You need 100K to build a game - <AUTHOR> http://whatgamesare.com/2011/04/you-need-100000-game-development.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+WhatGamesAre+%28What+Games+Are%29

<comment><USER2> I'm working on a game full-time, solo plus an artist. My knee-jerk reaction upon seeing this was to call BS, and offer my situation as a rebuttal. And then I realized that the simple fact of taking 1 year off paid work to do this is indeed costing me more than $100K, in a very real sense.

<comment><USER3> What's the game?

<comment><USER2> It's a classic Action RPG, along the lines of Secret of Mana, with heavy emphasis on the Action side.

<http://tilesandsprites.wordpress.com/>

<comment><USER4> Great blog, thanks for sharing!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This feels a little like link bait to me, because it's silly just to drop arbitrary numbers on game development that determine its success.

Nobody would disagree that a high quality game requires a big blockbuster- movie size budget. Nobody would disagree that an indie developer can make $100k in a year if the game they make has a little polish.

A great indie game requires talent first. The ability to code well and make pretty graphics. Then it takes the patience required to apply the time it takes to make the game work perfectly and the graphics to look just right.

I think a lot of indie devs race to get their games to market because they're hungry to make money. Then when it doesn't earn anything because it isn't finished, they give up a little because it becomes obvious very quickly how much time and energy is required to make an awesome game.

<comment><USER6> What's your source of experience for these claims you're making? The author worked on Angry Birds.

<comment><USER5> I've written several top 10 games in the Android Market and have sold over $100K in product in just a matter of months.

EDIT: Top 10 games in their respective categories, I have NOT broken into the top 10 for "All Games" in the Android Market yet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think this applies to a very specific class of games. When people mention games I tend to this of three very distinct types:

Nano Game - something that a single individual put together over the course of a couple weekends. It works, it's fun to play, it may not be pretty to look at, but it will get played again and again then ignored. E.g., Gridwars, Mine Sweeper

Micro Game - maybe two people working together. It is polished took a couple of months to put together. It works, it's fun to play and it is girl next door pretty. It will get played until the sun burns up. E.g., anything that you'll find in the 10$ bargain bin when it first gets released

Macro Game - a group of people working together. It took a couple of years to put together. It is flawless, it's got a marketing campaign behind it and chances are it's going to get played by professional gamers and make a lot of people a lot of money. E.g., Starcraft, GTA, Quake

Nano games are < 10k, micro games are less than 100k and macro games anything more than 100k.

I would argue that the vast majority of games fall into the nano and micro camps. They may never get any traction, but nonetheless they are out there en mass. Because of that, it doesn't make any sense to me to say that it takes 100k to build a game without saying what type of game.

<comment><USER2> I like this, but I think it needs one more category between Micro and Macro. There are many games that are polished, and take a few people tons of work, but aren't big-budget blockbusters. E.g. Braid, Cave Story, Minecraft, Super Meat Boy - basically the darlings of the indie movement. These often take way more than a couple of months, but are a far cry from the likes of GTA.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think the estimate may be optimistic. At least for a game that would make its ROI interesting to an investor. Either way, if I happened to have that capital laying around in my pockets... and if you happen to have a game idea and a small team ready to go... get in touch!

</comment><comment><USER3> What about Minecraft?

<comment><USER9> What about it? Minecraft sold alpha quality software, literally. It said right on the website "Alpha" and now it's on to "Beta". Minecraft was basically taking preorders with the promise of an eventual polished released. And in the meantime you could play a buggy game you might enjoy. It's going to be quite a while before Minecraft is "done" and Notch is going to spend a lot more than $100,000 on it.

<comment><USER3> I was wondering if he spent $100,000 to develop it before it became a success. I'm not sure.

I think I read that he released parts of the game as he went?

In a sense he marketed it as he went, which seems like a good strategy. One that could reduce costs provided that you make a game people want.

Because you don't really know if you're making something people want until they try it out and tell you (by using it, hopefully continuously).

If you are making something people want, then I would think you could do it for much less than $100,000. It just might not be WoW or Grand Theft Auto.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Desktop Tower Defense, which I personally enjoyed more than Angry Birds took less than 100k to make.

</comment><comment><USER11> Another point:

You need game developers to work full time on your project and preferably be local.

</comment><comment><USER12> and 40 000 000 for a paywall.</comment>


Tabula: Extract Tables from PDFs - <AUTHOR> http://tabula.technology/ <comment><USER2> I have been working on a side project that needs to read dynamic table layouts and extract financial information. I was excited to hear about Tabula a few weeks ago but I had 0 success in getting even one PDF extracted.

I ended up using pdfquery package in python which heavily utilized PDFMiner under the covers.

Besides ABBYY soft (which is proprietary, licensed), does anyone have other recommendations?

<comment><USER3> I can't help but say I refuse to work with PDF files. I will email and do a ton of meetings and one on ones to explain that PDF is a container and that the format inside the container is the battle. Just give me the plain format and if it cost the company money it is worth it.

<comment><USER4> Much of the use of these tools is to extract data from government or corporate sources that while required to publish the information may not want make it easy to access. Thus they prefer PDF's.

Those of us trying to extract the data bound up in these PDF's do advocate to get access to the original data, but we have to deal with what we have today.

<comment><USER3> And this is not good for anyone and is the opposite of the spirit behind the Sunshine Laws.

My school district (What a mess) publishes images (Horrible bad images) of all the school notes including all financial information and spreadsheets. I had to one night type in for 4 hours manually the years budget just to check on our spending per student. It was $5,400 the lowest in our state.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Congrats on 1.0! We've been using Tabula in the office to get data, usually from government sources, out of PDFs. It's been very handy--though I don't especially love having Java on interns' PCs to use it. But it's worth the tradeoff to not waste their--and our--time manually extracting that data.

</comment><comment><USER6> Congrats on the 1.0 release guys! We've been using Tabula since the days before the app packaging. It's been really cool to observe development progress, and especially to see you guys tackle the problem of distributing as an application.

</comment><comment> norea-armozel If I had this when I was working on extracting the ISIR data fields in the Department of Education's documentation it would've saved me time. Bleh, it's a shame it didn't exist then. :(

</comment><comment><USER7> This is positively phenomenal, and the UI is great for non-technical users. Super, super tool. Thanks so much for developing it and opening it up to the public!

</comment><comment><USER8> It bombed on the very first PDF I fed to it. (Admittedly, a technical datasheet of ~50 pages.)

<comment><USER9> Hi. Can you share the PDF with us on our issue tracker? ([https://github.com/tabulapdf/tabula/issues](https://github.com/tabulapdf/tabula/issues)) We'd be happy to take a look at it

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> How does it read data from the PDF? Is there a PDF parser somewhere down inside the code?

<comment><USER11> It embeds the free-software version of JPedal: [https://github.com/tabulapdf/tabula/tree/master/lib/jars](https://github.com/tabulapdf/tabula/tree/master/lib/jars)

Unfortunately it looks like the developers of JPedal decided to discontinue the LGPL version and focus on the proprietary version, so it's unmaintained unless someone else picks up development.

<comment><USER9> Hi. Tabula author here.

We use JPedal for rendering pages as images. For parsing, we use Apache PDFBox. In the near future, we plan to render the PDFs client side with Mozilla's PDF.js

<comment><USER12> It's worth mentioning that PDFBox 2.0 does a great job of rendering PDFs too.

<comment><USER9> PDFBox 1.8 less-than-great rendering engine forced us to include a separate library for that purpose only.

Moving to PDFBox 2.0 is also on our roadmap. But the text extraction API in 2.0 has changed a lot too, so porting our engine would require quite a bit of effort.

Friendly reminder: we're an MIT-licensed open source project, and we're always open to contributions!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I used this pretty heavily in May for a recent data-science project and it really saved my butt. Easy to use, speeded things up a lot. Choked on only one pdf. Looking forward to seeing the progress made.

</comment><comment><USER14> I have a bunch of scanned PDFs from an open data request I'm looking forward to trying when I'm home. My own solution with pytesser was pretty effective but required a ton of tweaking.

<comment><USER15> I don't think it's going to be able to help you if they're scans. From the README:

> _Tabula only works on text-based PDFs, not scanned documents. If you can > click-and-drag to select text in your table in a PDF viewer (even if the > output is disorganized trash), then your PDF is text-based and Tabula should > work._

<comment><USER14> Ah thanks, missed that. They gave me half text based and half scans, gotta love the government.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> great project, extracting tables from tables is a task I need to make so damn frequently</comment>


DigiCert .arpa Mis-Issuance - <AUTHOR> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.security.policy/JFwqZx7RLL0 <comment><USER2> To be clear, the failure here is not that DigiCert issued for .arpa, which is not forbidden, but that they gave the reporter, Cynthia Revström, the ability to issue for all of in-addr.arpa even though she had only demonstrated control over 188.8.131.52.in-addr.arpa. This vulnerability could have applied to regular non-arpa domains too; e.g. someone with control over example.github.io might have been able to get a certificate for any github.io domain.

