Apple Announces the iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus

[79wjd]

9 minutes ago, VerticalDiscussions said:

They said the Jet Black scratched like crazy, even at the show floor some guys did it with minimal effort, which is why i want a case that covers as much as possible of the device itself :p. Hope i dont regret this 1st time Iphone usage.

It kind of defeats the point if you cover it with a case. 

 

@ShadowCaptain Agreed. If I decide to upgrade, I'll be getting the Matte Black 7+.

[GoodBytes]

Just now, Commodus said:

It does to a degree.  You had a whole paragraph devoted to railing against Apple for creating a proprietary wireless format to lock customers into its headphones, and your motherboard analogy partly depends on that claim to work (i.e. Apple is taking away that motherboard's ports so it can force you to use its wireless mouse and keyboard).  The argument is more about raising the overall price of the iPhone audio ecosystem, but you do ascribe unnecessarily sinister motivations to Apple because of that slip on the AirPods' technology.

No. It is proprietary wireless format for all we know. It just happens that the radio receiver that they built, support both, its own thing and Bluetooth. If not they would just call it: low-powered Bluetooth, or don't, and surprise everyone how you have the longest battery life smallest wireless earphones.

 

The motherboard analogy still works. As you have that priority connector, and only 1 plug.

Say you have one of those nice mechanical keyboard, or even if you have a membrane keyboard, many of which are nice in its own ways.. they don't exists in Bluetooth variety, not to mention increase input lag, which is why some companies like Logitech likes to go with its own 2.4GHz technology.

[VerticalDiscussions]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

-snip-

Well its mostly for when i go outside, to use the case that is

[Decimator 22]

3 hours ago, Dredgy said:

 

Live in Australia? Price here had me shocked, is so much more than the exchange rate justifies.

 

Mexico actually, but yeah I've seen your prices they suck.  Over here the problem has more to do with wages, and a bit with import tariffs.  

[Trixanity]

@GoodBytes

Didn't Flash Player get hardware acceleration years ago? Or perhaps you're referring to a different thing. 

 

From what I can see partial hardware acceleration came with Flash Player 10 in 2008. Full hardware acceleration came with Flash Player 11 in 2011 (although the wiki page does kinda say that it was also introduced in some 10.x releases; a bit confusing actually). 

[Commodus]

5 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

No. It is proprietary wireless format for all we know. It just happens that the radio receiver that they built, support both, its own thing and Bluetooth. If not they would just call it: low-powered Bluetooth, or don't, and surprise everyone how you have the longest battery life smallest wireless earphones.

It's not a proprietary wireless format.  Please understand this!  Apple may not be drawing attention to the Bluetooth spec, but that's what AirPods use.  Their only real tricks are software (for pairing) and sensors (for detecting your ears and initiating Siri).

[GoodBytes]

3 hours ago, Trixanity said:

@GoodBytes

Didn't Flash Player get hardware acceleration years ago? Or perhaps you're referring to a different thing. 

 

From what I can see partial hardware acceleration came with Flash Player 10 in 2008. Full hardware acceleration came with Flash Player 11 in 2011 (although the wiki page does kinda say that it was also introduced in some 10.x releases; a bit confusing actually). 

Yea it does have hardware acceleration, but that is to accelerate some things it can do including video playback.

 

Here is an example... I just made this, so enjoy my awesome 2min jellyfish drawing:

http://www.helpweaver.com/jellyfish.swf (if you don't have Flash installed, use Edge, it has it)

 

Open the link above, and maximize the window of your web browser. Notice how choppy the jellyfishes moves. Now make the window small, notice how fast and smooth they go. We have wonderful GPUs that can handle crazy games, but Flash is mostly CPU rendered. As a result, notice how much your CPU struggles dealing with some jellyfishes.

 

 

[Wrb]

I don't actually see why you could possibly need 256gb. Personally I have 9gigs on my tablet and I've only used 5 of them. If you want to take pictures, buy a worse phone and a decent camera. If you want to store large files, get an SD card. I see anything above 32 on a phone as trying to get more money out of people. (64 on a tablet). If you do take loads of photos, back them up onto a computer and the cloud, then delete them from your phone.

[VAkena]

More adapters in the Apple ecosystem

[ShadowCaptain]

52 minutes ago, Wrb said:

I don't actually see why you could possibly need 256gb. Personally I have 9gigs on my tablet and I've only used 5 of them. If you want to take pictures, buy a worse phone and a decent camera. If you want to store large files, get an SD card. I see anything above 32 on a phone as trying to get more money out of people. (64 on a tablet). If you do take loads of photos, back them up onto a computer and the cloud, then delete them from your phone.

