Apple Announces the iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus

[ThinkWithPortals]

Just now, GoodBytes said:

 

 

 

Nice one mate, /thread

[Noctus]

33 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

A whole lot of sense

Couldn't agree more, people need to wake the fuck up.

[Commodus]

35 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

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).

Only Apple isn't making a proprietary Bluetooth connection at all.  The pairing technique on the AirPods is unique, but you can use them with any Bluetooth-capable device... and the iPhone 7 can work with any Bluetooth audio device.

 

That shoots down a key part of your argument, doesn't it?

 

John Gruber, while tending to side with Apple by default in most arguments, does have a point: this is somewhat like the furor over Flash.  Remember how Google used its I/O 2010 keynote to act as if Apple was a horrible commie fascist devil tyrant for daring to reject mobile Flash?  The circumstances are different, of course (the 3.5mm headphone jack isn't a buggy, battery-hogging security flaw), but Apple appears to have made a bet that the cycle will be the same.  It will be painful at first.  People will fume, argue that Apple is trying to ruin a good thing, and swear that the company will have to come crawling back (I remember overhearing a shopper who swore they'd wait until the iPhone had Flash to buy one).

 

But the hope is that the technology will advance in coming years.  Bluetooth will become more efficient.  Audio quality and battery life will improve.  More companies will make Bluetooth headphones, or devote more care to the next revision of the headphones they already make.  Prices will drop.

 

I'm not saying that Apple is definitively right, and it doesn't change the short term: that headphone adapter is needed because most people don't use Bluetooth headphones and aren't willing to go to Lightning.  Bluetooth tech is a bit rough.  But declaring that it's a uniformly bad decision to exclude the headphone jack is just as wrong as praising the move as perfectly prescient.  It's a knee-jerk conservatism, a refusal to examine the long-term possibilities because you're too used to the old way of doing things.

[Decimator 22]

Personally I can't believe how much the thing costs over here, it costs more than a good laptop. Then you add their weird decision to remove the audio jack, and all this has me a bit worried how their new laptops will turn out. 

[ShadowCaptain]

Ordered the 256gb 7 plus in matte black 

 

 

hyped!!!!!!!!!

[Dredgy]

9 minutes ago, Decimator 22 said:

Personally I can't believe how much the thing costs over here, it costs more than a good laptop. Then you add their weird decision to remove the audio jack, and all this has me a bit worried how their new laptops will turn out. 

 

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

[GoodBytes]

3 minutes ago, Commodus said:

Only Apple isn't making a proprietary Bluetooth connection at all.  The pairing technique on the AirPods is unique, but you can use them with any Bluetooth-capable device... and the iPhone 7 can work with any Bluetooth audio device.

I didn't say that. I said that they CREATED an additional wireless technology, which is, so far, not open. Meaning Apple only, or you have to pay royalties to get it.

And this technology isn't different form Bluetooth in terms of delivering an improved audio experience, because, it doesn't do like these wireless headphone presented in my previous post, it works the same way as Bluetooth, were the signal is sent digitally, and each earpods needs to convert the digital signal to analogue.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Commodus said:

John Gruber, while tending to side with Apple by default in most arguments, does have a point: this is somewhat like the furor over Flash.  Remember how Google used its I/O 2010 keynote to act as if Apple was a horrible commie fascist devil tyrant for daring to reject mobile Flash?  The circumstances are different, of course (the 3.5mm headphone jack isn't a buggy, battery-hogging security flaw), but Apple appears to have made a bet that the cycle will be the same.  It will be painful at first.  People will fume, argue that Apple is trying to ruin a good thing, and swear that the company will have to come crawling back (I remember overhearing a shopper who swore they'd wait until the iPhone had Flash to buy one).

Adobe killed Flash. I was a Flash developer. That is what happened. They stop making ARM based Flash player. They never ported Flash to use the GPU (which are awesome at doing vectors... see: 3D games), and keep using the CPU (which sucks... hence why we use graphics card (integrate graphics solutions in the CPU, are dedicated graphics, in the CPU, they are not CPUs itself doing graphics...)). So, Flash, was power hungry, provided poor performance, the advantage over Java, where it loaded the plug-in instantly and the program itself disappeared due to poor coding, and Adobe didn't care, or want, to make Flash safe and secure. Only fix critical, reported bug.