However, since issuing for .arpa is weird (and maybe should be forbidden), the discussion got sidetracked talking about .arpa issuance.

DigiCert's analysis of the vulnerability can be found here: [https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.dev.security.policy/...](https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.dev.security.policy/JFwqZx7RLL0/ctOjU-v5AAAJ)

<comment><AUTHOR> I am very much aware, because I am indeed that reporter, but I just didn't want to change the title from the email subject

<comment><USER3> Great example of vigilence here. I can't see anything in your report that would lead me to think this only happened to you, but you seem to be the first to notice _and_ follow through on the hunch. Nice work!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you :) I got a bit suspicious when I just saw in-addr.arpa in the verification email and asked my friend if I should test it, and they said yes so :P</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Google Makes Its Special A.I. Chips Available to Others - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/12/technology/google-artificial-intelligence-chips.html?hpw&rref=business&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well <comment><USER2> ...through a cloud service. This is a critical caveat, IMHO.

We are beginning an era were the largest cloud providers will attempt to differentiate with custom hardware. But the providers will keep the hardware to themselves, and just sell the services.

</comment><comment><USER3> link to dupe?</comment>


Ask HN: What stage do startups typically fail? - <AUTHOR> We all hear that well over 90% of startups fail, but when do most die off (e.g. before series A, or later on after multiple rounds of funding)? How much more likely is a startup that has made it past multiple rounds of funding to succeed? <comment><USER2> I'm not sure of the actual statistics, but it's good to brainstorm the financial game theory of being a founder or top employee.

If most startups die within 2-3 years, then you would probably want to find ways to make as much salary and positive rep off the venture as you can.</comment>


Show HN: A Grunt workflow for designing and testing HTML emails - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/leemunroe/grunt-email-design

<comment><USER2> I really like the simplicity of the 'How it works' section and I will probably steal the concept for explaining parts of our build to new employees.

</comment><comment><USER3> Are you open to pull requests? I forked this and added a couple of things that I'd be happy to contribute back to:

      -- Less support
      -- added a Gemfile to bundle install the ruby requirements
      -- added an npm preinstall task to run bundle install

I tested and it's working locally

</comment><comment><USER4> This is pretty cool; we've put a lot of work into sendwithus to solve many of these same problems (inline css at send time, staging versions of templates, and multiple types of api keys).

Kudos for having a README that actually makes sense.

</comment><comment><USER5> See also: grunt-email-boilerplate [1]

[1] [https://github.com/dwightjack/grunt-email- boilerplate](https://github.com/dwightjack/grunt-email-boilerplate)

</comment><comment><USER6> +1 for the simplicity of the workflow. I got it running within a few minutes.

</comment><comment><USER7> Hm, wanted to try this out but the Ruby dependency is discouraging -.-

<comment><USER8> Isn't Ruby a dependency for Sass in general? Don't think that's a function of this grunt task.

<comment><USER9> Yep. It probably wouldn't be hard to modify this workflow to use Less or Stylus instead so that you don't need Ruby.

<comment><USER8> Might be able to use the Sassc - [https://github.com/hcatlin/sassc](https://github.com/hcatlin/sassc) lib too. There are several wrappers for it too, like this one for node [https://github.com/andrew/node-sass](https://github.com/andrew/node-sass)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Code Quality Audit of Android Core: Code Structure - <AUTHOR> https://www.cqse.eu/en/blog/android-code-quality-structure/

<comment><USER2> I didn't see an analysis of the structure of the Android software, only some low level statistics. Why should we care that the command line parsing code is all put in a single C function? The question is whether it is generated code or not? More than the size of files or of methods, the architecture of the classes and data structures, their coupling or lack of, etc,p is what matters for understanding and maintaing a big software system.

<comment><USER3> There is mention to stay tuned for the continuation of the audit. Hopefully it gets more interesting...</comment></comment>


Creating a website as a responsive multithreading App - <AUTHOR> https://neomjs.github.io/pages/ <comment><AUTHOR> [https://youtu.be/RDFyFSnUFx4](https://youtu.be/RDFyFSnUFx4)

There are around 25 transitions in place when reducing the width < 600px or the height < 400px, to make it feel more natural.</comment>


Breaking Out of Your Shell as a Coder - <AUTHOR> http://blog.architexa.com/2013/01/breaking-out-of-your-shell-as-a-coder/

<comment><USER2> These meetings are a great way to see what other folks are doing, meet people in various roles, and explore topics that you might otherwise not get exposure to.

Many of these meetings are set up to allow people to talk about their stuff for a few minutes. This is a great way to "break out of your shell" and gives you invaluable skills in pitching and communicating what you are working on.

Get your confidence up to participate and talk about some coding you are doing. You might find someone who shares your interest to collaborate with.

Beware of service providers unless you are looking to meet them. Attorneys, head hunters, recruiters, and other non-developers also tend to hang around these meetings to get closer to --- you the in-demand developer!

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, I like the idea of finding someone to collaborate on a fun project. I did not say this in the post, but I found out about a small offshoot meetup at one of these events - and that has been fun because it was very hands-on.

I like hearing from recruiters - if only to get a sense of what frameworks coders are using these days.

But, attorneys, really?

<comment><USER2> Sure, don't you want to make sure no one steals your "fun project" idea? I'm sure it has happened ;)</comment></comment></comment>


Digital Ads Are Starting to Feel Psychic - driftsumi-e https://theoutline.com/post/5380/targeted-ad-creepy-surveillance-facebook-instagram-google-listening-not-alone?zd=1&zi=z4hv45w4 <comment><AUTHOR> Yes this is exactly what I feel! I have had more than one occasions where I see ads that I have never searched for on the internet. Could this be a type of algorithmic approach to our decisions? Is free will playing a role in this?</comment>


Solar storm of 1859 - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_storm_of_1859 <comment><USER2> Oh, the Carrington Event again. This has been on HN several times. It ought to be on a list of common misconceptions.

\- This has nothing to do with "EMP". That's a big but brief RF pulse with a rise time around 1ns. This is induced DC in long wires over a period of hours.

\- The basic effect is that a current is induced in the earth's crust, resulting in a DC voltage between grounds at widely separated points. This is mostly a problem for long AC high-tension power lines using wye-connected transformers at each end which run in the same direction as mountains of igneous rock. The DC component can partially saturate the transformer, using up some of its capacity. If undetected, transformers can overheat, and worst case, burn out. This occurred on March 13, 1989 on some lines in the eastern US.

\- PJM, which runs the northeastern US power grid, is now prepared for this. See PJM's training manual for this[1], starting at page 22. They get 1 to 6 days warning from the NOAA's Space Weather Prediction Center. They have monitoring for unwanted DC flows at multiple points in the power grid. When trouble appears, certain power lines have to have their current reduced.

\- A few times a year, more at the top of the sunspot cycle, there are warnings of a potential problem. PJM last issued a warning on August 26, 2018. It didn't progress to an "alert", or actual action. There are people in a control room in Valley Forge, PA, and another backup location, watching this. They can reroute power around the trouble spots, call for extra generation output, and dump some loads if necessary. Load dumping starts with bulk buyers of "interruptible power" \- aluminum smelters, Bitcoin mines, etc., which are willing to be the first turned off in exchange for a discount.

\- It's not a problem for anything shorter than hundreds of miles. It's not a problem for high-voltage DC power lines, like the Pacific Intertie and the really long ones from western to eastern China. It has zero effect on fiber optics or small devices.

\- When you encounter clueless reporters writing about the power grid, aim them at "PJM 101", which is a set of introductory training materials on how the power grid works, written for people who run it.

[1] [https://pjm.com/-/media/training/nerc-certifications/gen- exa...](https://pjm.com/-/media/training/nerc-certifications/gen-exam- materials/gof/20160104-conservative-operations.ashx?la=en)

<comment><USER3> Potentially off-topic, but you how do you know so much? It seems that from law to physics to computer science, you have an absurd level of detailed knowledge. It's incredulous that someone can talk at such great depth about an obscure topic from the top of his head.

<comment><USER2> I got interested in this back when California was having blackouts because the power industry managed to convince the legislature that a totally free market with an auction every half hour was the way to run the power grid. I wanted to see how other places did it. PJM has a "day ahead" market and a backup spot market, so generating stations mostly know what tomorrow will be like. California now has something similar.

PJM has online training courses. Taking "PJM 101" is worth it to get a sense of how the market system and the actual operation interact. A few hours and you know more about the power grid than 99% of the population, but less than any PJM employee or energy trader.