4K video takes up a lot of storage, can't always access networks when travelling 

 

storing music, photos, movies etc

 

storing apps and games some are like 3/4gb each and I like to keep a good few installed 

 

I have the mobile Adobe suite and edit some projects on the go 

 

I have a proper camera but still use my iPhone camera daily 

 

I can use 5gb in one app

[Dredgy]

55 minutes ago, Wrb said:

I don't actually see why you could possibly need 256gb. 

I'm in the same boat as you, but there are justifications now. 4K video, plus the new phone will allow RAW photography so that'll take up alot of space. And the iPhone - and most other smartphones - are well above-decent cameras. I have $12000 worth of cameras laying around, and my phone is always the one I use the most. I do delete most photos I take though and offload the ones I want to keep pretty regularly so I never use more than 5-6GB of storage.

[LAwLz]

11 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

It doesn't have anything to do with but the benefit of free movement completely outweighs the occasional charging it requires (which barely take 30-45 min).

Not for me.

 

11 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

Also pros of bluetooth, might sound small but makes a huge difference in day to day life

- Complete freedom (great for cycling, dont have to risk phone falling out from the pocket)

- It doesn't tangle

- Doesn't have weak points like the between jack & cable

- Dont have to worry about inserting the cable into the under the jacket whenever you go out

- Can be used with devices like smartwatches later in the future (for workouts)

All of those are the same thing worded differently. "Doesn't need a cable" encompasses everything you just said.

 

11 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

Look thats where organization helps a lot. I charge almost all my devices when I goto bed, with the help of Aukey 5 port adapter and generally my phone will be dead at the end of the day, iPad can last from 2-4 days depending on usage, laptop can last 4 hours and my bud can last for about 4-5 days again depending on usage

 

I never run into a situation where I don't have battery when I need something the most and run around looking for outlets

Good for you. That does not help me though.

 

11 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

All the above mentioned doesn't even cost all that much. The cost would be in the case of buds themselves and battery which can be reduced to like $10 in a store if there is a high enough demand for it. The buds themselves will be covered in the original pricing and you will paying like $8 for the battery and maybe like $2 for the rest

Dude... All the licenses by themselves would probably be 2 dollars or more (depending on how many earphones you sell). AAC, MP3, APT-X all require separate licenses, and so does Bluetooth.

You really should not talk about pricing when you don't know the first thing about what is required to implement good Bluetooth audio, how much those things cost, and what margins the manufacturers want.

Even if we assume that it could go down to 10 dollars extra BOM/licensing fees, you still have the manufacturers wanting to keep their margins, and the retailers wanting to keep their margins, and so on. There is a reason why for example the Playstation 4 doesn't support 5GHz WiFi. Because shaving off those few cents makes a big difference.

 

 

11 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

1) Ok let me be specific, an electromagnetic radiation through air will never be as pure as electricity going through a dedicated medium especially when the the medium air these days a electromagnetically polluted by a thousand different things. And I know there can be other technology to circumvent the issue, hence why I brought out quantum entanglement in the first place

I don't know if I should laugh at you or cry because you're so ignorant about this. You do realize that Bluetooth is a digital signal, right? Unless you are expecting Bluetooth to be so unstable that it disconnects all the time, the "electromagnetic pollution" will not reduce the audio quality. We have error correction for a reason. The digital audio transferred over Bluetooth will be perfect once it reaches the earphones.

 

12 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

2) I wasn't talking about cost difference rather sound quality.

Right now there are two things stopping Bluetooth from taking off.

1) Cost - This prevents all the people who just use whichever pair of earphones they find. They don't want to buy 150 dollar Bluetooth earphones. They want the 5 dollar ones that sounds like aids.

2) Sound quality - The people who do want better sound quality will probably look at something wired since they can offer better quality for the same price.

 

Bluetooth audio only pleases a niche who are OK with spending lots of money (relative to what the average Joe spends) but want the money to go towards not having a cable instead of sounding better (can't even call it more convenient because they will constantly need charging, and the batteries will wear out). I don't see that changing anytime soon either.

 

 

12 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

Anecdotes? Really, you're going to throw that term again here. 

Yes, saying that you and your friends think it sounds good is in fact an anecdote.

 

12 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

Imagine a world (which we are going towards closer and closer everyday) with display that can show pretty much every single shades of colour distinguishable by human eye. Your logic says we should expand the range to both infrared and ultraviolet (ignoring health issues) because that's objectively better since some butterflies (actual butterflies, not a figurative term) can actually see the difference. 

 

Same shit goes on here, good bluetooth earphones are really good that there isnt a need for a better sounding one anymore. Again hence why people are satisfied with the earphones that come with the phone which is objectively (and noticeably) worse than a popular bud

You can't be serious. Your post reads like it is from someone who believes "20 - 20,000Hz" is a measurement of how good the sound quality of headphones are.

