Apple Announces the iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus

[jaggysnake57]

2 hours ago, skywake said:

The analogue jack is already lossless audio. In terms of audio quality at best this move takes the DAC away from the internal components of the phone and puts it closer to the driver. Which will mean marginally less noise across the wire. But if we go wireless? You get additional compression and latency. With enough bandwidth you could argue it'll become good enough, close enough that you won't notice. We're probably there already. But it won't ever be "better".

digital vs anolgue.....we all know how that ends

with enough people going wireless more companies will work on improving the issues you mentioned........improvements....can you see where this is going

[LAwLz]

18 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

I'm not going to go done this route again. I bought myself a wireless bud and I it was completely over my head as to why wireless isn't taking over. If 3.5mm jack still exists in the iPhone the audio industry woul remain essentially the same in next 10 years, but due to this move its not going to. We'll have this conversation again after 3-4 years which is the only way to see who is right

You can't be serious. Do you really wonder why wireless headphones hasn't taken off?

Because:

1) They require batteries.

2) They are expensive.

3) You can usually get far better sound quality for the same price.

 

 

These are not things that will be fixable with more R&D and market adoption either. Bluetooth will always be worse than wired in these three areas unless something dramatically change (like we invent batteries that never runs out, or decades into the future where 3.5mm is so niche it costs more just because nobody uses it anymore).

 

 

What do you mean "we'll have this conversation again after 3-4 years which is the only way to see who is right"? Right about what? If we had a time machine then I am 99% sure we would travel to the future, see how Apple is still popular and you would just go "see? People are using it so clearly it is the better option", which is just a logical fallacy.

 

 

Can you give me an explanation of how this is a good thing for us consumers? I don't want some vague bullshit, I want solid, indisputable evidence. It should be as bullet-proof as 1+1=2. I can give you plenty of arguments for why it is bad that are not based on assumptions. So far I have not seen a single argument for why removing it is a good thing.

 

 

 

23 hours ago, djdwosk97 said:

It's not like he listens to any logical reasons anyway, he just dismisses them because he doesn't agree with them. So why bother responding with any serious response? 

I listen to logical and scientific reasons. Give me arguments based on that and I will agree with them, but I will also weigh them against the drawbacks.

 

 

13 hours ago, jaggysnake57 said:

if the removal of the 3.5mm jack pushes the industry forward then its a good thing.....

How will it push the industry forward? I think it is moving backwards.

Apple is literally just taking options away from you, without giving you anything in return.

 

It's like saying we should ban graphics cards because that would force iGPUs to become better. It makes no sense.

 

 

7 hours ago, jaggysnake57 said:

and now potentially the ability to use a digital signal to get a better sound, we could see lossess music really come into its own. 

4 hours ago, jaggysnake57 said:

digital vs anolgue.....we all know how that ends

with enough people going wireless more companies will work on improving the issues you mentioned........improvements....can you see where this is going

Either I am reading this wrong, or you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how audio works. "Digital audio" will never sound better than analog audio, because digital audio does not make any sound at all. All audio has to be analog in the end.

It seems like a lot of people defending the removal of the 3.5mm headphone jack does not understand what audio is or how it works. The basic response seems to be "it is analog and old therefore digital is better".

Analog does not mean bad.

Old does not mean bad.

Digital does not mean good.

New does not mean good.

[cesrai]

4 hours ago, jaggysnake57 said:

digital vs anolgue.....we all know how that ends

with enough people going wireless more companies will work on improving the issues you mentioned........improvements....can you see where this is going

You have to convert the signal to Analog you know that right ? 

[SurvivorNVL]

I miss the loss of the mechanical home button.  I'll just aim for the LG V20 or Nexus.

[cesrai]

5 minutes ago, SurvivorNVL said:

I miss the loss of the mechanical home button.  I'll just aim for the LG V20 or Nexus.

Actually from using the new Macbook it just feels the same.

[SurvivorNVL]

Just now, cesrai said:

Actually from using the new Macbook it just feels the same.

Does it?