One of my interests is how market-based systems fail. They're feedback systems with delays. Some of the delays are short; others are measured in years. A point I make regularly is that such systems have no guarantee of stability. In short-term energy markets, the consequences of this are immediate, because there is not much inventory in electricity.

<comment><USER4> Further to the parents comment, do you use a personal knowledge base? I keep a flat text file, but have been pondering whether it might be worth moving to something a bit more structured.

<comment><USER5> From practicality perspective, how do you use your personal knowledge base? Do you review it on a regular basis?

I have thoughts of keeping a similar database, but I kept thinking "will I ever use the collected details in the future". When I first started in computers on the Atari 8bit in Australia, I would collect as many of its software as possible, due to its scarcity. Looking back on it, I would ever only used 1% of it. The rest would be sitting it on the floppies gathering dust. I fear that the database that I collect would end up in a similar situation.

<comment><USER6> I don't use anything writen down myself. Most of the time I try to focus on basic principals and the connection of things to remember stuff. Downside is that the concrete data points I know on top of my head a) come without a definitve source (I try to work on that lately) and b) can be interpreted as anecdotal evidence (an issue I see lately with people not from my field and I have to find a solution for sometime).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> If you're interested in the modern risks of coronal mass injections, there's a report called "Solar Storm Risk to The North American Electrical Grid" [0] (2008) that summarizes the topic well. From page 4: "The total U.S. population at risk of extended power outage from a Carrington-level storm is between 20-40 million, with durations of 16 days to 1-2 years."

[0] [http://www.lloyds.com/~/media/lloyds/reports/emerging%20risk...](http://www.lloyds.com/~/media/lloyds/reports/emerging%20risk%20reports/solar%20storm%20risk%20to%20the%20north%20american%20electric%20grid.pdf)

<comment><USER7> We should hurry up with developing power over fiber, now that the new hollow core fibers have been developed that have essentially no transmission losses. Is one of the few power transmission technologies that should be entirely unaffected by solar storms.

<comment><USER8> High power on a fiber has a problem called "fiber fuse" ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber_fuse](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber_fuse)).

I followed the link on this article to the article on a more recent solar storm ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_storm_of_2012](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_storm_of_2012)) where I found a report from Lloyd's which mentions that there are workarounds (like "neutral-current-blocking capacitors"), so it might be possible to make even large power transmission systems resistant against solar storms.

<comment><USER7> >High power on a fiber has a problem called "fiber fuse"

That is much less of an issue in the new hollow fibers, as their losses are significantly lower than glass ones.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > Some telegraph operators could continue to send and receive messages despite > having disconnected their power supplies.

What a fascinating read.

It really makes you happy that this type of solar/planetary stuff affecting the earth only happens on such a long timescale where it doesn't commonly affect our day-to-day lives as much as earthborn issues such as severe storms or other extreme meteorological events. But it's also a shame in some ways:

> Myself and two mates looking out of the tent saw a great reflection in the > southern heavens at about 7 o'clock p.m., and in about half an hour, a scene > of almost unspeakable beauty presented itself, lights of every imaginable > color were issuing from the southern heavens, one color fading away only to > give place to another if possible more beautiful than the last, the streams > mounting to the zenith

<comment><USER10> It's stochastic. Could happen tomorrow.

We got lucky in 2012. [1]

[1] [https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at- nasa/2014/2...](https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at- nasa/2014/23jul_superstorm)

<comment><USER11> > On July 23, 2012 a "Carrington-class" solar superstorm (solar flare, coronal > mass ejection, solar EMP) was observed; its trajectory missed Earth in > orbit. Information about these observations was first shared publicly by > NASA on April 28, 2014

Why would NASA not share this with the public?

<comment><USER12> Oh NASA did share the event at the time:

[https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stereo/news/fast- cme.html](https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stereo/news/fast-cme.html)

They just didn't realize the magnitude.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> David Roodman wrote an excellent 4-part analysis of risks from geomagnetic storms for the givewell blog: [https://blog.givewell.org/tag/geomagnetic- storms/](https://blog.givewell.org/tag/geomagnetic-storms/)

<comment><USER14> This is an amazing read. "When magnetic cores saturate and the field strays outside the core (see my first post), wires and insulation can overheat and in effect burn. Hot spots manifest not as a flames (one hopes) but as chemical decomposition that forces gaseous byproducts into the oil, which can be monitored. In all of these eight transformers, degradation began right after storm activity and proceeded slowly, so that failure arrived in weeks or months rather than minutes."

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Ars Technica had a longer article on this: [https://arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/1859s-great- auroral-...](https://arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/1859s-great-auroral- stormthe-week-the-sun-touched-the-earth/)

</comment><comment><USER16> What satellite companies and energy providers should I be prepared to short in the event we are expecting another solar storm of this magnitude?

</comment><comment><USER17> are there any data centers that are shielded from this sort of event?

<comment><USER18> All of them. This wouldn't affect low power equipment, only transmission over long distances. As others have noted, it's not an EMP.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> If it happened again today, the event itself wouldn't be the thing you'd tell your grandchildren about. It would be the terrifying years afterwards as the world tried to put itself back together.

</comment><comment><USER20> Hmm, we always have a science fiction meme that says that says any civilisation that gets to our level of technology will wipe itself out with nuclear weapons or something. This seems like a more real risk, the technology gets sufficiently advanced that it cannot withstand any external shock. 1859 = fine, 2018 it would destroy capitalism and commerce. The same dark abyss we were staring down at the time of the GFC.

<comment><USER12> > more real risk

What's not real about the threat of nuclear bombs?</comment></comment>


Was ditching the headphone jack a good idea? - <AUTHOR> https://www.soundguys.com/was-ditching-the-headphone-jack-a-good-idea-13825/ <comment><USER2> I say no. I use my iPhone heavily as a synth or guitar processor etc. Bluetooth latency is too high to make it useable wirelessly so I require a hardwire into a mixer to perform. The iPhone has the lowest latency audio stack of smartphones when used with a wire. This is important and removing the headphone jack means dongles or latency. What makes this especially bad is that the iPhone camera connector dongle is already required when plugging in many MIDI controllers. This has prevented me from upgrading beyond my 6s as many of my apps are challenged without a real-time audio output that doesn't also use my lightning connector which I need for the camera connector.

<comment><USER3> This is the rub. With the removal of the jack, Apple is _telling_ us that their phones are not [music/audio] creators' tools. Apparently it's their desire that creators use, what, iPad? Their ever-disappointing line of laptops? The outdated Mac Pro? I just don't know.

I do know that from the entire collection of screen sizes and hardware configuration options I'd like to choose my mode of creation, but Apple seems to think that telling me "iPhone is not a creation device" is Just Fine®.

<comment><USER4> > Apparently it's their desire that creators use, what, iPad? Their ever- > disappointing line of laptops? The outdated Mac Pro? I just don't know.

Or maybe ... none of the above? Content creators are probably a tiny fraction of Apple's user base at this point. I think they just don't care.

<comment><USER5> It's a mistake. We're paying $1000+ for this tool that presents itself as a versatile information slinger, well I hope it can do more than Facebook, Instagram and Gmail. This is an amazing platform, completely damaged by its limited IO. Apple is moving away from its roots. Not good. Creators will go elsewhere, their desirable creations will become native elsewhere, and the sheep will follow.

<comment><USER6> Why try to appeal to the creators when people are willing to pay thousands of dollars for pretty social media boxes?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I was not irritated by the thickness or weight of my iPhone 6 and its headphone jack. I am regularly irritated by the fact that I can't charge my iPhone and plug in headphones at the same time.

Obviously I can plan around this, but it's gone from something I don't have to think about to something I have to think about.

<comment><USER8> This was originally going to read "Phenomenally stupid question, but why hasn't somebody brought out an adapter cable that provides both charging and a 3.5mm jack?"

But I figured I should google first. Does anybody have any firsthand experience with Belkin's adapter that lets you do both simultaneously? Asking since my wife's work phone just got "upgraded" and we found ourselves unable to listen to a podcast on our last road trip.

<comment><USER9> You may find this helpful

[https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2018/5/18/17369236/a...](https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2018/5/18/17369236/android- usb-c-charge-listen-headphone-jack-adapter)

If you're on Android the answer is no, there's no way to do it.

<comment><USER10> This was true until recently. A new product has come out:

[https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B07FCZY1ZB/](https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B07FCZY1ZB/)

I bought this for my essential phone two weeks ago and it does actually work, like reviews state. It's been wonderful to get that jack back.

Bluetooth, as cool as it is, has never been 100% reliable for me. Getting random choppy audio and charging headphone batteries is something I don't want to deal with anymore when I am sitting in bed. I tried it for nine months, and the experience sucked big time.

