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

841–850 of 1001 posts

Re: iPhone 7

#841

Post by mikeash »

chillacy wrote: post #832
finnh wrote: post #556

picture two friends in a car: "oh hey this music is the jam, let me play it for you." 5 minutes of dicking with bluetooth pairing later: "FUCKING BLUETOOTH GODDAMN IT. welp, never mind" (conversational lull follows)

So one interesting aspect of the airpods is seemingly automatic pairing, without having to dive in settings, through what seems like near-field communication. I'm curious to see if they've solved the multi-device pairing problem too.

The thing is, the pairing UI is rarely the problem. It's the actual pairing implementation. Pairing a phone to a car is usually just a few button presses. Not quite as convenient as NFC or whatever, but not a real problem. The problem arises when you find that Pair button and press it and then it doesn't work and provides no feedback on why it failed. Cue five minutes of screwing around turning things off and on again and finally giving up.

Re: iPhone 7

#842

Post by joshschreuder »

mikeash wrote: post #824
jonlucc wrote: post #658

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You jest, but only the first adapter is free. Subsequent adapters will be $9.99.

Super extreme nitpick, it's listed at $9.00 on Apple's store: http://www.apple.com/shop/product/MMX62AM/A/lightning-to-35-... I must say, I'm a bit shocked at the price. I wouldn't have expected Apple to sell a paperclip for under $19. Their Lightning to USB cable, which seems like it must be strictly simpler than this adapter (no DAC!) costs $19.

How small are DACs? I was surprised that the new Lightning earbuds basically look identical to the current ones besides the jack. Do they definitely have a DAC built in or is it still in the phone body?

Re: iPhone 7

#843

Post by dingo_bat »

primitivesuave wrote: post #582

I found the WhatsApp integration the most intriguing part of the announcement. By allowing calls from WhatsApp to also be received, I am assuming they are making the native calling/iMessaging API available to any iOS application. While messaging with iMessage, Facebook messenger, WhatsApp, etc. can be done over WiFi only, calling is traditionally reliant on a cellular provider. The new iPhone only requires a WiFi net…

>By allowing calls from WhatsApp to also be received

Oh so till now whatsapp calls were android only?

Re: iPhone 7

#844

Post by strmpnk »

overcast wrote: post #267

I especially enjoyed the last second comment under his breath regarding the matte black iPhone 7 pricing. 32GB standard for all models, except the matte black, which will ONLY come in 128GB, and you'll be paying $100 more at $750. Nice underhanded move by Apple to maximize profit for what will undoubtedly be the most popular color. First they force everyone to buy the 32GB upgrade last year on the 6S, now you're forc…

Rumors had it that they're in shorter supply than the other colors so it might make sense for them to mark that one as a premium model only. They could add a 32GB model later.

Another theory might be the branding they started with the cylindrical Mac Pro which is also this sort of gloss black. So perhaps we'll see more products with this gloss applied?

Either way, I've always ended up regretting getting a lower capacity model. I only upgrade every 3-4 years and I am definitely looking forward to 128GB or more so I don't have to juggle apps, audio, and pictures constantly. So for me that's the starting price. Steep but I don't buy phones so often so it's not my biggest budget worry.

Re: iPhone 7

#845

Post by sudeepj »

Wouldn't the AirPods will be very easy to lose? What if they drop-off while snoozing. I mean with wired headphones, even if they come out of the ear (say while sleeping on a long travel) they are still attached to the phone and hence cannot lose them.

Re: iPhone 7

#846

Post by underbluewaters »

xenadu02 wrote: post #430
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?

It's just setting expectations. The series 1 watch had the same caveats but proved very water resistant in practice. To make stronger promises you need to understand how the seals age and how the device behaves in lots of situations, or you need to over-engineer it with bulky seals and other compromises. You also need to understand and deal with extremely tight manufacturing tolerances. If Apple said the iPhone was w…

For reference, I took my supposedly not-shower-proof Apple Watch diving to 30 feet and it was fine. I could even use the touchscreen and heart rate monitor underwater to some extent.

Re: iPhone 7

#847

Post by bane »

mikeash wrote: post #838
bane wrote: post #775

It's official, Apple is basically resorting to nickle and diming their customers, except instead of nickles and dimes, it's $160 to achieve very basic functionality in order to achieve something that virtually nobody really honestly cares about. All that's been achieved is that Apple has now created/affirmed a new non-optional secondary market that they're now positioned to best sell into (Beats). There's not even th…

What very basic functionality now costs $160?

Headphones

Re: iPhone 7

#848

Post by callalex »

tedmiston wrote: post #728
rad_gruchalski wrote: post #602

The premiere of the next mbp next year: "And... We listened to you. We've been hearing that you are upset about not being able to use the same headphones for your computer and iphone 7. We fixed that. We've removed the 3.5mm jack from the new mbp. It's magical."

Then they could bring the colored MacBook down to just one port. That could actually be quite nice.

Why? What's so not-nice about having a headphone port on a laptop?

Re: iPhone 7

#849

Post by glhaynes »

tetraodonpuffer wrote: post #47
artmageddon wrote: post #3

$160 for the AirPods? My goodness those are expensive.

did not see any mention of if they will have lossless audio or not (important if Apple really wants to have their technology replace wired for also higher end headphones) Also no mention of standby time that I could hear, only 5 hours listening, but no idea if just having them on (in case of infrequent phone calls) would use up the battery as fast or not

Their product page mentions "high-quality AAC audio", so I'm assuming all audio output is converted (if necessary) to AAC. http://www.apple.com/airpods/

Re: iPhone 7

#850

Post by grandalf »

randomsearch wrote: post #755
grandalf wrote: post #701

I've been trying out $49 Android phones lately after using an iPhone 6 Plus for over a year. Android is getting to the point where most users will not really notice a difference between Android and IOS, even on a very inexpensive device.

> Android is getting to the point where most users will not really notice a difference between Android and IOS, even on a very inexpensive device. Having had experience recently with top-end Android devices, I'd beg to differ. Functionally an Android device is roughly equivalent to an iOS one, but the design, UI, responsiveness etc. is IMO miles apart. It may be a matter of subjective taste but I would recommend that…

> the design, UI, responsiveness etc. is IMO miles apart.

This was my perspective too, last year. Moore's Law seems to have made Android's slower approach to smooth UI finally just about as silky as IOS, even on low end hardware.

Post reply on HN