.

You do know which thing in this picture is the headphone jack, right? Because it takes up a lot more space than the Lightning port, not to mention providing a redundant function to what both the Lightning port provides, as well as BT & WiFi.

You do realize that Apple is going to be sending an analog signal via the Lightning port? All speakers are analog.

What are you talking about Apple sending an analogue signal through Lightning? That is absolutely not what's going to happen.

As for the customer being able to find the best DAC and amp custom matched to the headphones, that is a dream come true. And at the end of the day, none of that minutiae matters since customers will still chose their headphones the way they always have -- they'll put them on, plug them into their iPhone and choose the one's that sound best. Moreover, they will sound identical regardless of what digital source they plug them into, unlike analogue headphones which are affected by the quality of the DAC, DSP, amp, and other physical hardware, which may not be optimally suited for, or introduce noise into, the headphones, and coloring the sound quality for the listener, requiring a lot of fiddly adjustments from device to device to make them sound the same, which is the current experience with analogue equipment.

As for cost -- to get a DAC and amp of equal quality, Apple spends about $18 for all of the I/O chipsets on the iPhone, of which the DAC and amp are a small part. The customer is not going to blink at even a $10 price increase to a $250 pair of headphones, and it will likely be a lot less.

Here is a weird thought. Yes, if Apple does remove the mini headphone jack. BUT, is it possible to have the analog signals going through the lightning port? The iPhone already has a DAC in place for the speaker(s). Does someone have a 'pin-outs' description of each pin on the lightning connector? If there are three unused pins at a given time, these could supply the analog audio signals to the headphones.

Just an idea.

Apple is not going to pass analogue audio out of the Lightning port, even though dynamic pin assignments are possible with Lightning. If they had chosen to go that route, they would have done that with the 30-pin to Lightning adapters they introduced with the Lightning connector. But they didn't, because Apple knew that they were going to remove the 3.5mm headphone jack at some point, and wanted Lightning to be a strictly digital connection that off-loaded the audio quality responsibility onto the speaker/headphone maker, potentially yielding higher quality audio than the internal DAC & particularly the amp, are presently capable of on the iPhone. If Apple merely passed an analogue signal through the Lightning port, then not only would it only encourage continued use of cheaper 3.5mm analogue equipment, but it would introduce an inconvenient adapter that simply changed the plug from one shape to another, yet offered no quality improvements or benefits. Passing an entirely digital signal allows headphones to not only improve quality, but also access features of the iPhone previously unthinkable.

Haha, OK. Moving sideways to a propriety enclave maybe. If Apple went USB C then maybe - that would make sense as the new mac book has USB C (no mac has lightning).

If Apple is really removing the headphone jack, you can bet they will be adding Lightning ports to the new Macs so as to support their iPhone customers across the Apple ecosystem, without a requiring an adapter. USB-C is not even a widely implemented port, and there are no standards for USB-C audio. Add to that Apple customers have a substantial investment of over 4 years in Lightning cables and accessories they would have to replace, well before USB-c had even reached a critical mass in the marketplace. Since wireless is the ultimate goal, there's no need to put their customers through that. Especially when most of them don't seem to be concerned about losing the headphone jack.

http://www.macnn.com/articles/16/01...o.ask.apple.shoppers.what.they.thought.131986

 

[ipadme]

come on apple ..... bring great stuff on 7 , that make samsung embarrass .... i believe apple can do it ...........

 

[CarlJ]

I've developed hardware and software systems for 30 years. What have you done? You do not have the slightest bit of creativity, looking at your comments. The innovations don't have to have anything to do with the audio, they might be hardware controls or anything. If you think that an analog port is as flexible as a digital port I can't help you, and neither can anyone else.

As someone with over 30 years developing software systems, perhaps I can help clear up some confusion here...

If I understand correctly, you are making the point that a digital port offers substantially greater flexibility and capabilities, many perhaps not yet realized, than an analog port, and you believe that the person you're conversing with, when he says "we already have that", is suggesting that the analog port is comparable in capability.