 

Flash was dead, the day Adobe bought Macromedia. The day that happened. Flash, which was a language (well... ActionScript to be exact) was moving forward at remarkable pace at every version. The day Adobe bought Macromedia, Flash released what ever was in the works, half baked, and development has stopped. Adobe didn't care about Flash, they wanted the patents of Macromedia.

 

Any Flash developer will agree with me. It isn't Apple, it isn't Google that killed Flash. It was dead since before. It only survived until HTML5 came along.

 

3 minutes ago, Commodus said:

But the hope is that the technology will advance in coming years.  Bluetooth will become more efficient.  Audio quality and battery life will improve.  More companies will make Bluetooth headphones, or devote more care to the next revision of the headphones they already make.  Prices will drop.

Bluetooth 5 has no improvements related to audio... it is not even out in products yet. So we have to wait for Bluetooth 6, assuming it has anything on that front, and that is 5 to 7 years from now, in terms of waiting.

 

3 minutes ago, Commodus said:

I'm not saying that Apple is definitively right, and it doesn't change the short term: that headphone adapter is needed because most people don't use Bluetooth headphones and aren't willing to go to Lightning.  Bluetooth tech is a bit rough.  But declaring that it's a uniformly bad decision to exclude the headphone jack is just as wrong as praising the move as perfectly prescient.  It's a knee-jerk conservatism, a refusal to examine the long-term possibilities because you're too used to the old way of doing things.

 Bluetooth tech is fine. The problem is that it isn't free, same as the DAC, so no matter what, you get less sound quality for your money.

[Commodus]

4 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

I didn't say that. I said that they CREATED an additional wireless technology, which is, so far, not open. Meaning Apple only, or you have to pay royalties to get it.

And this technology isn't different form Bluetooth in terms of delivering an improved audio experience, because, it doesn't do like these wireless headphone presented in my previous post, it works the same way as Bluetooth, were the signal is sent digitally, and each earpods needs to convert the digital signal to analogue.

But this is also false.  There is no separate, Apple-specific wireless audio technology in the iPhone 7.  The AirPods use standard Bluetooth.  Where's your evidence that it has an additional, closed wireless tech?

 

 

8 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

Any Flash developer will agree with me. It isn't Apple, it isn't Google that killed Flash. It was dead since before. It only survived until HTML5 came along.

 

The technical flaws certainly helped kill Flash, but sorry -- Apple did play a part. From Adobe's own blog post at the time:

 

"However, HTML5 is now universally supported on major mobile devices, in some cases exclusively. This makes HTML5 the best solution for creating and deploying content in the browser across mobile platforms."

 

In other words: it had to kill Flash and embrace HTML5 because it would otherwise miss everyone running an iOS device.  And aren't you tacitly admitting that Apple knew what you knew, and refused to support technology that was guaranteed to be dead in the water?  That Adobe was artificially propping up mobile Flash and managed to fool BlackBerry, Google and others into supporting an inferior, outdated format?

 

 

27 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

Bluetooth 5 has no improvements related to audio... it is not even out in products yet. So we have to wait for Bluetooth 6, assuming it has anything on that front, and that is 5 to 7 years from now, in terms of waiting.

 

You're assuming that there can't be an interim spec to improve Bluetooth audio, or that the dramatic improvements to speed and range in Bluetooth 5 won't have an effect on audio.  I'm not convinced we'll have to wait several years, not yet at least.

[GoodBytes]

12 minutes ago, Commodus said:

But this is also false.  There is no separate, Apple-specific wireless audio technology in the iPhone 7.  The AirPods use standard Bluetooth.  Where's your evidence that it has an additional, closed wireless tech?

On the press release and also on stage, they showed a custom wireless chip indicating no bluetooth.

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2016/09/07Apple-Reinvents-the-Wireless-Headphone-with-AirPods.html

 

 

12 minutes ago, Commodus said:

The technical flaws certainly helped kill Flash, but sorry -- Apple did play a part. From Adobe's own blog post at the time:

 

"However, HTML5 is now universally supported on major mobile devices, in some cases exclusively. This makes HTML5 the best solution for creating and deploying content in the browser across mobile platforms."

 

In other words: it had to kill Flash and embrace HTML5 because it would otherwise miss everyone running an iOS device.  And aren't you tacitly admitting that Apple knew what you knew, and refused to support technology that was guaranteed to be dead in the water?  That Adobe was artificially propping up mobile Flash and managed to fool BlackBerry, Google and others into supporting an inferior, outdated format?

