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

[Chair-Sama]

i just hope the new iPhone comes with an adapter or there is a cheap adapter i can pick up on day 1 from a retail store(really high hopes i know haha) not for the music aspect though, i prefer high quality audio, and a few extra dollars for higher quality doesnt bother me at all. even if it means using an adapter or dongle
but for me its mostly for my square reader. i run a side business which makes up for a good 20-35% of my income and this all runs off my square reader. without a headphone jack or an adapter, apple will literally be costing me money to upgrade, which is unfortunate. I'm sure there will be adapters and such, i just hope they get here on release day and don't sell out as fast as I'm sure they will :/

 

[drumcat]

CarlJ, you should learn the difference between technically impossible and absurdly, utterly unreasonable. It will vastly improve your world view.
[doublepost=1470348175][/doublepost]

i just hope the new iPhone comes with an adapter or there is a cheap adapter i can pick up on day 1 from a retail store(really high hopes i know haha) not for the music aspect though, i prefer high quality audio, and a few extra dollars for higher quality doesnt bother me at all. even if it means using an adapter or dongle
but for me its mostly for my square reader. i run a side business which makes up for a good 20-35% of my income and this all runs off my square reader. without a headphone jack or an adapter, apple will literally be costing me money to upgrade, which is unfortunate. I'm sure there will be adapters and such, i just hope they get here on release day and don't sell out as fast as I'm sure they will :/

They'll probably sell you a Lightning-based Square that will only cost at least triple to manufacture and sell. #accesories

 

[MacCheetah3]

You're aware that this is completely BS? Lightning isn't going to "pass along the analogue signal". It can't. It is not anywhere in the MFi specification that the Lightning signal can just simply ask the internal DAC to provide it with signal. Are you mental? The Internal DAC and the Lightning port aren't in some magical chain. Seriously, why are you making stuff up?

I understand the limitation you're highlighting, though you also appear to have misread the explanation.

from Lightning headphones to analogue source

In other words, the headphones/earphones would be equipped with a Lightning connector, though the person wants to use them with the 3.5mm port on a device, which would mean a link of audio player with 3.5mm-->adapter-->Lightning headphones.

What I interpreted from Mac 128 was the adapter would create a bridge for the analog signal from the player to the headphones' Lightning connector. The headphone controller would recognize the input isn't (digital) binary data as expected and bypass its own DAC -- because there's no longer a need -- and route the sound wave directly to the drivers.

However, Lightning is a 'smart' connector and, as you asserted, Apple is the only one able to modify and expand the protocol. For that reason, such a handoff, i.e., using the connector as a simple/direct 8-wire link may not be possible. If so, consumers would need to hope for swappable cable segments from the headphone manufacturer to swap the Lightning plug with another type.

I'm not sure I made that easier to follow.

Also, if Apple were going to add a Lightning connector to all of its macs, why did they choose a 3.5 on the MacBook in their last two revs of supersmall machines? One USB-C, and a 3.5? Why not Lightning there, of all places?

That does seem logical, although, Apple may have a different intention, including perhaps just holding back to remain secretive. I'm going to step away from that section of speculation.[/B]

 

[Mac 128]

Because surely no system has been upgraded ever - you couldn't possibly have a 4.7" screen in an iPhone 6, because such a screen would never fit in the iPhone 5 case. Broadcast television can never be color, because the original standard was black and white (color information was added to unused space in the B&W signal). FM radio can never be stereo because the original standard was mono (FM stereo is broadcast as an FM mono signal, with an additional Left-minus-Right difference signal frequency-shifted up above hearing range - if you play the signal on older mono equipment you get mono; if you separate out the high-frequency portion, shift it back down to the proper frequency range, and add it to one copy of the original signal and subtract it from another copy of the original signal, you get proper left and right stereo channels).

The Lightning specification doesn't say, "this is all this will do ever", it says, "if you do X, you will get A result, and if you do Y, you will get B result." Apple is free to add, in September, "also, if you do Z, you will get C result" to the protocol. It simply requires checks to ensure old hardware won't accidentally activate incompatible new features. This is how standards are extended, all the time. Stop questioning people's sanity, when you simply don't understand how standards evolve.

This is not to say that Apple will pass analog audio through the Lightning connector, but they absolutely can amend the spec for that, if they choose to do so. That's a big part of the reason the Lightning spec is proprietary, so they have complete control over its future and can add things that they want, when they want (Apple has a long history of being held back by someone else's timetable or whims - e.g. IBM and the PowerPC chips - so they like to have control over things that affect them).

That's exactly right. While I maintain Apple has no intention of passing analogue audio via the iPhone's internal DAC out of through the Lightning port to headphones or otherwise (even though it's technically possible), that is NOT Apple's goal. They are moving the responsibility for the quality of the audio out of their control, and onto the audio reproduction equipment manufacturers.

However, the idea that someone would have to plug an adapter into a 3.5mm jack on an old 30-pin iPad, or MacBook, to convert audio which has already been converted from digital to analogue, back into digital in order to get it into a Lightning equipped set of headphones, only to be converted by the headphones back into analogue is ridiculous at best. And I don't see Apple doing that at all. This then is the on area where Apple can actually allow Lightning to pass analogue audio, where it makes sense and simplifies the connection, not to mention making Lightning headphones the more attractive option as far as adapters are concerned.

Apple can license a simple MFi adapter that is a simple 3.5mm plug wired to certain pins on a Lightning port, which is designed to accept a pair of MFi Lightning headphones. A chip inside the adapter would tell the Lightning chip inside the headphones that it is connected to an analogue source and to bypass the internal DAC and/or amp, sending the audio straight to the headphones. In this way, Apple gets out of the way of the native analogue signal being output by other 3.5mm equipment, rather than re-encoding it. I don't really see this conflicting with Apple's Lightning philosophy at all. In fact, there are wireless headphones that essentially do this already -- when the battery runs out, a 3.5mm cable can be plugged into the headphones which physically bypass the internal radios, DAC and amp, routing the analogue signal directly to the headphones. Apple is already doing this with Beats. So adding the functionality to Lightning is a logical fit, since it is the de facto replacement for 3.5mm wired connections.

 

[Dmunjal]

most popular? yes.
but lets consider, how many 30$,50$,80$, 100$ and 150$, low end android phones are there?
i can literally walk into any carrier and walk out with a free android phone at no charge, or go to any way-mart and purchase one for literally 30$ pre-paid.
does that make it good? if you don't mind, ~750mb RAM, a 3MP camera, no front facing camera. a 1000 MaH battery, a connection that barely passes for "4g", a screen that doesnt even have 480p resolution and an outdated android system(I'm talking pre-4.4 kitkat.) then yes it is pretty popular
but of course you will have a more popular os when you have 10-20 different phone manufacturers using it. each one able to make the cheapest phone possible. *cough* galaxy core prime *cough*
don't get me wrong, some of the manufacturers like samsung/LG/HTC ETC have some decent or even good phones but a lot of them almost always have atleast one lesser "knock off" of their flagships for a lot cheaper
IE: HTC had the desire 626 and the "626s" that they sold for prepaid.
Samsung has the galaxy "s" line but also has flops like the "galaxy core prime" and "galaxy grand prime" and their newer galaxy "j" line(can only assume it stands for junk)

so yea its popular when you have hundreds of millions of junk or lesser phones in the market.
iPhones have held a solid market share for years when they literally only release one flagship phone a year. and always have been that way up until the 5c and the SE. both of which have done well, and the SE has been a huge hit itself and vastly differentiates itself from other manufactures version of their lesser by not actually going the cheaper option. still has a 12MP camera. still has most of the same internals, still has a great battery, ETC.

popular is not always good.
thats like saying Bug light is a better beer then a finely crafted local beer simply because its more popular, even though we all know its glorified piss water.

Times have changed. You can get a decent phone for $200 nowadays.

The Nexus 5X has a 5.2" 1080p, 2GB of RAM, 16GB storage, 12MP camera, multi-band LTE Cat6, fingerprint sensor, 2700 mAh battery, USB-c and the latest Android releases directly from Google.

http://www.cnet.com/news/get-a-nexus-5x-smartphone-for-just-200/

Those specs rival the iPhone 6s at $650. The only thing you give up is the A9 but worth it for the $450 in savings.

 

[drumcat]

I understand the limitation you're highlighting, though you also appear to have misread the explanation.

In other words, the headphones/earphones would be equipped with a Lightning connector, though the person wants to use them with the 3.5mm port on a device, which would mean a link of audio player with 3.5mm-->adapter-->Lightning headphones.

What I interpreted from Mac 128 was the adapter would create a bridge for the analog signal from the player to the headphones' Lightning connector. The headphone controller would recognize the input isn't (digital) binary data as expected and bypass its own DAC -- because there's no longer a need -- and route the sound wave directly to the drivers.

However, Lightning is a 'smart' connector and, as you asserted, Apple is the only one able to modify and expand the protocol. For that reason, such a handoff, i.e., using the connector as a simple/direct 8-wire link may not be possible. If so, consumers would need to hope for swappable cable segments from the headphone manufacturer to swap the Lightning plug with another type.

I'm not sure I made that easier to follow.


That does seem logical, although, Apple may have a different intention, including perhaps just holding back to remain secretive. I'm going to step away from that section of speculation.[/B]

I follow. I agree that it's technically a possible outcome. It's not impossible; it's absurd. I got that "someone's wrong on the internet" adrenaline and made sure to bring the absurdity all the way through to end-case. It's not to demonstrate what is or isn't unpossible. It's just that meandering down the ridiculous path is like listening to an astrologer. What they're saying isn't wrong on its own, but you just have no basis for which to support anything other than imagination.

 

[Mac 128]

I understand the limitation you're highlighting, though you also appear to have misread the explanation.

In other words, the headphones/earphones would be equipped with a Lightning connector, though the person wants to use them with the 3.5mm port on a device, which would mean a link of audio player with 3.5mm-->adapter-->Lightning headphones.

What I interpreted from Mac 128 was the adapter would create a bridge for the analog signal from the player to the headphones' Lightning connector. The headphone controller would recognize the input isn't (digital) binary data as expected and bypass its own DAC -- because there's no longer a need -- and route the sound wave directly to the drivers.

However, Lightning is a 'smart' connector and, as you asserted, Apple is the only one able to modify and expand the protocol. For that reason, such a handoff, i.e., using the connector as a simple/direct 8-wire link may not be possible. If so, consumers would need to hope for swappable cable segments from the headphone manufacturer to swap the Lightning plug with another type.

I'm not sure I made that easier to follow.


That does seem logical, although, Apple may have a different intention, including perhaps just holding back to remain secretive. I'm going to step away from that section of speculation.[/B]

Yes, that's correct. You may well have a point that swapping the cable out may be required. However, since a digital or analogue signal is still just electrical voltages, Lightning will simply route it to whatever chips are necessary to either decode it, or pass it on, once identified. Given the capabilities of Lightning, there's simply no reason to convert an analogue signal that is intended for an analogue source back into digital again, even over Apple's proprietary connector. ;-)

As for secrecy, you nailed it. There's no way Apple would tip their plans by adding Lightning to the MacBooks until they were ready to drop it from the iPhone AND introduce their complete solution for Lightning audio implementation. The rMB will drop the headphone jack, because it is the Mac equivalent of the iPhone lacking space for more than one audio port, and Lightning has many optional benefits for the MacBook -- it offers a charging port that keeps the USB-C port free for data, using the same cable that the iPhone and iPad use, simplifying what the customer has to carry when traveling. It also offers optional USB 3 compatible data port, and it would be compatible with many of the existing Lightning accessories saving Apple manufacturing costs by combining accessories into single port connector. In the end, the decision will be driven by Apple wanting to accommodate the convenience of their customers who embrace Lightning audio, so as not to have to resort to an adapter just to swap their Lightning headphones back and forth between their new Mac and iPhone.

If Apple does this, they will likely update the rMB's internals at the same time, providing for BlueTooth 5, or whatever new hardware tech may be required for higher quality wireless audio, likely mid-cycle as they did with the iPad 3 when they switched from 30-pin to Lightning. So there's precedent for it was well.

 

[Chair-Sama]

Times have changed. You can get a decent phone for $200 nowadays.

The Nexus 5X has a 5.2" 1080p, 2GB of RAM, 16GB storage, 12MP camera, multi-band LTE Cat6, fingerprint sensor, 2700 mAh battery, USB-c and the latest Android releases directly from Google.

http://www.cnet.com/news/get-a-nexus-5x-smartphone-for-just-200/

Those specs rival the iPhone 6s at $650. The only thing you give up is the A9 but worth it for the $450 in savings.

true i don't doubt the nexus phones, and 200$ is a decent price. i myself paid ~200 for my droid turbo work phone, I needed an android and was a solid option to buy outright with them good spec
21MP camera, 3,900 Mah Battery, 2.7ghz quad core processor, 3gb Ram/ 32gb internal storage base model, Also rivals the 6s. but what I'm referring to are these guys here. ill post some examples,
people mock apples 16gb of storage but imagine paying 100$ to get a samsung or LG with 8gb of storage haha. or a camera who's videos shoot in 480/720P haha.
Or my favorite the Alcatel phone with 4gb internal storage, literally 480p screen, 5mp camera, but iirc they've sold millions of them across the world. doesnt make it a better phone the an iPhone.

when you have phones like these for 59/79/99$ its easy to sell a million of them compared to a 500-900$ phone.
heck, my Work phone (droid turbo) is easily 2-3 classes above these and only cost 200$, because the turbo 2 is out, and because its last years model, Androids just don't hold their price point as long either.
and even with my turbo having quite a few specs better then the 6s(3gb ram, 21 mP camera, quad core processor,)
i still find my 6s working better and more efficient, especially with IOS.

 

[Burger Thing]

Oh you mean the way wired headphones are today? Do you not see the insanity?

I can assure you, no, he doesn't.

BS. "High-End" DACs are snake-oil these days. The high-end Burr Browns from the '90s that had less than 0.1dB variance in frequency response sell for like 25 cents these days. NO ONE can hear differences that small PERIOD.

I would venture that the real reason they are hearing a difference is that it probably has different volume output levels when connected via Lightning using and internal DAC than an analog cable. This would be like SACD, which outputs different overall volume levels for SACD and CD sound (SACD sounds LOUDER and thus the psychological effect is that with the same 2-channel album included in both SACD and CD versions on the other side of the disc that the SACD version sounds louder and therefore "better" to most ears.

In other words, you MUST volume match (with a meter) the output levels between the two things being compared (in this case the headphone output via analog cable versus the output via Lightning + Internal DAC). If they are not the same, it totally invalidates the test. Pure snake-oil at its best.



I have no problem with spending thousands on high quality audio gear (e.g. my home living room Carver ribbon speakers were $2000 a pair modified with custom active crossovers and thus bi-amping as well), but I expect actual sound improvements for my money. "Audiophile" gear is NOTORIOUS for selling snake-oil products over the years from green markers (priced up to $30 for something that Crayola would sell you for a quarter) that you "mark the edge of the CD with" and this supposedly magically reduced jitter somehow (How? It didn't! It was a sham) to "mats" you place in your CD player that supposedly make CDs sound better (in reality it caused the CD player's transport motor to load down and use more power which would make the playback speed less accurate in the short term and destroy the motor in the long term unless it had sufficient power to handle the increased mass load).

And of course these high-end external DACs they sell for THOUSANDS in the high-end want you to believe it magically makes a bad album sound great, but that's crazy too. I had an external DAC I was using on the above mentioned system. I paid $20 for it to use with the newer AppleTVs, etc. I wouldn't do that if I believed for one second that it was going to sound bad. It sounded no different at all. I recently replaced that with an older Technics AC-3/DTS/Stereo decoder module I had in a different room when I added surround sound to that (mostly stereo) system (I have a separate home theater downstairs but I already had the unit so I thought I'd try it out with some speakers I acquired to play DTS surround sound music CDs in the living room instead of just the home theater and it sounded so good I kept the setup).

I could go on forever about sham products in high-end audio, but I'm not going to. Suffice to say don't believe everything you read in ads.

Magnus, you and others made so many valid points but after almost half of dozens of similar threads I feel that the points you made wil go right over the heads of the usual culprits here.

What in the world makes you think a pair of headphones will have a higher quality DAC than the iPhone? Hey, let's buy multiple pairs of headphones for home and at the office and put a DAC in each instead of just one in the phone. In other words, instead of removing the jack, why not just put a "better" DAC in the iPhone??? Oh yeah, that would make too damn much sense.

Besides, DACs have pretty much been perfected over the past twenty-four years. The ONLY real difference in high quality external DACs designed for headphone use is having a better quality amplifier stage (not really part of the DAC itself but the number one reason some headphones sound "bad" with cheap digital devices that have tiny little op-amps in them). Frankly, lack of quality amplifier power is the number one reason any stereo sounds bad (put better speakers in your car that are low efficiency and you NEED higher amplifier power than those tiny 8-14 watt head units will produce. Otherwise you will get insufficient volume and when turned up further, it goes into distortion which sounds AWFUL.

But marketing people will try and convince you that a $3000 DAC sounds better than a $20 one (maybe true in 1986, but not 2006 given DACs typically have frequency response variations in the 0.1 dB range at most (many with less than 0.01dB). A typical human can BARELY hear a frequency response variation of around 1dB and that's typically full volume adjustments, not over a small frequency band, which is much harder to hear, especially around less sensitive frequency ranges of human hearing.

In other words, high-end audio has been notorious for taking advantage of the general public's IGNORANCE on the subject and high-end audio rags further that ignorance by catering to advertisers' snake-oil claims (hello Stereophile).

If you want better sound with an iPhone NOW, buy a pair of headphones that are high efficiency and have good reviews (e.g. Grado, which I dare say is considerably better than "Beats" headphones which are bass junky inaccurate reproductions that cater to the "more bass is better" crowd, but do not represent what's on the recording accurately). Thinking of spending a lot on noise reduction headphones from Bose that typically cost $300+? You're paying for advertising and (pseudo) cachet. You can get sound quality that's comparable for $99 from JVC (I've got a pair myself).

Thank you!

That's exactly right. While I maintain Apple has no intention of passing analogue audio via the iPhone's internal DAC out of through the Lightning port to headphones or otherwise (even though it's technically possible), that is NOT Apple's goal. They are moving the responsibility for the quality of the audio out of their control, and onto the audio reproduction equipment manufacturers.

However, the idea that someone would have to plug an adapter into a 3.5mm jack on an old 30-pin iPad, or MacBook, to convert audio which has already been converted from digital to analogue, back into digital in order to get it into a Lightning equipped set of headphones, only to be converted by the headphones back into analogue is ridiculous at best. And I don't see Apple doing that at all. This then is the on area where Apple can actually allow Lightning to pass analogue audio, where it makes sense and simplifies the connection, not to mention making Lightning headphones the more attractive option as far as adapters are concerned.

Apple can license a simple MFi adapter that is a simple 3.5mm plug wired to certain pins on a Lightning port, which is designed to accept a pair of MFi Lightning headphones. A chip inside the adapter would tell the Lightning chip inside the headphones that it is connected to an analogue source and to bypass the internal DAC and/or amp, sending the audio straight to the headphones. In this way, Apple gets out of the way of the native analogue signal being output by other 3.5mm equipment, rather than re-encoding it. I don't really see this conflicting with Apple's Lightning philosophy at all. In fact, there are wireless headphones that essentially do this already -- when the battery runs out, a 3.5mm cable can be plugged into the headphones which physically bypass the internal radios, DAC and amp, routing the analogue signal directly to the headphones. Apple is already doing this with Beats. So adding the functionality to Lightning is a logical fit, since it is the de facto replacement for 3.5mm wired connections.

What is on your paycheck that you get in Cupertino to constantly post propaganda since you joined here last year? I pay you double, if you just stop posting your absurdities and go away!

I am now really looking forward to the presentation of the new iPhone to check out all the supposedly new features this phone will sport and therefore had to sacrifice the jack for. It's quite late in the rumor game and all we heard so far is a second speaker and/or a ever so slightly enlarged battery. Maybe Apple will surprise us and they include the Continuum Transfunctioner. You know, a mysterious.... [/S]

There is probably a reason why a lot of people, myself included, don't see the mysterious new features coming: simply for the facts that the phone is very close to its release date already and over the last years nothing really earth shattering was released. Instead we got glued internals, downgraded new Mac Minis, Desktop Computers with 5400 RPM drives. That alone made me cringe when I hear comments regarding Apple is progressing into the future with abandoning the 3.5 mm. The future loving Apple, but still selling spinning disks and charging an arm and a leg for a reasonable upgrade.

So yeah, I am really skeptical that this move will bring anything useful to for the customers. Because frankly, NONE OF YOUR ARGUMENTS SO FAR WILL SUGGEST SO. Most of them are frankly, just, ah, 'quantity'.

Meanwhile the Samsung N7 managed to build in a Memory Card slot, Stylus, etc, and made the whole thing waterproof, just like my previous Xperia Z3, which with its exposed headphone jack, I frequently took under water to take shots of my daughter when she learned swimming.

 

[haywooj]

Note that LeTV have also got rid of the jack in their new LE phone - audio will go through the usb-c port, which could give better audio than the miserable DACs currently used

 

[Mac 128]

Note that Xiaomi have also got rid of the jack in their new phone - audio will go through the usb-c port

You know I've read that the USB-C audio specs are not standardized yet. So I wonder what Xiaomi and Moto are basing theirs on? Are they compatible?

I wonder the same about these new Lightning headphones that have been coming out over the last year. Apple introduced Lightning audio specs in December 2014, but they themselves did nothing with them toward offering a product. I often feel sorry for third parties who are the first to jump on Apple's new specs, when Apple themselves haven't offered a product to demonstrate the features they intend to implement. Especially since it gives Apple license to change the specs, before they finally introduce their own offering, often screwing both the third party manufacturer and the customer who loses out on features, or even future compatibility once Apple has finalized what specs they're going to support going forward.

 

[drumcat]

You know I've read that the USB-C audio specs are not standardized yet. So I wonder what Xiaomi and Moto are basing theirs on? Are they compatible?

I wonder the same about these new Lightning headphones that have been coming out over the last year. Apple introduced Lightning audio specs in December 2014, but they themselves did nothing with them toward offering a product. I often feel sorry for third parties who are the first to jump on Apple's new specs, when Apple themselves haven't offered a product to demonstrate the features they intend to implement. Especially since it gives Apple license to change the specs, before they finally introduce their own offering, often screwing both the third party manufacturer and the customer who loses out on features, or even future compatibility once Apple has finalized what specs they're going to support going forward.

I love it. On one hand, you argue the point with me that, essentially, Apple could change a spec but they probably won't. It's just not impossible. Then you argue that you feel that Apple enjoys screwing manufacturers for no other reason than the sheer pleasure of changing specs since they don't yet have a product.

Obviously you're butt hurt over something. What spec did they change that has you in therapy?

 

[Burger Thing]

I love it. On one hand, you argue the point with me that, essentially, Apple could change a spec but they probably won't. It's just not impossible. Then you argue that you feel that Apple enjoys screwing manufacturers for no other reason than the sheer pleasure of changing specs since they don't yet have a product.

Obviously you're butt hurt over something. What spec did they change that has you in therapy?

Maybe he has maternity pains as it seems his headphone jack is giving birth or at least growing:

Earlier:

Apple is trying to reclaim over 240 cubic mm of space inside the phone from a redundant port that only provides one function.

Even earlier:

And why can't they have both? Because in part what's motivating them to remove it at this juncture is to free up over 184 cubic mm of internal space presently occupied by the redundant 3.5mm single purpose jack.

Or he is buying accusing others as trolls while he posts that picture:

Not sure which is worse, that adapter, or the the anti-3.5mm jack removal crowd wants is:

He also constantly suggest the usage of Lightning adapters, which will be in future readily available on every corner when 'cheap' Chinese Manufacturers will jump on board. Of course this will not apply to him when someone else stated, Apple should at least aim for a non proprietary solution like USB-C. He all a sudden forgot about his own arguments of adapter which will be so readily available everywhere on a cheap:

And if they change Lightning to USBc then I'm going to have to replace hundreds of dollars of Lightning cables and accessories, with hundreds of dollars of USBc accessories that will only work on my iPhone for the next several years, because nobody is currently using USBc. And when I forget my USBc cable and need to borrow one, nobody will have one to loan me, because it's not in widespread use.

Then in 5 years, just as USBc is starting to approach market saturation -- Apple introduces wireless charging, such that I never have to plug in my iPhone to anything again. Brilliant. So I've totally wasted hundreds of dollars replacing all of my stuff to embrace a standard that is years away from common use, which I won't actually need when I get there.

Great plan.

And he also showed a profound technical understanding and gave one really important reason why the headphone jack should be eliminated, which is important, if your headphone cable is 1000 yards long.

There's so many misconceptions here, I don't know where to start.

1) Having the DAC conversion and amp closer to the final source is always better as it reduces the chance of radio and electronic interference. Arguably there's not much concern here, but it is a factor in purity of sound.

And so on and so on.

 

[TallManNY]

Allow me to unpack this...

"In the end, I think Apple has gotten this right again. If you want the best quality sound, then connecting to the lightning port is going to be better because more data can be passed through it (I believe)."

Well, yes. You're saying more data will pass through the data cable than the analog cable. No argument there; it's just a matter of when the same exact amount of data becomes an audio signal, and that can happen internally or externally. Without getting into the technology of it, I can offer you the iPhone 6S. It already offers both options.

"If you want the best convenience, you should be using wireless headphones."

Personal preference. I prefer better audio quality and not having to charge/power mine; to me that is more convenient. However, wireless headphones have nothing to do with the Lightning connector or the 3.5 jack.

"But in no event should you be using the jack except because of legacy headphones."

That's not true. Without the technical mumbo jumbo, there is no way that the analog port is severely outperformed. In fact the performance will be based on the A/B test... specifically, I'm saying that if you took a DAC Dongle today, and then tested it in a 6S lightning, and the 6S 3.5, is there a difference? Could someone even tell the difference? I have my doubts, but it's possible that depending on the quality of the DAC used and the amperage it pushes, you can get a better signal.

I would return to the idea that the 6S DAC set with the internal plug is absolutely excellent, and my most standards a very well received signal chain *for a phone*. If you're doing some sort of critical listening, I'd have many questions for you.

"And basically the consumer hasn't figured this out because that jack that they know was always there."

You're right. Most consumers aren't in the $200+ category of cans. If you walk into a store now, you won't see $10 Lightning earbuds. You also won't see $10 wireless headphones. People are, I believe, fairly aware of wireless headphones at this point. So whatever figuring out they're doing, which I assume is the awareness of Lightning headphones maybe, is more of a lack of availability at a price point.

What Lightning can do, which is very cool, is sort of force the headphone amp on a customer by hiding it in the product. They eliminate what would otherwise be those clunky headphone amps that are twice the size of your phone. I think it's great that these are starting to permeate the high end of the market. I find them to be less useful unless they have an adapter, but that's my use case. Others may be interested without it. No problem.

The argument isn't that Lightning is awesome. It is. The 6S offers it. It offers Bluetooth as well. These are great features. But as I just mentioned, those in-ears and lightning cans are higher end. They're not the ones you want to take on the subway or sweat into at the gym. They aren't the ones you take grocery shopping or walking in a park. They aren't the ones you have to worry about charging ahead of time (BT), they just work immediately and without fail. And for all of those conveniences, why remove it?

When you say "Apple got it right" - I assume you mean that having lightning and bluetooth are cool. However, if you're saying that the design omission of the 3.5 is what Apple got right, the question to you is, what is right about it? All you've done is inconvenience a lot of people... and a vast majority will begrudgingly buy an adapter so their stuff works at no real consumer benefit.

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

What I meant about wireless being the way go was a generality and I think is right for a mass project like the iPhone. Everyday I see countless people listening to their phones on the subway. Most are using modest buds, often the Apple ones that included with the phone. For those users they have clearly decided to sacrifice some level of sound quality either for the cost saving of using the buds they were given in the packaging or for the convince of small earphones. The $25 bluetooth cans I've been using recently produce better sounds overall in a subway environment. The $23 bluetooth sport earpieces are comparable to Apple buds yet more convenient to wear and much more convenient because they don't have a cord to untangle before I use them. I think for the average users there is a better experience available to them and it isn't price point that is stopping them from figuring it out. It is just lack of experience. Apple is going to push people into a new experience by giving them small and sporty wireless earphones. That is my guess.

Charging will be a thing. But the lightning charger (which is water proof) is going to be easy to use. No need for one of those rubber covers on a lightning charger. The earphones will charge in a matter of minutes because the battery is so small. Think of the pencil where you can charge during the smallest break and be good to go for your morning commute. And if they can put the large level on your notification on the phone, you won't have battery anxiety.

 

[SGT.GREER]

You cannot seriously be suggesting that the Galaxy S7 is rubbish?
Best camera in any phone , particularly in low light conditions and seriously high quality display for starters!

iPhone display is also high quality so? Also after looking at iPad Pro display it's becoming increasingly amusing to look at droid drooling over oled.

 

[Mac 128]

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

What I meant about wireless being the way go was a generality and I think is right for a mass project like the iPhone. Everyday I see countless people listening to their phones on the subway. Most are using modest buds, often the Apple ones that included with the phone. For those users they have clearly decided to sacrifice some level of sound quality either for the cost saving of using the buds they were given in the packaging or for the convince of small earphones. The $25 bluetooth cans I've been using recently produce better sounds overall in a subway environment. The $23 bluetooth sport earpieces are comparable to Apple buds yet more convenient to wear and much more convenient because they don't have a cord to untangle before I use them. I think for the average users there is a better experience available to them and it isn't price point that is stopping them from figuring it out. It is just lack of experience. Apple is going to push people into a new experience by giving them small and sporty wireless earphones. That is my guess.

Charging will be a thing. But the lightning charger (which is water proof) is going to be easy to use. No need for one of those rubber covers on a lightning charger. The earphones will charge in a matter of minutes because the battery is so small. Think of the pencil where you can charge during the smallest break and be good to go for your morning commute. And if they can put the large level on your notification on the phone, you won't have battery anxiety.

I think the biggest problem with wireless for all customers, has been quality and price. Not everyone needs endless battery life, but certainly that has been a drawback too. And let's not forget, anyone who's tried them, especially an inexpensive pair, has had issues with pairing, and reliability using them. And let's be honest, Apple isn't going to do much initially about lowering the price. But you're right, there's nothing like taking away something to force people to seek out and try alternatives. But Apple can't remove something so universally reliable, and add inconvenience without at least offering something comperbale to replace it.

And it sounds like that's exactly what's coming -- BT 5, new low power BT earbuds rumors, lossless streaming from iTunes rumors, all suggesting an effort by Apple to introduce a complete solution for digital audio. And then there's Intel promoting USB-C audio, suggesting an even broader industry move to digital mobile audio. And that suggests a need to remove the headphone jack to keep phones as small as possible but add as many features as possible.

Now I suppose it's possible that the headphones could charge from the iPhone, but I don't think that benefits anybody unless they substantially increase the iPhone battery life, and removing the headphone jack isn't likely to reclaim enough space for that. More than likely, they will simply just become wired Lightning headphones, allowing the customer to keep listening for now.

But a thought did occur to me. What if the headphone jack is being removed to make room to add this new, superior, wireless technology, and a larger battery to help power it. That would be worth losing the headphone jack to me, even if they don't add anything else.

 

[44267547]

Maybe he has maternity pains as it seems his headphone jack is giving birth or at least growing:

Earlier:


Even earlier:


Or he is buying accusing others as trolls while he posts that picture:



He also constantly suggest the usage of Lightning adapters, which will be in future readily available on every corner when 'cheap' Chinese Manufacturers will jump on board. Of course this will not apply to him when someone else stated, Apple should at least aim for a non proprietary solution like USB-C. He all a sudden forgot about his own arguments of adapter which will be so readily available everywhere on a cheap:



And he also showed a profound technical understanding and gave one really important reason why the headphone jack should be eliminated, which is important, if your headphone cable is 1000 yards long.



And so on and so on.

I can't get over that embarrassing Straw Man picture. That was hilarious when it was posted. Poor Tim Cook.

 

[Gilligan's last elephant]

iPhone display is also high quality so? Also after looking at iPad Pro display it's becoming increasingly amusing to look at droid drooling over oled.

I never passed comment on other manufacturers. I simply asked the poster if he was seriously suggesting the S7 with its high quality hardware was rubbish. You started talking about Apple displays for some reason.

 

[recoil80]

Apple has perfectly primed the Retina MacBook for this in that the 3.5mm headphone jack will be swapped out for Lightning as soon as Apple removes the headphone jack from the iPhone. Obviously Apple can't do it before without giving away their plans. This is similar to the iPad 3 switching from 30-pin to Lightning in the iPad for with no other major changes mid-cycle.

That's a possibility, the new MBP could have a lighting port.
But what if Apple pushes for wireless technology? They put only one port on the 12'' Macbook, talking about their vision for a wireless machine. Why should they add lighting to that instead of a second USB-C port?
I'd rather have more USB ports on a Macbook or Macbook pro than having a lighting just to connect my headphones (using an adapter)?
Besides, why remove the 3.5 jack from a Mac? They can't make it thinner, as long as USB-C is there.

I'm not a big fan of wireless headphones, it is just another thing to charge. But I'm not a fan of dongles either, and bluetooth is standard so if I really have to make a choice I prefer bluetooth.
Beats have lots of bluetooth products to offer, my guess is they'll ship a bluetooth version of EarPods, with a quality comparable to their wired version, and hope many customers will buy more expensive bluetooth headphones.
To those willing to use their 3.5 headphones Apple will sell an (expensive, of course) adapter.
More money for them, Tim is happy.

 

[D-Dave]

When we first heard the iris scanner rumor about iPhone, I thought it was incredibly stupid. Who wants to hold their phone 6 inches from their face every time they unlock it?

And now Samsung coming out with one explains the rumor. I'd bet Samsung was behind the rumor in the first place to drum up interest in the technology and to legitimize it because "Apple is going to do it, eventually" and make them look like innovators.

Actualy I think Microsoft is pretty much leading facial/iris recognition...and to my surprise it works very relyably on both the surface pro 4 and the Lumia 950xl which have been my "work-combo" for a few months now.

 

[sziehr]

So you have proprietary knowledge of Apple's plans? You know for a fact that the headphone jack doesn't need to Ben emoted to accomodate some other feature or purpose?

When you say "late" model car, just how far back are you extending that definition? I rent "late" model cars all the time and they all have USB ports, and/or BT. Recently I rented a car that was at least 5 years old, which only had a 3.5mm Jack. I had no cable with which to connect to it, nor could I easily find one to buy at a convenience store, but that same store had several choices of Lightning cables.

The reality is, it's the perfect time to drop the headphone jack before people invest in more equipment that won't be optimal in the future. The average person plugs their headphones into primarily digital devices like iPhones, computers, and digital AV systems in cars and planes. Even new home stereos come with USB ports and Bluetooth. At some point it makes sense to convert to the same interface method as everything else with those devices, especially as most of these device become increasingly smaller and mobile.

2010 ford edge does not have usb or BT just headphone jack. The suv is perfectly fine and is just six years old but it does not have all the needed feature to be iPhone 7 ready with out a dongle.

There is a point in time your correct that moving away from the jack might make sense. That time is not now. We need more time and we need more transition language from them and the industry. If they just put lighting ear pods in the boxes last year people would have used them and demanded sure make a lighting cable. Now we have the added pain of no jack and no accessories. This is bungled. We do not need a hot cut over we should have done a phased removal. Come on apple mange the public like a project.
[doublepost=1470400763][/doublepost]

While you're not wrong, there are other things that use the 3.5mm audio jack besides just headphones. For instance, Square card readers, Aux cables to connect to your car's audio system. Sure, I can just buy a new car or radio that has Bluetooth, but after buying a new phone, some folks may not have that choice. There are also dongles like the LuMu light meters used by photographers and so on. So the problem isn't limited to just music fans with headphones. It's a problem for businesses, photographers and anyone else who uses devices that rely on that port. Imagine you're a company who uses something like Square and either you or you're employee have to purchase one phone or a batch of new phones for their job. NOW on top of that phone purchase they "may" (depends what Apple announces) have to buy an adapter to use their accessory. To make matters worse, some businesses that set up shop at like fairs or other events tend to plug their phones in while using mobile payments, so they don't die from repeated use. Assuming Apple is nice enough to give you an adapter, that adapter most likely won't have a dual port (i.e. a port for the 3.5mm jack AND charging cable). This leave two other scenarios, one in which the customer MUST BUY YET ANOTHER accessory that does have two ports for both the 3.5mm jack and the charging cord that plugs into the iPhone OR they have to make a choice, charge your device or use the jack to accept payments. That's not fair to them.

Either way, I get your point, this is a progressive step in technology, but it's more than just an slight inconvenience for customers, it's also going to turn into an unneeded expense. If this decision was made to allow the iPhone to be thinner, then screw Apple. People don't need their devices to be any thinner. I've seen the polls here and on other sites that suggest people are in favor of bigger batteries over thinness. If Samsung can make their Note 7 and S7 as thin as they are, with bigger batteries than the iPhone AND on top of that, make their phones water and dust proof, then Apple is just full of lies and deception. This decision, coupled with the idea that the new iPhone 7 (or whatever it will be called) design, could really back fire with sales this year into next year. Personally, as an Apple fan, I hope it does backfire and Apple has to do a reality check and realize they need to go back to innovation and not just evolution.

This is a very hostile action to consumers by apple. I am a huge apple fan. I am even at times there apologist. I just can't do that this time. These points are valid and clear. They could have phased in the idea of no more headphone jack gotten the dongles on the shelves gotten people into the notion. This would have pushed 3rd party vendors to finally use the lighting standard for there headphones which they have avoided to avoid the royalty fees. This all in my view comes back to money. What better way to extract a little more money than to license dongles / headphones to 3rd party vendors by saying hey you have 0 other options now so cough it up. This was not pro-consumer this was anti-consumer tactics. We can hem and haw all we like about well it is old so it is time for it to go or oh i do not use it so I do not know what your peoples issues are there are still way to many corner cases that are not solved for this tech to be end of life. I would further posit that with the new MacBook pro having no lighting jack just headphone jack what are we in for that more dongles or adapters. Apple bungled this bungled it badly. They could remove the jack after a time period. The 6s should have shipped with a usb dac dongle experience the sound. Then the 7 we remove the jack from a few phones leave a crummy 7 regular with the jack so when we hit 7s the redesign we can finally dump it over. This is how steve conducted the optical drive dump. Cough they still make a macbook with a optical drive. So it has been done by apple just not tim's apple. I just find the whole thing a giant bungled mess.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Actually, the earlier referenced video

does mention the one element, I assume -- yes, I'm making a guess -- that is different: output power. Indeed, I'm not aware of the specs for either port, but I do assume -- there's that word again -- the Lightning connection does have a higher current capacity, which is only significant for larger drivers, such as those utilized in the headphones demonstrated.

The size of the driver may or may not have anything to do with how much power it requires. The key indicator with headphones or even regular loudspeakers is their sensitivity rating. The higher the sensitivity, the less power you need to drive them. Large horn speakers, for example often have sensitivity ratings in the 98dB (that is 98dB pink noise output at 1 watt from 1 meter). "Most" home loudspeakers are in the 88-103dB range, IMO. My Carver ribbons (they are 6 feet tall, but the driver is 48" vertical by about 1.5" horizontal with 10" subs) were rated at 87dB with a fairly reactive load, but after switching to an active crossover that eliminates all reactivity, they are now "effectively" 90dB rated (see below on impedance loads).

Headphone sensitivity, by comparison, is rated at output in dB with 1mW (1/1000 of a watt) and measured with a dummy head with microphones in it (you can get an approximate measurement yourself by putting a sound level meter right up against the headphone driver). To measure either you're going to need a test CD (or digital format equivalent) and a sound pressure meter. Yes, in the ear-canal loudspeakers by their very nature are probably going to be more efficient than a large over-the-ear driver, but ultimately the materials the drivers are made of are the primary contributing factor on whether a driver is more or less sensitive.

There's also the question of the input impedance of the speakers or headphones relative to the amplifier or headphone amplifier. Generally speaking, a more reactive load is harder to drive than a more resistive one. Bob Carver released the Sunfire amplifier (and Carver Corporation the Lightstar) that were supposedly load independent loudspeaker amplifiers at a relatively affordable size/price, but generally speaking for more traditional amp designs, you can estimate a highly reactive driver to need at least twice the peak capacity of a resistive one (3dB difference or twice the power required for the same output level) as a place to start (manufacturers and HiFi reviews are typically the source of these and other measurements for given loudspeakers or headphones.

From this, you can calculate yourself the approximate maximum output (without overdriving or "clipping") the amplifier. So for example, my Carver ribbons at the new improved resistive load are almost twice as easy to drive so in effect, the sensitivity rating is now 90dB. Thus outputting 1 watt at 1 meter with pink noise will produce 90dB at the sound meter. Every ~3dB represents a doubling of power required since the ear is not linear in detecting 'loudness' (also frequency dependent, but this is another matter we'll ignore here for example). You need about 10dB for the ear to hear about a "doubling" of loudness (in reality the sound pressure wave itself doubles every 3dB, but as I said the human ear doesn't hear it that way). So 93dB at 1 meter requires 2 watts, 96 requires 4 watts, 99dB requires 8 watts, 102dB requires 16 watts, 105dB requires 32 watts, 108dB requires 64 watts and 111dB needs about 128 watts (a typical receiver's maximum RMS output per channel is often between 95-128 watts).

As one can see, you don't get a lot more "loudness" at higher power levels. The difference in output between a "mere" 100 watt per channel receiver and a separate amplifier that can output 200 watts per channel is only 3dB and sounds only a little bit louder. You'd need nearly a 1000 watt amplifier (assuming your loudspeaker driver can take that much power without overheating its voice coil or maxing out the travel length of the drivers) to sound twice as loud as that 100 watt receiver. THAT is why so many of the claims about things like "underpowered" receivers and the like are a bit overblown. So your speakers might only hit 110dB at 100w with a 90dB rated speaker instead of 113dB with a 200 watt external amplifier. That's not a big deal and not worth the extra money in most cases, IMO unless you're going to a 600 watt amp for an inefficient driver and it gets you to THX cinema specs are something you're chasing in numbers.

But in a car stereo that only outputs 7 watts RMS per channel (14 watts is about the maximum you can get without a DC/AC/DC power inverter power supply that external amps use in cars), external amps can make a MUCH larger difference since it's not hard to get a 70 watt external amp that will then play 10dB (or twice as loud sounding) than a 7 watt head unit or even a 300 watt amp that will play over 2.5x louder sounding.

This brings us back to headphone amps. There ARE exotic headphones out there that need larger headphone amps and typically people that are into these have bought external battery powered headphone amps. Headphones like Koss electrostatics even came with their own amp since they run at much higher voltages. But "in the ear" type "buds" and even high-end versions you can have molded to fit your ear canal typically require VERY LITTLE power to drive to ear damaging levels and no external Lightning version is doing to make a whit of difference in that regard.

With that said, headphone manufacturers (have and) can add an inline amp using a battery pack, something that may be required/desired whether 3.5mm or Lightning, as well as signal processing, etc. However, if my assumption is correct, using the Lightning connection would allow more headphones to operate at a higher performance without any additional hardware.

What I would say is that headphones that need that kind of power are going to voluntarily make a version that uses something like a Lightning (or USB-C) connector. The vast majority of headphones won't need it and as you say, the current iPhone has BOTH connectors and IMO always SHOULD have both. The iPhone doesn't need to be any thinner and by putting the jack at the top again, for example, they can still have stereo speakers in vertical orientation. This is what many Android phones do and frankly, the largest of phones are SO BIG in length and width dimensions that they should have NO TROUBLE accommodating a headphone jack in the design.

I maintain Apple is doing this purely with the idea of additional profits in selling Beats Lightning only headphones that will help "encourage" you to stick with the Apple eco-system over time or at least being forced to buy adapters in the long run (big profit for little benefit items).

Ultimately, this is moot to the core discussion of whether to retain the traditional audio port, because present iPhones offer both it and the Lightning Connector.

