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

iPhone 7

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 1001 posts

Re: iPhone 7

#451

Post by sosborn »

balabaster wrote: post #185

It's water resistant but water damage isn't covered under warranty? How can you have it both ways like that? "Water resistance IP67 under IEC standard 60529. Liquid damage not covered under warranty." How does one make such a big deal of it being water resistant (Product film: 1m 35s; "...to make this the first water resistant iPhone") but not cover liquid damage under warranty?

> How does one make such a big deal of it being water resistant (Product film: 1m 35s; "...to make this the first water resistant iPhone") but not cover liquid damage under warranty?

If you brought in a water damaged phone how would you prove that you didn't exceed the rated coverage?

Re: iPhone 7

#452

Post by SCdF »

Longhanks wrote: post #340
Ologn wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> already well implemented in Android Yup. I remember the original iPhone/iPad announcements where many features were fairly innovative. Now applauded feature announcements are for features already out on Android phones.

Show me an Android phone that will provide the hassle-free experience Apple promises with those AirPods. That's the most innovative part of this event for me.

So I just bought some backbeat fit headphones, which use bluetooth. To get them working with my Android phone I: - pressed the on button on the headphones - pressed the pair button on my phone

I mean, bar special hooks Apple can have because they don't give a fuck about standards, I really don't see how that is hard.

Re: iPhone 7

#453

Post by DavidWanjiru »

yock wrote: post #240
acomjean wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't get over the headphone jack either. Another dongle to loose. Tons of headphones obsoleted. Can't charge while listening. Laggy audio. more batteries in the world. They're ok with a bulge for the camera but not headphones? I work in a lab and a phone with headphones is standard equipment on the commute and work (for at least part of the day). I would seriously move off iOS if I was making music with it. If onl…

> They're ok with a bulge for the camera but not headphones? This confuses me too. The camera wart is ridiculous, and I bet if they made the device just that slight bit thicker they'd have room to retain the 3.5mm jack. The other possibility is that the headphone jack makes water resistance that much more difficult. Maybe they think it's worth it?

The Galaxy Note 7's S pen is considerably bigger than a head phone jack, yet the phone is water proof even with the pen removed from it's slot, so my guess is that can't be it. Assuming, of course, that anything Samsung can do to water proof a phone, Apple can too.

Re: iPhone 7

#454

Post by bluedino »

Enough about the headphone jack going away - isn't anyone concerned with how big of a deal they made about Pokemon on the Apple watch?

Apple looked so uncool and out of it when they continued to talk about it. Half the crowd has forgotten Pokemon Go even existed by this point.

Re: iPhone 7

#455

Post by fnj »

kirykl wrote: post #140
slg wrote: post #5

I still can't get over the headphone jack. Apple does have a good record of abandoning technologies at the right time (floppies, CDs, Flash, etc) but the biggest difference is that those technologies were all on the downward slope of their popularity when Apple made the move and all had solid replacements available at the time. The headphone jack is just as popular today as it has ever been and it is still more conve…

One of Apple's core tenents is 'to hell with legacy' Lightning headphones are a stop gap. The future is wireless.

Another of Apple's core tenets is "milk those cows [customers] for all they've got". They couldn't care less about any other market segment than the pure luxury status-seeker segment.

Re: iPhone 7

#457

Post by ihuman »

tebruno99 wrote: post #183

I'm not even upset about the headphone jack. Whatever. I'm really upset because you won't be able to do the following: 1.) Audio+GPS+Charging in non-Bluetooth Car. 2.) Listening to music at desk and still have enough charge for the Audio+GPS for the drive home. 3.) No more listening to music/audiobooks as I fall asleep because in the morning the iPhone won't be charged for my desk usage the next day unless I wake up…

Apple could justify 1 by using CarPlay

Re: iPhone 7

#458

Post by coryfklein »

balabaster wrote: post #185

It's water resistant but water damage isn't covered under warranty? How can you have it both ways like that? "Water resistance IP67 under IEC standard 60529. Liquid damage not covered under warranty." How does one make such a big deal of it being water resistant (Product film: 1m 35s; "...to make this the first water resistant iPhone") but not cover liquid damage under warranty?

"water resistant" != "water impervious"

Re: iPhone 7

#460

Post by Unklejoe »

cozzyd wrote: post #439
Unklejoe wrote: post #211

Can the 3.5mm to Lightning adapters be legally produced without paying royalties to Apple for using the Lightning connector? On a related note: I wonder if one reason for eliminating the jack is to close that open interface which some devices like the "Square" were using. I'm not sure how much of an impact this has though; it was just a thought.

Pretty sure that the adapter would work just as well (I don't know anything about the readers, but assume they are just encoding the CC info as an analog signal and listening to it over the microphone port... I wonder how easily they might be snooped via EMI).

Yeah, you're right. I bet it would work anywhere you grabbed the analog signal from. You could probably even repurpose a set of bluetooth headphones for it.

I don't know why I didn't think of that.

Post reply on HN