HTML5 was coming regardless. It isn't Apple. Apple played 0 part in it. Even if Apple supported Flash, Flash 7 would have been the latest version of Flash on mobile devices. It was already outdated, filled with security holes, and no updated from Adobe to even fix those.  And HTML5 is nothing really. Everything you can do with "HTML5" web pages, you can do with HTML4. People are mixing JavaScript, and web browser player codecs with HTML5. Yes, HTML5 defined some standards, and help web page developers with new tags and easier integration of ability, but it isn't HTML5. The only reason why we didn't use Java-Script and web browser audio/video codecs instead of Flash, is that codecs on web browsers were limited, and JavaScript was taxing on CPUs at the time. In both desktop, laptops and especially phones. Now, it is no longer the case. As web browser became more complete, they focused on codec support, and over time JavaScript engines in web browsers got better, more efficient, and CPUs got faster and better, allowing rich web experiences.

 

[Bouzoo]

1 hour ago, ShadowCaptain said:

Ordered the 256gb 7 plus in matte black 

 

 

hyped!!!!!!!!!

did you forget /s?

[ShadowCaptain]

8 minutes ago, Bouzoo said:

did you forget /s?

Nope I'm serious

[Bouzoo]

27 minutes ago, ShadowCaptain said:

Nope I'm serious

You have pre-ordered?   Wow you need 256 GB?

[ShadowCaptain]

9 minutes ago, Bouzoo said:

You have pre-ordered?   Wow you need 256 GB?

My upgrade was due anyway so I just did it now 

 

sure my 128gb is pretty full, figured why not just get the top one 

[LAwLz]

8 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

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.

I don't see how "I can leave my phone in the bag while moving around" has anything to do with "having to charge yet another device every day is a bad thing".

You can't just bring up a random benefit (the only benefit so I guess it wasn't random) as a counterpoint to a drawback.

Not sure about you but I don't keep track of the battery status of all my devices at all times. I could charge them all every day, but I don't want to run around plugging/unplugging all my devices every day when I don't have to. At some point enough is enough, and personally I have reached that point.

Even if charging wasn't a big problem, it would still be a problem. Like you said, no charging required is better than charging required.

 

 

8 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

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

It won't be 10 dollars though. It requires an AMP, DAC, wireless antennas, wireless controller chips, extra testing and multiple certifications. Even if everything goes down to 10 dollars to the manufacturer, the price consumers will have to pay will be more (because 10 dollars extra BOM won't translate to 10 dollars higher retail price).

 

 

8 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

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

1) Physics doesn't stop it from being better. It is more than possible to make wireless headphones sound as good as 3.5mm ones (in theory).

2) If the cost difference is close to zero then why aren't people already flocking to it? Oh right, because people already do mind the cost difference.

 

 

8 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

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

More vendor lock-in and licensing fees.

 

 

8 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

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

Nice anecdotes you got there. Do you think "think they sound bad and my friends think they sound bad" would be a legitimate counter-argument? Of course it wouldn't, because anecdotes means jack shit.

 

I recommend you reread my post, because right now you are trying to argue against something I never said. I didn't say they sound bad (although that depends what we are comparing them to), what I said was that you could get better sound quality for the same or lower price. In fact, a manufacturer could take something like the JayBird X2, convert them into 3.5mm and then sell them at a lower cost while still making just as much money. The sound quality would be better too (depending on what you plug them into, and what your source audio is).

 

 

8 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

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

Removing the headphone jack and having an Ethernet port on a phone is a hilariously bad comparison.

Phone with Ethernet port = Not mobile.

Phone with 3.5mm headphones plugged in = mobile.

 

Removing the 3.5mm jack on phones is more like removing the Ethernet jack from a desktop. The only thing it does is limit the user, without offering any benefit in return.

 

 

8 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

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

Totally agree that there are Bluetooth earphones which sound far better than the earphones most people use. I could not agree more, because like you said most people just use whatever comes with their phone.

The idea that all drawbacks will be ironed out is just bullshit though, and it shows that you do not understand the first thing about audio or how it works.

 

Here is a completely unbiased comparison of Bluetooth vs 3.5mm.

 

Benefits of Bluetooth:

No cable - This is nice.

If the port is removed, it will save space inside the phone - Do we really want thinner phones? We are already limited in thickness by camera modules and batteries.

 

Drawbacks:

Significantly higher cost - The "significantly" part might get removed as time goes on, but the fact remains that bluetooth earphones just straight up contains additional components, and if you want decent quality ones then they won't be that cheap. If you take the same earphones and make one pair into 3.5mm and the other into Bluetooth, then the Bluetooth one will have far more components and complexity. I don't have any solid numbers, but the manufacturing cost would probably be about double (assuming it would be ~100 dollar tier earphones).

 

Worse sound quality - This is fix-able. In fact, if the entire chain of devices supports specific Bluetooth profiles then you can get high quality audio over Bluetooth losslessly (losslessly as in, it sends a high quality, lossily encoded audio file without adding any additional compression) today.

 

Batteries that needs to be charged - Won't get fixed in any foreseeable future. The problem might get minimized, but like you said "no charging is better than charging".

 

So one out of the three drawbacks will actually get fixed.

 

But this is not the whole truth, because right now I am doing a straight up "3.5mm vs Bluetooth". In reality, we are going from "3.5mm, Bluetooth and Lightning vs just Bluetooth and Lightning". As you can probably tell on your own, you are just losing options with this move. So it is impossible for you to argue that removing the 3.5mm headphone jack is a good thing today. The only argument you got is that this will encourage manufacturers to find a solution for proper audio quality over Bluetooth, but as you and I both agree on most people will not care. They will just use whichever crappy headphones they get with the phone. So that might not even be solved because there is a very low demand for it.

[Commodus]

1 hour ago, GoodBytes said:

On the press release and also on stage, they showed a custom wireless chip indicating no bluetooth.

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2016/09/07Apple-Reinvents-the-Wireless-Headphone-with-AirPods.html

 

 

HTML5 was coming regardless. It isn't Apple. Apple played 0 part in it. Even if Apple supported Flash, Flash 7 would have been the latest version of Flash on mobile devices. It was already outdated, filled with security holes, and no updated from Adobe to even fix those.  And HTML5 is nothing really. Everything you can do with "HTML5" web pages, you can do with HTML4. People are mixing JavaScript, and web browser player codecs with HTML5. Yes, HTML5 defined some standards, and help web page developers with new tags and easier integration of ability, but it isn't HTML5. The only reason why we didn't use Java-Script and web browser audio/video codecs instead of Flash, is that codecs on web browsers were limited, and JavaScript was taxing on CPUs at the time. In both desktop, laptops and especially phones. Now, it is no longer the case. As web browser became more complete, they focused on codec support, and over time JavaScript engines in web browsers got better, more efficient, and CPUs got faster and better, allowing rich web experiences.

 

It's just a wireless controller chip, not a new standard.  Apple was only trying to promote its ability to get decent wireless performance and battery life out of wireless earbuds that small.  Besides, both Apple's website and follow-up investigations have shown that it's Bluetooth.  You can pair AirPods with an Android phone if you like... you just miss out on neat tricks like tapping the buds to launch Siri.  The company would no doubt prefer that you buy its own earbuds, but it's not doing anything to make life difficult for the Boses and Jaybirds of the world.

 

And I'm sorry, but Adobe stated that a lack of iOS support was a significant factor.  It didn't team up with Google on the I/O stage because it thought mobile Flash didn't have a future.  You didn't see senior Adobe staff extolling the virtues of Flash (and sometimes hurling expletives at Apple) because they thought Flash would stay stagnant.  They really, really wanted Apple to support Flash... and while the advancements of HTML5 and mobile processing power definitely played a major role, they also realized that a lack of iOS support seriously hurt Flash's ability to reach mobile users.

[LAwLz]

On 9/9/2016 at 5:08 PM, Trixanity said:

It's just not there and won't be any time soon. I don't know the pricing for apt-x but I'm sure it's not cheap since it's not in any way ubiquitous. That's what's holding Bluetooth audio back: you need an entire ecosystem where each part has an aptx license to get decent audio. If aptx or a better free codec was part of the Bluetooth spec it would almost be a non-issue.

What's funny is that the iPhone (at least not the previous models) doesn't even support APT-X. It does support A2DP, but as far as I am aware it only supports AAC as the optional codec. So if your earphones supports AAC, and your music files are AAC then it will sound fine. If you use anything else though then you will most likely get bumped down to SBC (which is a terrible codec based on mp2, not even mp3).

On top of that, if the file you are trying to play is also lossily encoded then you will be transcoding from one lossy codec to another.

[GoodBytes]

25 minutes ago, Commodus said:

It's just a wireless controller chip, not a new standard.  Apple was only trying to promote its ability to get decent wireless performance and battery life out of wireless earbuds that small.  Besides, both Apple's website and follow-up investigations have shown that it's Bluetooth.  You can pair AirPods with an Android phone if you like... you just miss out on neat tricks like tapping the buds to launch Siri.  The company would no doubt prefer that you buy its own earbuds, but it's not doing anything to make life difficult for the Boses and Jaybirds of the world.