 

 

12 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

What if the phone's charging and you're listening to music, I guess you are not mobile then. And in many outdoor situations I mentioned before, a cable would restrict your movements in alot of ways

When did I say I was charging my phone while listening to music? Don't try to change the subject to "Lightning vs 3.5mm" now. We are talking about Bluetooth vs 3.5mm (or rather, Bluetooth and 3.5mm vs only Bluetooth).

 

12 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

Additional and common components can eventually end up being really close to price of a 1 meter cable and a durable jack if demand goes really high. And I would like to point out that a 149$ jaybird sounds almost as same as pretty high end wired earphone which can be obtained for about 100-120 bucks. The difference isnt all that huge to begin with

No... Please don't talk about prices if you don't understand the first thing about it. All the extra hardware, testing, complexity and licenses will not cost the same as a 1 meter cable.

 

13 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

Worse sound quality? I think I gave enough reason why that claim is bullshit

When did you do that? When you said you and your friend thinks your 150 dollar Bluetooth earphones aren't that far sound quality wise from a 100 dollar wired one? Wow, amazing way of disputing my "bullshit".

 

13 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

Are we losing options yes, but the one which we lost is the reason we seem to be stuck in time with audio technology. There is a very low demand for bluetooth because people just stick with whatever they have and dont try new things like wireless. Again sound quality is no ones' concern here because both earphones that comes with the phone and bluetooth already have achieved solid sound quality

Want to know why we have been "stuck in time with audio technology"? Because it is pretty much perfect already. It's like saying we have been "stuck in time with wheels".

We have a connector which is completely passive, omnidirectional plug, completely free for anyone to use, supports stereo, in-line controls and microphones. From a technical standpoint it is pretty much perfect. Now we are moving towards three separate standards (Lightning, Bluetooth and USB type C) which are incompatible with each other and are plagued with issues.

 

13 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

Oh and btw I'm done, I said I dont want to go this route again because it ends up sucking alot of my valuable time. So cheers!

Yeah, you shouldn't be reading this thread. You should be spending your time actually studying audio instead. Maybe I wouldn't be laughing at you if you actually spent some time researching the subjects you talk about.

[RedRound2]

23 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

All of those are the same thing worded differently. "Doesn't need a cable" encompasses everything you just said.

Hence the advantages of not having a cable is numerous with independent events that aren't related to each other. I was talking about daily life situations which you conveniently downplayed into a one term, but the fact remains and it is a huge difference for anyone who always listens to music when doing some kind of activity

23 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Dude... All the licenses by themselves would probably be 2 dollars or more (depending on how many earphones you sell). AAC, MP3, APT-X all require separate licenses, and so does Bluetooth.

You really should not talk about pricing when you don't know the first thing about what is required to implement good Bluetooth audio, how much those things cost, and what margins the manufacturers want.

Even if we assume that it could go down to 10 dollars extra BOM/licensing fees, you still have the manufacturers wanting to keep their margins, and the retailers wanting to keep their margins, and so on.

I am basing my facts on real world products. Good bluetooth earphones don't cost all that much already and it is bound to reduce in cost as time goes on. You keep talking about bs like licensing fees when those are insignificant when it comes down to one device. Again let me repeat the jaybird one sounds as good as many high end wired earphones that costs about a $100 and it turns into a fact when many renowned reviewers unanimously agree on it. Not only friends but all kinds of different human beings around the world.

23 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I don't know if I should laugh at you or cry because you're so ignorant about this. You do realize that Bluetooth is a digital signal, right? Unless you are expecting Bluetooth to be so unstable that it disconnects all the time, the "electromagnetic pollution" will not reduce the audio quality. We have error correction for a reason. The digital audio transferred over Bluetooth will be perfect once it reaches the earphones.

Really? Haven't you learnt physics in high school? Let me quote wikipedia,

 

Bluetooth is a wireless technology standard for exchanging data over short distances (using short-wavelength UHF radio waves in the ISM band from 2.4 to 2.485 GHz

 

Radio Waves FYI falls under electromagnetic spectrum and transmitting data through shared medium unless can always cause some kind of distortion. Analogue works with respect to time, while digital is pulse or no pulse but both use some medium to travel which in this case is air, so it doesn't matter if it's analogue or digital because both are going to experience small amounts of distortion (although the effect will be alot more in analogue) 

 

By making the megahertz range extremely specific and various other systems in place to cross check, we have reduced this distortion into a minimum to the point where it's indistinguishable. But the fact remains and it is part of the reason why cheap Chinese bluetooth earphones suck in audio quality

 

And I'm not saying even wired is 100% perfect but it will always be purer than a signal transmitted through a shared medium. In other words fiber optic vs 4G LTE spectrum. The only way to get a perfect wireless signal is not use the shared medium at all which is why I brought up quantum entanglement as a solution since two atoms seems to not be connected physically in anyway way

 

And just for the record you yourself brought up the point that bluetooth will always have interference issues when we had a similar argument before. I see that you haven't brought it up this time. Looks like you did some research

23 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Right now there are two things stopping Bluetooth from taking off.

