iPhone 7 Drama

[DaveKerk]

Am I the only that thinks the absence of a headphone jack isn't a big deal? They have a converter from Lighting and honestly I rarely charge my phone and have earbuds in at the same time. And isn't bluetooth still a thing? Some decent bluetooth earbuds are not really that expensive. Also I can almost guarantee that there will be a case in the very near future that provides a "splitter" of sorts, would that be that hard? Having a case that connects to your Lightning port and splits it to power/data and then a headphone jack?

 

Sorry, mini rant over.

[79wjd]

No, you're not the only one. Everyone just has their panties in a bunch. 

 

(belkin already released a splitter btw, it's $40, but someone else will probably release one for like $20 in a little while)

[DaveKerk]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

No, you're not the only one. Everyone just has their panties in a bunch. 

 

(belkin already released a splitter btw, it's $40, but Belkin has always been very expensive, they'll be like $20 in a little while)

This is just ridiculous, with every single release that tries to innovate, people lose their sh*t, LET CHANGE HAPPEN!! (sometimes)

[Curufinwe_wins]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

No, you're not the only one. Everyone just has their panties in a bunch. 

 

(belkin already released a splitter btw, it's $40, but Belkin has always been very expensive, they'll be like $20 in a little while)

I mean... I make 90+ % of my phone calls with a headset, so this is 100% no-go for me.

 

Also yea, I totally watch movies while charging and using my headphones. Bluetooth earbuds are really dogshit until you get into the 200 dollar ish range, and even then are pretty underwhelming compared to overears (plus most of them I totally just can't use, due to a collapsible ear canal).

 

But sure most people probably won't notice the difference.

 

The big thing is there is literally no good reason to remove it. It doesn't actually save space (and if it did, just use the 2.5mm jack). You already need an internal DAC for the speakers.

[Curufinwe_wins]

4 minutes ago, DaveKerk said:

This is just ridiculous, with every single release that tries to innovate, people lose their sh*t, LET CHANGE HAPPEN!! (sometimes)

"innovation"

 

Q: Why did you remove the headphone jack?

 

A: "One word: Courage"

 

Uhh what? Fuck off now.

[79wjd]

3 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

I mean... I make 90+ % of my phone calls with a headset, so this is 100% no-go for me.

 

Also yea, I totally watch movies while charging and using my headphones. Bluetooth earbuds are really dogshit until you get into the 200 dollar ish range, and even then are pretty underwhelming compared to overears (plus most of them I totally just can't use, due to a collapsible ear canal).

 

But sure most people probably won't notice the difference.

 

The big thing is there is literally no good reason to remove it. It doesn't actually save space (and if it did, just use the 2.5mm jack). You already need an internal DAC for the speakers.

You're right about it not having a direct benefit, except I see it more as a driving force than anything else. 

 

There is a lot of potential that has yet to really be exploited in terms of both bluetooth and lightning/USB-C. Additional functionality (ear detection, fitness tracking, active noise cancellation, etc...) that would otherwise be impractical in 3.5mm IEMs (as they would need a power source and have to communicate over bluetooth making them just as bulky as bluetooth IEMs and being another thing that needs to be charged). 

[Curufinwe_wins]

10 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

You're right about it not having a direct benefit, except I see it more as a driving force than anything else. 

 

There is a lot of potential that has yet to really be exploited in terms of both bluetooth and lightning/USB-C. Additional functionality (ear detection, fitness tracking, active noise cancellation, etc...) that would otherwise be impractical in 3.5mm IEMs (as they would need a power source and have to communicate over bluetooth making them just as bulky as bluetooth IEMs and being another thing that needs to be charged). 

You aren't going to break anything into the mainstream by charging 160 dollars a pop even on the "cheaper" end. This is like expecting the HD600 (when it came out) to revolutionize non-audiophile experiences.

 

Ehh idk. Bluetooth peripherals are already advancing plenty without this blatant cash grab (with the "fitness" explosion and the traditional business market). 

 

Doesn't matter if 3rd party adapters are available for cheap when Apple can sell their first party ones for 60 bucks a pop.

 

I think what just makes me so mad is that Apple has no even token justification for doing this, just like the single port MacBook Air.

 

Just another way to milk the sheep.

[79wjd]

6 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

You aren't going to break anything into the mainstream by charging 160 dollars a pop even on the "cheaper" end. This is like expecting the HD600 (when it came out) to revolutionize non-audiophile experiences.

 

Ehh idk. Bluetooth peripherals are already advancing plenty without this blatant cash grab (with the "fitness" explosion and the traditional business market). 

 

Doesn't matter if 3rd party adapters are available for cheap when Apple can sell their first party ones for 60 bucks a pop.

 

I think what just makes me so mad is that Apple has no even token justification for doing this, just like the single port MacBook Air.

 

Just another way to milk the sheep.

With the new iPhone will come new cheaper bluetooth options that don't suck. Right now there only cheap ($20~) bluetooth options are from cheap chinese knockoffs. As it is, there are other decent bluetooth IEMs that around $100~ (X2s launched at $150, and are now frequently at $70-$100) for example. The truly wireless earbuds (which I personally am not a big fan of, I prefer the buds to be connected, but that's just me) are still comparatively new to the market and should also come down significantly in price -- until the last year or so none really existed. 

 

So let Apple make money off of people who are stupid enough to pay $60 for an adapter. There's nothing wrong with that as far as I'm concerned. It's your own damn fault if you're too stupid to google "lightning splitter". The same people (by far not the majority) that buy a lightning charger for $30 will buy the splitter, but that's not most people. Most people will still buy from the third party brand. 

 

And there reasoning is to drive the industry forward. And I think that it will. 

[Zaphron1999]

Its not a big deal to me AT ALL, besides the fact that we now dont have headphones included. The Air Pods cost 150$ is a way too much to ask for, and the least they could do is include the converter with the phone. Kind of a bad idea to make it dual speakers, headphones are way more important. But yeah, include the converter with the iPhone and i would be happy

[79wjd]

2 minutes ago, Zaphron1999 said:

Its not a big deal to me AT ALL, besides the fact that we now dont have headphones included. The Air Pods cost 150$ is a way too much to ask for, and the least they could do is include the converter with the phone. Kind of a bad idea to make it dual speakers, headphones are way more important. But yeah, include the converter with the iPhone and i would be happy

Lightning earbuds and a 3.5mm to lightning adapter are included. 

 

$160 is actually CHEAP for truly wireless earbuds, most are $200-$300 AND they have worse battery life and don't have a mic. So Air Pods are actually a very competitive option in the truly wireless earbud field. 

[Curufinwe_wins]

2 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

And there reasoning is to drive the industry forward. And I think that it will. 

Yes because taking advantage of the people who don't know better (and are often the ones that need the savings the most) is totally ok. I mean that's how lotteries totally improve the quality of life of people in/near poverty right?

 

Besides, their reasoning wasn't to drive industry forward. Their reasoning was "because we can, so suck our dicks".

[Zaphron1999]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

Lightning earbuds and a 3.5mm to lightning adapter are included. 

 

$160 is actually CHEAP for truly wireless earbuds, most are $200-$300 AND they have worse battery life and don't have a mic. So Air Pods are actually a very competitive option in the truly wireless earbud field. 

I did not know they included the earbuds and adapter. If they do that then why is everyone upset. Literally no reason to be

[Canada EH]

No headphone jack, gotta buy $500 Apple headphones with proprietory connection.

 

[Mr_Flynn]

Personally, I'm mostly OK with removing the headphone jack if you implement another non-proprietary standard (i.e. USB Type-C) to replace it. That is not lightning. Lightning headphones feel like a massive cash grab and a way to keep you in their walled garden. Not to mention that this is going to be really goddamn confusing for consumers.

[WereCat]

I don't care because I don't listen to music from phone and I don't plan on buying iPhone anyways.

[79wjd]

7 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

Yes because taking advantage of the people who don't know better (and are often the ones that need the savings the most) is totally ok. I mean that's how lotteries totally improve the quality of life of people in/near poverty right?

 

Besides, their reasoning wasn't to drive industry forward. Their reasoning was "because we can, so suck our dicks".

There's only so much hand holding a person can get. If you're already struggling with finances you shouldn't be buying an $800 phone, nor should you be spending upwards of $60/month to maintain service to that phone. So, I have no sympathy for those people. Even tech-morons can figure out that a third part lightning cable that is a fraction of the cost is just as good as Apple's. 

 

They were also going on about it being antiquated. The tone of the way it was said and the context implies that they're driving the industry forward (also, I could've sworn they said they along the lines of replacing it for the sake of improvement). 

7 minutes ago, wrathoftheturkey said:

They're touting the removal of the headphone jack as "courage," without actually using that to do anything useful. They could have just added support for lightning

Bluetooth drains battery and is more expensive to produce good sound quality for.

Bluetooth barely drains batter and the only way to truly drive manufacturers to put effort into additional functionality (due to lightning/USB-C) or better bluetooth is to force their hand (i.e. by removing the headphone jack).

 

5 minutes ago, Zaphron1999 said:

I did not know they included the earbuds and adapter. If they do that then why is everyone upset. Literally no reason to be

Well, the earbuds still suck imo due to comfort/sound (although a lot of people still use them). But the answer is because people have their panties in a bunch. The ONLY serious problem is for those people who frequently listen to music while charging their device and/or have multiple pairs of headphones that they actively use with their phone. If you don't fall into one of those two categories, then you're basically just bitching for the sake of bitching. 

4 minutes ago, Canada EH said:

No headphone jack, gotta buy $500 Apple headphones with proprietory connection.

 

Or just buy the $9 adapter and use whatever headphones you want. OR the highly competitive Air Pods. Or if you want some of the additional functionality (that wouldn't work on any other phone, then pay the additional cost that is associated with high end IEMs. Nice try though. 

 

 

[bob345]

 For me its not necessarily the fact that they removed the headphone jack, but the fact that they removed it and stuck with a PROPRIETARY CONNECTOR. If it was usb c, it would be FAR better, but then again this is apple we are talking about and no chance in hell they will ever use a standard connector on their phone.

[Suika]

No friend, you aren't the only one. There's only one situation I can think of it being a burden, and that's if I drove my brother's car, but then my concern is figuring out how to drive a manual transmission, not how to play music on my iPhone.

[Curufinwe_wins]

Just now, djdwosk97 said:

There's only so much hand holding a person can get. If you're already struggling with finances you shouldn't be buying an $800 phone, nor should you be spending upwards of $60/month to maintain service to that phone. So, I have no sympathy for those people. Even tech-morons can figure out that a third part lightning cable that is a fraction of the cost is just as good as Apple's. 

 

And thus we still have lotteries, preying on the poor and the stupid.

[Marauder]

Personally it just seems like a pointless move on Apple's part. Removing the headphone jack is nothing more than to make people buy either wireless or special headphones with apple's adapter on the end. Yes there is an adapter and yes there will be splitters, but it all seems so pointless. I for one am an Android user and will not be buying the phone anyway. I just feel bad for anyone who buys into Apple's form of "COURAGE". Sometimes a step forward is nothing more than a stumble backwards.

[Mr_Flynn]

6 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

$160 is actually CHEAP for truly wireless earbuds, most are $200-$300 AND they have worse battery life and don't have a mic. So Air Pods are actually a very competitive option in the truly wireless earbud field.

For now there are really only three earbuds that fit that category, and the other two aren't very good (IconX and the Dash). Remains to be seen how good Apple's are. IMO, unless they manage to get around some of the major technological issues around clarity vs battery life, they're probably not going to be much better than the competition. Not to mention the fit and comfort of Apple earbuds leaves a lot to be desired. 

[Mr_Flynn]

5 minutes ago, Marauder said:

Personally it just seems like a pointless move on Apple's part.

It's not pointless from Apple's perspective if they make money from it. And I guarantee they will since other companies will need to license the lightning connector from them.

[Marauder]

Just now, Mr_Flynn said:

It's not pointless if they make money from it. And I guarantee they will since other companies will need to license the lightning connector from them.

It's pointless because eventually they will move back to having a headphone jack. I think there are enough people out there that will be upset by this and no adapter or splitter is going to sustain them. Some people will like the fact that the phone ditches the headphone jack, but I think most people will be annoyed enough to drop Apple. They may make money, but at what cost?

[Mr_Flynn]

3 minutes ago, Marauder said:

It's pointless because eventually they will move back to having a headphone jack.

I wouldn't underestimate Apple. They rarely go back on changes they make and tend to fully commit to those changes. I don't think this instance is any different. I hope Apple eventually decides to move to USB-C, but I have my doubts that this will happen (again, based on Apples full commitment to the changes they make).

[Marauder]

Just now, Mr_Flynn said:

I wouldn't underestimate Apple. They rarely go back on changes they make and tend to fully commit to those changes. I don't think this instance is any different. I hope Apple eventually decides to move to USB-C, but I have my doubts that this will happen (again, based on Apples full commitment to the changes they make).

We shall see. I just don't see this working out in their favor.