 Ok, very good then. It was unclear at first. But regardless, it doesn't change anything in my argumentation.

 

Quote

And I'm sorry, but Adobe stated that a lack of iOS support was a significant factor.  It didn't team up with Google on the I/O stage because it thought mobile Flash didn't have a future.  You didn't see senior Adobe staff extolling the virtues of Flash (and sometimes hurling expletives at Apple) because they thought Flash would stay stagnant.  They really, really wanted Apple to support Flash... and while the advancements of HTML5 and mobile processing power definitely played a major role, they also realized that a lack of iOS support seriously hurt Flash's ability to reach mobile users.

There is a difference between Flash department employees wanting something and Adobe. In a large corporation, you have these conflicts. And if the high management don't agree, or not interested, then no mater what the employees do, they'll never have the resources. If they had actual support for Flash from higher up. Then they would/could do the following:

• Make Flash to be fully GPU rendered (which would have also added 3D support, as performance would be there for this)
• Open source it (like any popular programming language). This would also allow further improvement, increase of security, and expansion of the language, not to mention, integration, like we have with Java-Script, in web browsers. So no more plugins. It could have been a new web standard added to the currently existing one. Being open source and not being resource limited by a company, a lot of the limitation of Flash that made it not great in some areas and application could possibly have been solved. Adobe would have made LOTS of money selling their IDE. Yes, it would allow other IDEs to be made... but the same as C++, when you are the best overall, there is a solid market for it, as we can see with Visual Studio (despite having better compilers like gcc under Linux). And probably Adobe would have made more money that way.

Sadly, Adobe never saw value in Flash, and didn't care about it. They bought Macromedia for its patents, and technologies which they integrated in some in their software.

 

[ThinkWithPortals]

3 hours ago, ShadowCaptain said:

Ordered the 256gb 7 plus in matte black 

 

 

hyped!!!!!!!!!

Was tempted to post the gif of Ryan Reynolds saying "But why...?" but I restrained myself

[ShadowCaptain]

4 minutes ago, ThinkWithPortals said:

Was tempted to post the gif of Ryan Reynolds saying "But why...?" but I restrained myself

Besides the headphone thing everything is an awesome upgrade 

[VerticalDiscussions]

This and this, :p.

 

http://www.apple.com/pt/shop/buy-iphone/iphone-7/ecrã-de-5,5-polegadas-256gb-preto-brilhante#01,10,21

 

http://www.otterbox.com/en-us/iphone-7-plus/strada-series-folio-case/apl40-iphp16.html

 

@ShadowCaptain, its gonna happen to me too XD!

[ShadowCaptain]

17 minutes ago, VerticalDiscussions said:

This and this, :p.

 

http://www.apple.com/pt/shop/buy-iphone/iphone-7/ecrã-de-5,5-polegadas-256gb-preto-brilhante#01,10,21

 

http://www.otterbox.com/en-us/iphone-7-plus/strada-series-folio-case/apl40-iphp16.html

 

@ShadowCaptain, its gonna happen to me too XD!

 

 

Not a big case fan though, naked for me unless I find a nice battery case

 

or maybe a nice Apple one for when I airsoft 

[VerticalDiscussions]

Just now, ShadowCaptain said:

-snip-

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.

[RedRound2]

20 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I don't see how "I can leave my phone in the bag while moving around" has anything to do with "having to charge yet another device every day is a bad thing".

You can't just bring up a random benefit (the only benefit so I guess it wasn't random) as a counterpoint to a drawback.

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).

 

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)

20 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Not sure about you but I don't keep track of the battery status of all my devices at all times. I could charge them all every day, but I don't want to run around plugging/unplugging all my devices every day when I don't have to. At some point enough is enough, and personally I have reached that point.

Even if charging wasn't a big problem, it would still be a problem. Like you said, no charging required is better than charging required.

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

20 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

It won't be 10 dollars though. It requires an AMP, DAC, wireless antennas, wireless controller chips, extra testing and multiple certifications. Even if everything goes down to 10 dollars to the manufacturer, the price consumers will have to pay will be more (because 10 dollars extra BOM won't translate to 10 dollars higher retail price).

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

20 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

1) Physics doesn't stop it from being better. It is more than possible to make wireless headphones sound as good as 3.5mm ones (in theory).