[cesrai]

3 minutes ago, SurvivorNVL said:

Does it?

Yeah it does. Just go to any electronics store and try it. I was surprised it actually did and my friends didn't believe that it was just vibrating and not actually being mechanical. 

[79wjd]

8 minutes ago, SurvivorNVL said:

Does it?

 

3 minutes ago, cesrai said:

Yeah it does. Just go to any electronics store and try it. I was surprised it actually did and my friends didn't believe that it was just vibrating and not actually being mechanical. 

I don't think it's identical (at least not in my quick five minutes with it). But I'd say it's irrelevantly close....say 95% the same? Such that after using it for a bit I would forget it's different.

 

But my concern with the home button is that it's been described as making the whole bottom vibrate -- which isn't necessarily bad....it depends how it actually feels since it's hard to portray a sensation. 

[cesrai]

Just now, djdwosk97 said:

 

I don't think it's identical (at least not in my quick five minutes with it). But I'd say it's irrelevantly close....say 95% the same? 

 

But my concern with the home button is that it's been described as making the whole bottom vibrate -- which isn't necessarily bad....it depends how it actually feels since it's hard to portray a sensation. 

95% is fair imo, but I guess it differs from person to person ? 

 

The whole bottom thing vibrating can be annoying maybe I don't know. I haven't gotten my hand on a 7 so I can't tell for sure but I would say it would be just as good as the macbook or at least I hope so.

[79wjd]

7 minutes ago, cesrai said:

95% is fair imo, but I guess it differs from person to person ? 

 

The whole bottom thing vibrating can be annoying maybe I don't know. I haven't gotten my hand on a 7 so I can't tell for sure but I would say it would be just as good as the macbook or at least I hope so.

The difference is that you don't hold the macbook by the trackpad area. So you only feel the vibration in that one point in your finger, plus there's also additional weight...and blah blah... whatever. I honestly don't how I'll feel about it, but there's a 50/50 chance I'll upgrade to the 7+ and if I don't like it, then it's only a $25 restocking fee. I can live with that (although I really don't expect to not like it...at least in the long run). 

 

Right now I just need to decide if it's worth the cost to upgrade. 

[cesrai]

12 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

The difference is that you don't hold the macbook by the trackpad area. So you only feel the vibration in that one point in your finger, plus there's also additional weight...and blah blah... whatever. I honestly don't how I'll feel about it, but there's a 50/50 chance I'll upgrade to the 7+ and if I don't like it, then it's only a $25 restocking fee. I can live with that (although I really don't expect to not like it...at least in the long run). 

 

Right now I just need to decide if it's worth the cost to upgrade. 

Which phone are you upgrading from ? 

[79wjd]

9 minutes ago, cesrai said:

Which phone are you upgrading from ? 

64gb 6s+. I could upgrade to the 128gb 7+ for $280 (after tax). I don't really need any of the improvements, but at the same time, they'd all be nice things to have (and the lack of a 3.5mm jack is irrelevant to me). Plus, I'm curious to know if the $650 credit is a fluke this specific year or if I'd be able to get the same $650 credit next year if I were to trade in either a 6s+ or a 7+.

[cesrai]

Just now, djdwosk97 said:

64gb 6s+. I could upgrade to the 128gb 7+ for $280 (after tax). I don't really need any of the improvements, but at the same time, they'd all be nice things to have. Plus, I'm curious to know if the $650 credit is a fluke this specific year or if I'd be able to get the same $650 credit next year if I were to trade in either a 6s+ or a 7+.

Ohhh.. that's really nice being able to trade it. I would go for it and this credit thing seems interesting.

[79wjd]

1 hour ago, cesrai said:

Ohhh.. that's really nice being able to trade it. I would go for it and this credit thing seems interesting.

Well, the thing is that I don't need anything it offers over my phone....so is it worth spending $280 on. And that last bit kind of depends on what Verizon does next year....Normally they only give like $400 for a trade in, this year both the 6 and 6s get $650 (and the 5/5c/5s get $400). So not only is the trade in value much higher, but both previous generations get the same amount too. So I'd do it if the 7+ would get $650 and the 6s+ would only get $400. But if they both get the same $650 then I'm a bit less sure. Because I expect next year to be interesting. 

