Impacts of removing the headphone jack [MERGED]

[mrt.plt]

I just upgraded from 6S to 7 plus 2 days ago, and I normally listen to music every day. We usually listen to music when we're commuting to work/school etc. and the majority uses either EarPods or similar earphones as they are easy to carry and their sound quality is not bad. I also have a pair of Beats Studio headphones that (as a result of the removal of the headphone jack -- as I was too lazy to carry the adapter with me) I haven't used since I got the phone.

In fact, the new Lightning EarPods (in my opinion) sounds better than the older ones, I have been using them all the time. I also have a pair of Bluetooth Earphones that I got for 25CA$.

Also IMO better speakers of new iPhones is a great replacement for the headphone jack.

Long story short, what I am trying to say is that as wireless earphones are getting more and more popular the 3.5mm jack is not that important anymore. And it's not like we cannot use our 3.5mm headphones, there is an adapter that comes with the phone.

 

[itsmilo]

ah the struggle

 

[Mac 128]

ah the struggle

What struggle? They sell and adapter for that.

 

[mrt.plt]

What struggle? They sell and adapter for that.

No, there is no adapter for charging the phone and listening to music through lightning earphones at the same time.

 

[Mac 128]

No, there is no adapter for charging the phone and listening to music through lightning earphones at the same time.

Since you're a "macrumors newbie" with 11 posts, I'll give you a break. Go visit Belkin's website and then rejoin the conversation.

 

[mrt.plt]

Since you're a "macrumors newbie", I'll give you a break. Go visit Belkin's website and then rejoin the conversation.

Oh yeah, sorry. Thought they only had lightning to lightning + 3.5mm adapter.
http://www.belkin.com/us/F8J198-Belkin/p/P-F8J198/

 

[C DM]

Since you're a "macrumors newbie" with 11 posts, I'll give you a break. Go visit Belkin's website and then rejoin the conversation.

For a $40 accessory the reviews for it aren't the most encouraging. Apple really should have developed a fully functional adapter themselves.

 

[mrt.plt]

For a $40 accessory the reviews for it aren't the most encouraging. Apple really should have developed a fully functional adapter themselves.

While I think that it would be better if Apple developed such an adapter, I don't believe that there would be any difference in terms of functionality. It's a lightning to lightning+lightning adapter that supports 12W charging.
I rarely listen to music from earphones when my phone is plugged in, but there are some bluetooth earphones with decent sound quality that are cheaper than this adapter.

 

[boltjames]

Long story short, what I am trying to say is that as wireless earphones are getting more and more popular the 3.5mm jack is not that important anymore. And it's not like we cannot use our 3.5mm headphones, there is an adapter that comes with the phone.

The thing is that wireless earphones are NOT getting more and more popular. 83 of every 100 headphones sold around the world every day are wired. The launch of the iPhone 7 and Apple's curious decision to eschew the 3.5mm jack may be creating a perception that it's a wireless headphone world in your mind, but it's actually not the case.

Wireless headphones have been around since the 1980's and despite 30 years in the market have never reached more than 17% of sales. As points of reference, in that same span cordless phones occupy 99% of their market. Cordless remote controls occupy 100% of their market. Cordless garage door openers occupy 97% of their market. Cordless internet access points occupy 95% of their market. At the same time the world was supposedly tired of the 3.5mm headphone port, corded phones, corded TV remotes, corded garage door openers, and corded AOL modems all became completely obsolete. The headphone jack still survives. Thrives, in fact.

As for the adapter, it's inconvenient, expensive, and clumsy, the very reasons people have rejected wireless headphones since 1986.

BJ

 

[itsmilo]

What struggle? They sell and adapter for that.

theres no instant delivery yet and i needed it right at this moment

 

[mrt.plt]

The thing is that wireless earphones are NOT getting more and more popular. 83 of every 100 headphones sold around the world every day are wired. The launch of the iPhone 7 and Apple's curious decision to eschew the 3.5mm jack may be creating a perception that it's a wireless headphone world in your mind, but it's actually not the case.