2) If the cost difference is close to zero then why aren't people already flocking to it? Oh right, because people already do mind the cost difference.

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

 

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

20 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

More vendor lock-in and licensing fees.

I doubt it. Sure all manufacturers will have 2 or 3 lightning headphones but it will never be a common thing and Apple knows that full well

20 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Nice anecdotes you got there. Do you think "think they sound bad and my friends think they sound bad" would be a legitimate counter-argument? Of course it wouldn't, because anecdotes means jack shit.

 

I recommend you reread my post, because right now you are trying to argue against something I never said. I didn't say they sound bad (although that depends what we are comparing them to), what I said was that you could get better sound quality for the same or lower price. In fact, a manufacturer could take something like the JayBird X2, convert them into 3.5mm and then sell them at a lower cost while still making just as much money. The sound quality would be better too (depending on what you plug them into, and what your source audio is).

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

 

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

20 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Removing the headphone jack and having an Ethernet port on a phone is a hilariously bad comparison.

Phone with Ethernet port = Not mobile.

Phone with 3.5mm headphones plugged in = mobile.

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

20 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

The idea that all drawbacks will be ironed out is just bullshit though, and it shows that you do not understand the first thing about audio or how it works.

 

Here is a completely unbiased comparison of Bluetooth vs 3.5mm.

 

Benefits of Bluetooth:

No cable - This is nice.

If the port is removed, it will save space inside the phone - Do we really want thinner phones? We are already limited in thickness by camera modules and batteries.

We're not going to go any thinner, I can assure you that. But you can use that useful space to cram in 100 other microchips that can do various functions in the same space taken by a 3.5mm jack. In apple's case they didnt make it thinner rather added a better speaker, improved taptic engine and allegedly a slightly bigger battery (which wouldn't matter in android phones but makes a difference in iOS)

20 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Drawbacks:

Significantly higher cost - The "significantly" part might get removed as time goes on, but the fact remains that bluetooth earphones just straight up contains additional components, and if you want decent quality ones then they won't be that cheap. If you take the same earphones and make one pair into 3.5mm and the other into Bluetooth, then the Bluetooth one will have far more components and complexity. I don't have any solid numbers, but the manufacturing cost would probably be about double (assuming it would be ~100 dollar tier earphones).

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

20 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Worse sound quality - This is fix-able. In fact, if the entire chain of devices supports specific Bluetooth profiles then you can get high quality audio over Bluetooth losslessly (losslessly as in, it sends a high quality, lossily encoded audio file without adding any additional compression) today.

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

20 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Batteries that needs to be charged - Won't get fixed in any foreseeable future. The problem might get minimized, but like you said "no charging is better than charging".

Probably the only con, but the pros I mentioned above completely outweigh it for me especially since this is definitely going to be minimized

20 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

But this is not the whole truth, because right now I am doing a straight up "3.5mm vs Bluetooth". In reality, we are going from "3.5mm, Bluetooth and Lightning vs just Bluetooth and Lightning". As you can probably tell on your own, you are just losing options with this move. So it is impossible for you to argue that removing the 3.5mm headphone jack is a good thing today. The only argument you got is that this will encourage manufacturers to find a solution for proper audio quality over Bluetooth, but as you and I both agree on most people will not care. They will just use whichever crappy headphones they get with the phone. So that might not even be solved because there is a very low demand for it.

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

 

Wireless is the future whether you like it or not and all you're doing is keep raving about meaningless disadvantages which honestly the only one I see is charging and for now the cost, both of which will get minimized as time goes on especially with a catalyst like Apple onboard. Also I may remind you again, that there are advantages to wireless and its probably going to outweigh the disadvantages for most people today and even more in the future

 

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!

[Commodus]

42 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

Ok, very good then. It was unclear at first. But regardless, it doesn't change anything in my argumentation.

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.

 

Quote

There is a difference between Flash department employees wanting something and Adobe. In a large corporation, you have these conflicts. And if the high management don't agree, or not interested, then no mater what the employees do, they'll never have the resources.

This is true, but that also doesn't explain Adobe getting buddy-buddy with Google, such as bundling Flash with Chrome or portraying Apple as a devil incarnate for not using Flash.  The two sides were in more harmonious agreement than you might think.  The developers may have wanted to make Flash more viable, but both them and management felt that Apple 'had' to support Flash on mobile regardless.

[ShadowCaptain]

4 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.

I'm getting matte black that's why haha