Yes, Apple’s ‘Headphone Jack-Free’ iPhone 7 Is a Design (and Branding) Mistake (opens in new tab)

(rightlydesigned.com)

21 pointsWritelyDesigned9y ago15 comments

15 comments

This is a move towards wireless, not lightening. We'll relive this controversy in a few years when the iPhone gets rid of the lightning port to go completely wireless.

lanestp9y ago

I completely disagree with this. The headphone jack is archaic and needed to go long ago. The fact that my headphones need a AAA battery AND have to be plugged into a device is insane. These same arguments have come with every port and input removal. I remember being bitter when I couldn't get a computer with a parallel port!

tw049y ago

They don't. They make countless headphones that don't require batteries. They make countless headphone that are wireless. I switched to bluetooth noise cancelling headphones a few years ago and haven't looked back... but eliminating the jack seems rather silly to me. There are still AMAZINGLY good headphones that are always going to require a cord.

To me this is as stupid as Intel refusing to support USB3 for the sake of "moving on". That worked out well...

robinson7d9y ago

For context, the parent said:

> The fact that my headphones need a AAA battery

Just because some headphones do not need batteries says nothing about these specific headphones being talked about. Both can exist at the same time (a pair that requires batteries, and many that do not.)

For example, Bose Noise-Cancelling Headphones, which are quite popular, require AAA batteries:

http://worldwide.bose.com/productsupport/en_us/web/qc15/page...

1 more reply

sytelus9y ago

In theory, removing headphone jack is a good thing. This design has survived for decades purely because of compatibility, not technical merit. If we were to design headphone jack in 2016, I bet it wouldn't be this analog unpowered design. Headphone jack should be moving to digital signals and powered one.

qyv9y ago

Why? What makes digital superior in this case? The headphone is universal and ubiquitous because it is a dumb (as in terminal) device. It works on $10000 stereos and $10 children's toys without needing to think about compatibility, protocols, or interface specifications because of that.

beisner9y ago

Instead, you needed to think about impedance, power draw, and amplification. With a digital transmission, you move rendering the audio from the source device to the speaker itself, which gives headphone manufacturers a lot more freedom when it comes to acoustic design. If there were a universal protocol for music transmission (cough there is cough), and the digital audio jack were just as ubiquitous as the 3.5mm, it would have the same properties you mentioned. On a personal note, I actually laud the removal of the 3.5mm jack from the phone. Yes, it makes existing headphones a bit more cumbersome to use, but it is also a major design choice. Most of my headphones sounded crappy when plugged into an iPhone because it's just impossible to put a good amplifier/power source in such a slim package. This design choice forces more headphone manufacturers to consider how sound is being amplified and powered on mobile devices.

likeclockwork9y ago

It doesn't matter. Apple products are bought by people who buy Apple products. They will buy the iPhone 7, they will buy the iPhone 8. Apple has no competition in this market, there's no differentiation on features, only Apple makes Apple products.

They will buy Apple Product X, they will buy Apple Product Y.

Anyone who believes profit is the most potent measure of success can always point at Apple and say "those people are doing the right thing".

WritelyDesignedOP9y ago

If we're going to use profit as a measuring stick for a company doing the right thing—then it seems relevant to mention the fact that Apple's stock has fallen over the last several years and has continued in that trend.

I don't personally hold the view that this directly reflects a company's innovative quality, but again if that's the measuring stick, it only seems to further the argument that Apple's design decisions aren't what they used to be.

http://fortune.com/2016/05/06/apple-shares-two-year-low/

stouset9y ago

http://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AAPL

In this case, the past few days would tend to counter your thesis. Also, the current dip is shorter than the one from Sep '12 to Jul '14, at which point they rebounded dramatically and pushed ever-higher highs. Do you believe they stopped making good design decisions around then?

totalZero9y ago

Totally agree with the article. Seems like an unnecessary delete of a functional and ubiquitous port, for which I can currently spend anywhere between 6 and 1000 bucks to buy headphones of my choosing. Maybe Apple is trying to push people towards more Beats expenditures.

Zigurd9y ago

For $150, a price that's appropriate compared the iPhone itself an accessories like the Apple Watch, you get really wire-free headphones that should sound excellent in all use cases because the amplification can be tailored to the transducers.

Music on an iPhone should have uniformly very high quality because Apple got rid of the analog port. Apple has also set a high baseline for 3rd party products.

This is good for audio quality, good for customers, and good for the brand.

jpmcglone9y ago

This feels a lot like how everyone complained about the iPad when it came out, but then it turned out to be no big deal.

mobiuscog9y ago

You mean the original iPad, that those of use who early-adopted it got ditched a couple of years later because it was 'obsolete' ? Yeah.

Sure, the 'tablet' market is still ongoing, but then PDAs existed before the iPad - the concept wasn't anything new.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse