Which is the case for zero percent of iPhone owners. I have like 10 lightning cables, and you have a bunch as well. No need to invent problems here.Imagine having to buy a lightning cable just for airpods.
Which is the case for zero percent of iPhone owners. I have like 10 lightning cables, and you have a bunch as well. No need to invent problems here.Imagine having to buy a lightning cable just for airpods.
Exactly. It's utterly absurd that a company that promotes simplicity and interconnectivity has had two competing port standards across its products for this long. Lightning deserved to die years ago.They should have done this with all their products when Apple introduced USB-C on MacBook.
6-7 years ago
Well on the flip side is more true. Imagine getting a USB -C cable just for your phone when I have 10 lightning cables ready to be used. This resulting in duplicate cables instead of everything sharing.Which is the case for zero percent of iPhone owners. I have like 10 lightning cables, and you have a bunch as well. No need to invent problems here.
Yeah, but they're all old and freying. I've been holding off buying any new ones because I (hopefully) won't need any in 5 days.Which is the case for zero percent of iPhone owners. I have like 10 lightning cables, and you have a bunch as well. No need to invent problems here.
At the end of the day, I think the status quo will continue. I travel with two or three cables now: Lightning for my iPhone, AirPods; USB-C for my MacBook... and even a freaking micro USB 🤮 for my e-reader and my wife's Jabra earbuds. I'm not throwing out well-functioning gear because it uses any particular connector. The inconvenience is honestly trivial.Well on the flip side is more true. Imagine getting a USB -C cable just for your phone when I have 10 lightning cables ready to be used. This resulting in duplicate cables instead of everything sharing.
This would be useful. People can get rid of their old/extra stuff, and then Apple could recycle the parts to use in future products. Not sure what the cost is to recycle stuff, but hopefully less than source all new components.Better yet, Apple should have a massive accessory trade-up program. AppleTV removes, AirPods charging cases, Magic keyboards and trackpads and mice, and all sorts of Lightning a/v adapters. They should offer users a chance to turn these old accessories in for a trade-up discount on the new equivalent.
For example, a standalone USB-C AppleTV costs remote costs $60. If I buy it, my current remote becomes ewaste. Why? Apple could take my remote and swap it out for a USB-C one for $20, and then refurbish/recycle my remote into a new USB-C remote for someone else. This way, only the lightning connector itself becomes ewaste, and the rest of the remote is recycled or reused.
Full lossless 24-bit/192khz is nearly 10Mbps. That's certainly feasible for high-power wireless like wifi, but why? Other than a very small minority of enthusiasts, nobody needs this much bandwidth for audio.As for the Pro & Max themselves, I'd love to see them get wifi or some kind of better wireless so they can actually play lossless media. I find it ridiculous that none of Apple's headphones support that. And worse, none of their products (headphones, phones, iPads, computers) support the full hi-def 24-bit/192khz lossless without a 3rd party dac.
The AirPods Max come with a cable.Imagine having to buy a lightning cable just for airpods.
Open back headphones… this is the way.How about you deal with the condensation thing on the Airpods Max, Apple ?
All the AirPods come with a cable, but I agree that most people probably own one alreadyThe AirPods Max come with a cable.
The AirPods don’t, but unless you have never owned anything with a Lightning port, just use one of your many different cables.
Or just get one from one of your friends who are upgrading their iPhone.
I own and very much enjoy the AirPods Max myself. I don't consider myself in the target for listening to lossless, but I am a bit surprised it doesn't support it through a wired connection.Full lossless 24-bit/192khz is nearly 10Mbps. That's certainly feasible for high-power wireless like wifi, but why? Other than a very small minority of enthusiasts, nobody needs this much bandwidth for audio.
Setting aside the debate of whether anyone can even discern this difference, how often are people in a situation where it matters? Jogging or walking outside, commuting to work, shopping at a store, sitting on a plane/bus/train, and the dozens of other common activities people do with earphones are not conducive to super hi-def listening anyway. And if you're at home or in an office with a quiet and comfortable environment, then why do you need wireless?
Personally, I see no urgent need to merge portable and hi-def. I have my hi-def speaker setup at home and at work, and I have my AirPods for everything else.
Hasn’t there been a long standing rumor about Apple utilizing the U1 chip or a next gen U chip for lossless audio? It’s interesting how all of this lines up. The U2 will surely be more power efficient and allow for longer listen times. Hopefully they come out with new ones soon because I wouldn’t mind grabbing a pair soon.$10 says the refresh happens on Tues and has some sort of lossless capability
In a quiet room, absolutely. But outdoors or in any kind of vehicle, all but useless. I know this because I've tried with my Grados. Love the sound indoors, but not prepared to blast the sound loud enough to play over the top of all the environmental sounds they let in.Open back headphones… this is the way.