Can you use Bluetooth devices such as headsets legally in a plane? I thought when you set any permitted devices to airplane mode, as requested by the airline staff, this disabled Bluetooth along with wifi and cellular.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Trademark Filings Seemingly Confirm Apple's Work on Upcoming 'AirPods'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Wireless and bluetooth can both be switched on whilst still in 'airplane mode', implying the key service to be disabled in an airplane is the cellular. Whether this is the intention from the airline side of things, or just the way that idevices are set up is uncertain.
I don't frequent macumors enough to realize that's a running comment in every thread. The fact that you noticed that suggests you have little to no life.
Phiaton BT 220 NC ($159 at Amazon), rated at 17 hours (enabling noise cancelling roughly cuts that in half). I usually get about three days out of it.
Battery life is simply a function of how large you accept the battery-holding part to be. Their BT 110 is rated at 4.5 hours and comes with a much smaller battery-holding box(es):
[doublepost=1468676036][/doublepost]
I can assure, the next iPhone will have a DAC. It'll still have a speaker (all images show the speaker grilles at the bottom, and without speakers it wouldn't even be able to ring when you get a call) and speakers need DACs in exactly the same way (analogue) headphones need them.
Last edited:
I'm not carrying around an adapter. There's no way anyone thinks having yet another thing to remember to keep in your pocket all times is a good idea.
Yes. In the US, I believe all carriers allow BT & wifi. I've heard some International carriers don't yet. But None of the US carriers I have flown internationally have this limitation. Most aircraft have WiFi, and since BT has an even smaller radius, logically there's no problem.
BT & Wifi can both be re-enabled when in airplane mode, and indeed have to be in order to pay inflated prices for the airline's in-flight wifi services. When instructed to turn on airplane mode, they mean for the cellular radio primarily.
Completely, utterly worthless.
I want to listen to music in my car. In a friend's car. In a club. At anyone's house. Without a standard analog output that's going to be impossible. And I'm not interested in carrying around an adapter.
[doublepost=1468680665][/doublepost]
It boggles my mind that none of you want to be able to play music from your phone wherever you happen to be.
You're totally okay with a massive loss in functionality. Every speaker, headphone and audio system on the planet is no longer accesible to you.
You get nothing in return for this massive loss.
Even though some of them existed before Apple co-opted them, LOL
[doublepost=1468680891][/doublepost]
Evolution? It wastes batteries and increasing landfills quicker. No environmentalist would support that. Call up Al Gore for advice on what's best. He's been on Apple's board for over a decade now so he should be easy for you to find.
[doublepost=1468680945][/doublepost]"Apple for the purposes of hiding its true identity."
How about the other quote many people love to say (not me, I am just quoting):
"if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about"?
Your car is the least of the problems. Don't have to carry around an adapter there, just leave it plugged in, just like you leave the male-to-male 3.5mm cable now. I listen to music in many of my friends cars now, and I have never once used a headphone jack to do it. They either had BT or USB. I take that back, I did rent a car once that only had a 3.5mm jack. And I was unable to use my iPhone with it, because I did not have a male-to-male 3.5mm cable. So looks like instead of carrying around a tiny adapter that more or less lives on the end of your headphones, you have to carry around an extra cable in order to be ready for anything -- sounds convenient.
I've never been to a club, or a party for that matter, that allowed me to plug into their sound system that did not have a Lightning cable, or AirPlay. Clubs will have the adapters, you won't need to carry them around. They have them now for 1/4" audio gear, and XLR equipment. This will be no different as there are over half a billion iOS devices in use worldwide giving them plenty of incentive to support them.
So don't carry around an adapter. Buy a new set of digital headphones compatible with whatever your needs require. Since you're used to carrying around a male-to-male 3.5mm cable now, you'll be set with your Lightning cable and optional 3.5mm cable. I'd prefer a tiny little adapter, but that's me.
Last edited:
Maybe that's coming? I don't think so yet though. Besides, charging mostly happens at night while sleeping. The wireless angle I'm guessing about is towards audio.
I have no life either. But I do agree with you that I want a skylake macbook pro and could care less about their stupid airpods.
I agree. Improved lossless quality wireless audio will be enough to convince most of the diehard wired headphone users. Nobody wants to plug in a cable unless they have to, or wear tin-foil hats.
Apple will go along way toward introducing an easy to pair, high quality, wireless headphone with a long battery life, and optional wired connection for use when the battery runs out. In fact such a product could revolutionize audio.
Yeah... agreed. Honestly, the Beats purchase seems like Apple squandered a lot of opportunities with it, unless they change direction and surprise me.
I mean, rather than just reselling the Beats headphones in all the stores (where they compete against Apple's own earbud offerings), I'm surprised they didn't just take the best parts of the technology patents and release new, better products with a "Beats by Apple" logo of some sort on them? (You know ... like a small white Apple logo with an elegant "Beats by" scripted just above and to the left of it, maybe?)