Wireless headphones have been around since the 1980's and despite 30 years in the market have never reached more than 17% of sales. As points of reference, in that same span cordless phones occupy 99% of their market. Cordless remote controls occupy 100% of their market. Cordless garage door openers occupy 97% of their market. Cordless internet access points occupy 95% of their market. At the same time the world was supposedly tired of the 3.5mm headphone port, corded phones, corded TV remotes, corded garage door openers, and corded AOL modems all became completely obsolete. The headphone jack still survives. Thrives, in fact.

As for the adapter, it's inconvenient and clumsy, the very reasons people have rejected wireless headphones since 1986.

BJ

There was a reason why people have rejected those wireless headphones "since 1986." I remember using a bluetooth earpiece to answer calls 5 years ago, and it was almost impossible to hear what the other people were saying.
However, now that we have newer technologies that allow higher quality streaming and that bluetooth earphones have become more affordable, people are considering getting a pair of 20$ wireless earphones instead of 7$ wired ones (cheap ones that make up the majority of that 83%)
I have been using a pair of cheap bluetooth earphones for almost 2 months (with my 6S) During the day, I didn't need to use wired earphones. The only problem for me now is that when I want to listen to music using my headphones, I have to use an adapter (which comes with the iPhone) And if ever my headphones break down I'll get wireless ones.
What I cannot do, however, is charging my phone and listening to music through my headphones at the same time without buying an adapter. Will this prevent people from buying the phone? I highly doubt it.

EDIT: Some will not want to use wireless headphones because of the lacking audio quality and the need to charge them frequently. That makes sense, but I guess the majority will just adapt to the new situation. (I am not saying that Apple removing the headphone jack is a great idea, I am just saying it's okay)

 

[boltjames]

There was a reason why people have rejected those wireless headphones "since 1986." I remember using a bluetooth earpiece to answer calls 5 years ago, and it was almost impossible to hear what the other people was saying.
However, now that we have newer technologies that allow higher quality streaming and that bluetooth earphones have become more affordable, people are considering getting a pair of 20$ wireless earphones instead of 7$ wired ones (cheap ones that make up the majority of that 83%)
I have been using a pair of cheap bluetooth earphones for almost 2 months (with my 6S) During the day, I didn't need to use wired earphones. The only problem for me now is that when I want to listen to music using my headphones, I have to use an adapter (which comes with the iPhone) And if ever my headphones break down I'll get wireless ones.
What I cannot do, however, is charging my phone and listening to music through my headphones at the same time without buying an adapter. Will this prevent people from buying the phone? I highly doubt it.

EDIT: Some will not want to use wireless headphones because of the lacking audio quality and the need to charge them frequently. That makes sense, but I guess the majority will just adapt to the new situation. (I am not saying that Apple removing the headphone jack is a great idea, I am just saying it's okay)

Good post, all I'm saying is that if wireless headphones were meant to be a massive success they'd have disrupted this space 10, 20, or 30 years ago and nothing is changing now except for one hardware suppliers curious decision to force the issue by removing the 3.5mm jack.

Wireless headphones don't actually solve a problem. Instead, they create new problems. People are content to live with a small light wire. They don't worry too much about it. My wife runs 3 miles a day, never heard her complain once about the wire running to her armband. I commute by train 15 hours a week, I've never cursed the wire running to my shirt pocket.

Wireless headphones represent a bunch of things people despise. Additional weight. Additional inconvenience. Annoying maintenance. Protocol incompatibility. Lesser quality. Higher price. It's why they've got a 17% market share, there isn't any upside at all, just downside.

If Apple doesn't put the jack back in and sticks to this pack-in dongle, you'll just see people getting angry at the iPhone and moving on to Android or another more user-friendly device. You won't see some sea change of wireless headphones. You'll just see more wired headphones plugging into non-Apple devices.

BJ

 

[solo118]

My only beef with wireless headphones (for the most part) is that they need a separate charger. Once newer models come on the market with lightning chargers I will give it a shot.