I agree the digital port is considerably more capable (the Lightning port especially so, because its functions are software reassignable - it's entirely possible that it could be programmed to pass analog as well as digital signals, in addition to everything it can do in the digital realm).

But I think the point the other person is trying to make is simply that, there is no need for the analog port to go away, in order for the Lightning port to do all of the things you suggest.

Will the analog port go away? I can't say. The tea leaves seem to say yes, but I'll believe it when Tim Cook calls someone to the stage to tell us about it in September. But everything that has been suggested in this thread, that the Lightning port could do in the next iPhone, it could do whether the 3.5mm jack is also present or not, assuming they wire and program it correctly.

Apple has dragged the tech world kicking and screaming into the next age enough times (GUI, mouse, USB, losing the floppy, virtual keyboards, etc.) that I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, let them explain to us what they've had up their sleeve and why they believe it's better, before I pass judgement.

It's just kinda weird watching so many in here get so angry at Apple for something that they think Apple might do - and even if Apple does, folks here are judging it all in a vacuum, without knowing any of the reasoning behind the decision (conveniently making up their own strawmen to fill the void). Extremely cynical folk who dismiss any possible technical merit out of hand and assign greed as the entire motive, and then despise Apple further (or maybe that was their goal all along, "I despise Apple, let's find some reasons").

 

[44267547]

I'm thinking this may be the September Key Note where riots break out once Apple announces the 3.5 Jack is deleted. I can see it now, Tim Cooks car gets flipped over and someone tries to rip down and burn the Apple flag.

I can wait for this one! Already requesting off work.

 

[teknikal90]

I've developed hardware and software systems for 30 years. What have you done? You do not have the slightest bit of creativity, looking at your comments. The innovations don't have to have anything to do with the audio, they might be hardware controls or anything. If you think that an analog port is as flexible as a digital port I can't help you, and neither can anyone else.
[doublepost=1470273320][/doublepost]

Actually it's very important since it forces the issue and moves the market forward, just like several such actions by Apple has shown. Removing a large, dumb port also enables thinner phones or frees up the space for other features or improved performance.

You seem to be intent on being narrow minded about this. "None so blind and he who will not see."
[doublepost=1470273400][/doublepost]
Wow, that's a convincing argument!

What's you next one, "I know what you are but what am I?"

Ugh. Calling someone narrow minded in an argument is annoying because it is inherently hypocritical..

I get what you're saying you seem to be forcing the point over and over again. You want apple to force the issue and make people innovate with having a just digital port. That's a simple concept.

The problem is unlike other technologies that Apple has championed in the past, the lightning port for audio is inherently limited. Those other technologies actually had viable and tangible technical superiority and headroom for improvement. USB port vs FireWire, CD vs floppy, streaming over CD come to mind.

digital output isn't new. Lightning has been around for four years now. And in that time not even one application has actually been put forward that tangibly renders the headphone port obsolete. Or even close to making it second rate.

Name me one application. The whole DAC argument is nonsense. 99% of people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a 'good' DAC and a phone DAC using consumer headphones in a double blind A/B test. I know because I am a frequenter of the audiophile community. It's my other hobby. Thats why I'm adamant about this, because it actually is my other interest and I had spent quite a bit of time contemplating this.

New isn't necessarily better.

 

[1129708]

You do know which thing in this picture is the headphone jack, right? Because it takes up a lot more space than the Lightning port, not to mention providing a redundant function to what both the Lightning port provides, as well as BT & WiFi.

What are you talking about Apple sending an analogue signal through Lightning? That is absolutely not what's going to happen.

As for the customer being able to find the best DAC and amp custom matched to the headphones, that is a dream come true. And at the end of the day, none of that minutiae matters since customers will still chose their headphones the way they always have -- they'll put them on, plug them into their iPhone and choose the one's that sound best. Moreover, they will sound identical regardless of what digital source they plug them into, unlike analogue headphones which are affected by the quality of the DAC, DSP, amp, and other physical hardware, which may not be optimally suited for, or introduce noise into, the headphones, and coloring the sound quality for the listener, requiring a lot of fiddly adjustments from device to device to make them sound the same, which is the current experience with analogue equipment.

