Trademark Filings Seemingly Confirm Apple's Work on Upcoming 'AirPods'

[Original_FTL83]

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.

I may not express myself clearing so I'm saying sorry in advance if I don't make sense.
I agree with you that IF (and it looks like apple did) apple drops the 3.5 connection, including the lighting cable is the cheapest option for the phone to come with. I also agree that if you want a high end wireless connection then paying for it seems fair enough.
The error in this situation is that apple is forcing it's customers to changing over to something that cost them money. They do see the logical financial benefit of taking the risk with this change.
Where does the forcing it's customers come into play? Like many that are reading this are saying "then don't f***ing buy the phone!". Of course many will opt out of buying a new phone because they have one that works just fine. I'm personally going to skip the phone if it comes without the 3.5 jack. Unfortunately there are many are in need of a new phone due to any number of circumstances. Now they'll have to make the choice of buying a used phone, maybe a 6 or brand new 6s or the newest one we are talking about now. The general public that isn't savy enough to buy a phone used; those that don't trust craigslist or other 3rd party vendors will more than likely walk into an apple store. You can bet your grandma pie that apple store employees will push the newest device they have. They are trained to do so and they also drink the koolaid and are apple hypebeast. So yes, some general consumer customers will end up on a device that forces them to use the lighting head phones.
When we talk about customers people generally are referring to the public consumers. The point has been made many times here that other manufactures are going to pay apple a fee for the lighting certification. As you said, apple has enough logic to calculate the risk of customers going over to android vs. revenue made from lighting head phones sold (current ones are $29) and revenue from the BT5 versions along with certification revenue.
TL;DR: Apple has calculated the potiential risk of customers leaving to another device and revenue generated from customers who are already stuck in the ecosystem and need a new device along with revenue from accessories and outside manufacture certification. They absolutely are forcing customer (consumer/business) into a new area for profit not for innovation.
[doublepost=1468725662][/doublepost]

I read a lot of Science Fiction and one of the reoccurring themes in almost all Sci-Fi is the sublimation of technology into peoples lives. In these 'futures' there are no discs, no wires, no hand-held phones, and no computers in the form that we would currently call a computer. The technology transcends the constraints of physical structure in order to become an extension of the user and not an external and cumbersome tool.

I admire Apple for always striving towards this. Even if sometimes it seems a little too brave. I was concerned about buying a laptop without a DVD drive for the first time a few years ago, but you know what it turns out that Apple were right about that as they have been about many of the more controversial steps forward that they've made.

If they remove wired earphones I'm not going to cry over it, because by the time that everybody has finished bitching about it, every other phone manufacturer in the industry will have done the same and the technology will have proven itself. Somebody has to push the market And whilst Apple are rarely the first to market, they certainly do push the market when they commit to something.

God help all of you moaners in 20 years time when Apple release the iPhone 27x as a pair of ear buds only. And you lot moan about the fact that you can only play Pokemon Go Classic in VR via your iLens (contact lens) and not on a 'real' screen on a hand held phone. Pfft. Luddite's.

Beautiful example... except that in all sci-fi the advancement of technology is a universal standard. Even R2D2 has the little attachment to connect into terminals in every ship he hacks. If apple was using a universal standard and the removal of the 3.5 actually pushed technology forward then you're point would make sense.
Apple is using their standard and charging for it. If you mention bluetooth as the wireless connection... well people are already using that and apple didn't do anything except remove the universal connection, replace it with their connection.
If they really wanted to support wireless connectivity they would have added wireless charging (has been around for several years) and a battery that supports that kind of power consumption.

 

[lordofthereef]

While I fully understand that, and empathize, that's exactly what Apple did when they took away the floppy disk. They did not put a writable drive back into the iMac for 4 years. And in the meantime, USB thumb drives were expensive and buggy, and few had the ability to use them. And the internet was hardly a substitute for file transfers at the time. Floppy disk users were forced to get adapters to continue using their cheap reliable old media. Yes Apple gave them something better, but before it was reliable, widely available, or affordable. In the meantime they took something very useful away. That's the analogy here.

Frankly, I will be just as upset as anyone if Apple removes the headphone jack now, only to replace it with a 2nd speaker and nothing else, which seems like a massive inconvenience for many with little gain.

But this idea that the new, affordable, reliable, improved technology needs to be in place before the transition takes place is unreasonable, and indeed has never been the case. It wasn't true when Apple removed the floppy disk, and it wasn't true when they removed the ADB, serial and SCSI ports. Just like Lightning headphones, USB and CD-R/Ws had been available, but there was nothing driving adoption of them. Unfortunately, I will be the first to agree that the level of improvement is not likely to ever be to the same degree as the floppy to CD, but it is improvement nonetheless.



I have no intention of upgrading my SE either, until Apple offers another 4" flagship phone. Which may be never. Some people can't understand that either. And the reality is that when the 7 comes out without a headphone jack, there will still be the very capable 6s and SE for customers who want to remain within the Apple ecosystem.

This really only becomes a concern for Apple in that they will likely lose sales, and Android makers will likely try and capitalize on that prior to dropping the headphone jack themselves. But Apple has to be prepared for that. Indeed if the phone turns out as uninspiring as the rumors suggest, they surely are expecting that -- and we'll get a good indication of that next week, when Apple provides guidance on their 4th quarter sales which includes the next iPhone release.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the fact that we have an analog to what has been done before isn't really a justification for me.

Yeah, they do these things. I'm not happy about them.
[doublepost=1468736312][/doublepost]

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.
View attachment 640463
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):
View attachment 640464
[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.

I need (want) axtual bids only. This is disingenuous to me. Bluetooth but I still have a cable. I can respect that this works for some, but it's just not for me.

Fwiw I tried jaybirds because people raved and they weren't my thing either. Battery life was fine but everything else about them was unappealing. I still had an annoying cable to deal with and they didn't stay in my ears all that well during strenuous (read: sweaty) exercise.

 

[manu chao]

I need (want) axtual bids only. This is disingenuous to me. Bluetooth but I still have a cable. I can respect that this works for some, but it's just not for me.

Fwiw I tried jaybirds because people raved and they weren't my thing either. Battery life was fine but everything else about them was unappealing. I still had an annoying cable to deal with and they didn't stay in my ears all that well during strenuous (read: sweaty) exercise.

My main reason to get Bluetooth headphones was that my headphone cable got frequently hooked on something (eg, a doorknob) which either yanked the phone out of my pocket (and caused it to drop on the floor) or yanked the headphone jack out of the phone (where the former, phone dropping, included the latter). This was not conducive to the integrity of the screen or the headphone cable. In the end, I had to replace the headphones every three to six months. By now the cost of the BT 220 has essentially been amortised by saving me the money used to regularly replace my headphones. What I also like is the ability to charge my phone while still being able to move around in a room or two.

Your desire to have earbuds-only Bluetooth headphones will very likely not become realistic anytime soon (if you want to get away with charging them only once per day). The power needed to drive the actual 'loudspeakers' won't go down massively, you need a certain (analogue) volume level. Add wireless data transmission and you end up with battery life of about an hour with current technology. To increase that to five hours (which I would need to get through a day), you'd need multiple revolutions in battery and wireless technology.

There is also the issue of headset microphones. I quite like it that I can keep my hands free during phone calls, and without having to switch headphones when I want to make a call or receive on. And finally, I do like the idea of not having a radio device inside my ears but rather have it on my neck, lapel or the front of my shirt.

 

[DoctorKrabs]

Have you been living under a rock? There already are plenty wireless earbuds...

I missed the part where I said "wireless earbuds don't already exist". I think what I said was that Apple's "AirPods" can be done without needing to remove the existing wired jack, and same with Lightning earbuds. Lightning and Bluetooth are already in existing iPhones.

 

[Mac 128]

I missed the part where I said "wireless earbuds don't already exist". I think what I said was that Apple's "AirPods" can be done without needing to remove the existing wired jack, and same with Lightning earbuds. Lightning and Bluetooth are already in existing iPhones.