But we are talking about the iPhone 7 and it's assumed to have dropped it. I don't think anyone has a problem with the current incarnation since it has both ports.

 

[Mac 128]

That's a possibility, the new MBP could have a lighting port.
But what if Apple pushes for wireless technology? They put only one port on the 12'' Macbook, talking about their vision for a wireless machine. Why should they add lighting to that instead of a second USB-C port?
I'd rather have more USB ports on a Macbook or Macbook pro than having a lighting just to connect my headphones (using an adapter)?
Besides, why remove the 3.5 jack from a Mac? They can't make it thinner, as long as USB-C is there.

I'm not a big fan of wireless headphones, it is just another thing to charge. But I'm not a fan of dongles either, and bluetooth is standard so if I really have to make a choice I prefer bluetooth.
Beats have lots of bluetooth products to offer, my guess is they'll ship a bluetooth version of EarPods, with a quality comparable to their wired version, and hope many customers will buy more expensive bluetooth headphones.
To those willing to use their 3.5 headphones Apple will sell an (expensive, of course) adapter.
More money for them, Tim is happy.

I'm sure Apple is going to push for wireless technology. That is a given.

But to address your points, the 3.5mm Jack opening is much thicker than USB-C. However, I've never seen the edge thinness as the main reason motivating any of this. On the phones, it's the volume of the total hardware, most of which resides inside the phone which is most definitely constrained for space to add new features no matter how thick or thin the iPhone is. The opening is like the tip of the iceberg. The MacBooks are something different as the real estate along the sides is limited. In the case of the rMB, they have very limited space on each side of the rear case as nothing can seemingly go underneath the keyboard, least of all the 3.5mm Jack.

The reason for adding Lightning to the rMB instead of a second USB-C port is simple -- it's for compatibility with headphones purchased exclusively for use with the biggest selling, most profitable product they sell. Imagine a new iPhone customer buys new Lightning headphones, and a new rMB, and is told he has to use an adapter in order to switch back and forth between the new MacBook? Even if the customer buys a wireless pair, they will still come with a Lightning cable for charging (which they will likely do on the MacBook), and to listen when the wireless battery runs out -- and it will routinely for all customers.

Add to that Apple's marketing on the rMB -- they weren't going to include any ports because they see it as a wireless solution, but they needed a port for charging, so they decided to make it USB-C. Now that's total BS, right up there with they'll never make a 7" iPad because you'd need sandpaper to sand your fingers down to use it. The reality is they had two ports -- the second was a headphone jack, which they were perfectly capable of eliminating in favor of BT. Just like they were never going to release a Mac without a data port, or an iPhone without one either -- a device more than capable of going completely wireless with inductive charging which Samsung is already effectively using.

By replacing the headphone jack with Lightning, Apple is adding convenience to their core customer base, while also giving in to those who refuse to embrace Appe's wireless philosophy, because it's not a 2nd USB-C port, it's a headphone jack, that happens to be a decent data port -- just like the USB-C is first and foremost a charging port, with data thrown in for good measure. That way they still encourage wireless, since most any data use will require adapters (just like it does now with USB-C, and likely for a couple more years). The thinking here is that the customer will most likely carry only a Lightning cable to charge all their devices, thus leaving the USB-c always free for data (unless they rely on Lightning headphones).

Lightning also propels the merger of iOS and macOS, and consider Apple's desktop peripherals are all moving toward Lightning as well.

Now, I have no doubt Beats will have USB-C ports, and Lightning ports since they serve a broader market than just Apple. A standard set of Beats wired or wireless headphones will likely have a USBc port on one side, and Lightning on the other. This lets them be charged by Lightning cables, or connected to an iPhone or MacBook with the same cable in reverse. Also, it allows pass through charging and listening at the same time. It also allows friends to daisy-chain off your ports to listen along with you -- something some Beats headphones already supports.

Unfortunately, if Apple makes USB-C earbuds, they'd be doing it strictly for their MacBooks. And a loyal Apple customer will still need an adapter to use them with their iPhone and iPad, or have a separate set of Lightning headphones. Not an ideal situation for someone that just spent a few thousand on a new iPhone, headphones, and MacBook.

If Apple removes the headphone jack on the iPhone, it's hard to imagine they'd remove it on all of their products immediately, since most iPads and Macs have plenty of room to accomodate not just the opening, but the internal space as well. Add to that Macs and iPads are used by customers who don't use the iPhone. While the rMB is totally geared toward Apple's wireless services, like AirDrop and AirPlay, and makes sense it will be a part of an Apple eco-system which includes the iPhone, rather than a broader market, it doesn't make as much sense to drop the headphone jack on all others, but rather add a Lightning port for Apple customers to use.

 

[SGT.GREER]

I never passed comment on other manufacturers. I simply asked the poster if he was seriously suggesting the S7 with its high quality hardware was rubbish. You started talking about Apple displays for some reason.

You started, it's in your message go revisit what you wrote.

 

[Johns12]

true i don't doubt the nexus phones, and 200$ is a decent price. i myself paid ~200 for my droid turbo work phone, I needed an android and was a solid option to buy outright with them good spec
21MP camera, 3,900 Mah Battery, 2.7ghz quad core processor, 3gb Ram/ 32gb internal storage base model, Also rivals the 6s. but what I'm referring to are these guys here. ill post some examples,
people mock apples 16gb of storage but imagine paying 100$ to get a samsung or LG with 8gb of storage haha. or a camera who's videos shoot in 480/720P haha.
Or my favorite the Alcatel phone with 4gb internal storage, literally 480p screen, 5mp camera, but iirc they've sold millions of them across the world. doesnt make it a better phone the an iPhone.

when you have phones like these for 59/79/99$ its easy to sell a million of them compared to a 500-900$ phone.
heck, my Work phone (droid turbo) is easily 2-3 classes above these and only cost 200$, because the turbo 2 is out, and because its last years model, Androids just don't hold their price point as long either.
and even with my turbo having quite a few specs better then the 6s(3gb ram, 21 mP camera, quad core processor,)
i still find my 6s working better and more efficient, especially with IOS.

I'm not sure what the point of these kind of arguments are. Cheap phones are needed in the world and Apple doesn't provide them. Someone has to. I got my 84 year old father a phone for emergencies. Do you think he needs an IPhone? Is it really required that all 12 year olds own IPhones and S7s? People in other countries, China, Africa, lots of Europe need good reliable cheap phones. Samsung provides this. Apple doesn't. No problem with either. They choose their markets.