Beats sold a lot of headsets and earbuds that were too bass-heavy and/or didn't produce audio worth the premium price. But at the same time, the "Solo 2" got pretty good reviews on sound quality. So IMO, that one should have been kept at least. It could have been the "bridge" or "transition" offering as new ones were worked on....
I mean, rather than just reselling the Beats headphones in all the stores (where they compete against Apple's own earbud offerings), I'm surprised they didn't just take the best parts of the technology patents and release new, better products with a "Beats by Apple" logo of some sort on them? (You know ... like a small white Apple logo with an elegant "Beats by" scripted just above and to the left of it, maybe?)
Beats sold a lot of headsets and earbuds that were too bass-heavy and/or didn't produce audio worth the premium price. But at the same time, the "Solo 2" got pretty good reviews on sound quality. So IMO, that one should have been kept at least. It could have been the "bridge" or "transition" offering as new ones were worked on....
it should be a given apple will offer wireless headphone.
[doublepost=1468687170][/doublepost]
You can already buy what you describe, sennheiser , Bose and B&O produce such "high" end units. The problem is BT , not the headphones, so no....wired sounds better than wireless . Hopefully in the future that will be bridged. Apple first needs to improve the quality of the audio it offers before a hardware solution is implemented.
Apple is going to give us what we already had, minus the headphone jack. No revolution or improvement in audio is coming.
[doublepost=1468687333][/doublepost]
The solo 2 is a decent headset, just not with the premium cost, but if looks are important, now you get decent sound.
Also suprised apple has not developed better headphones after the buy out, solo 2 were pre apple, so the whole beats product range is as out of date and old as the Mac Pro, though in Audio terms, updates come years apart.
[doublepost=1468687170][/doublepost]
You can already buy what you describe, sennheiser , Bose and B&O produce such "high" end units. The problem is BT , not the headphones, so no....wired sounds better than wireless . Hopefully in the future that will be bridged. Apple first needs to improve the quality of the audio it offers before a hardware solution is implemented.
Apple is going to give us what we already had, minus the headphone jack. No revolution or improvement in audio is coming.
[doublepost=1468687333][/doublepost]
The solo 2 is a decent headset, just not with the premium cost, but if looks are important, now you get decent sound.
Also suprised apple has not developed better headphones after the buy out, solo 2 were pre apple, so the whole beats product range is as out of date and old as the Mac Pro, though in Audio terms, updates come years apart.
Yes, wireless earbuds. A reason to remove the headphone jack, except that the headphone jack being gone doesn't make wireless earbuds any more possible than when there is a jack.
I really hate the earpods because they do not fit my ears well. They do not have foam or anything like that so they are designed to fit the middle majority. If you have large ear holes (like mine) or small ones they do not fit right. I cannot keep them in, I know other people the same way.
Yes, I know they are great for those that can use them but I wish they were more "universal" with a way to resize them. Like hooks you can change. I have topped them with foam and used earhoox, and while earhoox starts out great they get loose. Not worth the effort.
[doublepost=1468698269][/doublepost]
Given to the kids who's ears they fit.
I have a 6s plus, I will be upgrading to whatever comes after the 7 (iphone upgrade program). I think by then I will be ready for some wireless headphones. I have hearing problems so may look into the bone transfer ones and see how they are at that time.
Last edited:
Have you been living under a rock? There already are plenty wireless earbuds...
My response to everything Apple does now. They still use 4th gen Intel CPUs! WTF?!
This doesn't make sense. Packaging the least expensive option is the same aux cable ones they already have. Allowing customers to purchase a more expensive option would be allowing customer to purchase their over priced Beats wireless head phones.
This is apple pushing customer into spending more money by needing lighting branded head phones, either from apple or any other company that pays for the certification.
What doesn't make sense? What Aux cable headphones do they currently include? The 3.5mm plug?
The point is, if they drop the headphone jack, then a Lightning headphone is the least expensive solution for Apple which offers the same options they give customers now. If you don't want to use Apple's cheap earbuds now, you have the option to buy Beats, or Bose or whatever. There are already Lightning alternatives to Beats, and when Apple drops the headphone jack, almost all headphone makers are likely to jump on board, with that or wireless headphones using BT 5 or whatever new wireless audio codecs Apple may introduce. Apple is not forcing anybody to buy Beats. The reality is, all wireless BT headphones will work with the iPhone out of the starting gate, and while Beats may have a leg up on the competition in the beginning with BT 5 and Lightning, since most new headphones will be platform agnostic, a simple Lightning cable will be all that's required to plug in most new headphones.
What doesn't make sense is accusing Apple of drumming up profits by forcing their customers to buy dedicated Lightning headphones by removing the headphone jack when they don't have to. Apple will lose far more from customers jumping to the Android platform in that case, than they will make up by selling Beats headphones. And I can't imagine the most successful company in the world doesn't see that logic.