I don't understand why this argument is still being made. Of course all of these things can be used without removing the headphone jack.

But that's the issue -- Apple needs to remove it to add and improve other things. And so does their competition. If they didn't, then it makes absolutely no sense to remove it, because otherwise, they'd be the only mobile phone company in the market without a headphone jack and that's a recipe for disaster. Millions of iPhone users would jump to Android who would happily sell them a phone with a headphone jack (and I expect they will capitalize on this distinction in the short term before they drop the jacks from their flagship phones as well).

Is Apple ahead of the curve? Yes, as usual. But in the end, removing the jack will create demand for digital and wireless solutions which will increase competition that will ultimately lower prices, increase quality and spur innovation -- something sorely lacking at the moment (unless you can point me to a large catalogue of Lightning compatible and lossless wireless headphones at all price points now).

But this idea that they're doing it solely to sell Beats headphones and Lightning licenses is ridiculous. Those small additional profits wouldn't come close to making up the loss of iPhone customers to the competition, seeking a headphone jack.

 

[twocents]

I would love it if they lost the beats name as well. Maybe they can rebrand all the beats headphones to airpods - mini, plus, and pro.

I never would've thought of that but it would definitely make sense in how Apple lineups usually come in 3's. Since all they've done so far is color code them to Sport bands and iPhones, this would be a great shakeup to go with the headphone jack-less iPhone 7

 

[Original_FTL83]

I don't understand why this argument is still being made. Of course all of these things can be used without removing the headphone jack.

But that's the issue -- Apple needs to remove it to add and improve other things. And so does their competition. If they didn't, then it makes absolutely no sense to remove it, because otherwise, they'd be the only mobile phone company in the market without a headphone jack and that's a recipe for disaster. Millions of iPhone users would jump to Android who would happily sell them a phone with a headphone jack (and I expect they will capitalize on this distinction in the short term before they drop the jacks from their flagship phones as well).

Is Apple ahead of the curve? Yes, as usual. But in the end, removing the jack will create demand for digital and wireless solutions which will increase competition that will ultimately lower prices, increase quality and spur innovation -- something sorely lacking at the moment (unless you can point me to a large catalogue of Lightning compatible and lossless wireless headphones at all price points now).

But this idea that they're doing it solely to sell Beats headphones and Lightning licenses is ridiculous. Those small additional profits wouldn't come close to making up the loss of iPhone customers to the competition, seeking a headphone jack.

I don't think apple is a head of the curve on this one. a) There is no affordable battery solution for power consumption using BT head phones. b) apple isn't doing anything with fast charging/wireless charging c) historically when new technology retires an older version it has been a more universal adaptation. Apple is making this so called push in innovation proprietary... which means revenue generating.
I think you're putting too much faith in people's ability to leave apple. I worked in the cell phone industry for 10 years, working directly with consumers. It is highly unlikely that low level users will leave apple just because a plug. The majority of users absolutely will pay for the adapter that their apple employee recommends. The number of tech oriented users that would leave is a small number compared to those who rather not have to learn something new.
Humans will find the solution that requires the least amount of effort and in this situation it is paying for the adapter because $40-$90 adapter/head phones is easier than what ever amount of time someone switching thinks it will take for them to learn to use an Andriod phone. Even as different manufactures put new technology and made it more useful customer repeatedly stayed with what they knew.
Funny story time: I had a person who thought she would have to get a new email address because she upgraded from an iPhone 4 to the 5... *face palm.

 

[Carlanga]

they could just be beats airpods as well...

 

[oopsroger]

Apple says "f... you" to anyone who owns a decent pair of headphones. (100 dollars up)

 

[truthertech]

Apple says "f... you" to anyone who owns a decent pair of headphones. (100 dollars up)

Or, as I plan to, simply use an adapter.

 

[b_scott]

I use these. And I'm not ditching them.

Or, as I plan to, simply use an adapter.

And have some clunky line sticking off my headphone to snag on stuff? And it also means you can't charge your phone at work while listening.