[skywake]

7 hours ago, djdwosk97 said:

So, yes, it would be better to have the 3.5mm jack since it doesn't stop all of the above from happening, but it is an obstacle nonetheless. And so the big question should ultimately be, does the removal of the 3.5mm jack negatively impact most users or is it just outrage and backlash because it's a change? I personally don't believe it will affect most people in any meaningful way -- I for one won't be affected by the change -- so in that regard I see it as being a good thing since it won't negatively affect most people

Well it would impact me except for the fact that I'm not going to buy a phone that lacks the port. I just don't understand how people are praising the removal of something that's actually kinda useful. You can rant all you want about the included external DAC but really, why not have it internal? If it was such a non-issue they wouldn't have included it at all. If the ideas you're talking about are so great they'd already be making these headphones. But they don't, because it's a shit idea.

 

Anyways, you've agreed it would be better if the 3.5mm jack remained. I'll take that 

[suicidalfranco]

 

It took only 10 years for someone to perfect it, Apple as cracked the code yet again. /jk

[RedRound2]

9 hours ago, LAwLz said:

You can't be serious. Do you really wonder why wireless headphones hasn't taken off?

Because:

1) They require batteries.

2) They are expensive.

3) You can usually get far better sound quality for the same price.

All of these things are fixable with more R&D

1) Batteries are going to be better eventually, and/or components are going to get more and more power efficient with more R&D

 

2) Relatively expensive, but not permanently expensive. More demand --> More demand --> More production --> cheaper compared to today's standards which isn't all that expensive to begin with

 

3) You probably can, but most people won't give a shit because Bluetooth buds these days sound really good.

 

Please stop wired is better than wireless argument in terms of sound quality argument. You clearly haven't used a good pair of buds to make that judgement

 

You can compare this to Ethernet and Wifi, where Wifi works for 98% of the people despite being noticibly slower than Ethernet (which is never the case with audio beyond a point)

 

Quote

 

What do you mean "we'll have this conversation again after 3-4 years which is the only way to see who is right"? Right about what? If we had a time machine then I am 99% sure we would travel to the future, see how Apple is still popular and you would just go "see? People are using it so clearly it is the better option", which is just a logical fallacy.

 

No, we would probably see how everyone also ends up ditching headphone jack and most people using wireless earbuds or feature packed headphone interfaced through Type C or Lightning

Quote

Can you give me an explanation of how this is a good thing for us consumers? I don't want some vague bullshit, I want solid, indisputable evidence. It should be as bullet-proof as 1+1=2. I can give you plenty of arguments for why it is bad that are not based on assumptions. So far I have not seen a single argument for why removing it is a good thing.

You can say why it's bad because you're talking about today. Apple is talking about the future. Hence why they even dropped the term "courage" to do so.

No one is talking about to day except you. The R&D are going to quadruple over the next few years because of this very announcement and surely it will benefit us in the long term when we start entering a world with no wires

[Zodiark1593]

I do wonder if those with expensive headphones will be impacted much by the removal of the 3.5mm port. Many high end headphones have detachable cables, and so the lack of said port should be bypassed easily enough. The ear buds, like the Shuras that are as expensive as the phones (custom fit ones exceeding get $1000), I don't think have detachable cables. 

 

Of course, the price floor for the cheapest of headphones will inevitably climb should the 3.5mm port die off. Not as though audiophiles will miss them though. 

 

The lack of a second port for charging is quite dumb though. Gaming in bed, YouTube, Netflix, etc use substantial amounts of power, and benefit greatly from headphones. This is the biggest standout flaw of using the one port for everything,and should be fixed ASAP. 

[jaggysnake57]

10 hours ago, cesrai said:

You have to convert the signal to Analog you know that right ? 

my point still stands, you can get better audio and features from a digital connection

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, RedRound2 said:

1) Batteries are going to be better eventually, and/or components are going to get more and more power efficient with more R&D

And even then it will still be an issue, unless the batteries lasts like several weeks.