 

[jumpingjackflash]

Here is a revealing graph from June 2016. Even before iPhone 7 got announced.

https://www.theatlas.com/charts/HJnL1WYd

This year bluetooth will get closer to 80% and wired around 20%.

Numbers, they don't lie.

 

[C DM]

Here is a revealing graph from June 2016. Even before iPhone 7 got announced.

View attachment 682743

https://www.theatlas.com/charts/HJnL1WYd

This year bluetooth will get closer to 80% and wired around 20%.

Numbers, they don't lie.

But that's basically new sales, right? It's certainly a statistic, but it's not necessarily one that paints a full picture. For example, many people probably already have many wired headsets that they have had for some time so they likely wouldn't need newer ones all that often if not for a long time. Many people get a bunch of wired headsets included with various devices that they get too. It'd be curious to see what the actual ownership breakdown is like, or even better the actual usage.

 

[boltjames]

Here is a revealing graph from June 2016. Even before iPhone 7 got announced.

View attachment 682743

This year bluetooth will get closer to 80% and wired around 20%.

Numbers, they don't lie.

That's dollar sales, not unit sales. Dollar sales talk to rich people checking out the latest gadgetry. Unit sales talk to popularity. From your own data yesterday I remind you:

Port Washington, NY, July 28, 2016 – According to The NPD Group's Retail Tracking Service, Bluetooth headphone accounted for 17 percent of unit sales in the U.S.

Listen, you're not breaking any new ground here. Wireless headphones are a cool toy. The industry has been trying to get them to be the de-facto standard for 30 years and yet still only see 17 of every 100 sold going that way. People don't want more batteries to charge, simple as that.

BJ

 

[jumpingjackflash]

That's dollar sales, not unit sales. Dollar sales talk to rich people checking out the latest gadgetry. Unit sales talk to popularity. From your own data yesterday I remind you:

Port Washington, NY, July 28, 2016 – According to The NPD Group's Retail Tracking Service, Bluetooth headphone accounted for 17 percent of unit sales in the U.S.

Listen, you're not breaking any new ground here. Wireless headphones are a cool toy. The industry has been trying to get them to be the de-facto standard for 30 years and yet still only see 17 of every 100 sold going that way. People don't want more batteries to charge, simple as that.

BJ

Dollar sales count even more to the headphone/tech manufacters than unit sales. This is overly important. This years 80% dollar sales for wireless means it's basicly game over for wired headphones. Companies are simply not going to produce them anymore! (except for some "niche" markets/ maby some 3rd world countries).

Plus, Apple and other companies are not going to bring 3,5mm jack back, ever, no matter how much some people cry over it.

 

[C DM]

Dollar sales count even more to the headphone/tech manufacters than unit sales. This is overly important. This years 80% dollar sales for wireless means it's basicly game over for wired headphones. Companies are simply not going to produce them anymore! (except for some "niche" markets/ maby some 3rd world countries).

Plus, Apple and other companies are not going to bring 3,5mm jack back, ever, no matter how much some people cry over it.

Considering how many devices out there have been using that jack and will still continue to use that jack at least for the near future (beyond just a year or two), it's extremely unlikely that companies will stop producing wired headphones or anything close to that for still some time to come.

 

[boltjames]

Considering how many devices out there have been using that jack and will still continue to use that jack at least for the near future (beyond just a year or two), it's extremely unlikely that companies will stop producing wired headphones or anything close to that for still some time to come.

Exactly.

All Apple did was replace one headphone jack with another. They said goodbye to the RCA standard from the 1950s and are trying to force Lightning on to everyone.

In the end, if they were produced equally more Lightning wired headphones would sell than wireless headphones by a ratio greater than 5:1. Apple replacing a port standard does not suddenly make wireless a great solution. People have been rejecting wireless headphones for 30 years, nothing changes now that Apple has swapped one headphone port for another.

BJ

 

[Mac 128]

For a $40 accessory the reviews for it aren't the most encouraging. Apple really should have developed a fully functional adapter themselves.