 

[truthertech]

What about frequent fliers, who can't use Bluetooth devices in flight?

You can relax. You'll be amazed in September to learn that among the many billions Apple spent on R&D ($10 billion just year alone,) it occurred to one or two of them to address the issue of the many millions of customers who want to use their phones on planes.
[doublepost=1468855373][/doublepost]

I use these. And I'm not ditching them.

And have some clunky line sticking off my headphone to snag on stuff? And it also means you can't charge your phone at work while listening.

Why do you assume Apple's solution will be "clunky" or that it won't allow you to charge while listening?

 

[lordofthereef]

My main reason to get Bluetooth headphones was that my headphone cable got frequently hooked on something (eg, a doorknob) which either yanked the phone out of my pocket (and caused it to drop on the floor) or yanked the headphone jack out of the phone (where the former, phone dropping, included the latter). This was not conducive to the integrity of the screen or the headphone cable. In the end, I had to replace the headphones every three to six months. By now the cost of the BT 220 has essentially been amortised by saving me the money used to regularly replace my headphones. What I also like is the ability to charge my phone while still being able to move around in a room or two.

Your desire to have earbuds-only Bluetooth headphones will very likely not become realistic anytime soon (if you want to get away with charging them only once per day). The power needed to drive the actual 'loudspeakers' won't go down massively, you need a certain (analogue) volume level. Add wireless data transmission and you end up with battery life of about an hour with current technology. To increase that to five hours (which I would need to get through a day), you'd need multiple revolutions in battery and wireless technology.

There is also the issue of headset microphones. I quite like it that I can keep my hands free during phone calls, and without having to switch headphones when I want to make a call or receive on. And finally, I do like the idea of not having a radio device inside my ears but rather have it on my neck, lapel or the front of my shirt.

I only listen while working out. I simply need something that lasts at least 2.5, but preferably three (for the wiggle room) on a single charge.

I've read of some Kickstarter items that claim three hours, which is fine. They're $300 though, and I feel that that's a lot to pay for such limited battery life.

In comparison in using chorded yurbuds that I just purchased (previous ones lasted almost five years but the third time thiguh the wash finally ended the, which is another concern entirely.)

Unfortunately, right now, the trend is going chord less means spending much more money. Wil have to see what sort of adapters Apple or other companies offer. Might be a none issue and allow me to "never" go chord less.

As far as the adapter, it will need to have a DAC in it from what I understand, so it wouldn't physically be capable of being some thing streamlined simple adapter. Giving it the ability to charge while listening will mean that the adapter will need to have at least two ports as well (something already "clunkier", by default, than soul ruins we have now)

 

[manu chao]

As far as the adapter, it will need to have a DAC in it from what I understand, so it wouldn't physically be capable of being some thing streamlined simple adapter.

Not necessarily, the phone will still have a DAC (to drive the speakers) and many people have speculated that analogue audio could be piped over Lightning.

Giving it the ability to charge while listening will mean that the adapter will need to have at least two ports as well (something already "clunkier", by default, than soul ruins we have now)

The same applies to any potential Lightning earbuds. If Apple considers it necessary to allow charging while using headphones, Lightning headphones will have need two ports as well. If not, neither the Lightning earbuds nor a Lightning to 3.5 mm will need two (Lightning) ports. The same applies to the DAC, if Lightning earbuds need their own DAC, that bulk exists for them the same way as it would for a Lightning to 3.5 mm adaptor.

 

[Mac 128]

Not necessarily, the phone will still have a DAC (to drive the speakers) and many people have speculated that analogue audio could be piped over Lightning.

The same applies to any potential Lightning earbuds. If Apple considers it necessary to allow charging while using headphones, Lightning headphones will have need two ports as well. If not, neither the Lightning earbuds nor a Lightning to 3.5 mm will need two (Lightning) ports. The same applies to the DAC, if Lightning earbuds need their own DAC, that bulk exists for them the same way as it would for a Lightning to 3.5 mm adaptor.