I already have:

1) Personal phone

2) Work phone

3) Tablet

4) Laptop

5) Battery bank

 

5 devices to keep track of the charge on. I don't want my headphones to be added to the list as well. Fuck, imagine if smartwatches takes off, then it will be another device.

 

 

1 hour ago, RedRound2 said:

2) Relatively expensive, but not permanently expensive. More demand --> More demand --> More production --> cheaper compared to today's standards which isn't all that expensive to begin with

They will always be more expensive though. Both Lighting and Bluetooth headphones has all of the components of 3.5mm headphones has, plus additional ones and also requires extra testing. You can never lower the price of a product by adding more components, complexity and testing.

 

 

1 hour ago, RedRound2 said:

3) You probably can, but most people won't give a shit because Bluetooth buds these days sound really good.

So you agree that this will be a step backwards in terms of sound quality? Good that you are on the correct side on at least one thing...

I don't like when technology regresses because some stupid company wants to make more money. You might like being stepped on, but I don't.

I don't care that something sounds "really good" (in your opinion), when what we have today sounds "better than really good".

 

1 hour ago, RedRound2 said:

Please stop wired is better than wireless argument in terms of sound quality argument. You clearly haven't used a good pair of buds to make that judgement

Here is the thing though, I don't have to test them (although I have tried my friend's JayBird X2) because my arguments are based on actual facts and not anecdotes.

"I've tried them and they sound good" is not a valid argument if it's up against "here are the protocols used, this is how they work and what their limitations are".

To me, this argument is as silly as this:

 

You: Have you actually tried a single core processor? I have one and it's really fast.

Me: It doesn't matter if you think it is fast, a dual core with the same architecture and clock speeds will still be faster since this workload scales beyond one core.

You: Stop saying it would be faster! I have a single core and it is fast!

Me: I am not even saying the single core is slow. I am saying the dual core is faster.

You: We should ban dual cores so that more R&D is spent making single cores better!

 

 

1 hour ago, RedRound2 said:

You can compare this to Ethernet and Wifi, where Wifi works for 98% of the people despite being noticibly slower than Ethernet (which is never the case with audio beyond a point)

I would like a source on that "98% of people" because from what I can tell (from working at support) the majority of issues people have with their network is from using wireless. WiFi is complete shite compared to wired networking so bringing that up is a really bad thing.

 

1 hour ago, RedRound2 said:

No, we would probably see how everyone also ends up ditching headphone jack and most people using wireless earbuds or feature packed headphone interfaced through Type C or Lightning

Yep, I totally agree that we will see that happening. I have never argued against that. But again, you are trying to make an argumentum ad populum. You're trying to say that because a lot of people use it, it must be good. That is completely false. More people use TN panels than IPS and OLED, but that does not mean TN is better, right (ignoring cost mind you, since the audio standard we are moving towards will cost more)?

Popular != Good

 

1 hour ago, RedRound2 said:

You can say why it's bad because you're talking about today. Apple is talking about the future. Hence why they even dropped the term "courage" to do so.

No one is talking about to day except you. The R&D are going to quadruple over the next few years because of this very announcement and surely it will benefit us in the long term when we start entering a world with no wires.

I am talking about the future too.

 

 

 

 

22 minutes ago, jaggysnake57 said:

my point still stands, you can get better audio and features from a digital connection

Again, if you think you can get "better audio from a digital connector" then you do not understand the first thing about audio. Audio is always analog. The only thing the removal of the 3.5mm jack does is change where the conversion from digital to analog takes place. Before it took place in the phone, and with Bluetooth/Lighting the conversion will take place inside the cable/headphones.

Your audio will still be analog when it reaches the drivers inside your headphones, even if you use a digital connector.

[RedRound2]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

And even then it will still be an issue, unless the batteries lasts like several weeks.

