Supply Chain Rumors Reaffirm iPhone 7 Will Not Have Headphone Jack

[njmh]

Sorry, but the head phone adapter IS being lost to Bluetooth.

How so? Go through any device retailer and the vast majority of headphones and earbuds are all 3.5mm wired. Bluetooth earphones are few and far between and often way way more expensive.

It is a standard option in almost all cars now ...

Not in my 4-year old car that I'll likely be driving for many years yet. So now I have to screw around with retrofitting bluetooth just to get audio out of my phone that I've had no problems for years now with my good 'ol AUX jack?

... and Bluetooth headphones are becoming more and more popular.

They're not the majority and they shouldn't be. Why do we need to make simple, usable technology like standard bloody audio plugs obsolete for the sake of "progression". Bluetooth tech adds so much complexity to even simple devices, it's just not needed in the realm of audio output.

 

[Elvergun]

Because, as I have repeatedly pointed out -- the future of audio is wireless, in exactly the same way as the future of networking is WiFi.

As you have repeatedly done before, you are pulling this "fact" out of your...err...out of thin air. Wireless audio has been around for years and it is not the future now, and it will probably not be the future until some breakthrough technology comes along (mostly, longer lasting batteries that can power the headphone and the integrated high quality DAC and amp which would be needed). Wireless audio is inconvenient and it sucks. There is no way in hell that any wireless headphone is going to have the fidelity of a Sennheiser HD800 any time soon.

Go to www.head-fi.org and do a little reading before you post more nonsense. While you are there, why don't you create a thread about the future of audio. You can post your views about wireless being the future of audio...see how fast they laugh you out of the site.

 

[jonnysods]

The more you pay for your headphones, the more you expect the adapter to cost. Is anyone using really high end headphones and wanting the adapter to cost upward of $100?

My vote was for no adapter!
[doublepost=1452143418][/doublepost]I have a feeling they will kill all ports and just use the Apple Watch charger thing. They can make it even thinner then.

 

[yep-sure]

Because, as I have repeatedly pointed out -- the future of audio is wireless, in exactly the same way as the future of networking is WiFi. Apple removed the Ethernet jack, because they need the space, and wanted to push customers toward the wireless future. For exactly the same reasons, as long as Apple offers customers a choice of using the lowest common denominator, they are always going to opt for the least expensive route that has been around for over 130 years. And in doing so, they remove the incentive for developers to improve and make more affordable wireless audio products.

So even if Apple didn't want to free up more space in the iPhone, there's that underlying incentive toward pushing its customers toward the future. But the reality is they do have to deal with reducing components inside the iPhone, or make it larger, and your hypothetical situation aside; there's no way in the world Apple is going to eliminate NFC, or 3D Touch, just because some Australians don't currently use it -- maybe Apple should just scrap Pay too? And in the iPhone 7, who knows what else they plan to add to the phone? My original point stands. Apple has the market data, they have the roadmap. If they are going to drop the 3.5mm port, they've already looked at it from all the angles, what it will do for them, and what it will do for the customers.

Let's be clear - Apple Pay only works in North America and the UK. It's not just "a few Australians" that can't use it, it's the majority of the world that can't use it.

So again, logically, it makes no sense to have space taken up in a phone with a feature that the majority of users can't/don't use, and have another highly used feature removed in the name of "innovation".

Of course Apple would never remove NFC, and I'm not suggesting they do. I'm simply pointing out that impacting a huge percentage of customers by removing a highly popular function of the device, makes no logical sense.

A guiding principal of "Let's inconvenience the majority of our iPhone customers to save some device space" just seems absurd to me.

If you currently only use Wireless Headphones, this doesn't even impact you, yet it's entertaining to see how passionately you defend the decision, which is still only rumoured at this point.

 

[Michael Goff]

Doubt it. I don't care what rumors say. The iPhone is Apple's major cash cow. This is a move that would alienate a lot of people. Resorting to an adapter would be disastrous. This won't happen. Is there any compelling reason, other than making the phone thinner, to do this?

If this was just to make it thinner, they wouldn't have to do this. Look at the iPod Touch. It's thinner and has the 3.5mm headphone jack.

 

[Jsameds]

Let's be clear - Apple Pay only works in North America and the UK. It's not just "a few Australians" that can't use it, it's the majority of the world that can't use it.

