HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Thickness of camera modules is not about a lack of engineering effort. If ANYONE could make a quality camera module thin enough to be flush with current iPhone thicknesses, it would be in Apple iPhones. There would be HUGE revenues for that camera module maker. Apple is not choosing to have an increasingly protruding camera because that's what they want now... or they just haven't got around to making thinner cameras. There must be some distance between lens and imager for a camera to work. Our own eyeballs have the biological version of that because it is "what works" too. Why waste all that skull space if our eyeballs could be as thin as our fingernails? Because that's what works for the pictures our eyes shoot.
We have protruding lenses in iPhones because Apple prioritized thin phone bodies over flush or "wart-less". Another decision could have been to deem phones "thin enough" when key parts like the camera module cannot be made thinner... perhaps filling the spare space with "more battery", leaving the headphone jack in, etc. But no, thinner is paramount... even if that means wart... even if that means needing to start kicking ubiquitous functionality out to "make room" for going even thinner, etc.
And my "vision" was half joking. I (too) have a hard time picturing Apple going modular for all parts of iPhone 14. Then again, the next iPhone is about to have a modular "tail" hanging out of the Lightning jack for many phones "in the wild." And Apple already sells a modular add-on battery pack for anyone needing more battery than what can fit inside of ever-"thinner" internal space. Camera physics is in direct conflict with "thinner" objectives so that "wart" can only get bigger" unless there are compromises to be made to the quality of the pics it can shoot. Etc.
I was also poking fun at "us"... so quick to rationalize jettisoning the 3.5mm jack without a hit to the price of the phone. If I'm Apple and I get away with this as measured by sales, why don't I start thinking about jettisoning other internal parts to further fatten my margins, knowing the faithful will work just as hard to rationalize those decisions too and my customers will buy anyway... and buy my high-margin accessories to get the functionality back that used to be included INSIDE iPhones? And once you think about that possibility, what would be the next obvious internal utility to shift out to accessory add-on? Since thinner seems paramount, what eats up the bulk of the space inside an iPhone now? Kick THAT out to accessory and iPhone can get much, MUCH thinner... except for that camera module. Hmmmm.
[doublepost=1472901871][/doublepost]
Yes, but when an Apple product has a problem like that, it's YOUR fault... or your router... or you're using some cheap, third-party accessory... or "my MBP has a perfect battery (so yours must be perfect too)"... or <any other reason to shift blame away to anyone or everyone/thing else>.
We only care about recalls like this one when it's any competitor of Apple. And then- whatever the issue or cause- it is entirely the competitor's fault.
Plus, we'll "forget" Apple's recalls as quickly as we can but we'll remember competitor's recalls even when Samsung is rolling out the Galaxy 16.
All
[doublepost=1472902251][/doublepost]
They won't copy Apple on this one. They may indeed drop the headphone jack if Apple gets away with doing that (and they probably will). But competitors won't replace it with a proprietary Lightning jack. Instead, they'll adopt USB3 which is now endorsed as "THE way" by Intel and will be built into the future chips from Intel (likely working in future Macs that use those same Intel chips). USB3 will be cheaper, work just as well for "all digital" headphone arguments and likely be able to readily connect to much more. We Apple people will have to be happy in our walled garden all that much more... or have a variety of adapters on hand should we want to connect to about anything else (perhaps even future Macs).
Last edited:
