EA CO AS wrote:
In actual practice, the only real issue is for people who actually use wired headphones while charging the device. And for that there already exist Lightning charging docks with an audio jack built in, for instance.
In other words, Apple never shuts a door without giving you the option to PAY to open a window....
Which change made by any manufacturer
that obsoleted older ports did not
require new purchases to compensate for that, if a user still had that need? And here we're talking about a relatively uncommon niche usage. For most people who want to use an analog output the included adapter will just work.
Yes, the losing of the 3/8 jack is not a good way forward.
I see the adaptors being way too bulky wire wise,
and that is going to put a lot of strain on the lightning connector. These are kind of flimsy at best, are they not?
No, they are not, which is apparently one of the reasons why Apple is not using USB-C there (besides USB-C being much bulkier).
Lightning plugs and sockets are both actually milled from massive chunks of metal, not just the usual flimsy plastic-and-sheet-metal as most other connectors.
There are simply too many people that have purchased decent headphones, or more than decent, and will not have the option of directly plugging their expensive 'phones into the new iphone. As it is, with talk of slimming down other units and going to mini usb, adaptors will be needed to use your nice headphones further down the road. Not a pleasant thought.
I myself am using and at least for the medium term will continue to use higher-grade analog headphones; But if the adapter is done correctly it will just become part of the headphone cable and that's that. Not that big a deal, really.
And I'm still 'mad' that they discontinued the ipod classic - 160 gb of storage is great.
And iPhones have had 128GB of solid-state storage for two years by now, and are getting 256GB just now.
The problem with the classic iPods was that the manufacturer of the micro harddisks just stopped making them, and Appe's progressively shrinking demand for these apparently didn't justify keeping the line open. That those micro harddisks also had high failure rates when used on the go was another factor, and the arrival of really big flash memory was imminent anyway. So It was effectively just a temporary
dip in the maximum capacity available.
And add to that the sharply declining sales of iPods overall because most people simply want to have their music on their smartphone anyway. Boosting storage on the iPhone was the obvious way to go, and I'm glad they did.
I'm using pretty good Grado headphones with my iPhone 6 which has enough storage to hold my entire music library. It's a big step forward from any iPod. And while I'll probably stick with that iPhone 6 for a few more years yet, having to use an adapter really wouldn't bother me as long as the DAC in the adapter was of comparable quality to the built-in one of the existing iPhones.
Klaus, you must agree though that this entire "new model" thing is nothing but a cost reduction exercise. I seriously see nothing new here. Right?
An analog adapter is included in the box on top of the USB cable, charger and now Lightning earbuds. So they have two
ADCs now in the box (one in the adapter, the other in the Lighning earbuds), and the phones have double the storage, much improved cameras, better displays, longer battery life, a much faster processor and the prices are unchanged to the predecessor models. So no
, I don't have to agree with your claim.
If you want to compare by yourself, here's the table:http://www.apple.com/iphone/compare/
Is there anything they have done on the iPhone 7 to make an exceptional leader in the technology space? A product that exceeds what others are producing? I don't see any superlatives.
The iPhone 7 has by very far the fastest smartphone processor you can buy, not just in short benchmark runs but especially in sustained
performance, where most other smartphones suffer from severe throttling. Apple is investing billions of dollars into their own CPU development, and it shows.
iOS. Developed specifically to run on this particular hardware, and clearly developed to match the quality of the hardware (both not perfect, but top notch). Device buyers are Apple's paying customers, and Apple clearly recognizes that. With Android you're only using a lure
Google produces to reel you in to their paying advertising customers, and Google doesn't really care whether you like it or not as long as you just keep using it, since you are not
their paying customer. And that also
iOS is now effectively the only mobile OS on the market which is designed from the start to protect users' privacy, not to make it easy to exploit user data for ad spamming.
It's the only smartphone on the market which has comparatively long-term upgrade and update support (5 years currently). Updates are also immediately available to all users on the same day.
The security architecture is still best-of-class while most Android phones are relatively easy to crack (even most encrypted ones have just half-baked key management and are vulnerable, contrary to the hardware encryption Apple uses). TouchID is hardware-protected even against iOS or any apps reading the actual fingerprints, contrary to Android phones where the fingerprints are fair game for any attacker.
Local backup and sync out of the box with no external servers needed.
iOS Privacy controls have the user in charge and in control.
Even just the security and update situation doesn't leave much of an alternative for me; Fortunately the iPhone also has top-notch hardware and software quality beyond that.
If not then it is strictly cost reduction, they just made it cheaper to produce (which with declining market share, and sales makes sense).
Your theory just suffers from a complete and total lack of any evidence overall.
The iPhone is still the top-selling smartphone overall and Apple rakes in by far most of the industry's profits (in total!). That the smartphone market is just now approaching saturation leaves Apple in much
better shape than any other manufacturer, and their margins are very far away from being forced to shave cents of the manufacturing costs, contrary to most of their competitors.
But like mentioned by me and others here, when something like this happened in the past, Apple has usually replaced an open industry standard by another open connection/drive/port.
I believe this is the first time in Apple's history that an open industry standard has been replaced by a propriety connection/drive/port, this is were my biggest criticism is...
Apple's view of this is apparently that they see Bluetooth as the open standard that's still supported the same way as before, and that the adapter takes care of the analog output. So all capabilities are effectively unchanged.