The 19th Century plug that's still being used • Hacker News Board

Re: The 19th Century plug that's still being used

#31

Post by CharlesW » Sun, Jul 31, 2016, 9:06 PM UTC

rogerbinns wrote: post #20

raverbashing wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good. However: - You have to recharge it - If you forget them at home you can't get a replacement for cheap - Setting up bluetooth is an extra hassle as opposed to just plugging the thing

- Bluetooth audio codecs do lossy real-time re-encoding of the audio, affecting the quality

> Bluetooth audio codecs do lossy real-time re-encoding of the audio

Lossless transcoding is possible too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AptX#aptX_Lossless

iPhones and Macbooks support aptX now. Surely this isn't just a hardware change — once Apple discloses the details, it won't be at all surprising if aptX Lossless (at minimum) is required for MFi licensing going forward.

FWIW, the transcoding you mention isn't a requirement of Bluetooth audio. MP3 and AAC bitstreams could be delivered straight to headphones for decoding there. We don't yet know if that's something Apple is discussing with MFi program members.

Re: The 19th Century plug that's still being used

#32

Post by raverbashing » Sun, Jul 31, 2016, 9:07 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #29

raverbashing wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good. However: - You have to recharge it - If you forget them at home you can't get a replacement for cheap - Setting up bluetooth is an extra hassle as opposed to just plugging the thing

I have to recharge my phone too, if I forget my phone at home I can't get a replacement for cheap, and after the initial setup, Bluetooth is easier than plugging in headphones.

Sure, but I never forgot my phone on a trip or going to work. My headphones, on the other hand...

Re: The 19th Century plug that's still being used

#33

Post by iliis » Sun, Jul 31, 2016, 9:08 PM UTC

Zigurd wrote: post #4

It's not quite 19th c. technology. It was .25 inches, but it had only two conductors, the tip, and the ring, separated by an insulator. Hence the "tip" and "ring" nomenclature for analog telephone wiring. Analog phone technology is remarkably back-compatible. You can use an 80 year old phone today. Not many, if any technology products could claim that level of compatibility. But, so what? Analog phones are going away…

One of the most backwards compatible technology I know of is railway signaling infrastructure - altough it's not a consumer product like a telephone:

There are still fully mechanical control centres where you have to switch the switches by hand and turn a crank (to generate a bit of AC) to signal another control centre the current state of your tracks. Doesn't matter if the next station uses relais-logic or computers, it works.

Re: The 19th Century plug that's still being used

#34

Post by 1anh2kqowg » Sun, Jul 31, 2016, 9:09 PM UTC

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #16

entee wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with the bluetooth being inferior, I hate that the standard headphone jack is going away. If it isn't broken, don't fix it. That said I've been told that the 3.5mm jack takes up a surprising amount of internal space, and that between freeing up that space and a few other tweaks, getting rid of the jack substantially boosts battery life. Still, I think it's not a great trade-off, now you have to babysit a new…

> getting rid of the jack substantially boosts battery life Yes, as you say, by moving the power draw for the DAC to another device, which must be charged separately. This isn't a real gain in battery life in any way.

At least for most headphones with some kind of band, there is a lot of room for a battery.

Re: The 19th Century plug that's still being used

#35

Post by vidarh » Sun, Jul 31, 2016, 9:10 PM UTC

jurassic wrote: post #30

If they are moving to a paradigm where I can't listen and charge at the same time, the 6 will be my last iPhone. I wish they would stop trying to shave millimeters off my phone thickness and address actual user needs like battery life. When was the last time any of you said, "Damn, I wish this phone was thinner!"? Probably never. But many of us regularly bemoan the battery life of our devices.

In fact recent phone models have gotten less comfortable to hold for me because of thinness.

Re: The 19th Century plug that's still being used

#36

Post by Turing_Machine » Sun, Jul 31, 2016, 9:23 PM UTC

raverbashing wrote: post #32

rayiner wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to recharge my phone too, if I forget my phone at home I can't get a replacement for cheap, and after the initial setup, Bluetooth is easier than plugging in headphones.

Sure, but I never forgot my phone on a trip or going to work. My headphones, on the other hand...

Same here. I've never lost a phone (knock wood), but have lost any number of sets of earbuds (also charging cables, wall warts... basically anything that isn't permanently attached to the device gets lost).

Re: The 19th Century plug that's still being used

#37

Post by jschwartzi » Sun, Jul 31, 2016, 9:29 PM UTC

1anh2kqowg wrote: post #34

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> getting rid of the jack substantially boosts battery life Yes, as you say, by moving the power draw for the DAC to another device, which must be charged separately. This isn't a real gain in battery life in any way.

At least for most headphones with some kind of band, there is a lot of room for a battery.

There's also a lot of additional weight.

Re: The 19th Century plug that's still being used

#38

Post by hackaflocka » Sun, Jul 31, 2016, 9:41 PM UTC

c22 wrote: post #21

onion2k wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm just old enough to remember cars with mechanical hand cranks to open the windows. You couldn't open the passenger side window if you were driving. It was dangerous to open the driver's side window if there was a lot going on. The rear passenger windows often didn't open at all in cheaper cars. The number of times you'd leave a window open by mistake was far higher because cars didn't alert you about it. I'd much…

I drive a car with hand-cranked windows and I don't have any of those problems, maybe just cause I'm used to it? Did you know you could go out today and buy a 2016 model car with manual window cranks? It's still an option on a lot of vehicles.

Good to hear!

Elon Musk: if you're reading this: if you put a manual window crank option in your cars (especially as a fallback in case the electric window fails), that's what I'll buy.

Re: The 19th Century plug that's still being used

#39

Post by invaliddata » Sun, Jul 31, 2016, 9:42 PM UTC

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #16

entee wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with the bluetooth being inferior, I hate that the standard headphone jack is going away. If it isn't broken, don't fix it. That said I've been told that the 3.5mm jack takes up a surprising amount of internal space, and that between freeing up that space and a few other tweaks, getting rid of the jack substantially boosts battery life. Still, I think it's not a great trade-off, now you have to babysit a new…

> getting rid of the jack substantially boosts battery life Yes, as you say, by moving the power draw for the DAC to another device, which must be charged separately. This isn't a real gain in battery life in any way.

Most of the people I know use the internal speakers on their phones extensively, and hardly ever use audio over either Bluetooth or the 3.5mm jack. In this case, how would battery life be improved. The DAC and amplifier cannot be removed unless the on board speaker is also. I hope this is not the case.

Re: The 19th Century plug that's still being used

#40

Post by jacobsladder » Sun, Jul 31, 2016, 10:01 PM UTC

Criticizing Apple for deciding to remove another port, is really shallow and superficial way to spread FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) against this large corporation.

Just so we are on this page, you will _still_ be able to connect 3.5mm headphones to your iPhone. You will just have to use an adapter.

There are benefits for removing this port:

1. It frees up internal space.

2. It makes outer design more robust, simpler and cheaper for production.

3. It makes the phone lighter.

4. It allows you to make iPhone thinner.

5. You have one less limitation to account for when designing new iPhone.

6. You waste less materials on cables and oversized jacks made out of metal. I really like how article says that there will be lots of cables wasted from this. Well, so what? Should we stop all innovation and keep all standards forever the same so there is no waste? Ideally we should move on to smallest possible ports and most efficient standards. We can get there with tiny steps, and that will include throwing away legacy things.

7. It's easier to make phone waterproof when you have less openings.

In addition to that, lightning jack is superior to microUSB and other jacks, because you can insert it either way. It also has magnetic functionality that the other jacks lack.

Finally, for me as a customer, this change does not bring any problems either. I may have to spend $20 more for adapter. But if the phone costs $500, this change is insignificant.

Companies in the audio industry might have bigger problems from this, but it's their problems, not mine.

I am seriously surprised that BBC would be posting useless crap like this. Could it be because there is a lot of money to be made from shorting Apple stock and then releasing anti-Apple propaganda?