It's unlikely Apple will enable analogue over Lightning for various reasons, the least of which is they probably would have done it already with the 30-pin to Lightning adapter, and Lightning docks.

As for adding bulk, I don't understand why this argument continues, a simple pass through connector is all that's required. The device has to have a connector, so no added bulk. These USB connectors don't add any additional bulk while allowing one to daisy chain whatever a person needs. And that's but one simple solution.

 

[lordofthereef]

It's unlikely Apple will enable analogue over Lightning for various reasons, the least of which is they probably would have done it already with the 30-pin to Lightning adapter, and Lightning docks.

As for adding bulk, I don't understand why this argument continues, a simple pass through connector is all that's required. The device has to have a connector, so no added bulk. These USB connectors don't add any additional bulk while allowing one to daisy chain whatever a person needs. And that's but one simple solution.

For some the simple fact that something that is now there that wasn't before is enough to consider "bulk".

At the end of the day, no matter how you look at it, an adapter is always going to be more cumbersome than a... Not adapter. Same is true in that pass through example; whatever you plug into that is going to be sticking out that much more. May not bother some (many?). I don't know that id appreciate that in my pocket.

Either way, I'll pass final judgement if and when we see this thing get released.
[doublepost=1469005988][/doublepost]

The same applies to any potential Lightning earbuds. If Apple considers it necessary to allow charging while using headphones, Lightning headphones will have need two ports as well. If not, neither the Lightning earbuds nor a Lightning to 3.5 mm will need two (Lightning) ports. The same applies to the DAC, if Lightning earbuds need their own DAC, that bulk exists for them the same way as it would for a Lightning to 3.5 mm adaptor.

I took the quote I responded to as not talking about charging the phone, but rather the buds themselves.bid that is not what you meant, apologies.

I imagine that, for the sake of simplicity, we would get something like a lightning male to Y female adapter rather than having every lightning EarPods have a male and female end. I could be wrong though. Or again could be misinterpreting what you're suggesting.

Just discussing the possibility of adapters is enough to have me hate the very idea even more lol. I need an adapter to listen to my dead EarPods plugged into an adapter to charge my dead phone. Meanwhile none of this is an industry standard so it's all Apple specific adapters. Yipeeeeee!

Perhaps apple can complicate our lives so badly with adapters that we toss them all aside and go Bluetooth, their ultimate goal. Only half kidding here

 

[Mac 128]

For some the simple fact that something that is now there that wasn't before is enough to consider "bulk".

At the end of the day, no matter how you look at it, an adapter is always going to be more cumbersome than a... Not adapter. Same is true in that pass through example; whatever you plug into that is going to be sticking out that much more. May not bother some (many?). I don't know that id appreciate that in my pocket.

Either way, I'll pass final judgement if and when we see this thing get released.

You're going to charge your iPhone in your pocket!? While you listen to your earbuds!?

I can categorically say that's not a common use scenario.

As for your argument against having something stick that much further out, how is that an issue when you're tethered to a wall socket? Or otherwise carrying around a portable charging supply?

I can agree with you about any adapter adding bulk that wasn't there before for those who insist on using their old 3.5mm headphones. However, this scenario you've concocted about charging and listening while the phone is in your pocket is disingenuous at best. In order to do the same thing now, you're going to have two connectors plugged into the bottom of the phone, possibly a tangle of wires, and an extra battery depending on how you're charging the phone, so it's absolutely ridiculous to claim that's a better scenario than simply extending the port a little further out.

Also, let's say you're not charging the phone in your pants, but sharing your headphone connection with a friend -- a much more likely scenario. In order to do that now, you'll have to plug in a headphone splitter, an incredibly bulky adapter you'll have to keep track of, that sticks out much further than the lightning jack (over twice as far, not counting your friends plug). With a pass through Lightning port, you don't have to carry anything extra around, and your friend plugs in, sticking out less than just the splitter/adapter alone. That actually sounds like an improvement.

 

[manu chao]

I took the quote I responded to as not talking about charging the phone, but rather the buds themselves.bid that is not what you meant, apologies.

I imagine that, for the sake of simplicity, we would get something like a lightning male to Y female adapter rather than having every lightning EarPods have a male and female end. I could be wrong though. Or again could be misinterpreting what you're suggesting.

That is one possibility. Note the Apple Pencil, it has a male Lightning connector (as would the most straightforward Lightning earbuds) but also comes with a female-to-female Lightning adaptor that allows standard Lightning charging cables to be used to charge it.
[/QUOTE]

 

[b_scott]

You can relax. You'll be amazed in September to learn that among the many billions Apple spent on R&D ($10 billion just year alone,) it occurred to one or two of them to address the issue of the many millions of customers who want to use their phones on planes.
[doublepost=1468855373][/doublepost]


Why do you assume Apple's solution will be "clunky" or that it won't allow you to charge while listening?

So I need a special cable with two plugs on it? That's clunky.

 

[Mac 128]

So I need a special cable with two plugs on it? That's clunky.

Who told you that?

 

[lordofthereef]

You're going to charge your iPhone in your pocket!? While you listen to your earbuds!?

I can categorically say that's not a common use scenario.

As for your argument against having something stick that much further out, how is that an issue when you're tethered to a wall socket? Or otherwise carrying around a portable charging supply?

I can agree with you about any adapter adding bulk that wasn't there before for those who insist on using their old 3.5mm headphones. However, this scenario you've concocted about charging and listening while the phone is in your pocket is disingenuous at best. In order to do the same thing now, you're going to have two connectors plugged into the bottom of the phone, possibly a tangle of wires, and an extra battery depending on how you're charging the phone, so it's absolutely ridiculous to claim that's a better scenario than simply extending the port a little further out.

Also, let's say you're not charging the phone in your pants, but sharing your headphone connection with a friend -- a much more likely scenario. In order to do that now, you'll have to plug in a headphone splitter, an incredibly bulky adapter you'll have to keep track of, that sticks out much further than the lightning jack (over twice as far, not counting your friends plug). With a pass through Lightning port, you don't have to carry anything extra around, and your friend plugs in, sticking out less than just the splitter/adapter alone. That actually sounds like an improvement.

Not a pocket, but perhaps a backpack or a bag; I do that with some regularity when I bike with GPS and also when we went to Disneyland this last week (though that is a much less frequent occurrence). I would ask for more battery capacity but that horse has been beaten lol.

I'm actually in the road right now and I have a 3.5mm cable going into our stereo. It's older and I realize most applications use USB or Bluetooth. But I'm also not about to replace the deck on this car unless I'm forced. I'd either Need to keep an adapter with me or in the car; potentially another expense.

I've never been in a situation where I shared headphones, but I'm willing to concede that might be something people do and I'm in the minority.

At the end of the day I'm fairly sure that when I move to the next iPhone (unlikely to be this upcoming model, but I'm certainly not writing off iPhone for life based on the lack of a port) will force me to move to Bluetooth. Hoping something affordable and as good (for my needs) as what is on the market for corded buds comes along; right now I don't think anything like that exists. I'll also have to just accept that I'll have another thing to charge. :/

And again, It's important to mention that I'm seeing what I'm losing and not what I'm gaining. If Apple shows me that they've changed the world by removing something I had and given me more, great. I'm just not expecting that based on leaks we have seen.

 

[dkelban]

With it looking more and more like Apple is going to remove the headphone jack on the iPhone 7, we've seen considerable speculation and discussion about the transition to either wired Lightning headphones or Bluetooth options. Looking at the wireless possibilities, the first iPhone 7 headphone jack rumors immediately reminded us of an "AirPods" trademark filing we discovered last October that seemed likely to be linked to Apple, although conclusive proof could not be found at the time.

That AirPods trademark application was filed by a previously unknown company by the name of Entertainment in Flight LLC, which carried many of the hallmarks of being a shell company operated by Apple for the purposes of hiding its true identity. Apple has used such companies on many previous occasions, including for "iPad" and "CarPlay" that were ultimately used in product names and others such as "iWatch" that ended up scrapped in favor of other names.

As the AirPods trademark has continued through the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office review process, additional documents have been filed that we believe confirm Apple is behind the filing while providing evidence Apple continues to have interest in protecting the name.


Click here to read rest of article...

Article Link: Trademark Filings Seemingly Confirm Apple's Work on Upcoming 'AirPods'

With it looking more and more like Apple is going to remove the headphone jack on the iPhone 7, we've seen considerable speculation and discussion about the transition to either wired Lightning headphones or Bluetooth options. Looking at the wireless possibilities, the first iPhone 7 headphone jack rumors immediately reminded us of an "AirPods" trademark filing we discovered last October that seemed likely to be linked to Apple, although conclusive proof could not be found at the time.

That AirPods trademark application was filed by a previously unknown company by the name of Entertainment in Flight LLC, which carried many of the hallmarks of being a shell company operated by Apple for the purposes of hiding its true identity. Apple has used such companies on many previous occasions, including for "iPad" and "CarPlay" that were ultimately used in product names and others such as "iWatch" that ended up scrapped in favor of other names.

As the AirPods trademark has continued through the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office review process, additional documents have been filed that we believe confirm Apple is behind the filing while providing evidence Apple continues to have interest in protecting the name.


Click here to read rest of article...

Article Link: Trademark Filings Seemingly Confirm Apple's Work on Upcoming 'AirPods'

Hopefully, these will be better than apples notoriously bad sounding earbuds. As for me, I trash Apple buds and use my own high end buds.

 

[tardegrade]

Beautiful example... except that in all sci-fi the advancement of technology is a universal standard. Even R2D2 has the little attachment to connect into terminals in every ship he hacks. If apple was using a universal standard and the removal of the 3.5 actually pushed technology forward then you're point would make sense.
Apple is using their standard and charging for it. If you mention bluetooth as the wireless connection... well people are already using that and apple didn't do anything except remove the universal connection, replace it with their connection.
If they really wanted to support wireless connectivity they would have added wireless charging (has been around for several years) and a battery that supports that kind of power consumption.

The universal standard they are aiming for is wireless. As I said in my post, I'm referring to removing wires altogether. If the next iPhone removes the audio socket it will be to push adoption of wireless headphones. It would make sense to allow existing 3.5m connectors to use a dongle to connect to the lightning port for those people who really don't want to give up their existing headphones until they want to buy new ones. Buy that's not about forcing people to buy lightening headphones and adopt a non universal port it's about forcing the adoption of wireless. And yes wireless headphones have been around for a while, but Apple removing the 3.5 socket will definitely push wireless adoption and push the technology forward and competitors will follow suit. This should be obvious.

As for wireless charging. It's really not worth anything until it's not proximity related. If you have to wirelessly charge your phone by putting it on a wireless charging mat that is connected by wires to a power source then where is the benefit? Wireless charging will only be truly wireless when you can walk around your home or office using your phone and still have it charging wirelessly because somewhere in the building you have a wireless charger operating. Until that point it is just a gimmick.

 

[Mac 128]

The universal standard they are aiming for is wireless. As I said in my post, I'm referring to removing wires altogether. If the next iPhone removes the audio socket it will be to push adoption of wireless headphones. It would make sense to allow existing 3.5m connectors to use a dongle to connect to the lightning port for those people who really don't want to give up their existing headphones until they want to buy new ones. Buy that's not about forcing people to buy lightening headphones and adopt a non universal port it's about forcing the adoption of wireless. And yes wireless headphones have been around for a while, but Apple removing the 3.5 socket will definitely push wireless adoption and push the technology forward and competitors will follow suit. This should be obvious.

As for wireless charging. It's really not worth anything until it's not proximity related. If you have to wirelessly charge your phone by putting it on a wireless charging mat that is connected by wires to a power source then where is the benefit? Wireless charging will only be truly wireless when you can walk around your home or office using your phone and still have it charging wirelessly because somewhere in the building you have a wireless charger operating. Until that point it is just a gimmick.

Just to be clear, while removing the headphone jack promotes the adoption of wireless, it's unlikely to be the sole motivation. If Apple just wants to push wireless audio, they'll have to to really improve it. And what would be the motivation? To sell more Beats?

No, there's more going on here, since removing the headphone jack when they nor their competition does not need to, will result in a lot of lost sales and customers jumping platforms in the wrong direction.

As for wireless charging being a "gimmick" we'll sign me up. I can think of nothing I'd like more than getting into my car and placing the phone it's cradle and having it just start charging. Right now I have to search for the Lightning cable, insert it and place my phone in the cradle, routinely untangling the wire in the process. I'd pay big money for inductive charging in my cradle to make that problem go away.

At home and work, it's not such a big deal as I use a charging dock. However, I'd still like a charging mat in some places. There are times when I didn't get the phone back on the dock correctly in the middle of the night, and I woke up to find it hadn't been fully charged. A mat would solve that problem. I have a stand up desk at work, and It's hard to see my phone in the charging dock. A mat would solve that problem, while still giving me the convenience of not having to plug and unplug it every time I pick up to use it. Also I've yet to find a charging dock that didn't require two hands to pull it out of the dock. A mat would solve that problem.

So again, you say gimmick, I say convenience. Are power windows in a car a gimmick? Maybe they are to you, but they're extremely convenient for me. Now if you want a gimmick, I'll show you 3D Touch.

Is broadcasted power a better solution? You bet it is. But until then, I'll take whatever options I can get that make charging my phone more convenient.

 

[tardegrade]

Just to be clear, while removing the headphone jack promotes the adoption of wireless, it's unlikely to be the sole motivation. If Apple just wants to push wireless audio, they'll have to to really improve it. And what would be the motivation? To sell more Beats?

No, there's more going on here, since removing the headphone jack when they nor their competition does not need to, will result in a lot of lost sales and customers jumping platforms in the wrong direction.

As for wireless charging being a "gimmick" we'll sign me up. I can think of nothing I'd like more than getting into my car and placing the phone it's cradle and having it just start charging. Right now I have to search for the Lightning cable, insert it and place my phone in the cradle, routinely untangling the wire in the process. I'd pay big money for inductive charging in my cradle to make that problem go away.

At home and work, it's not such a big deal as I use a charging dock. However, I'd still like a charging mat in some places. There are times when I didn't get the phone back on the dock correctly in the middle of the night, and I woke up to find it hadn't been fully charged. A mat would solve that problem. I have a stand up desk at work, and It's hard to see my phone in the charging dock. A mat would solve that problem, while still giving me the convenience of not having to plug and unplug it every time I pick up to use it. Also I've yet to find a charging dock that didn't require two hands to pull it out of the dock. A mat would solve that problem.

So again, you say gimmick, I say convenience. Are power windows in a car a gimmick? Maybe they are to you, but they're extremely convenient for me. Now if you want a gimmick, I'll show you 3D Touch.

Is broadcasted power a better solution? You bet it is. But until then, I'll take whatever options I can get that make charging my phone more convenient.

I'm pretty sure that Apple's strategy here is a bit more than, 'Hey lets sabotage our own phone.' The reality will probably be that if they do release the next iPhone without a 3.5mm socket then they are bound to release the phone with wireless ear buds as well, and most people will just say, 'Hey cool!' and get on with it.

As for wireless charging you've done an admirable job of scratching around for vaguely plausible reasons to justify induction chargers. And I'm sure that some people will agree with you, but the majority wont give a hoot until it is a non proximity dependant technology. When that happens, then it will become truly beneficial.

The only way that I can see Apple introducing an induction charged iPhone, is if they decide to get rid of the lightning port as well and have a port free phone. Then clearly they would have to. (That was a design decision for the Apple Watch after all) But I can't see them doing this until broadcast wireless charging is a serious thing, at which point I'm sure they will loose the port as well. It would make sense. And then we'll see people moaning that they can't charge their phones by cable any more and how all Apple's customers are going to jump ship to Samsung. Déjà vu.