iPhone 7 ** Rumours & Discussion **

[stuman]

that rhetoric is getting boring.

and the phone is governed by the port thickness by the time you mount the port to a board and have the spring contacts it is a very wide object in the entirety of the phone.

Yes a 1-2mm thinner phone creates so many new options.

it's not to create options. it's to reduce bulk.

it's easier to attach a power bank to a thin phone than to make a fat phone thin.

now what i would like to see, is no port at all, instead an area to attach a strong magnetic pad like the watch. magnetic docking.

 

[Oh Ed not again.]

Doesn't make it any less true.

Why didn't they unify a connector when they ditched the 30 pin connector in favour of lightning?

 

[Lakeland]

Oh it's going to be one of those threads isn't it, I'm out! How dare anyone have an opinion that differs from apple

 

[Oh Ed not again.]

I'd say the conversation has been pretty balanced so far.

 

[Chris1712]

Having moved to BT in ears 18 months ago, I would thoroughly welcome this. Infact I called it already because it just makes sense. 3.5mm takes up a lot of space and is a nasty analog component aswell. Streaming music over Bluetooth uses considerably less battery than amplifying headphones aswell.

 

[stuman]

Doesn't make it any less true.

Why didn't they unify a connector when they ditched the 30 pin connector in favour of lightning?

true. maybe they are playing with ideas at the moment. looking to see how markets react and developing from reactions.

it is very annoying that they keep changing their connectors. USB-C on macbook yet everything else uses lightning or 30 pin. or magsafe. or.... or... i was expecting the 6s+ to atlas have USB-C yet they still went with lightning. strange.

Oh it's going to be one of those threads isn't it, I'm out! How dare anyone have an opinion that differs from apple

my opinion is that we need to advance.

imagine if they never replaced the parallel printer ports and then having something like that hanging off of you laptop.

 

[visibleman]

it's easier to attach a power bank to a thin phone than to make a fat phone thin.

There's nothing innovative about removing a jack plug from a device, plus i'm not convinced that it's much of a selling point needing to use a power bank to use your phone all because the manufacturer wanted to save a few micrometres

 

[DIABLO]

that rhetoric is getting boring.

and the phone is governed by the port thickness by the time you mount the port to a board and have the spring contacts it is a very wide object in the entirety of the phone.



it's not to create options. it's to reduce bulk.

it's easier to attach a power bank to a thin phone than to make a fat phone thin.

now what i would like to see, is no port at all, instead an area to attach a strong magnetic pad like the watch. magnetic docking.

So it reduces bulk so that the battery is tiny and a user has to a battery pack with them to get though the day..... i see your logic

 

[stuman]

There's nothing innovative about removing a jack plug from a device, plus i'm not convinced that it's much of a selling point needing to use a power bank to use your phone all because the manufacturer wanted to save a few micrometres

it's more innovative than not.

replace it with a new smaller more functional port that can then reduce size weight and energy performance then that is innovation.

99% of people won't NEED a power bank. only users that would normally require one.

or people that have trouble plugging in their phone every evening.

 

[DAnDan]

it's more innovative than not.

replace it with a new smaller more functional port that can then reduce size weight and energy performance then that is innovation.

99% of people won't NEED a power bank. only users that would normally require one.

or people that have trouble plugging in their phone every evening.

Plenty of people already use power banks as their phones don't last them through the day.

The amount of girls I know that have power banks in their handbags has skyrocketed in the last few years. Batter life is the single biggest complaint everyone has with their phones, and we're still moving in the wrong direction.

Going even thinner, likely reducing the battery further (and certainly not increasing it) will only make this issue worse.

 

[davisdavid]

apple seem to be the only people who want to change adaptors. these are things that were created over a decade ago when tech was not able to create better.

The trouble is Apple aren't changing adapters for innovation, they're changing it so they can over charge for items that do exactly the same as existing hardware and tech. When was the last time they actually innovated? I'd say the original iPhone was the last piece of innovation and since then everything has been an 'evolution' of that.

it's amazing to see how afraid of advancement people really are.
.

Pragmatism is hardly being afraid of advancement, if they go wireless for example, how do you use their product to listen to music and podcasts on a plane when if caught most airline staff request you remove headphones that are using bluetooth or wireless technology?

 

[stuman]

The trouble is Apple aren't changing adapters for innovation, they're changing it so they can over charge for items that do exactly the same as existing hardware and tech. When was the last time they actually innovated? I'd say the original iPhone was the last piece of innovation and since then everything has been an 'evolution' of that.

