Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The 19th Century plug that's still being used

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 143 posts

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

#91

Post by theshrike79 »

cm2187 wrote: post #84
mdip wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I'm with you and won't be buying one for reasons beyond the 3.5mm jack (but that would be a deal breaker if I was on the fence), I'll be more surprised if the removal of that feature stops scores of people lining up to get the latest phone (along with a new set of over-priced headphones). At the end of the day, it's "give up the 3.5mm jack" or "don't get the latest iPhone " and I'll wager that they'll have no p…

The worst is that the apple-issued headphones are and have always been absolutely crap. If fact in public transports when you hear the loud music of a fellow passenger, it is almost always the crappy, leaky headphones that come with the iphone. If I ever buy an audio jack free iphone (god save), the last company I will purchase headphones from is Apple.

Head-fi begs to differ with its four star review: http://www.head-fi.org/products/apple-earpods-with-remote-an...

The users on head-fi aren't your normal users, these are actual audiophiles.

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

#92

Post by [deleted] »

mdip wrote: post #79
dingo_bat wrote: post #72

This is the sort of thing the market will sort out anyways. If there is enough of a market for people who don't care about the 3.5mm port, apple will be fine. People like me will buy something else. Just because apple doesn't have expandable storage hasn't made samsung discontinue it either. Same deal with the headphone jack.

While I'm with you and won't be buying one for reasons beyond the 3.5mm jack (but that would be a deal breaker if I was on the fence), I'll be more surprised if the removal of that feature stops scores of people lining up to get the latest phone (along with a new set of over-priced headphones). At the end of the day, it's "give up the 3.5mm jack" or "don't get the latest iPhone " and I'll wager that they'll have no p…

[deleted]

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

#93

Post by 1anh2kqowg »

zaroth wrote: post #19

For me the only thing that would make eliminating the headphone jack worth it is if they put a lightning jack on both ends and made the phone perfectly symmetrical. With literally no top or bottom, no right or wrong way to hold it, and finally a way for my phone to sit in the cup holder with a charge cable coming out the top and maps showing in the right orientation! The trick in making all this work of course is wha…

I agree that two ports would make me a lot less annoyed by the change, especially when you can keep an adapter around for one of the ports.

But from experience, designs where the charging and audio ports are on opposing ends are pretty annoying in practice, because the two cords restrict how you can move the phone when it is charging and headphones are in use. Apple stopped doing it that way several years ago.

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

#94

Post by toomanybeersies »

onion2k wrote: post #15
hackaflocka wrote: post #5

And it works beautifully. When for some reason, my bluetooth headphone's connectivity is acting up (happens often), I can take my wired headphone and plug it in without even looking, knowing that it WILL work. One of my car's electric windows has stopped working. For my next car, I want something where there's a fallback to a mechanical crank (the way car windows used to be).

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…

My last 2 cars have had manual cranks. One of them is only 20 years old, so I think most people are probably old enough to remember cars with manual cranks.

Can't say I like them any more or any less than electric windows to be honest. Six one, half a dozen the other.

They're definitely better for 4-wheel driving (not that my car can do that) though, because if you flood your electronics, you can still wind the windows down. I had a friend who ran into trouble when the truck he was in flooded, and he was in the back with the windows up. So there's a definite advantage to manual windows in certain circumstances.

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

#95

Post by xkcd-sucks »

Camillo wrote: post #77
raverbashing wrote: post #3

"Thinner phone" is a stupid requirement. A thinner phone will be mechanically weaker. Yes, Apple retired Floppy disks and DVD readers, because those were replaced by something better. This is not the case here. A Bluetooth headphone will give you an inferior experience. A lightning converter will give you a worse experience because I can bet it doesn't stay plugged as firmly as a headphone in a high vibration situati…

> "Thinner phone" is a stupid requirement. You may think that the current iPhones are thin enough, but almost nobody actually uses the phone on its own. You need to take into account the thickness of the case, and now that people are playing Pokemon Go, it really needs to be a battery case, which is even thicker. So the base phone needs to be thinner. (They can't just make the phone a little thicker and put the extra…

Oh oh and the battery case can have a built-in bluetooth audio module with a headphone jack on it!

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

#96

Post by xkcd-sucks »

perilunar wrote: post #86

If they want thinner, just go from 3.5 mm audio to 2.5 mm audio. Already an existing standard. If thinness is just a cover for wanting digital, then go TOSLINK and have digital with analog fall-back. They already have it in the MacBook Pros.

But the 2.5mm jack was used on TI graphing calculators and flipphones from the 90s... It doesn't seem very innovative.

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

#97

Post by duaneb »

invaliddata wrote: post #39
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.

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.

The only people I know who don't use headphones are both teenagers and reviled by the people around them. If what you claim is the case, public transport would be a wasteland of pop music and clash of clans sound effects. I highly suspect your friends aren't representative in the least of the general population.

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

#98

Post by stouset »

1anh2kqowg wrote: post #89
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.

I think users would be happier day-to-day with a larger battery, but in the ATT showroom they are more likely to go for the thinner phone with a small battery and no headphone jack.

Nobody seems to consider that the extra space can be used for a bigger battery instead of a smaller phone.

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

#99

Post by khedoros »

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.

Recharging the phone and the cost of the phone are the things that are not going to change, regardless of what happens with the headphones, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.

> Bluetooth is easier than plugging in headphones.

Until it isn't, like needing to re-pair the devices, keep them charged, switch between multiple devices, etc. It's a hassle that I don't want to have to think about. I've got bluetooth headphones, but I never use them because they're a pain in the butt (and don't work with everything I want to use headphones with, anyhow). I don't understand people that are for removing functionality from their devices.

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

#100

Post by stouset »

deathanatos wrote: post #90
jeffbush wrote: post #83

While working on mobile phones, I've found a number of problems with the TRS style jack. One is they trap lint internally, which can often result in the internal switch that detects insertion permanently thinking there is a headphone in it (Google "phone thinks headphones are in"). The external speaker is usually muted when a jack is inserted, so when this happens, the phone doesn't make any sounds. Lint is very diff…

> One is they trap lint internally, I've owned my current phone for ~4 years, and the first port to stop working — due to lint — was the USB port, not the audio port. > Lint is very difficult to remove from the outside the connector. Removing lint from a 3.5mm audio port is going to be vastly easier than removing it from a USB port (which is completely possible). The entrance is much wider, and you don't have to worr…

Lightning wouldn't be any more difficult than an audio jack — I'm not sure why you think it would be. Agreed that USB would be a nightmare, but thankfully that's not really a plausible scenario for an iPhone.
Post reply on HN