So again, logically, it makes no sense to have space taken up in a phone with a feature that the majority of users can't/don't use, and have another highly used feature removed in the name of "innovation".

Of course Apple would never remove NFC, and I'm not suggesting they do. I'm simply pointing out that impacting a huge percentage of customers by removing a highly popular function of the device, makes no logical sense.

A guiding principal of "Let's inconvenience the majority of our iPhone customers to save some device space" just seems absurd to me.

If you currently only use Wireless Headphones, this doesn't even impact you, yet it's entertaining to see how passionately you defend the decision, which is still only rumoured at this point.

Not the best example. The NFC chip is tiny and wouldn't really free up any space at all should they remove it. It's the one in yellow.

The headphone jack on the other hand is pretty damn big.

The iPhone needs to be smaller, and I'm not talking about thinner. It needs to be shorter and narrower, and there's only so far you can go by shrinking things and this time old-hat clunky 40 year old technology is the first to go. To progress technologically the public must be pushed because they simply don't jump for themselves.

 

[yep-sure]

Haha, yes, it's a terrible example. But my point stands - if there is a requirement to strip things from the iPhone to make it smaller/reduce cost, there are other, lesser used, components that could be removed ahead of the 3.5mm headphone jack to reduce the impact to their users.

If the rumour turns out to be true, it's just another example of how the post-Steve Jobs Apple puts end user experience below other business drivers, which makes me sad. This mindset is why Apple products and services don't "just work" anymore - they've all been over complicated and changed to the point where usability and user experience comes second to marketability.

 

[tech3475]

By the looks of it, there would be little space gained by removing the headphone jack considering the lightning port and the screen size.

 

[8692574]

By the looks of it, there would be little space gained by removing the headphone jack considering the lightning port and the screen size.

Well not inside.... you could gain a lot of inner space so it would not make it thinner, but it might help removing part of the bezel.

 

[Abazigal]

Soooooooooo......
Are you under the impression that sitting out the 7 will make ANY difference whatsoever?
Like, do you think that the 7S will add the headphone jack back on there or something?

It's more that by the iPhone 7S, the user base will have come round to the fact that the audio jack is gone for good, and the market for lightning headphones should be more mature and consumers will have a wider variety of devices to choose from.

Of course, there is nothing stopping me from getting a pair of lightning headphones to use with my existing 6S+.

 

[Jsameds]

Haha, yes, it's a terrible example. But my point stands - if there is a requirement to strip things from the iPhone to make it smaller/reduce cost, there are other, lesser used, components that could be removed ahead of the 3.5mm headphone jack to reduce the impact to their users.

If the rumour turns out to be true, it's just another example of how the post-Steve Jobs Apple puts end user experience below other business drivers, which makes me sad. This mindset is why Apple products and services don't "just work" anymore - they've all been over complicated and changed to the point where usability and user experience comes second to marketability.

Such as?

There's a teardown here so you can see exactly what's in the phone and it's relative size.

https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPhone+6s+Teardown/48170


As for saying this is a post-Jobs thing - seriously? Jobs was well known for doing exactly this kind of thing!

 

[Jsameds]

Just in time. This puts an end to people's BT quality woes.

http://www.androidguys.com/2016/01/...uetooth-audio-quality-with-new-aptx-hd-codec/

 

[zhenya]

Just in time. This puts an end to people's BT quality woes.

http://www.androidguys.com/2016/01/...uetooth-audio-quality-with-new-aptx-hd-codec/

So how I read that is they are keeping the lossy compression but increasing compatibility to 24bit which is completely pointless for the end listener.

 

[Jsameds]

So how I read that is they are keeping the lossy compression but increasing compatibility to 24bit which is completely pointless for the end listener.

Why? It gives you higher quality audio over older bluetooth audio delivery methods.

 

[zhenya]

Why? It gives you higher quality audio over older bluetooth audio delivery methods.

It doesn't say anything at all about that. In fact it implies that the compression method remains the same. All they've done is add compatibility for 24bit audio which does absolutely nothing for sound quality. Look into that fact if you don't understand it. The last thing compressed audio needs is the additional dynamic range 24bit audio affords.

 

[Jsameds]

It doesn't say anything at all about that. In fact it implies that the compression method remains the same. All they've done is add compatibility for 24bit audio which does absolutely nothing for sound quality. Look into that fact if you don't understand it. The last thing compressed audio needs is the additional dynamic range 24bit audio affords.

So you really think they'd bother developing and releasing it if it made absolutely no difference?

 

[zhenya]

So you really think they'd bother developing and releasing it if it made absolutely no difference?

If they can advertise it as 24bit while at the same time minimizing the amount of development work that needs to be done vs. developing a better compression algorithm or better yet figuring out a way to transmit the data lossless, then yes, absolutely. Most people hear '24bit' and 'HD Audio' and assume there must be some audible improvement made which is anything but the case. It's the perfect marketing opportunity.

 

[Jsameds]

If they can advertise it as 24bit while at the same time minimizing the amount of development work that needs to be done vs. developing a better compression algorithm or better yet figuring out a way to transmit the data lossless, then yes, absolutely. Most people hear '24bit' and 'HD Audio' and assume there must be some audible improvement made which is anything but the case. It's the perfect marketing opportunity.

We'll see but for now I'll remain optimistic.

I also think Apple will introduce a new Bluetooth technology when they ditch the headphone jack, some delivery system that minimises the compression between the device and the receiver giving high quality BT audio along with higher quality lightning delivered audio. This would make the Beats acquisition make even more sense.

Also, this:
https://www.macrumors.com/2015/12/20/apple-high-resolution-audio/

 

[NeilHD]

Personally I just bought a nice pair of Bose noise-cancelling headphones that I hope will outlast several phones... if I have to stick an adaptor in the bottom of the phone then the headphones into that it'll be nowhere near as pocketable or convenient.

 

[Jsameds]

If they can advertise it as 24bit while at the same time minimizing the amount of development work that needs to be done vs. developing a better compression algorithm or better yet figuring out a way to transmit the data lossless, then yes, absolutely. Most people hear '24bit' and 'HD Audio' and assume there must be some audible improvement made which is anything but the case. It's the perfect marketing opportunity.

We'll see but for now I'll remain optimistic.

I also think Apple will introduce a new Bluetooth technology when they ditch the headphone jack, some delivery system that minimises the compression between the device and the receiver giving high quality BT audio, along with higher quality lightning delivered audio.

https://www.macrumors.com/2015/12/20/apple-high-resolution-audio/

 

[Mac 128]

Let's be clear - Apple Pay only works in North America and the UK. It's not just "a few Australians" that can't use it, it's the majority of the world that can't use it.

So again, logically, it makes no sense to have space taken up in a phone with a feature that the majority of users can't/don't use, and have another highly used feature removed in the name of "innovation".

Of course Apple would never remove NFC, and I'm not suggesting they do. I'm simply pointing out that impacting a huge percentage of customers by removing a highly popular function of the device, makes no logical sense.

A guiding principal of "Let's inconvenience the majority of our iPhone customers to save some device space" just seems absurd to me.

If you currently only use Wireless Headphones, this doesn't even impact you, yet it's entertaining to see how passionately you defend the decision, which is still only rumoured at this point.

You know hypothetically, I do wonder what a company like Apple would do, if Audtralian banks, banned Pay, and passed a law requiring all mobile devices to have a 3.5mm Jack. Similarly to the EU requiring all devices to have micro USB connectors for charging (of course Apple just skirted the issue by offering a lightning to USB adapter, so let's say Australian rules are tougher).

So would Apple in order to serve several million customers, offer a redesigned phone just for Australia, or pull out of the market? Interesting deilemma.

But let's look at your main point --

Apple has always removed something many people were using in the name of "innovation". SCSI, serial, VGA, Floppy drives, CD Roms, Ethernet, 30-pin dock, USB-A. And they didn't always replace it with something comperbale.

And everytime they did it, the market was not ready. Products for the new standard weren't available, if they were they were expensive and limited in function, they were buggy, and overly complex, often incompatible with the standard, or able to offer comperbale performance.

In the end, your main argument boils down to, this is something that impacts you, but not me. But a few years ago when Apple dropped Ethernet on their MacBook Pros, I was in exactly the same boat. In fact I still am, but life goes on with my daily use of Apple's Ethernet adapter. Moreover, your argument is that the decision to remove the 3.5mm Jack will inconvenience the majority of their customers based on the fact this directly affects you, and I'm not sure about that. It's hard for me to believe that Apple would make a major move like this without being at the "tipping point" for this inevitable transition to wireless, nor that they don't have the research to show it will not affect a "majority" of their customers. They're progressive, but so far anyway, I don't think they're crazy (despite their previous marketing campaign).