Pragmatism is hardly being afraid of advancement, if they go wireless for example, how do you use their product to listen to music and podcasts on a plane when if caught most airline staff request you remove headphones that are using bluetooth or wireless technology?

the phone will still have a lightning adaptor more than likely. they are innovating the last standard analogue port, which is for all its worth a very old piece of tech.

pragmatism, i call it problem finding.

so instead of just sticking with old methods. how about solve the problem.

I'm pretty sure there has been no link to using mobile phones and bringing down airplanes. so, why are we not allowed to use them on an aircraft.

sorting this will be the answer. not "don't bother" as airplanes will not let you listen.

even then, they are changing the port, not insisting on bluetooth.

what you will find is the girls with the power bricks in their bags will be the power users who can't help but spend every waking min hitting up the cellular network.

but, this is a problem. but with every new phone batteries get more advanced with higher energy density.

they make the phones more powerful and at the same time, thinner and lighter. they are working towards targets.

they will adjust targets for battery life at some point if it was deemed that enough people are draining their battery.

also, it's not just apple that are developing in this way, they are all at it. If it was as much of a problem as you make out, start your own phone company, buy an open source phone platform and strap a stinking battery to the back. include a million old school ports. hell, an ariel that can be extended out like the 20 year old phones, so then you can have better signal......

 

[Oh Ed not again.]

Lol. Calm down dear.

The point being missed here is that by the sounds of it quite a lot of people don't want to lose the 3.5mm jack to innovation. That is to say, a) they like it and b) they don't think the end result justifies the loss. Thinner does not equal better, especially at cost of battery life.

Besides, on that point why make a phone thinner then give it a 6 inch screen? It's still going to make a whacking great dint in your pocket at that size.

So there's no discernible gain to battery life touted (yet), no obvious gain to portability (save for shaving off a few grams on something that's already very light), another device to charge, and another tie into an adapter or accessory restricted ecosystem.

Sure, you lose wires and there's the attractive possibility of gaining digital audio but at what cost? Being tied in to a specific type of headphone that you'll most likely struggle to share across devices, or have to remember an accessory/adapter to use and vice versa. You call it problem finding, I call it problem creation.

 

[JAzz]

Audio out of the lightning port is actually of better quality than the jack. I've got a lightning to 30 pin adapter + a 30 pin to 3.5mm adaptor that I use in my car. The audio quality from that is noticeably better than audio out of the jack. The problem though with using it for headphones is at the moment you can't control the volume from the lightning port.

Anyways back to this story, it would be a bit of a faff having to carry around a bloody adaptor for my headphones

 

[hartgeh3]

There will be an adapter for that at $59 im sure of it.......

 

[smilertoo]

If they really must lose the 3.5mm port theyd be better removing the headphones completely and improving the audio over bluetooth.

 

[stuman]

There is no suggestion that they're going to get rid of a socket all together. They may incorporate it into the Lightning, or they may create a new socket all together. However I don't think they will be insisting on BT.

Obviously it would be a good marketing idea to spin as it would mean battery life would be better as the amps inside the phone would not be used. They would also be able to sell some over priced "beats" BT/headphone amp thing. It would mean that the headphone amp/BT market will see some rapid development. And that would be a good thing, as I find audio over wifi patchy at best.

 

[james.miller]

Having moved to BT in ears 18 months ago, I would thoroughly welcome this. Infact I called it already because it just makes sense. 3.5mm takes up a lot of space and is a nasty analog component aswell. Streaming music over Bluetooth uses considerably less battery than amplifying headphones aswell.

are you sure about that? most phones will produce what, 30 to 50 mw a channel? what does bluetooth use when it's streaming? i know the peak consumption of bluetooth is up to 500mw worst case. it's not going to average near that of course, but i dont for a second think streaming over bluetooth is much more efficient then driving a pair of earphones with a class d amp, if at all.

 

[stuman]

are you sure about that? most phones will produce what, 30 to 50 mw a channel? what does bluetooth use when it's streaming? i know the peak consumption of bluetooth is up to 500mw worst case. it's not going to average near that of course, but i dont for a second think streaming over bluetooth is much more efficient then driving a pair of earphones with a class d amp, if at all.

and whilst i agree, a passing thought is that the space saved inside the chassis could be put to sue for battery. after that, i bet you are in positive energy density.

 

[Gerard]

Forgive me if i am wrong but didn't apple recently patent a new slim audio jack.



Being the above. To make devices slimmer.

Apples big selling point year in year out "zomg its .0000000000000000000000000000000000001 mm thinner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1". Does my nut how thickness is made out to be a big deal when the difference in your hand for the most part is barely noticeable. Where are they going with this "thin" gimmick anyway? Are today's phones so incredibly bulky that making them thinner is high on the priority list? Or has it just become one of their expected "bullet point" features that people got bored of quite some time ago?