Bluetooth still works fine in my car, though. So I'll keep using it there.

<comment><USER11> _" This is the World's FIRST USB c to 3.5mm audio adapter that supports listening music from usb c phone and charging the phone simultaneously"_

Whelp, good thing those Android phone makers ensured this existed before pulling the plug ... oh, wait ...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I was totally on the hate train with how ridiculous it was to remove the headphone jack, and how unnecessary Bluetooth headphones were...

...but once I got my first pair of Bluetooth headphones and realized I never need to deal with tangled/frayed/broken/caught wires again, I'm never looking back. Charging turned out to be, surprisingly, a non-issue.

I'm totally convinced Bluetooth headphones are the way forwards, and it's silly to have a jack for old tech. And for the small x% of the time or x% of the users where things like latency or line-out are needed... there's a dongle, it works perfectly, and it's fine. And if you need to charge at the same time, get a dongle that charges at the same time.

That's the whole _point_ of dongles -- a smaller/simpler device for 90-99% of people, at the cost of a tiny bit more expensive/complex solution for the remaining 1-10%.

Feels like the right tradeoff to me.

<comment><USER13> Ugh, no. Those considerations are fine for people who are like you.

Some of us have different considerations and we're sick of being run over by these convenience freaks

To all the downvoters, these are some reasons:

* Low latency applications

* Existing high-end hardware one may own (old Sennheisers mop the floor with a pair of "high end" Beats)

* same port in use everywhere for past 50 years, there are a ridiculous amount of products for it

* Ability to connect a non-USB headphone amp

* Everybody understands it

* No need to charge your headphones(!)

* No stupidly expensive tech to license to make something as simple and dumb as headphones

* No stupidly complicated tech to master to make something as simple and dumb as headphones

* WHY would you put logic and circuitry in a simple mechanical device?? Do manufacturers just LOVE skyrocketing costs?

* Do any of these guys value simplicity in design any more? Or is tech charging full-steam into unnecessary complexity?

And on the subject of wireless standards:

* Other 2.4ghz wireless standards have way better range. (I used to work in a large factory-type building with literally thousands of consumer printers all turned and broadcasting their individualized ad-hoc 802.11 signals. We would have chronic issues with the Wi-Fi (on account of thousands of networks) and I could be on the other side of the building with my headphones and still get clear audio. (Oftentimes it would cut out depending on location but the range I saw was a good 3x what I could get with bluetooth)

* * *

C'mon this is like 100-year-old tech that everyone understands and loves, EXCEPT for the cable. Way for the technology makers to throw out the baby with the bathwater, so that they can sell you their crap all over again.

<comment><USER14> I have high end sennheisers and airbuds. The only time I pull out my sennheisers is when im doing recording or live sampling. Bluetooth is opensource, it's not overly complicated it's just new to you. This technology was already being used in live performances with no one complaining.

<comment><USER15> _it 's not overly complicated it's just new to you_

Download the Bluetooth specification and try to read it.

How is that not "overly complicated" compared to three copper wires?

<comment><USER14> Specifications are used to reference in conjunction with an implementation. There are many specifications I could point to that would overwhelm most engineers yet they use those standards just fine.

<comment><USER15> The point I'm making is that it is a very complex standard whose use-case goes far beyond carrying audio from a device on a person to the headphones in his/her ears.

To give another example, GSM is also a very complicated standard (or more precisely, set of standards) but no one would really advocate for all landlines in buildings to be replaced with non-mobile GSM phones attached to the wall.

<comment><USER16> ISDN and SIP are complicated standards, but telecom engineers _do_ advocate to their customers, whenever possible, to drop POTS in favour of VoIP softphone service run over the same lines.

VoIP-over-ISDN solutions are far easier to wire a large building for (it's just the existing ethernet drops, coming from the same switches the building already has, now carrying an additional VLAN); it removes many potential sources of interference; it increases voice quality; and it's just plain easier to deliver.

All that despite being, in pretty much every way, "more complicated."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I've got AirPods and I'm sold. I'm not going back to wired headphones.

Apple has got proximity-based pairing nailed so well, it's easier than plugging a jack in. I can connect to other iPhones as easily as mine. Macs logged in to my iCloud don't need pairing at all. It works like it should, not like a typical Bluetooth crap.

The charging case is more convenient to carry than a bundle of wires. And of course I can walk around, zip my jacket, etc. without minding the wire.

It's more expensive, proprietary, it doesn't work well for some people. But I can definitely see why having AirPods Apple thought wired headphones are the next floppy drive.

<comment><USER18> I love my AirPods. I find them fairly comfortable and the audio quality is fine, perfect for podcasts (theory: the rise of AirPods and rise of podcasts are related).

However, AirPods don't require the removal of the headphone jack! The removal of the headphone jack is still so consumer hostile: it serves zero benefit to anyone apart from bluetooth accessory makers. If Apple really was serious about advancing bluetooth headphones, they would _at least_ license the W1 for the pairing magic to other manufacturers.

Good Bluetooth headphones AND headphone jacks can exist at the same time! Anyone arguing for the removal of headphone jacks aren't grounded in any sort of reality tbh.

<comment><USER19> > Anyone arguing for the removal of headphone jacks aren't grounded in any > sort of reality tbh.

The problem is that there isn't really a good argument to keep the headphone jack. It's a redundant port because lightning/usbC and Bluetooth both handle audio. You would need a strong justification to keep it when you could use that space for other stuff in the phone.

<comment><USER18> No.

What _disadvantages_ come from the removal of a ubiquitous headphone interconnect that's been on our devices for years? iPhone's have gotten _thicker_ since the removal of the headphone jack. Apple's made iPods much thinner than any of the iPhones, and they all had headphone jacks.

There's no problem. It's not redundant if you want to charge your phone and listen to audio at the same time - I have those Bose headphones noice cancelling headphones that everyone travels with. To use them, I need to carry around an adapter which is a pain. When I fly, I have to choose whether to charge my phone or listen to audio.

Look, I love my iPhone X, but I've gotten absolutely nothing out of losing the headphone jack. It's only come at costs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Is there enough bandwidth available in a cubicle farm or 787 for everyone to use their airpods?

I doubt it. Headphone jack was a nice reliable piece of hardware. Thank goodness some other brands are rooted in reality.

<comment><USER21> Headphone jack is a nice reliable piece of hardware. But it comes at the expense of more space for batteries or features that more people will use.

Ethernet is more reliable than WiFi. Power is more reliable than batteries. But the world doesn't want wires so Apple has to listen.

<comment><USER22> OnePlus did a poll that got the answer 88% of customers wanted them to keep the headphone jack. Which they then got rid of anyway. Presumably the poll was hoped or expected to reinforce a decision already made.

It's very clear consumers aren't clamouring for losing the jack. There are a lot more dollars selling wireless and they have an inherent limited life thanks to battery lifespan.

The SE, with a headphone jack, is roughly the same thickness as the new XS without. They both have bluetooth for those who might like wireless.

That's not Apple or whoever listening, that's them imposing.

<comment><USER21> Of course consumers want the headphone jack. Nobody likes having any functionality taken away.

But did the poll ask them which they want: Thinner iPhone/No Headphone or Thicker iPhone/Headphone

<comment><USER22> The XS is 7.7mm thick, the SE 7.6mm. It's not a relevant question.

Were the new generation of phones _thinner_ than the jack I'd have to concede you may have a point, but that is not what we're getting.

If the question becomes "would you like 0.2% more battery or a headphone jack?" I doubt many would vote to remove.

<comment><USER23> I doubt the difference will only be 0.2%.

<comment><USER24> My rough calculation is that you get 165 mAh for every 1 cubic cm. A headphone jack will take approximately 1 cubic centimeter inside the case.

The iPhone X battery is rated for 2716 mAh.

So if you could use 100% of that volume efficiently for increasing battery volume, I think battery capacity increases approximately 6%.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I'm more angry at google for removing them from the pixel than for apple.

I want to vote with my dollars, but at the moment the options for phones with headphone jacks and no crapware preinstalled are exceedingly limited.

<comment><USER26> I have found OnePlus does the trick for me. I actually prefer if it to any of the mainstream phones.

<comment><USER27> I gather OnePlus is removing the jack in the 6T though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> > _With the new iPhones coming out today, I wanted to revisit the whole Apple > vs. headphone jack fiasco._

You keep using that word, fiasco. I don't think it means what you think it means. It doesn't mean "hoopla". It means "disaster/failure".

With the phones selling more than any model before them, I'd hardly call that decision a fiasco for Apple.

<comment><USER29> But Apple isn't the top selling phone any more. It's the Galaxy models. The only time new Apple phones retake the top spot is when they first release a new model.