I already have:

1) Personal phone

2) Work phone

3) Tablet

4) Laptop

5) Battery bank

Look charging something isnt something you need to keep track of. You just do it. I have a phone, iPad, earbuds, laptop and a battery bank yet almost all the time I do have a mental readout of approximately how much each has as I use every single of these devices everyday. It's not rocket science. Keep it charging when you goto bed or something, barely takes a minute

 

And before you bring up that no charging is better than charging, I would like to point out the fact that I have complete freedom of movement with wireless when I'm watching a movie on the bed, or listening to music while cleaning, or cycling completely freely when my phone is in the bag and a countless number of instances when I'm just not restricted by my movement or the distance between my phone and my head

Quote

They will always be more expensive though. Both Lighting and Bluetooth headphones has all of the components of 3.5mm headphones has, plus additional ones and also requires extra testing. You can never lower the price of a product by adding more components, complexity and testing.

Yes you never can, but you can minimize it a whole lot from being $50 to $10. And if you cant spend an extra $10 then I guess you ave other priorities to take care of instead of buying a headphone

Quote

So you agree that this will be a step backwards in terms of sound quality? Good that you are on the correct side on at least one thing...

I never said that wireless sounds bad. I said probably, but when it always come to audio it really doesn't make any difference beyond a point . Physics stops it being for better (unless we get quantum tunneling) than a wired solution but the fact is that wireless and wired have almost close to zero difference for most people

Quote

I don't like when technology regresses because some stupid company wants to make more money. You might like being stepped on, but I don't.

How are they making money. All they're getting is bad publicity. And no id not believe lightning is going to be the next gen 3.55m audio rather an alternative to purists which i believe is like 0.1% population

Quote

I don't care that something sounds "really good" (in your opinion), when what we have today sounds "better than really good".

Here is the thing though, I don't have to test them (although I have tried my friend's JayBird X2) because my arguments are based on actual facts and not anecdotes.

"I've tried them and they sound good" is not a valid argument if it's up against "here are the protocols used, this is how they work and what their limitations are".

Do you think our ears are as good as some mathematically sound tested machinery that is capable of distinguishing each and every kind of vibration down to like a fermi scale? No, so you can throw those insignificant facts out of the windows for your arguments. My buds sounds great, my friends says they're great, pretty much every tech reviewer says its great and hence it should be great because I dont think thousands' of people around the world got together in a room and conspired to hide the fact wireless is indeed legitimately bad. You're trying to use some kind of stupid facts that are irrelevant to prove a point which can never be a point because it is irrelevent

Quote

To me, this argument is as silly as this:

You: Have you actually tried a single core processor? I have one and it's really fast.

Me: It doesn't matter if you think it is fast, a dual core with the same architecture and clock speeds will still be faster since this workload scales beyond one core.

You: Stop saying it would be faster! I have a single core and it is fast!

Me: I am not even saying the single core is slow. I am saying the dual core is faster.

You: We should ban dual cores so that more R&D is spent making single cores better!

wut?

Quote

I would like a source on that "98% of people" because from what I can tell (from working at support) the majority of issues people have with their network is from using wireless. WiFi is complete shite compared to wired networking so bringing that up is a really bad thing.

See I was talking about general case, not some extreme situations. I'm pretty sure you own a wifi router and you're glad that companies ditched the idea of adding an Ethernet port on the phone from the beginning itself. Again 90% case uses wifi is just straight up more convenient than Ethernet but with noticeable trade offs which isn't the case with good earbuds unless you spend 50K on that sennheiser headphones

Quote

Yep, I totally agree that we will see that happening. I have never argued against that. But again, you are trying to make an argumentum ad populum. You're trying to say that because a lot of people use it, it must be good. That is completely false. More people use TN panels than IPS and OLED, but that does not mean TN is better, right (ignoring cost mind you, since the audio standard we are moving towards will cost more)?

Popular != Good

Well TN will last as long as it is significantly cheaper than IPS (which is an advantage btw). When the cost factor does become insignificant TN panels will automatically disappear. 