 

[D-Dave]

Sorry, but the head phone adapter IS being lost to Bluetooth. It is a standard option in almost all cars now and Bluetooth headphones are becoming more and more popular.

Well, to keep an open mind...bluetooth is not an option for many situations because of a) limited battery life (headphones) b) additional battery drain (phone, which already gets a hit from smaller battery) c) regulatory limitations (like on planes)

 

[Mac 128]

I'm all in for wireless audio - where it makes sense. I have been using Airplay at home since 2004. Every one of my cars has bluetooth and there it's a convenient feature although when I am in the car for a longer trip I always plug in because the sound quality is noticeably better. Bluetooth is fine as an option for headphone use, but as I've said numerous times, I don't find that the tradeoffs are worth it. And it's not at all the same thing as the transition from Ethernet to wifi because your mobile phone is already untethered from the network - but you still have to carry your phone with you on your person even with bluetooth headphones. The downside is that you must now charge those headphones perhaps as often as every day or so - typically requiring yet another cable. To me, that inconvenience paired with the degradation in sound quality just isn't worth the minor convenience gained by losing a couple feet of cable between my ears and the phone in my pocket....And at this point jettisoning the headphone jack doesn't seem to be in the best interest of the user at all. My wife is consistently a reliable litmus test as to what will fly in the mainstream, and she has roundly rejected bluetooth headphones after trying several pairs because of the overhead of constant charging an pairing was not worth the benefit when the 3.5mm ones sitting right next to them 'just work.'

All I can say about your position on Bluetooth is what I had been saying about it. I can't disagree with your experience. All I've been saying is that I find the trade offs worth the freedom. Just like I found the tradeoffs of using the first AirPort worth the freedom of wireless internet. And believe me, Wifi has come a long way since 1999, and surprisingly it still has a long way to go to be as good as Ethernet. Whenever Apple has dropped a widely used standard, there has been a period of transition where many were inconvenienced. And the replacement technology has had problems for a few years until the industry caught up with, and better understood the technology they were scrambling to offer to fill demand, with which they previously had no experience.

There is no demand for Bluetooth audio until consumers see it as the most convenient choice. Demand for BT audio will result in better products and lower prices. It's that simple. Your complaint about BT is what's available now. But Apple is about skating to where the puck is going to be in a few years, not about where it is today. It's interesting, one of your main complaints is battery life, which makes me relate it to the complaints about the Watch -- so I can presume you don't have an Watch either? And no offense, but after that description, I can't help thinking of your wife as a sort of high-tech Iowa in terms of popular trends. Regardless, I'm not sure I don't currently agree with her -- BT is not ready for the masses today. And that's why there needs to be a reasonable intermediary of Lightning, until developers are able to step up their game and make customers like your wife happy with the ease of use, and customers like yourself happy with the quality and reliability of audio. Because wireless is the future. And just like so many other transitions to inevitable, and ultimately better future technologies, there's going to be a few years where it's not going to be perfect.
[doublepost=1452182880][/doublepost]

Wireless audio has been around for years and it is not the future now, and it will probably not be the future until some breakthrough technology comes along (mostly, longer lasting batteries that can power the headphone and the integrated high quality DAC and amp which would be needed). Wireless audio is inconvenient and it sucks. There is no way in hell that any wireless headphone is going to have the fidelity of a Sennheiser HD800 any time soon.

Go to www.head-fi.org and do a little reading before you post more nonsense. While you are there, why don't you create a thread about the future of audio. You can post your views about wireless being the future of audio...see how fast they laugh you out of the site.

So, you believe that people will always prefer to be tethered to a device with a wire in order to listen to music, and that wireless audio will never get any better than it is today. Got it.

 

[zhenya]

All I can say about your position on Bluetooth is what I had been saying about it. I can't disagree with your experience. All I've been saying is that I find the trade offs worth the freedom. Just like I found the tradeoffs of using the first AirPort worth the freedom of wireless internet. And believe me, Wifi has come a long way since 1999, and surprisingly it still has a long way to go to be as good as Ethernet. Whenever Apple has dropped a widely used standard, there has been a period of transition where many were inconvenienced. And the replacement technology has had problems for a few years until the industry caught up with, and better understood the technology they were scrambling to offer to fill demand, with which they previously had no experience.