<comment><USER28> > _But Apple isn 't the top selling phone any more. It's the Galaxy models._

The iPhone rarely was the top selling phone and never had the majority of the market (though it was of course a single company against 4-5 other companies anyway).

It was the phone that caught most of the top end (pricy) market and almost all of the profits, and it remains that.

That said, not sure what's this "isn't the top selling phone any more" is supposed to mean. The headphone-jack-less iPhone X killed it in the market:

[https://www.cnet.com/news/iphone-x-was-best-selling- smartpho...](https://www.cnet.com/news/iphone-x-was-best-selling-smartphone- in-early-2018/)

<comment><USER29> That report is EXACTLY what I mean. Apple is having to push the narrative based on segmented data in order to appear to have market dominance. 'Early 2018' is when they released their last model - and prior to the S9 release. Even then, Apple was barely beating Galaxy models 2 and 3 years older.

That report was the moment I knew Apple had lost their position as the leader in the market, because they had to take specific dates in time to say they were best-selling...as opposed to a few years ago, when they were best selling all year long in a runaway.

<comment><USER28> Err, Apple always posts their results quarter by quarter.

Besides, not even sure what you're going about. Apple never sold the most phones.

If anything it's the opposite: they're catching up to Samsung:

[https://www.statista.com/chart/7941/apple-vs-samsung- smartph...](https://www.statista.com/chart/7941/apple-vs-samsung-smartphone- shipments/)

<comment><USER29> Do you even read what you post links to? You are posting ONE quarter results from winter of 2018 that completely backs up what I just wrote. You need to at least review what you are randomly Googling.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> While I'm definitely not a fan of losing the headphone jack, and don't love not being able to use my headphones and charge my phone, I do see one positive side effect, and I wonder if Apple is doing it on purpose.

You can now buy $20 bluetooth earbuds from Anker that are pretty decent. Apple saying "guess what, everybody: you love bluetooth" has forced the market to respond, and that whole price-down-quality-up thing is really starting to happen.

This, of course, is of no use to people who depend on minimal latency. It will be a very long time, if ever, before bluetooth can match hardwired latency.

What we really need next from Apple is for them to replace lightning with USB-C. I'd love to see the ability to _choose to_ externalize the DAC+amplifier without buying either a lightning-only accessory or a camera adapter. Oh, and also be able to charge the phone while we're at it.

<comment><USER31> Regarding latency: although I love my AirPods and I do not miss the headphone jack, there's one real application that I doubt will ever be adequate over Bluetooth: monitoring the audio while you're playing electric guitar through an amp simulator on your phone. The tiniest amount of latency really stands out while you're playing.

<comment><USER32> similarly: wireless microphones for blogging.

<comment><USER33> Could you elaborate? Do you mean the latency for wireless microphones is unacceptable for dictation, or what?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I like wires. Every time i can, i choose to use a wire. Be it for internet or headphones.

The reason for my wired preference is security. I trust cables more than i trust wireless.

Bluetooth is insecure. I dont think it is secure to walk around in a mall with your bluetooth turned on. (correct me if i am wrong)

Wifi WPA2 is probably secure. However wifi WEP is completely insecure. For many years WEP has been widely used. Another problem with wifi are fake networks that use the same name as a public network.

Another interesting fact with wired headphones is they wont fall down directly on the floor, because of the wires. The same goes with the computer mouse.. sometimes it moves to the edge of the table and might want to fall.. the wire will hold it.

Wireless keyboards is definitively a no go since teorically its possible to passively listen for pressed keys just like a keylogger.

Wireless technology sure looks better without all the wires, however when people choose convenience(wireless), they lose some security.

So when i can, i choose wires.

<comment><USER35> > I dont think it is secure to walk around in a mall with your bluetooth > turned on. (correct me if i am wrong)

You are wrong. I don't recall any Bluetooth security issues from just having Bluetooth _on_ or from having an established connection. Those things are pretty well solved in all vaguely modern wireless standards.

The issues are always around the initial connection and key exchange. PIN- based pairing has various flaws in Bluetooth, but Bluetooth headphones use "Just Works" pairing, which I don't think has had any issues, other than the _design_ compromise that it is vulnerable to MitM. That is vanishingly unlikely to happen with Bluetooth headphones though.

WPA2 is secure if you use a very strong password. WEP is basically extinct.

<comment><USER36> Just a year ago, a remote execution vulnerability was discovered in bluetooth stacks across major OSes: [https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/09/12/bluetooth_bugs_bede...](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/09/12/bluetooth_bugs_bedevil_billions_of_devices/)

> "Just having Bluetooth on puts you at risk," said Izrael.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Ended up attaching my dongle to my headphones with a Velcro cable tie after forgetting it one too many times (I need to take it on and off all the time to connect it to my Mac, as it doesn't have a Lightning port - the fact that that situation exists feels like an omen that Apple aren't quite firing on all cylinders). It sucks and looks stupid but it kind of solves the problem.

I wish they'd not removed the port, it's a real pain and I'm not willing to go wireless until there's a way to do it with zero latency. I'll be really disappointed if the new iPad removes the headphone socket as it's pretty essential for music making on the go.

<comment><USER38> I use a dongle too. I got it permanently attached on my headphones.

i think he makes a false dichotomy in his article. He is not bringing up a dongle at all and makes the choice to either a phone with a 3.5mm output or bluetooth. I would give this more credibility if this was discussed as well.

<comment><USER39> It was called out in the comments, and a link provided to the product page on Apple.com with nothing more than a "nuh-uh" to accompany it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I get why some people are annoyed, but it's not like the 3.5mm jack was so great.

If you forget the massive number of compatible headphones in existence, the 3.5mm jack isn't that great. If we were designing the ideal audio interface today, it would not be the 3.5mm jack.

For an audiophile experience, you'd better love the DAC built into your phone. You also probably need to live with whatever audio processing parameters the phone manufacturer chose because probably few, if any, are exposed. You're largely shut out of control over audio processing details.

Meanwhile, for mobile use you, need to thether your head to your phone and manage the cord. Not a great fit for mobile uses because you don't want to move around too freely. It gets worse in the oft-mentioned scenario of charging while listening, because now you're generally tethering your head to a wall or at least a battery pack. Not great.

The 3.5mm jack also doesn't have a decent protocol for on-device listening controls. There are workarounds so maybe you can play/pause or skip tracks, but then again maybe not. There are wide compatibility problems. Forget about anything advanced.

It's not like lightning connector is perfect, and neither is Bluetooth. I'm just pointing out that the 3.5mm jack isn't a no-brainer by any stretch and it makes sense to look for something better, whether or no you think Apple or other OEMs succeeded.

<comment><USER41> > For an audiophile experience, you'd better love the DAC built into your > phone.

that's why i use lg's v series of phones that include a high-end audio dac.

> Meanwhile, for mobile use you, need to tether your head to your phone and > manage the cord. Not a great fit for mobile uses because you don't want to > move around too freely.

that's a false argument because the inclusion of an audio jack does not prevent the use of bluetooth. i use high-end headphones at work, home, and in certain travel situations like a plane and use bluetooth everywhere else like with my car and wireless bluetooth speakers.

you said the 3.5mm jack would not be the interface designed today, but yet, you didn't come up with an alternative. the sound with a proper dac and headphones and a physical audio jack is incomparable to bluetooth and bluetooth headphones. and having the physical audio jack makes it much easier to do what i want with the audio when i want. whether it's attaching to a bose bluetooth speaker or outputting audio to sample on my op-1, it's the best of both worlds.

the problem i have with apple is that they have never given a compelling and logical reason for removing the audio jack. my lg v35 has the audio jack plus a high-end audio dac and yet the design is every bit as sleek and compact as the iphone x phones, in fact, maybe even more so because the camera doesn't protrude.

so all of this is pointless arguing simply because apple can't even answer the question of "why", as in why even remove it in the first place.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Apple is pursuing the wireless future, as simple as that. Be it audio, data transfer, or even power. In the case of headphone jack, they pursue that goal by fixing the bluetooth flaws not by content with what we have right now. Is it a worthy goal to pursue? Time will tell.

<comment><USER43> I am not against the future but shouldn't we have the alternative ready before we kill the 'previous' version of something? For me the new wireless headphones are not an option because of lack of hi-fi options and because of the need of charging frequently. If we had the same exact experience (great sound quality for lossless and once a year charging) than I would be more inclined to buy it.

<comment><USER21> But you're part of an insignificant minority.

People charge their phone everyday so it isn't a massive deal to charge your AirPods as well. And the sound quality right now is more than good enough especially given that you're asking people to tradeoff their data usage.