As for cost -- to get a DAC and amp of equal quality, Apple spends about $18 for all of the I/O chipsets on the iPhone, of which the DAC and amp are a small part. The customer is not going to blink at even a $10 price increase to a $250 pair of headphones, and it will likely be a lot less.



Apple is not going to pass analogue audio out of the Lightning port, even though dynamic pin assignments are possible with Lightning. If they had chosen to go that route, they would have done that with the 30-pin to Lightning adapters they introduced with the Lightning connector. But they didn't, because Apple knew that they were going to remove the 3.5mm headphone jack at some point, and wanted Lightning to be a strictly digital connection that off-loaded the audio quality responsibility onto the speaker/headphone maker, potentially yielding higher quality audio than the internal DAC & particularly the amp, are presently capable of on the iPhone. If Apple merely passed an analogue signal through the Lightning port, then not only would it only encourage continued use of cheaper 3.5mm analogue equipment, but it would introduce an inconvenient adapter that simply changed the plug from one shape to another, yet offered no quality improvements or benefits. Passing an entirely digital signal allows headphones to not only improve quality, but also access features of the iPhone previously unthinkable.



If Apple is really removing the headphone jack, you can bet they will be adding Lightning ports to the new Macs so as to support their iPhone customers across the Apple ecosystem, without a requiring an adapter. USB-C is not even a widely implemented port, and there are no standards for USB-C audio. Add to that Apple customers have a substantial investment of over 4 years in Lightning cables and accessories they would have to replace, well before USB-c had even reached a critical mass in the marketplace. Since wireless is the ultimate goal, there's no need to put their customers through that. Especially when most of them don't seem to be concerned about losing the headphone jack.

http://www.macnn.com/articles/16/01...o.ask.apple.shoppers.what.they.thought.131986

I didn't say a 3.5mm was smaller than Lightning, I said there are other components in the iPhone that is going to prevent them from making it thinner simply because they remove the 3.5mm jack.

Also, we better hope that they pass analog via Lightning, otherwise the proposed adapter is impossible and peoples quality headphones will be unusable unless they buy a bulky external DAC/amp to carry along with their phone (provided anyone makes one with a Lightning connector to allow passthrough).

 

[CarlJ]

Also, we better hope that they pass analog via Lightning, otherwise the proposed adapter is impossible and peoples quality headphones will be unusable unless they buy a bulky external DAC/amp to carry along with their phone (provided anyone makes one with a Lightning connector to allow passthrough).

Playing devils advocate, just how much real estate would you guess the DAC and amp currently in the iPhone take up?

I'm guessing they're awfully small and could fit inside a (possibly slightly rotund) connector (just to convert digital from the Lightning port to analog that's no worse than what the iPhone currently supplies via the 3.5mm jack). Yes, most audiophile quality standalone DACs are normally much larger (anywhere from paperback book sized to VCR sized, for those unfamiliar, and I don't expect many folks would carry such a thing). The core circuitry, though, doesn't take up an appreciable amount of space inside an iPhone right now.

 

[MacStuffAndThings]

Does everything look phallic to you? Are you constantly seeing male genitalia wherever you go? Is this some sort of weird preoccupation of yours? I have never once before heard anyone manage to look at the iPhone's camera and see only a dick.

Are you saying this is a problem? I thought everyone thought like this.

 

[JDW]

...the headphone jack... takes up a lot more space than...

While true, and while I couldn't care less either way regarding a headphone jack, I did notice on the Galaxy Note 7 that they managed to put an entire stylus INSIDE their phone AND make the phone and stylus waterproof too. Not only that, but they offer 64GB as the baseline storage, then offer users a SIM tray that allows use of a micro SD that can add another 256GB. Gorilla glass 5 atop a curved AMOLED screen...

My. Oh. My!