While I think that it would be better if Apple developed such an adapter, I don't believe that there would be any difference in terms of functionality. It's a lightning to lightning+lightning adapter that supports 12W charging.
I rarely listen to music from earphones when my phone is plugged in, but there are some bluetooth earphones with decent sound quality that are cheaper than this adapter.

Apple did work closely with Belkin to develop this adapter. That's why it was ready to go with a week or so of launching the iPhone 7. Apple recognized this as a significant need, but worked through Belkin to develop it, as they had their hands full, and leaving them room to develop something in-house later. I also have a sneaking suspicion they did it that way to deflect criticism, had they taken away the headphone jack and introduced a bunch of dongles to replace it.

I agree there is a more elegant solution, which Apple already employs right in their own Battery case, with a passthrough Lightning port. A right angle Lightning cable with a pass through port would solve this problem immediately, without requiring the purchase of a $40 adapter that only does one thing -- allow listening and changing simultaneously. It will not allow two Lightning headphones to listen at the same time, nor will it support daisy-chaining a Lightning device, such as an HDMI adapter.

 

[boltjames]

Dollar sales count even more to the headphone/tech manufacters than unit sales. This is overly important. This years 80% dollar sales for wireless means it's basicly game over for wired headphones. Companies are simply not going to produce them anymore! (except for some "niche" markets/ maby some 3rd world countries).

Plus, Apple and other companies are not going to bring 3,5mm jack back, ever, no matter how much some people cry over it.

As an EVP for a consumer electronics company I think I can say quite authoritatively that your naive view of big business is adorable.

What matters most to manufacturers is neither dollar sales or unit sales but rather profitability. And what you don't know, and I do know, is that the profit margins on wireless headphones tend to run in the 20% range whereas wired headphones sit comfortably in the 50% range. You may see a $200 wireless headphone as three times as expensive as a $70 wired headphone, so you automatically think manufacturers are happy. But what you aren't seeing are costs exclusive to wireless headphones like Bluetooth license fees, FCC compliance legalities, enhanced factory audits, scrutinous testing protocols, critical shipping safety, third-party costs for proprietary chipsets, minimums related to batteries and silicone, and scores of other elements that drive costs through the roof and profit margins down.

And then there is the little issue of customer returns. Wired headphones have a return rate in the single digits, about 8% or so. Wireless headphones have a return rate nearing 30%. High prices plus setup issues plus connectivity issues plus battery charging plus sound quality compromises equals a ton of customer remorse.

So trust me when I tell you, manufacturers want to sell as many wired headphones as possible, it's why they delayed Bluetooth as a standard for so long back in the 90s, it's why they have pushed back against the loss of the headphone jack for 30 years, it's why they rejected the 30 pin connector, it's why they reject Apple's latest attempt to get them to pay for a MFi Lightning license. Manufacturers want to make money, and as long as they don't jump into the iPhone 7 deep end they will keep their happy wired headphone business thriving.

BJ

 

[jumpingjackflash]

As an EVP for a consumer electronics company I think I can say quite authoritatively that your naive view of big business is adorable.

What matters most to manufacturers is neither dollar sales or unit sales but rather profitability. And what you don't know, and I do know, is that the profit margins on wireless headphones tend to run in the 20% range whereas wired headphones sit comfortably in the 50% range. You may see a $200 wireless headphone as three times as expensive as a $70 wired headphone, so you automatically think manufacturers are happy. But what you aren't seeing are costs exclusive to wireless headphones like Bluetooth license fees, FCC compliance legalities, enhanced factory audits, scrutinous testing protocols, critical shipping safety, third-party costs for proprietary chipsets, minimums related to batteries and silicone, and scores of other elements that drive costs through the roof and profit margins down.

And then there is the little issue of customer returns. Wired headphones have a return rate in the single digits, about 8% or so. Wireless headphones have a return rate nearing 30%. High prices plus setup issues plus connectivity issues plus battery charging plus sound quality compromises equals a ton of customer remorse.