<comment><USER44> What makes you think it is normal to charge your phone every day? I charge mine on average every 4th day when the battery has run down to about 30%-35% (or at around 12 hours of screen time). I use two phones, one for daily use and another for work in the forest/on the farm. The daily phone is a Xiaomi Redmi Note 5 which can last for up to a week on a charge, the work phone a Motorola Defy of around 8 years old which now lasts for around 4 days, it used to last for a week as well. While I might be a bit of an outlier with these devices I don't see charging a phone daily as a norm to be espoused. In the age of "dumb" phones charging the thing once a week was the norm, not the exception. If these devices are to be the go-to for all things digital they _should_ have longer autonomy.

<comment><USER43> Exactly this. People don't realize that almost nobody needs better CPUs in the phones and almost everybody would benefit from higher capacity battery. If batteries were developing at the same pace as CPUs we would have batteries that last for years with a single charge. For me the ideal phone is iPhone 6s that does everything that I have ever wanted to do with a phone, and even more that I do not actually need. The only missing feature is a long lasting battery.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> I am still pissed at Apple for removing the jack and I held on to my iPhone 6s, until now. I ordered myself an iPhone Xs Max, but only because Shure now offers a Lightning cable for their IEMs. I use the SE846. The biggest issue with the Xs is still, that I cant charge and listen at the same time without using a dongle. And since I travel a lot, this could make me reconsider to buy Apple in the future.

Apple really lost points for removing the jack.

<comment><USER46> Not pissed enough to reconsider the heavy iphone xs max investment apparently, which, in the end, might have made a difference compared to continuously feeding them money.

<comment><USER45> That's true. For me, the advantages of a stable Apple ecosystem outweigh the issue with the missing headphone jack. The fact that I can still use and upgrade my iPhone 6s is validation. With Android, I always fear that I don't get updates anymore after just two years. And I never liked Google's app store. There too many malicious apps in the store.

I probably use the new iPhone at least as long as I used the old one. The update cycles are getting longer as these phones get more powerful.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> I'm pretty disgruntled about losing the 3.5mm jack, but I don't buy this idea that Apple did it to sell wireless Beats, for one reason: the product lineup _sucks_.

Apple knows how to make truly great audio hardware; the AirPods really are extraordinary. But the Beats lineup clearly hasn't received any serious attention, as evidenced by two things:

1) they still sell wireless hardware that _doesn 't_ have the W1 chip, _two years_ after it was first released

2) for God's sake, all their devices charge over micro-USB!

<comment><USER48> >>> but I don't buy this idea that Apple did it to sell wireless Beats, for one reason: the product lineup sucks.

Counter argument. The product lineup sucks so they had to help the sales in any way possible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Reading these threads, I feel like I am the only person in the world who has had problems with headphones jacks.

There's a big scuzzy pop when you plug in or remove the jack while speakers are on.

I've had several devices get crud in the jack, so that you have to rotate and push and position the jack just right to get sound.

Still, I appreciate having the wire and I wish that USB-C headphones had done better. I would have liked to get phones with two USB-C ports.

<comment><USER50> You're not the only one. But now I feel like I'm the only one who has the exact same issues with Lightning connections.

I get the same pop when jacking in using the Lightning-to-3.5 dongle. And I mean, making the 3.5 connection first, Lightning second.

Also, Lighting (and I suspect USB C) female connectors are dust, lint, and particulate magnets. What happens when those get fouled, the gold plating on the Lightning cable is scraped off one or more of the pins. So then you have either a broken cable or one that will charge but only if oriented correctly. So same issue, rotate the connector and maybe it works.

AND the thing that pisses me off the most...I have to carry around some old earbuds with the 3.5 in case I want to watch some Netflix on my MacBook Pro because I can't plug my new EarPids into it. There's no Lightning jack on any Mac. And there's not even a dongle for that use case. All the USB M to Lightning F are for charging only.

<comment><USER51> Huh, I got 3.5mm earphones and an adapter with my phone. Also, get AirPods. Unless you call for several hours uninterrupted every day, like somebody up thread claimed.

<comment><USER52> Airpods? Lets see. MacRumors Buyer's Guide says "caution - approaching end of life cycle" [1]

Furthermore they look terrible. They're white, and they look like I have an Oral B toothbrush in my ears. I have no option to avoid either of that? Thank you, no.

As for the discussion: I'd like to be able to enter a store, listening to music, with all my radios off. It is called airplane mode. Was removing 1 gbit ethernet from laptops a good idea? I miss it, but having an adequate amount of USB ports solves the issue. Why not have two 2 USB-C ports on a smartphone and be done with it?

[1] [https://buyersguide.macrumors.com/#AirPods](https://buyersguide.macrumors.com/#AirPods)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> I recently needed a new phone and ended up buying a Nokia 8. The fact that it had a headphone jack was one of my main reasons for selecting it. I'm not going to ditch my collection of high quality functioning headphones just to spend more money buying new ones and getting worse audio quality.

</comment><comment><USER54> I use the headphones for phone calls, I often work remotely / travel and have maybe 3-4 hours on the phone a day on average. Wireless headphones don't have a mic I can hold close to my mouth, and headsets look doorky, especially if I'm travelling. Not to mention that if the battery runs out I'm stuck holding the phone to my ear (no ability to mute) or on speakerphone (can't work in an open office or public environment).

Not being able to charge the phone and be on the phone at the same time is incredibly annoying. Sometimes I take video calls on my laptop and I can't plug the lightning headphones into my laptop without an adapter.

I didn't think it would annoy me so much but there are times when I need to get work done and this gets in the way, and the alternatives just aren't reliable enough.

Having a thinner phone is irrelevant because I have to put a case around it anyway.

It's frustrating that we have so many different connectors (lightning, 3.5mm, Bluetooth, hdmi, mini usb, usb C, usb A, MagSafe, ...). I wish apple would pick one and go for it (usb C maybe?)

<comment><USER55> Why do you need to hold the microphone close to your mouth?

I often answer calls whilst wearing these cheap Mpow earphones. Even with background traffic noise people can still hear me [http://amzn.eu/d/8zNp1kz](http://amzn.eu/d/8zNp1kz)

<comment><USER54> People can't hear in some cases, especially as I work with people from all over the world and English is often a second language. You need to be 100% clear, consistently without failure.

Also, it looks weird if I don't pull the mic closer. With your headphones people can't tell you're on the phone.

We've had telephones for over 100 years so I don't think it's too much to ask.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> no it was not, some of us still like our high quality wired headphones. with that said im also a great believer in having a dedicated device, while ill occasionally use my phone for convenience i generally use a separate device for music as it can provide much better sound quality and not hammer my phones already under capable battery but im a little more serious about my audio than most people.

it does however highlight an interesting point, most portable devices make a consideration for air travel in their design, the dell xps15 for example has a 97wh battery because 99wh is the limit for taking into an airplane cabin, yet turn on airplane mode on your phone and it disables all wireless connections, bluetooth included so if you were relying on your airpods to provide your in flight music youre out of luck

<comment><USER57> You can turn on airplane mode, then turn Bluetooth on specifically.

<comment><USER56> is that an iphone specific feature? (im an android user so not that familiar with ios) if not ive just not noticed it before

i guess it highlights how stupid the ban on wireless connectivity on planes is (not like it wasnt blatantly obvious that theyd never let a vehicle carrying hundreds of lives into the sky with unsheilded components that could be brought down by anyone with a ten quid nokia)

<comment><USER58> It works on my Android phone, and the last few flights I've taken have specifically said "we don't have WiFi, but you can activate airplane mode then turn on Bluetooth".

(Your writing would be much easier to read with capital letters and apostrophes.)

<comment><USER56> probably and were i not jobless, homeless and using a knackered old laptop with several non working keys including the at/apostrophe key and incredibly intermittent shift keys id likely use them more often but such is life

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> I like bluetooth headphones, but even the airpods have trouble connecting to my iphone at times, and UI to connect the headphones is a complicated 5+ tap process. And if they aren't airpods, then I have to go into the settings app specifically and add 3 more taps for even more annoyance.

And when I tap to connect a specific bluetooth headphone, it may or may not connect. If it doesn't, its an even more annoying process of turning bluetooth on and off and the headphones on and off to get a connection.

It's this part of bluetooth alone that is the most annoying part of them. On top of apple not giving a good dedicated UI to managing your bluetooth headphones. Burying it 3-5 screens deep is not a good user experience.

Too bad android is a security and privacy mess.

</comment><comment><USER60> So Apple did it to fatten the bottom line of their Beats subsidiary, which currently owns about half the Bluetooth headphone market. So why is everyone else dropping the jack on their phones? They don't have a similar profitable arrangement. It seems like they're just pissing-off potential customers, but without an income stream to compensate.

<comment><USER61> It also reduces the bill of materials (cheaper and easier manufacturing), saves a decent chunk of space inside a very compact electronics device, and greatly improves ease of maintaining water resistance.

Not saying I like the trend, just that it does make sense even if you don't sell wireless headphones too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> Removing the headphone jack, but allowing the option to use a dongle, I can live with. What really drives me nuts is all these (expensive) wireless headphones and earbuds, but the batteries are not replaceable. After a year or few they basically become useless because the batteries end up degrading and lasting only a fraction of when they were new.

</comment><comment><USER63> I put a mid-range Kenwood head unit in my road trip car last year. So far only one person has been able to figure out how to pair their phone to it over Bluetooth (the instruction manual is in the glove compartment; doesn't help). The Bluetooth audio skips. The audio jack requires no set-up, works 100% of the time, and never skips.

<comment><USER64> Maybe that is more the fault of the head unit than anything else. Several years ago I bought and installed an aftermarket stereo which could play mp3s from a usb stick. I think it was a Kenwood in the $150 - $200 range. I recall being stunned by how horrible and behind-the-times the UI and menus were. I thought "all they had to do was copy the iPod menu layout" (or any other decent mp3 player).

That and other experiences with car infotainment systems have lead me to believe that any electronics that go in a car are at least 5 years behind their non-automobile equivalents.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> Problem with non-wireless headphones is that they break. One side of the headphones stops playing sounds; you can sometimes spin the connector and get the sound back, but that gets annoying, and it stops working eventually. The less wires and connectors, the less things can break, no?

<comment><USER66> Cheaply made products that break easily are always a problem; there are certainly a lot of terrible headphones on the market, with or without wires.

However, the problem you are describing:

> One side of the headphones stops playing sounds; you can sometimes spin the > connector and get the sound back, [...] and it stops working eventually.

I suspect that might be terrible quality _wires_ , not necessarily the headphones. The quality of patch cable at the usual big-box consumer stores has fallen dramatically over the last ~5-10 years. It can be really difficult to find a cable hasn't changed the outer protective wrapping from traditional softer rubber(?) to some sort of cheap plastic. The wrapping on the new cables can harden badly over as little as 2-3 months, leading to sharp kinks/bends forming over time that break the delicate wires inside.

The newer cables also tend to lack protective stiffeners at the ends for protection against damaging the wires if the cables is pulled at a right angle to the connector.

Once the wire has started to break, you might be able to get it working again for a while by turning the connector (if the break is at or near the connector) or otherwise moving the cable until the broken ends of the conductor touch.

On the other hand, most of the cables that I bought in the late-80s/early-90s still work fine. (they never formed permanent kinds) The problem is race-to- the-bottom we're seeing everywhere as businesses try to squeeze every last cent out their products. This will happen to wireless headphones eventually, but for now they are in a honeymoon period where they are still a "new(-ish) tech" that is experimenting with new designs. Eventually the value engineers and must-meet-growth-targets management will get around to "optimizing" their quality and longevity too.

<comment><USER67> > traditional softer rubber(?)

FWIW audio cables in consumer stores were pretty much always PVC, though, as you like many other people discovered, there are quality plastics and cheap plastics. The former will last quite a number of years before turning hard and brittle, the latter won't, smells badly and probably gives you cancer for free, too.

Speaker, microphone and guitar cables for studio / stage use often have rubber sheathing (~neoprene), though many are just higher quality PVC.

> The newer cables also tend to lack protective stiffeners at the ends for > protection against damaging the wires if the cables is pulled at a right > angle to the connector.

Using the tiniest of ferrules seems to be a conscious design choice, though incorrect material and manufacture are commonly seen as well. In any case, a bad design that's poorly manufactured is not going to work.

As usual, non-consumer products don't have the problem, at all.

> The problem is race-to-the-bottom we're seeing everywhere as businesses try > to squeeze every last cent out their products.

While that's certainly true, the ali/bangood-mentality also has to do with it. "Oh look, I can get $thisThing for 2.5 $ delivered from China, which normally costs 10 $". A compounding problem is of course, that the 10 $ store item is the same as the 2.5 $ Ali item, so you actually need to turn to the proper online store to get the quality matching price point.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> I see another reason for Apple to exclude headphone jack from iPhone. Now third-party accessories makers can't bypass Apple's Lightning certification by using headphone jack for data transfer. For example, Square used headphone jack for their card reader.

<comment><USER69> You may be on to something here. It might just have been a control/money issue. Not a technical issue at all :-(

It may also be related to water proofing , eliminating another source of water risk.

<comment><USER68> It's definitely not a waterproofing issue. They have waterproof lightning socket with exposed contacts, therefore they can make 3.5mm one. Apple's rivals — Samsung and Sony both have examples of waterproof phones with 3.5mm jack.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> > Audiophiles probably aren't too keen on being unable to listen to high- > bitrate files.

Ignoring issues of latency and connection robustness, is this a bandwidth limitation of Bluetooth or is it that the driver/codec support isn't there? Or is it audiophile hyperbole?

There's no technical reason why you couldn't stream lossless digital audio to a pair of headphones, which might well have a better DAC chipset than the phone.

<comment><USER71> Bluetooth radios generally operate at an order of magnitude lower power than wifi or cellular radios, especially in LE mode.

Really the Bluetooth protocol is _mostly_ just a ultra low power 802.11. It has more channels but they are thinner bands are only 1-2 Mbit (depending on classic or LE mode).

That being said its not really a bandwidth limitation. One device can use multiple channels and thus you can easily get, say, the 6 Mbit that DVD quality PCM takes up.

It is more that being so low power means bluetooth gets pummeled with a lot of inference. This isn't much of a problem if you are using one channel and alternating to avoid hot regions but the 2.4 band is super congested. Trying to drive constant 6+ Mbit through Bluetooth losslessly would take way more power than most Bluetooth devices are capable of or willing to spend to accomplish it.

<comment><USER72> There are codecs which make Bluetooth audio suck less, but they are a fragmented mess. The two really popular ones are AAC and AptX. iPhones support only AAC while Android phones might either not support either or support only AptX. Sony has its own proprietary codec LDAC which only works with their headphones. To make matters worse, not all headphones support both AptX and AAC.

<comment><USER73> Add to that the fact none of those are codecs I'm interested in. Give me flac/opus.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER74> No, it is not a good idea. It actually is a massive pain in the butt for iPad labs where we issue headphones to keep the students from getting distracted with each other. Now, the new iPads are rumored to not include the headphone jack. That is just going to be wonderful buying a bunch of adapters that can get lost or stolen.

Also, how the heck many things do I need a charger for now? Its bad enough they created a mouse that cannot be used during charging because of the poor placement of the charging port. If I was to go Bluetooth with the headphones, I need to buy a new cart with additional chargers for each headphone. Never mind loosing the damn things or their cost.

From an accessibility point of view, I take it Apple's design team has never heard of Talking ATM[1].

1) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talking_ATM](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talking_ATM)

</comment><comment><USER75> I've never met a Bluetooth device that connected and worked 100% of the time like wired headphones do. $10 headphones these days sound like $100 headphones from ten years ago. The technology has already peaked. There's no reason to spend more or to settle for a technology like Bluetooth that fails to work on a consistent basis. None whatsoever. I will never choose to buy a phone without a headphone jack because of that. It's that simple. Not to mention the low audio quality of Bluetooth. This is definitely an example of an inferior technology being pushed out simply for profits to replace a superior one.

</comment><comment><USER76> Not for me. (Addressing the general industry trend)

The way I see it, taking a feature away needs to be justified with some proportional advantage.

The parts themselves are pretty cheap, so the only argument against the port is space. Apple did not use the space for anything useful (same battery , same features , more expensive). I have heard water proofing as an argument, but many manufacturers can do both & the jack is more useful than water proofing to me.

As I see it, manufacturers took a away a relatively useful feature for nothing in return.

The decision was very much guided by greed, and that very much irks me.

</comment><comment><USER77> I think so. 3.5mm wasn't always a standard, it used to be 1/4". 3.5mm is a consumer standard, replacing it with Bluetooth makes more sense. I say this as someone who does Pro Audio stuff, I just don't use bluetooth for that. I've usually had to hook up a 3.5mm to 1/4" adapter for some headphones anyways. I have a 48 channel patch bay everything's wired into. Why would I complain about having to use a dongle to get non-latent audio for pro-purposes on my Phone seems a little absurd given the way most other pro-equipment behaves. And there's a dongle if people really care, and it came for free with my phone. I'd rather use bluetooth headphones anyways for most stuff, for convenience.

If you need pro-gear, there's usually a pro-option. Sometimes form factors change and you need to swap out some of your gear, it happens. Anyways, 3.5mm wasn't ever the 'pro' standard. It's a consumer level adaptation, and so is Bluetooth. I have no problem with it.