There is no demand for Bluetooth audio until consumers see it as the most convenient choice. Demand for BT audio will result in better products and lower prices. It's that simple. Your complaint about BT is what's available now. But Apple is about skating to where the puck is going to be in a few years, not about where it is today. It's interesting, one of your main complaints is battery life, which makes me relate it to the complaints about the Watch -- so I can presume you don't have an Watch either? And no offense, but after that description, I can't help thinking of your wife as a sort of high-tech Iowa in terms of popular trends. Regardless, I'm not sure I don't currently agree with her -- BT is not ready for the masses today. And that's why there needs to be a reasonable intermediary of Lightning, until developers are able to step up their game and make customers like your wife happy with the ease of use, and customers like yourself happy with the quality and reliability of audio. Because wireless is the future. And just like so many other transitions to inevitable, and ultimately better future technologies, there's going to be a few years where it's not going to be perfect.

I can see your point but I still don't believe it's quite the same thing. Most of the previous transitions offered a demonstrably superior solution in some way. Computers that could never be fully untethered despite having a battery suddenly could be for example. Wireless headphones don't really offer any additional freedom they just offer some reduced cable clutter when wearing in return for the need to be charged, and requiring another cable to do so.

As for the AW, I had largely ignored it mostly because of the lack of built-in GPS, but I did also lament the need to carry yet another charger with its introduction. While the magnetic charger is very slick, I still would have preferred making lightning work in some way. I ended up receiving one as a gift at Christmas and I am more impressed with it than I expected. But again, it is offering me something demonstrably better than what I was using before. I already was used to wearing a GPS watch that required regular charging, so an AW that offers a lot more features for (slightly) more charging is worth the effort. For me, the single advantage of Bluetooth headphones is the lack of a wire which is no real advantage at all right now. I feel the same way about wireless charging, FWIW. If I have to have a dedicated charging mat to charge my phone that's a step backwards, not a step forward.

 

[Mac 128]

Personally I just bought a nice pair of Bose noise-cancelling headphones that I hope will outlast several phones... if I have to stick an adaptor in the bottom of the phone then the headphones into that it'll be nowhere near as pocketable or convenient.

I don't really understand this argument. There's no reason such an adapter doesn't have to be anything more than this, which always stays attached to your headphones merely adding a couple of inches to the end of your current cable:

I actually empathize with someone who has to buy multiple adapters to use with various sets of headphones they may own, but this is typically not the case for most.

Well, to keep an open mind...bluetooth is not an option for many situations because of a) limited battery life (headphones) b) additional battery drain (phone, which already gets a hit from smaller battery) c) regulatory limitations (like on planes)

All of these things will improve. Apple improves battery life with every generation of iPhone. BT headphones will likewise benefit as BT wireless gets more efficient as it has every couple of years. More and more planes are certifying BT wireless use every day. I haven't flown on a single airline that has prevented me from using them in flight, though some have asked me to power down during take off and landing.
[doublepost=1452184130][/doublepost]

I can see your point but I still don't believe it's quite the same thing. Most of the previous transitions offered a demonstrably superior solution in some way. Computers that could never be fully untethered despite having a battery suddenly could be for example. Wireless headphones don't really offer any additional freedom they just offer some reduced cable clutter when wearing in return for the need to be charged, and requiring another cable to do so.

As for the AW, I had largely ignored it mostly because of the lack of built-in GPS, but I did also lament the need to carry yet another charger with its introduction. While the magnetic charger is very slick, I still would have preferred making lightning work in some way. I ended up receiving one as a gift at Christmas and I am more impressed with it than I expected. But again, it is offering me something demonstrably better than what I was using before. I already was used to wearing a GPS watch that required regular charging, so an AW that offers a lot more features for (slightly) more charging is worth the effort. For me, the single advantage of Bluetooth headphones is the lack of a wire which is no real advantage at all right now. I feel the same way about wireless charging, FWIW. If I have to have a dedicated charging mat to charge my phone that's a step backwards, not a step forward.

Well I can't change your mind. If you don't see removing the wire from headphones being as liberating for the user as removing the wire from computers, well, what can I say, other than I doubt Apple sees it the same way. And I certainly don't. I can't conceive of a future where I have to uncoil an amount of wire, plug it into a device, and have to carry the device wherever I go for uninterrupted music, or unplug when I need to move around, every time I want to listen to music privately.

So I must assume you won't be using your Watch to listen to music then?