 

Not going to happen with audio. People use earphones that come with their phones and most good bluetooth ones are better than those in terms of audio quality. So yeah I see no reason for why wireless are bad apart from the disadvantages you mentioned which will eventually iron out itself. The fact is that people are happy with what they have already and no one wants to move forward which is where a catalyst like Apple comes in to force the industry to move into an even better world tha people didnt realize that existed all this time. In the end its a win win

[pebble guy]

Cannot wait to see a teardown of the device. Mostly because of the home button being a non button and if it is integrated in the digitizer. Witch would have been the easy way to waterproof it. It could mean really pricey parts or a loos of touchID when the digitizer is replaced by a 3rd party. This is all speculation and it could be a separate sensor.

[Trixanity]

57 minutes ago, pebble guy said:

Cannot wait to see a teardown of the device. Mostly because of the home button being a non button and if it is integrated in the digitizer. Witch would have been the easy way to waterproof it. It could mean really pricey parts or a loos of touchID when the digitizer is replaced by a 3rd party. This is all speculation and it could be a separate sensor.

If you mean the 'scanner beneath the glass' integration then I will pretty much guarantee a no. It will probably be integrated next year. 

[cesrai]

6 hours ago, jaggysnake57 said:

my point still stands, you can get better audio and features from a digital connection

I don't really see how. Would you mind explaining why your point stands or what are those features ? 

[GoodBytes]

All this discussion, and I am just surprised how people defends Apple decision.

The simple fact that they include the adapter shows how important the headphone plug is. When we dropped optical drive from laptops, manufactures didn't go "Oh yea, here is an external one included with the laptop, because we know you'll really need it". It didn't bother anyone. Sure they were questions raised, but they were up-side to remove something rarely used by most. The replacement of the disk drive were memory sticks, SD cards (or micro-SD), and the Internet, not to mention a solid fast connection with wireless routers and wireless adapters technology advancement, and the maturity of wireless N (at the time).

 

Headphones have nothing. And the whole "but it is digital" on the Apple lightning connector, this is complete B.S. Humans cannot hear digital signal. No matter how hard you try, humans are not capable of processing digital signal. So you need to convert it to analog. Whether you do it in the phone, or in the headphone/earphone plug, or on each ear peace, it doesn't matter. The conversion has to happen. The luxury of doing in the phone, is that you have the power and space to drive a better digital-to-analog converters. This is also one of the reasons why wireless headphones, like these:

 

 

cost so much (and big). They include basically an entire sound card, with a good digital to analog (DAC) converter, and a high bandwidth wireless technology to send the analog sound to the headphones not only with great range, but also uncompressed (which is critical for analog sound to ensure absolute maximum quality)

 

See, if Apple did this, then great! The iPhone 7 would have a replacement to the headphone plug. But THEY DID NOT. They re-invented Bluetooth and added that. Why? To lock out their earphones to work on other device, to ensure that only Apple users (well, really, iPhone 7 only users) gets to enjoy it? (Also you have no guaranty that it won't be dropped next model, or that a newer version comes out, and now you can't make your current earphones work).

 

Bluetooth headphones contains a digital to analog converter in either headphone speaker piece. USB headphone/headset, the DAC (and the analog to digital converter, for the mic) is in the USB plug itself, hence why it is large compared to a normal USB plugs. The reason why we have USB headset, if you wonder, is that we have motherboards and laptops on the market with HORRIBLE onboard sound chip and/or digital to analog converters, so there is a market for them. So anything is better in such case. Some people buys a dedicated sound cards and use their headphones, others buys external DACs and plug their headphones. Each have their preference, as they all feature ups and downs.

 

DAC's aren't free (especially the half decent ones), same for Bluetooth receiver in the headphone, same for Apple new wireless technology. Cable is virtual free in comparison. Plus, you need to cover the R&D, testing, more complicated design, increase cost of quality assurance (the more complicated your product is, the harder it is to produce things are successfully produced every time, and requires less testing to make sure it follows specifications, and reduce coordination with other manufacture (DAC makers, Bluetooth receiver chip makers, etc.). Every extra part, every extra employee, every extra machine needed to build the product, costs money. This translates to a higher priced product. The supply and demand argument has its limits. Resources aren't free. So claiming that wireless earphones/headphone will drop a lot in price, won't happen any time soon. Maybe in 10 years, but not any time soon.