1) Cost - This prevents all the people who just use whichever pair of earphones they find. They don't want to buy 150 dollar Bluetooth earphones. They want the 5 dollar ones that sounds like aids.

2) Sound quality - The people who do want better sound quality will probably look at something wired since they can offer better quality for the same price.

Again, this move causes the cost to come down. No idea how many times you will bring this up again

Again sound quality is really good these days and I repeat 99% will find bluetooth earphones better than awesome in terms of sound quality. And for purists out there, who anyway spends crapton of money on unnecessary audio shit wouldn't mind buying a high end lightning headphones thereby also circumventing the need of an amplifier in between

23 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Bluetooth audio only pleases a niche who are OK with spending lots of money (relative to what the average Joe spends) but want the money to go towards not having a cable instead of sounding better (can't even call it more convenient because they will constantly need charging, and the batteries will wear out). I don't see that changing anytime soon either.

Average joe doesn't give a shit about sound quality because its good enough. What he will find with bluetooth is that its helluva lot more convenient than outdated wired ones

23 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Yes, saying that you and your friends think it sounds good is in fact an anecdote.

Why do we buy stuff based on reviews? All of them are anecdotes, but it turns into a fact when hundreds of people keep reporting the same thing. It's surprising you're still talking about this. You yourself know what I'm talking about but you're choosing to ignore it

23 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

You can't be serious. Your post reads like it is from someone who believes "20 - 20,000Hz" is a measurement of how good the sound quality of headphones are.

And hence the reason why I didnt bring up 20-20,000 Hz in the first place. I knew you would misunderstand this with that. In the end my point was that there was no need of improving sound quality when it's already great for good bluetooth earphones. Again audio isn't something like a display where improvements are noticeable rather audio is subjective,and many people (excluding purists, 0.1%) agree that audio quality is good enough of midrange models like jaybird is good enough (btw dont pretend like 500-1000 dollars buds dont exist)

23 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

When did I say I was charging my phone while listening to music? Don't try to change the subject to "Lightning vs 3.5mm" now. We are talking about Bluetooth vs 3.5mm (or rather, Bluetooth and 3.5mm vs only Bluetooth).

Oh my goodness. Please re read what I wrote like about 5 times. Never mentioned lightning anywhere. WHAT IF your're charging your phone and listening to music using your traditional wired buds with the 3.5mm jack. I'm pretty sure you will only be able to move with radius of 50 cm around the charging phone, which doesn't satisfy in the definition of mobile

23 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

When did you do that? When you said you and your friend thinks your 150 dollar Bluetooth earphones aren't that far sound quality wise from a 100 dollar wired one? Wow, amazing way of disputing my "bullshit".

Let me point out some things for you which I've said

Quote

 

All reviews are anecdotes, but it turns into a fact when hundreds of people keep reporting the same thing

 

Good bluetooth earphones are really good that there isnt a need for a better sounding one anymore. Again hence why people are satisfied with the earphones that come with the phone which is objectively (and noticeably) worse than a popular bud

 

 

23 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Want to know why we have been "stuck in time with audio technology"? Because it is pretty much perfect already. It's like saying we have been "stuck in time with wheels".

We have a connector which is completely passive, omnidirectional plug, completely free for anyone to use, supports stereo, in-line controls and microphones. From a technical standpoint it is pretty much perfect. Now we are moving towards three separate standards (Lightning, Bluetooth and USB type C) which are incompatible with each other and are plagued with issues.

Never said wired wired wasn't perfect. It is perfect for what it does and its time to move forward where we can enable more functions and features by making use of a digital connector or go fully wireless elimination the need of wires in the first place which is objectively much more convenient

23 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Yeah, you shouldn't be reading this thread. You should be spending your time actually studying audio instead. Maybe I wouldn't be laughing at you if you actually spent some time researching the subjects you talk about.

Lol, its true that I didnt know about AMP and DAC a while ago fully because i never cared about it. And I admit that I didnt know about aptX licensing for bluetooth, but then again the cost will be insiginifcant when it all comes down to 1 device in millions

 

BTW, just got bored hence I replied, dont expect much from me anymore now

[suicidalfranco]

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

We have a connector which is completely passive, omnidirectional plug, completely free for anyone to use, supports stereo, in-line controls and microphones.