So trust me when I tell you, manufacturers want to sell as many wired headphones as possible, it's why they delayed Bluetooth as a standard for so long back in the 90s, it's why they have pushed back against the loss of the headphone jack for 30 years, it's why they rejected the 30 pin connector, it's why they reject Apple's latest attempt to get them to pay for a MFi Lightning license. Manufacturers want to make money, and as long as they don't jump into the iPhone 7 deep end they will keep their happy wired headphone business thriving.

BJ

Once again, source to these. (and other one I asked before)

You seem to have a lot of statements, but not a single reliable source for them. You dont answer any questions and you are even falsely quoting yourself. You are also making falsely assumptions what other people know or dont know. Those are all basic mistakes in argumentation. It's also called trolling. To me your credibility is zero.

 

[jumpingjackflash]

Here, let me do the same thing:

If Apple invented a brand new iPhone that a) never needed charging, b) had better performance, and c) was significantly cheaper than the current iPhone wouldn't we be ecstatic?

BJ

Basicly a really stupid question. Hypothetical nonsense. Theres just simply too many if's. What do you mean by "wouldn't we be ecstatic?"? What are you even trying to prove with this nonsense?

 

[boltjames]

Once again, source to these. (and other one I asked before)

You seem to have a lot of statements, but not a single reliable source for them. You dont answer any questions and you are even falsely quoting yourself. You are also making falsely assumptions what other people know or dont know. Those are all basic mistakes in argumentation. It's also called trolling. To me your credibility is zero.

I am the source. I'm in the business. If you want to do research, knock yourself out, I'm guessing you can piece it together on Google. If you don't want to believe my numbers, that's fine, then don't.

I realize that no one likes to be told they are wrong. When it happens, you should accept it gracefully.

BJ
[doublepost=1484068504][/doublepost]

Basicly a really stupid question. Hypothetical nonsense. Theres just simply too many if's. What do you mean by "wouldn't we be ecstatic?"? What are you even trying to prove with this nonsense?

You seem to think that a headphone that a) needs charging, 2) has lesser performance, and c) is significantly more expensive than the current wired solution is a great idea, a gamechanger, something that is going to have a huge impact.

So I am asking you if Apple invented a brand new iPhone that a) never needed charging, b) had better performance, and c) was significantly cheaper than the current iPhone, wouldn't that make people really happy? Wouldn't that have a big impact? Because that's what a wired headphone is. Cheaper, more convenient, better performance. The analogy is pretty clear.

You are advocating a technology that has been marginal for 30 years as if it's something new, you are acting like the loss of the headphone jack is a trigger for a major paradigm shift, and you are resisting the fact that 83 of every 100 headphones sold in the US are wired for a reason. They are cheaper, more convenient, and sound better.

BJ

 

[jumpingjackflash]

I am the source. I'm in the business.

Hahhaahaaa, You're literally killing me with this one ! But you're definitely right that I don't believe you.

So I am asking you if Apple invented a brand new iPhone that a) never needed charging, b) had better performance, and c) was significantly cheaper than the current iPhone, wouldn't that make people really happy? Wouldn't that have a big impact? Because that's what a wired headphone is. Cheaper, more convenient, better performance. The analogy is pretty clear.

I allready said too many ifs. Youre just trying to cover the main thing, which is that iPhone kinda sucks as a headphone amp. It cannot drive good headphones to their full potential. Its not about the 3,5mm connection but the lack of power and weak overall performance. Also iPhones DAC is not the greatest. Thats why I said before that you would atleast need a good separate DAC + headphone AMP to compete with good wireless ones.

Headphones are like miniature speakers. They need amp to work. And to work to their full potential they need a dedicated one. iPhone is not a good headphone amp. And there is no such amp that will drive all headphones to their full potential. This is where wireless headphones comes to shine:

- They have built-in dedicated AMP in them. Perfectly optimised to work with the drivers.
- They have built-in DAC in them. Perfectly optimised to work with AMP.

Dont you see/understand these clear benefits?