I love Apple. Android is Google's rip-off of iOS, and Samsung ripped off early iPhones. AGREED. But my goodness Apple needs to start WOWing us again. Right now, I see articles about the iPhone 7 MAYBE having 3GB of RAM, whereas the NOTE 7 has 4GB and some speculate the next gen will have 6GB of RAM. Apple isn't trying hard because it thinks it doesn't have to. And since we all just keep buying Apple stuff anyway, we further that thinking. That doesn't mean I want an Android device. It just means I am saddened by the lack of serious WOW and innovation on Apple's part when it comes to hardware. Samsung is evidence that Apple can do so much more, especially with all the money and engineers and high-tech facilities Apple has.

 

[SGT.GREER]

Samsung users just use their smartphones whilst Apple users continually drool and suffer great angst over their iPhone bling.

It seems you haven't been on the web and youtube since android drooling is plenty to go around.

 

[Mac 128]

Playing devils advocate, just how much real estate would you guess the DAC and amp currently in the iPhone take up?

I'm guessing they're awfully small and could fit inside a (possibly slightly rotund) connector (just to convert digital from the Lightning port to analog that's no worse than what the iPhone currently supplies via the 3.5mm jack). Yes, most audiophile quality standalone DACs are normally much larger item (I don't expect many folks would carry such a thing). The core circuitry, though, doesn't take up an appreciable amount of space inside an iPhone right now.

Here's the Audeze Sine Lightning solution:

And in application:

And that's a relatively high quality application.

When one considers there are BT earbuds that have been reviewed with good quality that contain a DAC, amp, as well as radios, and a battery, all in the size of a standard earbud, then it's plain to see this idea of "bulky" adapters is completely moot.

 

[CarlJ]

I love Apple. Android is Google's rip-off of iOS, and Samsung ripped off early iPhones. AGREED. But my goodness Apple needs to start WOWing us again. Right now, I see articles about the iPhone 7 MAYBE having 3GB of RAM, whereas the NOTE 7 has 4GB and some speculate the next gen will have 6GB of RAM. Apple isn't trying hard because it thinks it doesn't have to.

Good points, and I'd love to see more, well, everything, in the iPhone. Keep in mind, when comparing specs, two things: RAM, CPU, battery, etc., are tricky to compare between iOS and Android, because the two place considerably different loads on the hardware. There are some ways in which iOS is substantially more efficient. As well, Apple has their hands in custom design work on their chips in a way no other phone manufacturer can match. So comparing specs involves careful scaling in each category. Second, the two companies have quite different philosophies, Samsung has much more of the traditional tech tendency to put in stuff because it's cool and then say. "Hey, we included cool thing XYZ, have fun with it", while Apple is much more focused on the overall experience - they won't add a hardware feature merely because it's cool or possible, they'll do it because it lets them accomplish something that they feel adds to the overall product (making some desired feature possible). On the flip side, when they do decide that something adds to the end goal of the phone, they'll throw substantial resources at it in ways few other companies will (e.g. buying tons of custom equipment to individually CNC mill every iPhone case in just _exactly_ the way that they want, or setting up their own chip-level design wing to get them processors that work _exactly_ how they want, rather than picking the best choice out of a catalog).
[doublepost=1470283073][/doublepost]

Are you saying this is a problem? I thought everyone thought like this.

To quote Jerry Seinfeld, "... not that there's anything wrong with that!"

 

[pat500000]

weird how so few people in the audience seemed to get the reference

LOL. I agree...but at the same time....iphone 7 haven't officially been released.....so how could they know about jack-less?
[doublepost=1470283809][/doublepost]

Mocking a phone that doesn't exist? That's how you sell your product?

It's the new "innovated" way to get sells going. lol/

 

[Col4bin]

When quality can be measured, no it is not subjective.

I'm no Beats fan but you seem smart enough to realize that sound quality is a very subjective topic. What one person considers amazing sound will differ depending on who you ask. It's all a matter of personal preference.

 

[Michael Goff]

So basically Tim realized that the beats purchase was not profitable so he said ill just remove the headphone jack so they have to buy my beats now haha. Still thinking profit over product is the BEST... IDEA... EVER!

You forgot the /s. Somebody might think you're serious.

 

[Blaze4G]

The benefit is increased flexibility and innovation. What's the benefit of keeping your dumb analog port?
[doublepost=1470268913][/doublepost]
Can you read? Here, let me repeat myself: "moving forward." Maybe you're not familiar with that direction?

Increasing flexibility how? Innovation how? Just throwing out words without an actual benefit is not helping your argument. The benefits has been listed out in length in this thread already. I think you should go back and read.

 

[MacCheetah3]

I really hope Apple is right on this like they were on removing the floppy-drive and the optical disk, but I'm afraid this will turn out to be just as silly as 5400 rpm HDD iMacs and 16 GB iPhones in 2016.

I completely agree about the low-end offerings. There's a point where sacrificing capabilities is an illogical crippling. In fact, I recently saw how much life was being restrained by my Mac mini's HDD thanks to the addition of an SSD.

 

[drumcat]

Here's the Audeze Sine Lightning solution:

And in application:

And that's a relatively high quality application.

When one considers there are BT earbuds that have been reviewed with good quality that contain a DAC, amp, as well as radios, and a battery, all in the size of a standard earbud, then it's plain to see this idea of "bulky" adapters is completely moot.

A couple things...

Are they even still in business? See https://www.audeze.com

Now on top of that, this is a headphone solution, in its entirety. If you're going to start pulling out dongles, make sure it's one that has a 3.5mm receptacle.

Then, you have to make the case that this is Apple's way of making margin. Why? Because there's still no need for it. It doesn't improve audio. If you want to make the case that it lets you run powered, noise-cancelling cans via the Lightning port, that's fantastic! I love the creativity. In fact, you can do that *right meow* on the 6S.

So if you're going to make the argument for the solution, you have to accept that for those of us who don't have powered headphones, we will have to:

-Buy new cans
-Buy a Lightning/DAC adapter
-Buy an A2DP Bluetooth adapter

Where as anyone with those solutions today have the option of using Lightning now. So by all means, maybe those yet-to-be-invented killer cans that run only on Lightning are *just around the corner*... maybe. And they run fine on a 6S. Thus, your entire argument about *innovation* once again falls on its face.

This is a removal to sell accessories. End of story.
[doublepost=1470286992][/doublepost]

You forgot the /s. Somebody might think you're serious.

You do know which thing in this picture is the headphone jack, right? Because it takes up a lot more space than the Lightning port, not to mention providing a redundant function to what both the Lightning port provides, as well as BT & WiFi.

What are you talking about Apple sending an analogue signal through Lightning? That is absolutely not what's going to happen.

As for the customer being able to find the best DAC and amp custom matched to the headphones, that is a dream come true. And at the end of the day, none of that minutiae matters since customers will still chose their headphones the way they always have -- they'll put them on, plug them into their iPhone and choose the one's that sound best. Moreover, they will sound identical regardless of what digital source they plug them into, unlike analogue headphones which are affected by the quality of the DAC, DSP, amp, and other physical hardware, which may not be optimally suited for, or introduce noise into, the headphones, and coloring the sound quality for the listener, requiring a lot of fiddly adjustments from device to device to make them sound the same, which is the current experience with analogue equipment.

As for cost -- to get a DAC and amp of equal quality, Apple spends about $18 for all of the I/O chipsets on the iPhone, of which the DAC and amp are a small part. The customer is not going to blink at even a $10 price increase to a $250 pair of headphones, and it will likely be a lot less.



Apple is not going to pass analogue audio out of the Lightning port, even though dynamic pin assignments are possible with Lightning. If they had chosen to go that route, they would have done that with the 30-pin to Lightning adapters they introduced with the Lightning connector. But they didn't, because Apple knew that they were going to remove the 3.5mm headphone jack at some point, and wanted Lightning to be a strictly digital connection that off-loaded the audio quality responsibility onto the speaker/headphone maker, potentially yielding higher quality audio than the internal DAC & particularly the amp, are presently capable of on the iPhone. If Apple merely passed an analogue signal through the Lightning port, then not only would it only encourage continued use of cheaper 3.5mm analogue equipment, but it would introduce an inconvenient adapter that simply changed the plug from one shape to another, yet offered no quality improvements or benefits. Passing an entirely digital signal allows headphones to not only improve quality, but also access features of the iPhone previously unthinkable.



If Apple is really removing the headphone jack, you can bet they will be adding Lightning ports to the new Macs so as to support their iPhone customers across the Apple ecosystem, without a requiring an adapter. USB-C is not even a widely implemented port, and there are no standards for USB-C audio. Add to that Apple customers have a substantial investment of over 4 years in Lightning cables and accessories they would have to replace, well before USB-c had even reached a critical mass in the marketplace. Since wireless is the ultimate goal, there's no need to put their customers through that. Especially when most of them don't seem to be concerned about losing the headphone jack.

http://www.macnn.com/articles/16/01...o.ask.apple.shoppers.what.they.thought.131986

Guys, I think it's a huge mistake to remove it. But no, they are not going to pass analog audio through Lightning. That's just factually wrong. The point of an external DAC will make more sense when you understand that DAC stands for Digital to Analog Conversion. The point of Lightning headphones (which work great on any 6S now, that still has a 3.5...) is that it will pass both amperage and digital packets to the external DAC. That DAC then uses the data and electricity, and reshapes that into electric pulses that are then mirrored by the speaker cone.

The phone will decode the mp3 / m4a from a data-compressed file into a data stream... some sort of .wav packet format that the DAC will interpret. The DAC, this time on the external power bus, will convert the wav into pulses. The quality at which this chip does its job will be the electrical quality at which you hear your music (background hiss, etc.)

This differs from Bluetooth. Under Bluetooth 4, the phone takes your m4a, converts it to aiff/wav (internal header), and then *reencodes* it down to about a 128kbps mp3 equivalent. That then gets passed from the phone BT "radio" to the BT Headphone/Speaker "radio" as a data transmission. BT4 has limited bandwidth because it is a low-power transmission. This narrow signal is then processed by the BT end device by an internal chip and DAC pair that converts the data-compressed signal into a wav, and then is DAC'd into a signal. This compression is often why you see MONO BT speakers. Instead of two channels of lower quality, they send a mono signal to improve the sonic qualities of the end product.

BT 4.5 / A2DP is the later version of Bluetooth. It's capable of handling plenty more data. So much, that as part of the spec, it can send an m4a *as is* to the device. This means that if you are connected this way, the phone passes the m4a directly, and the device has the CPU horsepower to decode it on the spot. These devices have 3 parts; a receiver to take the data and understand what it is, A CPU to convert that kind of file into a wav, and then a DAC. It's roughly the same, though slightly more intelligent. The key is that it doesn't get DOWNGRADED through an additional encoding process. This is why some BT sounds phenomenal, and most cheap ones sound cheap. Also, most earbuds/small cans don't have A2DP because the internals require more power and more room for circuit boards. And yes, your iPhone 6S has this capability now.

All of this to say that while we have some disagreement on this subject, let's all not start saying things that aren't factual. This is audio, not a presidential campaign.

 

[amenono]

The keyword here is WIRELESS!

Take a look, remember, be fair and reasonable:
http://sonic840.deviantart.com/art/Computer-Hardware-Chart-2-0-587798335

So, who want wireless charging and wired headphones?

"Customers don't know what they want until we've shown them" as Steve Jobs said.
Now you see the future?

 

[MacCheetah3]

Aren't they removing it for space and you get better audio quality with the lightning connection?

I know it's not a popular move, but those are the reasons right?

If Apple has or will exclude the traditional audio port in the next iPhone revision, the primary reasons would be to provide space for another component or reduce manufacturing complexity and supply cost.

Sound quality wouldn't be affected or would improve only very little because there must be a digital-to-analog conversion no matter what the connection. Products such as the Audeze EL-8 Titanium headphones perform better due to an included signal processor, amplifier, larger and more powerful drivers (than EarPods) as well as probably a higher quality DA converter, most of which -- there'd be no point to a DAC -- could be integrated into a cord with 3.5mm plug.