And if you had another ring to it like sony did (Xperia line supports 5-pole jack) they can be active and powered by the phone, no USB or battery required. Wonderful connector indeed. And it has even more space for more rings and thus more potential features whilst always being retro compatible 

[LAwLz]

54 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

Hence the advantages of not having a cable is numerous with independent events that aren't related to each other. I was talking about daily life situations which you conveniently downplayed into a one term, but the fact remains and it is a huge difference for anyone who always listens to music when doing some kind of activity

I am not trying to downplay anything. I listed "not having a cable" as a benefit, which it is. You're the one trying to make that single benefit sound like multiple ones by listing things where not having a cable is beneficial.

It's like if I were to list situations which might cause me to not have my earphones charged as multiple drawbacks.

 

1) If I forget to charge them I can't use them.

2) If the charger broke then I won't be able to use them once the battery runs out.

3) If I stay somewhere where they don't have a charger and I forgot mine I won't be able to use them once the battery runs out.

4) If the batteries break then I can't use them.

5) When the batteries gets worn out I will probably have to buy a complete brand new pair of earphones.

6) ...

7) ...

 

The list goes on and on and on, but since all of them can be summarized as "drawback: requires batteries" I only listed that.

You're biased beyond belief.

 

 

58 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

I am basing my facts on real world products. Good bluetooth earphones don't cost all that much already and it is bound to reduce in cost as time goes on. You keep talking about bs like licensing fees when those are insignificant when it comes down to one device. Again let me repeat the jaybird one sounds as good as many high end wired earphones that costs about a $100 and it turns into a fact when many renowned reviewers unanimously agree on it. Not only friends but all kinds of different human beings around the world.

Actually, a lot of licensing fees are on a per-device basis. The more devices you produce the more the total cost of the license goes up. If you make 2 million earphones then the cost for AAC is 0.68 dollars per unit alone. Then you add on the MP3, APT-X and the other codecs and licensing fees too and you quickly realize why a lot of Bluetooth devices only supports the bare minimum of A2DP (SBC which I mentioned before, that's based on mp2 and was chosen for power reasons, not quality reasons).

 

Congratulations, your 150 dollar Bluetooth earphones sounds as good as 100 dollar earphones.

By the way, are these "renowned reviewers" people working for sites like The Verge and Engadget? Because they are not renowned audio equipment reviews. If those are the reviews you are using as your source then I recommend you look up some real audio reviewers. Audio testing requires very specialized equipment to do properly. Otherwise you end up in situations like when Linus said the OnePlus 3 had a good display, when it actually had one of the most inaccurate displays of any current high-end smartphone (OnePlus released an update for it later).

 

 

1 hour ago, RedRound2 said:

Really? Haven't you learnt physics in high school? Let me quote wikipedia,

 

Bluetooth is a wireless technology standard for exchanging data over short distances (using short-wavelength UHF radio waves in the ISM band from 2.4 to 2.485 GHz

 

Radio Waves FYI falls under electromagnetic spectrum and transmitting data through shared medium unless can always cause some kind of distortion. Analogue works with respect to time, while digital is pulse or no pulse but both use some medium to travel which in this case is air, so it doesn't matter if it's analogue or digital because both are going to experience small amounts of distortion (although the effect will be alot more in analogue) 

 

By making the megahertz range extremely specific and various other systems in place to cross check, we have reduced this distortion into a minimum to the point where it's indistinguishable. But the fact remains and it is part of the reason why cheap Chinese bluetooth earphones suck in audio quality

 

And I'm not saying even wired is 100% perfect but it will always be purer than a signal transmitted through a shared medium. In other words fiber optic vs 4G LTE spectrum. The only way to get a perfect wireless signal is not use the shared medium at all which is why I brought up quantum entanglement as a solution since two atoms seems to not be connected physically in anyway way

I have learned physics in school, and I also studied networking in college. The problem here is that you are taking bits and pieces of facts, and then jumping to conclusions.

 

Yes, there is interference, but that does not affect the audio quality. You see, Bluetooth is a digital signal, just like HDMI/DVI/DP. What this means is that interference does not cause distortion like it would if it was an analog signal. You have once again proven that you have absolutely no idea about how any of this works.

 

 

1 hour ago, RedRound2 said:

And just for the record you yourself brought up the point that bluetooth will always have interference issues when we had a similar argument before. I see that you haven't brought it up this time. Looks like you did some research

You're getting confused here. When we talked about this the last time, I was talking about noise (as in, signal-to-noise). Right now you're talking about distortion in the audio.

They are two separate things. For Bluetooth, distortion in the audio because of interference will not happen. The signal is digital so it will either work or not at all. Interference like this, will not happen over Bluetooth. Interference over analog will make the audio worse. Interference over digital either doesn't affect the signal at all (if the error correction can handle it) or makes everything cut out completely.

I haven't brought it up in this thread because I am trying to keep speculation to a minimum in this thread.