 

So instead of having the most of the money you spend go in better headphones/earphones speaker, you spend money on all these extra electronics inside and for the increase manufacturing and R&D costs mentioned previously. So, no matter how you calculate it, for your dollar, sound quality per dollar is higher with corded earphones/headphones over wireless ones.

 

Want proof? Sure! Look at the Sennheiser RS 175, the ones pictured above, for it's price, you can get much better headphones from the same manufacture. Check reviews, try them out and see. Another example? Sure! Look at USB headsets. Why they all "suck", it is because you can get better ones wired, and even better ones without the mic and wired all staying in the same price point. Again, bluetooth headphones vs wired ones, for the same price, you have better sound output with wired. More money is spend on better speakers. Unless you have absolute horrible DAC or sound chip, it is the only time you'll experience the reverse. Even if the headphone has an incredible DAC, the speakers in the headphone won't be good enougth to take advance of the DAC, so the audio output from them will be crap compared to what it could get.

 

Every technology were we had a newer technology replaced the old one, provided benefits over the old one. At worst, you had SOME justification, where you can go "Yea, not for me.. but yea, I see what it tries to do, or who it caters to". But here you have nothing. Again, if Apple made a new open standard where it did something like the wireless headphones above, but in a tiny form factor, then yea! Great!. But they re-invented Bluetooth, the audio needs to be converted from digital to analog in each earphones.

 

And again, it isn't like we could not have Bluetooth before or a decent DAC in a phone, and the headphone jack was replaced with bluetooth, where now you can go "Oh yea, car integration, wireless headphones could be interesting, and use a better DAC for better sound experience". No. We had all this already.

 

What Apple is doing is like if your favorite motherboard manufacture made a high end motherboard without any ports what's so ever, beside a new wireless technology to get keyboard and mouse working, which they made, and are currently the only ones that makes it. And the keyboard feels like those cheap 8$ membrane keyboard + mouse combo kits, despite the high price actually being sold at, to cover R&D of the wireless technology and the wireless technology itself. Oh! And you do have another connector, but you ONLY have 1, and its propitiatory one, but gives you 2x adapters. One for wireless network, and the other for Ethernet. And when you ask why they did this? Maybe you wonder if it is because they put some exciting new technology that is very unique, ground breaking, and currently too large to fit with the rest. They say "No!.. just courage."

 

How do you feel about this? This is what Apple is doing! How can you defend this? How you can justify anything? Go ahead, right now, imagine your desktop motherboard has 0 USB ports. Spend a week like this.. You'll quickly see that you better have integrated bluetooth so that you can connect a bluetooth mouse and keyboard, just to get started, and possibly you need to go buy a network enabled printer if you don't have that, possible a game controller with Bluetooth, and a new router with USB ports so that you plug a USB flash drives and access it to your system through you network, instead of just plugging it in your PC and have direct access to it.

 

Other phones gives you both Bluetooth and wired headphone jack, as well some sports the dual camera, is even more water resistant, still deliver powerful specs, and just as thin package, similarly priced also. So clearly, technology limitation isn't the reason. So if you prefer wireless you have the option. If you prefer wired, you have the option. You want both? Maybe at the gym you want wired cheap earphones as you don't care if they fall, step on it, break, stolen. But, on the go, you want to have a more premium headphones/earphones and also wireless for, you, a better experience. Great, you can have that, as the phone has both. I mean, this is how it worked before for the older iPhone also. So, yea. Options never hurt.

 

I don't mind if people go "Yea, it doesn't have a headphone plug, but it genuinely doesn't affect me, as I have the money to replace my headphones/earphones to wireless, or they are already wireless." Good if you go like that. You fit the perfect target market for the device it aims at. What I mind, is how people defend this, as if this is a good decision. In this entire thread, not 1 single person provided an up side.