 

[Carlanga]

The MacBook is the only bit of Apple tech I'd buy the rest does nothing for me.
...

I'm not a fan of beta hardware which is why I waited until 2015 to get a MacBook Air.

 

[CarlJ]

This is a removal to sell accessories. End of story.

Nope, you're wrong. End of story.

 

[Silver78]

sad thing about most android phones is their resale value and pricedrops.
my allmost 2 year old iphone sells used for the same price as my big brothers 7 month old s6 edge plus now cost as new.
worse with my little brothers sony z phone.

 

[apolloa]

They're trying to hit the majority use case. More battery means more weight and a larger phone. You could make a phone that would handle 24 hours of the most intensive use (and why stop at 24? why not go for, say, 72 hours, so it'll handle a long weekend?), but it would be larger and heavier, and 90% of people wouldn't need all that capacity and a lot would complain about the larger heavier phone. What works for you, for your extended use case would be overkill for most people on most days, but wouldn't be enough for someone, say, doing a three day hike. There is no one magical number, there are only best fits for the majority of cases, which is what Apple is trying to hit. I'd be quick to agree that some more capacity would be nice, and I really don't need my iPhone to be any thinner, thanks, but Apple has their own view, based on a whole lot of data.

FWIW, Amazon will sell you a high quality battery pack for $15 (haha, prices have gone up - I blame Pokémon Go) that'll drop into a pocket, work with your existing cable, and double your battery life. If I were going to such an all-day thing I'd probably take one (figuring that even if my battery lasts, one of my friends might need it). As an Ingress player (the game from which Pokémon Go descended), we pretty much all use external batteries, iPhone and Android users alike. If you take a bottle of water on a trip and run out and get thirsty, do you blame the company that made the bottle of water, or do you just say, "maybe next time I should get two bottles or a bigger bottle."

I seriously doubt 90% of people will complain if the iPhone is as thick as a Galaxy phone if it means a better battery life and no camera hump, or complain if it was also a little heavier.
Many people would like a phone that lasts a day from even just talking on it! It's just making excess for what Apple has chosen to do and their are many events everyday that people go to expecting their phones to last the day. Reviewers even called Apple on their battery life compared to the competition.

 

[CarlJ]

Guys, I think it's a huge mistake to remove it. But no, they are not going to pass analog audio through Lightning. That's just factually wrong. The point of an external DAC will make more sense when you understand that DAC stands for Digital to Analog Conversion. ...

Do you honestly believe you're the only one in this thread who understands what a DAC is? How audio processing works? How speaker cones work?

You declare that they are not going to pass analog audio through the Lightning port, and you declare opinions to the contrary to be "factually wrong". You can't know that. The Lightning standard is proprietary to Apple, and they've stated they designed it to last for fifteen years, after their long experience with the 30-pin connector and all the trouble they had reassigning wires on that over the years to support new things while not breaking old things. The Lightning connector is known to assign pins through software negotiation at startup. It's Apple's connector to do with as they please (it has to not break current uses, but given the startup negotiation, that isn't too hard) and we know they left themselves lots of avenues for expansion. It's not unreasonable to assume they could probably route analog signals over the connector if they chose to do so. With you unequivocally declaring it a fact that this is not possible, I see two possibilities: 1) you have inside knowledge from Apple and are currently breaking NDA's, or 2) you don't know what the word "fact" means when you say, "that's just factually wrong" (saying something is a fact doesn't make it true). Would it help if we give you a detailed multi-paragraph lecture on the meaning of the word "fact", like you've delivered about DAC's?

Does this mean they will route analog over the Lightning port? No. It means they likely could if they wanted to. Will they? I don't know. We'll find out in September. But there's already enough opinions stated as fact in this thread. Please don't presume that everyone will suddenly agree that your opinion is the One Sacred Truth if you explain what some of them big confusin' words mean.