 

 

4 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

Again, this move causes the cost to come down. No idea how many times you will bring this up again

Again sound quality is really good these days and I repeat 99% will find bluetooth earphones better than awesome in terms of sound quality. And for purists out there, who anyway spends crapton of money on unnecessary audio shit wouldn't mind buying a high end lightning headphones thereby also circumventing the need of an amplifier in between

And it will never be as cheap as 3.5mm. No idea how many times you will bring up "the price will go down" despite not knowing the first thing about what goes into Bluetooth earphones. Adding extra components and complexity will never make something go down in price. Chicken and rice will always be more expensive than just the rice.

 

Yes, expensive Bluetooth earphones will sound better than what 99% of people use. Some cheap wired earphones will sound better than what 99% of people use as well. Want to know why? Because most people don't care about audio quality. They care about price. You know those crappy Chinese Bluetooth earphones you mentioned were terrible? That's the ones people will buy. They won't buy the 150 dollar ones just because Apple removed the headphone jack. They will buy the 30 dollar Bluetooth ones that will sound even worse than the 10 dollar 3.5mm ones and break as soon as you look at them funny.

 

Lightning headphones doesn't circumvent the need for an amp. It's just that the amp is built into the headphones (which means your audio setup will be less modular, and if one thing breaks everything has to be replaced).

 

 

5 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

Average joe doesn't give a shit about sound quality because its good enough. What he will find with bluetooth is that its helluva lot more convenient than outdated wired ones

Wired headphones are not "outdated". And I don't think people will think they are more convenient. I think they will think having yet another thing to charge is inconvenient. At least that's what I think.

 

 

5 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

Why do we buy stuff based on reviews? All of them are anecdotes, but it turns into a fact when hundreds of people keep reporting the same thing. It's surprising you're still talking about this. You yourself know what I'm talking about but you're choosing to ignore it

Why do we buy stuff based on reviews? Well I don't but I assume other people do it because they don't have the time or knowledge to research a product themselves to figure out if it's good or not.

I do look up reviews, but I look at the reviews for the benchmarks and measurements, not for the fluff text and opinions of the reviewer.

 

 

5 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

And hence the reason why I didnt bring up 20-20,000 Hz in the first place. I knew you would misunderstand this with that. In the end my point was that there was no need of improving sound quality when it's already great for good bluetooth earphones. Again audio isn't something like a display where improvements are noticeable rather audio is subjective,and many people (excluding purists, 0.1%) agree that audio quality is good enough of midrange models like jaybird is good enough (btw dont pretend like 500-1000 dollars buds dont exist)

"It's good enough for me so therefore nobody should want anything better and we should just start going backwards".

Even if we both agree that sound quality doesn't need to improve, Bluetooth will be a step backwards. It might not be a big enough step backwards for someone like my mom to notice when she listens to Spotify or whatever, but removing compatibility without adding a better alternative is retarded.

"Good enough" is never something we should have as an end goal. Especially not if we are already at "better than good enough".

Stop arguing that technology should go backwards. If Apple wanted to remove the 3.5mm headphone jack to improve audio development then how about they develop a royalty free, lossless protocol for Bluetooth? It's not like Apple are complete strangers to audio codecs and protocols.

But right now they are just taking the piss, and it's landing straight on your face and you're totally OK with it.

 

Apple is just going "OK we will stop supporting one of the best connectors ever made, and we won't replace it with anything else. Now it's up to all other companies to develop something that makes up for our own incompetence".

 

 

6 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

Oh my goodness. Please re read what I wrote like about 5 times. Never mentioned lightning anywhere. WHAT IF your're charging your phone and listening to music using your traditional wired buds with the 3.5mm jack. I'm pretty sure you will only be able to move with radius of 50 cm around the charging phone, which doesn't satisfy in the definition of mobile

Congratulations, you're yet again bringing up "they are wireless" as a brand new argument. Can you come up with any other benefit or is that the only one? Restating the same benefit over and over does not mean you got more arguments. It's the same argument worded differently.

What if I am charging my phone and want to listen to music? I guess I could use some Bluetooth headphones. Isn't it great having the ability to use both 3.5mm and Bluetooth depending on the situation?

 

6 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

All reviews are anecdotes, but it turns into a fact when hundreds of people keep reporting the same thing

 

Good bluetooth earphones are really good that there isnt a need for a better sounding one anymore. Again hence why people are satisfied with the earphones that come with the phone which is objectively (and noticeably) worse than a popular bud

It doesn't actually. Just because a lot of people say the same thing doesn't mean the thing is a fact. A few hundred years ago people believed the Earth was flat. Does that mean that "the Earth is flat" is a fact? No it does not. It means people were ignorant.

 

I would agree if you said "Good Bluetooth earphones are good enough for most people", but "there isn't a need for better sounding earphones"? Come on... Even if that was true that's still not an excuse for moving backwards.

 

 

6 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

Never said wired wired wasn't perfect. It is perfect for what it does and its time to move forward where we can enable more functions and features by making use of a digital connector or go fully wireless elimination the need of wires in the first place which is objectively much more convenient

No wire is more convenient than wire. That I agree with, but it is also a fact that passive (as in, no battery) is more convenient than needing a battery. So I think the whole "Bluetooth is more convenient than 3.5mm" is very much up for debate.

 

 

6 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

Lol, its true that I didnt know about AMP and DAC a while ago fully because i never cared about it. And I admit that I didnt know about aptX licensing for bluetooth, but then again the cost will be insiginifcant when it all comes down to 1 device in millions

It actually isn't. If you save 15 dollars per device, and sell 1 million devices then you just made/saved 15 million dollars.

It's not like you buy for example a license for AAC and then you can use it for however many devices you want. You buy them on a per device basis (as in, you report how many devices you will manufacture, and then you pay a certain price per device). Adding an antenna to your earphones means you have to add antennas to 1 million earphones.

 

By the way, this is one of the reasons why I am a big supporter of open and royalty free codecs. For example if Opus was widely used then the sound quality of a lot of things would go up, and everyone would be saving a lot of money. Too bad both Apple and Microsoft has been very negligent towards open and free codecs and has instead been pushing for things like AAC.

[Commodus]

Just now, ScootsMcgoots said:

If that charging bowl intel showed at CES a while ago ever comes to fruition and the headphones had good battery life I'd have no problem with  a ton of wireless peripherals. 

Agreed... ideally, you toss them in the same way you'd toss your keys when you come home.  I do like Apple's approach, though -- it's easy to keep that case in your pocket or bag.  I just wish the design didn't make it look like you have antennas (albeit very stylish antennas) sticking out of your ears.

[Trixanity]

The problem with Bluetooth is still the fact that most of the codecs are so lossy that even with great drivers in your audio equipment it will sound like shit. So a $150 pair will sound shit because of the compression despite the drivers being good.

 

If I recall correctly, the producer Rick Rubin likes to compress the dynamic range on the releases he produces. I seem to remember that a track leaked without the compression and people wondered why the track sounded so much better than the actual release. It was because it wasn't compressed to shit. That's kinda what Bluetooth does unless the right conditions are in place.

 

I might have remembered the anecdote wrong but my point still stands. People didn't realize that the tracks sound bad because of the compression because they're used to it but when they accidentally discovered the same track in a better version they preferred that. You could argue it's the same with Bluetooth or vice versa: that they wonder why their music sounds shit now.

 

Quote

Oh my goodness. Please re read what I wrote like about 5 times. Never mentioned lightning anywhere. WHAT IF your're charging your phone and listening to music using your traditional wired buds with the 3.5mm jack. I'm pretty sure you will only be able to move with radius of 50 cm around the charging phone, which doesn't satisfy in the definition of mobile

Actually, you could plug in your wired headphones and a power bank. That way you'd still be mobile.

I know, you could argue the same for the wireless headphones but from what I can see they use a proprietary charger and also can't be charged while in use.

Quote

Just because a lot of people say the same thing doesn't mean the thing is a fact. A few hundred years ago people believed the Earth was flat. Does that mean that "the Earth is flat" is a fact? No it does not. It means people were ignorant.

That's actually a myth. Some might have believed it to be flat but the ancient Greeks actually discovered that it was a sphere (which spread around the world) and European scientists and explorers also made a lot of discoveries about the planet and the solar system many hundred years ago. Eratosthenes estimated the circumference of Earth with pretty decent accuracy in 240 BC in fact.

 

And yes, I'm fun at parties and I know it was just for the argument's sake.

 

PS. Yeah I know none of the quoted people are tagged but who cares. 

[jaggysnake57]

On 10/09/2016 at 9:16 PM, RedRound2 said:

 

Wireless is the future whether you like it or not and all you're doing is keep raving about meaningless disadvantages 

ha classic lawz.....just add him to your ignore list the dude is a massive troll

On 10/09/2016 at 9:24 PM, djdwosk97 said:

It kind of defeats the point if you cover it with a case. 

 

@ShadowCaptain Agreed. If I decide to upgrade, I'll be getting the Matte Black 7+.

yeah this is the first time im not going to upgrade to a major release my 6+ is fine

On 10/09/2016 at 9:26 PM, GoodBytes said:

No. It is proprietary wireless format for all we know. It just happens that the radio receiver that they built, support both, its own thing and Bluetooth. If not they would just call it: low-powered Bluetooth, or don't, and surprise everyone how you have the longest battery life smallest wireless earphones.

 

The motherboard analogy still works. As you have that priority connector, and only 1 plug.

Say you have one of those nice mechanical keyboard, or even if you have a membrane keyboard, many of which are nice in its own ways.. they don't exists in Bluetooth variety, not to mention increase input lag, which is why some companies like Logitech likes to go with its own 2.4GHz technology.

jesus christ how did you get mod.....its bluetooth and it works with other devices.....end of

[LAwLz]

11 hours ago, Trixanity said:

I might have remembered the anecdote wrong but my point still stands. People didn't realize that the tracks sound bad because of the compression because they're used to it but when they accidentally discovered the same track in a better version they preferred that. You could argue it's the same with Bluetooth or vice versa: that they wonder why their music sounds shit now.

I don't think people will realize that their music sounds worse than it could. I mean, most people are satisfied with whatever earphones comes with their phone and they are generally crap.

 

It's a shame that nobody has developed a good, free and open standard for Bluetooth audio. It's not like Bluetooth isn't fast enough for it. It's up to a theoretical maximum of 24Mbps (and Bluetooth 5 will double it), and losslessly compressed stereo audio usually tops out at ~1200Kbps. Bluetooth 5 has already been announced and it does not include any upgrades for the audio protocols, so chances are we will be stuck with our current iteration of A2DP for at least a few more product cycles.

 

I wonder if Bluetooth-SIG are actually willing to create and implement something lossless. It would require far more processing power in both the transmitter and receiver than our current protocols (like SBC, which was specifically chosen for power and performance reasons), but it would also solve one of the biggest drawbacks of Bluetooth audio. Battery life would take a big hit though, as would price.

 

11 hours ago, Trixanity said:

That's actually a myth. Some might have believed it to be flat but the ancient Greeks actually discovered that it was a sphere (which spread around the world) and European scientists and explorers also made a lot of discoveries about the planet and the solar system many hundred years ago. Eratosthenes estimated the circumference of Earth with pretty decent accuracy in 240 BC in fact.

Well shit. Did not know that. Anyway, my point still stands. Just because a lot of people believe something is true, doesn't mean it actually is true.

 

 

3 minutes ago, jaggysnake57 said:

ha classic lawz.....just add him to your ignore list the dude is a massive troll

Ignoring someone is like putting your fingers in your ears and going "lalalala". It's childish and doesn't change the facts.

[IhazHedont]

To be deleted.

[atrash]

On 10/09/2016 at 5:24 PM, ShadowCaptain said:

Ordered the 256gb 7 plus in matte black 

 

 

hyped!!!!!!!!!

I'm kinda jelly right now.. But my 6S is still working perfectly fine and looks just like new, I see no real tempting reason to upgrade for now. Heck I even use less than half of the 64gb storage. Maybe the next Anniversary iphone wtv it'll be called next year will be my next upgrade.

 

Also I bought my phone outright so unfortunately no upgrade plan for me. Will you be getting the airpod too?

[ShadowCaptain]

Just now, atrash said:

I'm kinda jelly right now.. But my 6S is still working perfectly fine and looks just like new, I see no real tempting reason to upgrade for now. Heck I even use less than half of the 64gb storage. Maybe the next Anniversary iphone wtv it'll be called next year will be my next upgrade.

 

Also I bought my phone outright so unfortunately no upgrade plan for me. Will you be getting the airpod too?

 

I only have a falling apart 6 *none plus* so its a big upgrade for me

 

 

Airpods? id rather set fire to £160

[atrash]

1 minute ago, ShadowCaptain said:

 

I only have a falling apart 6 *none plus* so its a big upgrade for me

 

 

Airpods? id rather set fire to £160

Hahaha is that really the price? Damn.. Come this 16th I will probably visit the Apple store and try them out myself. And the Series 2 Apple Watch too. Slight off topic but unlocking your pc with the watch sounds really cool and convenient to have.

[ShadowCaptain]

5 minutes ago, atrash said:

Hahaha is that really the price? Damn.. Come this 16th I will probably visit the Apple store and try them out myself. And the Series 2 Apple Watch too. Slight off topic but unlocking your pc with the watch sounds really cool and convenient to have.

I want the new watch, saving up for that in a couple months

Yeah they are either £130 or £160 - might get some Bose QC35 bluetooth headphones as I could use the ANC for travelling 

but earpods dont stay in my ears and dont sound good enough for the cost

[atrash]

1 minute ago, ShadowCaptain said:

I want the new watch, saving up for that in a couple months

Yeah they are either £130 or £160 - might get some Bose QC35 bluetooth headphones as I could use the ANC for travelling 

but earpods dont stay in my ears and dont sound good enough for the cost

Yeah I'm looking for a bluetooth earphone/headphone myself for travelling. Love my Shure se215 sound but I just want to get rid of the cable if possible. Been looking for a bt receiver/transmitter too so I can just wrap the cable shorter and out of the way.