</comment><comment><USER78> Absolutely no. The idea of introducing one universal connector standard itself sounds reasonable but it still is a way ahead of time. Nothing should be "ditched" before the new standard and its ecosystem matures (do you remember for how long did USB co-exist with COM&LPT and for how long did ISA slots co- exist with PCI? - that was good!). Also one port is not enough, I want to connect my wired headphones and a power bank to my cellphone at the same time without using any additional dongles! And at last but not at least there are things tat are so good (with simplicity of their technology nature contributing to this) even while being a very old invention that inventing reasons to ditch them is either hypocrisy (aren't big corporations pushing digital audio transfer technologies just to facilitate vendor lock-ins and DRMs?) or onanism. Do we really need to reinvent a wheel just because it is not patented?

</comment><comment><USER79> It's a big red herring when someone tells you "I have high end headphones and need hp output", or "I record my guitar into iPhone and need a jack".

\- if you are really an audiophile you will have at least a Dragonfly or similar feeding your expensive cans off of USB. You would not use iPhone's (previous) tiny dac/amp. Also note that iPads still have a builtin DAC/amp and that they are, in fact, really really good.

\- Same for music making on iPhone. You will have one of many audio interfaces for iOS. I mean, come on, you are not recording guitars into your pc over a builtin audio input, surely?

I don't believe this whole "cornering the market" argument. I do believe removing unnecessary hardware and making way for bigger battery/thinner phones or whatever other benefit may come out of it.

</comment><comment><USER80> With the universal disappearance of the jack, I can't help thinking that there are behind-the-scenes pressures and incentives driving it.

As in television (and so, movies on television), all analog links in the chain of delivery are being driven out.

Even if you agree with that (and I don't), this means that simultaneously, any and all other use cases for these analog channels are simply fucked. Too bad, screw you.

Big entertainment, and its big dollars, monopolizing the platform for its own benefit.

I don't know this. I just can't help suspecting it -- not just out of thin air, though, but rather based upon what I've read about how these industries work and advocate, in general and in other specific cases.

</comment><comment><USER81> It was a great idea because the removal of the headphone jack serves a lightning rod for everything anti-Apple, and drowns out other, more serious and valid issues with their HW and SW quality. There are a lot of real problems with their products to complain about, but all those valid complaints are drowned out by the rage over the stupid headphone jack. It's been two years, and people still can't get over it, and the press can't stop mentioning it. Great for Apple, because that's the only problem that gets air time.

</comment><comment><USER82> I think this is a false comparison. If USB-C had been better defined and chosen by all manufacturers, we wouldn't have had a problem with replacing the headphone jack I feel.

</comment><comment> what-the-grump Oh man, I've been using my 6s all this time and forgot. Just when I was thinking about upgrading to the Xs, this thread is a reminder of why I've been holding off.

May do another year with the 6s.

</comment><comment><USER83> Actually it worked out to the best for me. There's two occasions where I use headphones: mowing the grass and working out. In both cases the headphone wire gets in the way and causes problems yet I was too cheap to buy a Bluetooth headphone set. By forcing me to buy Bluetooth headphones (I didn't buy iBuds - I'm way too cheap for that!) Apple actually improved the quality of my life. Even if only a somewhat minor aspect.

<comment><USER73> I agree about those two specific circumstances. But just because you need no headphone port to be motivated to buy bluetooth headphones isn't justification. I have a long public transport commute where I _don 't_ want to use bluetooth headphones for many reasons. When I'm mowing or working out, I can use my bluetooth headphones. I get the choice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER84> I agree... mostly. Till the end when the author portrays the lack of a headphone jack as a complete block to using TRS connectors. iPhones do come with working wired headphones and at least used to include a Lightning-TRS adapter (it can be had for $9 if not). Not ideal, no. Offensive, maybe. But it's a ridiculous overstatement to say that this requires users to spend hundreds of dollars on Bluetooth replacements.

</comment><comment><USER85> These jacks come from, not the 20th century, but the 19th century! It boggles my mind how something we've have had since the 1880s is suddenly obsolete. There's a plethora of devices in existence manufactured over a span of decades that all interchangeably work together, and we toss it now out for what? Do we really believe that all devices for the next 130 years will work on the same bluetooth protocol?

</comment><comment><USER86> I do not have experience with the iPhone and Apple's Bluetooth headphones, but I've tried a bunch of 3rd party brands with moto g and oneplus smartphones. Sadly at home we only have 2.4Ghz for Wifi, which means it's absolutely less than ideal to stream something over wifi and listen to it on wireless headphones.

I'm surprised this is not a problem for the iPhone, or I've never read anything about it yet.

</comment><comment><USER87> As someone about to board a plane with my SO, one problem that would be nice is if apple devices could do simultaneous devices connected. My iPad plus headphone splitter is ok, but, I'm mostly on Bluetooth only headphones. If you want to share a listen, you need wired ones. Seems like they could fix this audio stack to allow this, or maybe we need a big upgrade to Bluetooth hardware to allow it.

<comment><USER88> Not saying that this is a proper solution for everyone, but Bose does support listening to the same phone with two pairs of headphones. You would just have to pair them.

I agree that this would be useful to have at the OS level though!

</comment></comment><comment><USER89> I'll never forget when I realized people were paying for ringtones. Why the heck would you do that? I just downloaded some and stuck them on my phone.

Then I bought Star Wars and watched it at home. VHS for the win! Then the same frickin' movie came out on DVD. I decided to buy it. Why would I do that? Because I was sold on the feature combination of DVDs. Then BluRay. I bought again. Why? The movie had new features, and BluRay was more cool.

I had become those people I was laughing at with the ringtones, spending money for stuff that either should be free or was basically worthless. I love movies. I have a lot of movies in various formats. But re-mixes of the same stupid movie? I'm being taken for a ride.

Now they keep the same movie, the same plot, the same hardware -- but re-make it with currently-popular actors. Why would people pay for this....I asked myself as I sat in the movie theater a couple of months ago.

There's less and less "new people creating new things that enriches society" and more and more "You bought X, you'll really love X1!"

Anybody that doesn't know where headphoneless-phones is going hasn't been paying attention. Ten years from now, when they've finally locked down DRM audio from the seller to the actual device you listen to it on? They'll be charging you multiple times to _listen to the same sound_.

 _Plus_ they make money on the hardware. Double bonus points for getting you on a hardware upgrade gravy train also locked in by vendor.

</comment><comment><USER19> Terrible article that, like most comments and articles about the headphone jack, completely ignores Lightning and USB C adapters.

It's much easier to make the case that removing the headphone jack is a huge money grab and inconvenience if you ignore the fact that a $9 dongle _included with your phone_ lets you listen with any pair of headphones you want.

<comment><USER90> Possibly more annoying is that he ignores the Lightning to 3.5mm cables that are available. Those nice expensive headphones all have replaceable cables, you don't even need a dongle.

[https://www.amazon.com/Belkin-Audio-Cable-Lightning- Connecto...](https://www.amazon.com/Belkin-Audio-Cable-Lightning- Connector/dp/B07CY1GMN9)

</comment></comment><comment><USER91> How much of this is due to media companies trying to eliminate analog audio and video outputs so as to better enforce DRM?

<comment><USER92> I suspect this is the primary motivator, and oddly far down in the discussion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER93> It was an absolutely terrible idea. I use the headphone jack on my phone every single day, either for my high-quality earphones that I'm not in a hurry to replace, or for plugging in to a PA or stereo at a party, to stream music.

I don't want to carry a single around, and the 3.5mm jack is _the_ standard for analog stereo audio.

<comment><USER94> Not only audio, but now my selfie stick is irrelevant!

</comment></comment><comment><USER95> The day I was sold on ditching the headphone jack was actually last week when a giant wave surprised us and nearly washed my wife's (brand new) phone away at the beach. We took it back to the house, rinsed all the sand and salt water off under the tap and it never had a single issue.

<comment><USER96> I believe Samsung phones are as much water-resistant while having preserved the headphone jack.

</comment></comment><comment><USER97> I wonder if anyone with a jackless iPhone compensates by carrying an iPod nano for listening to music with?

<comment><USER98> Absolutely. I've kept my nano for years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER99> Most outdoor people (7+ days charging on solar or limited electrical outlet access) hate the idea of having to charge an extra device, when they could use a pair of cheap headphones. Hard pass for me too, I'll stick to my cheap, outdated tech.

</comment><comment><USER3> "...Some people can only afford $20 headphones"

Have you _seen_ the prices on Apple devices?

<comment><USER100> The main complaint is that manufacturers of budget phones are following suit, but damaging themselves in the process because they're misguided about what their users really want. Having android phones with 3.5/2.5mm jacks would keep the analogue headphone industry alive, but if the whole industry moves to bluetooth only headphones, we're worse off for it overall.

</comment></comment><comment><USER101> I hope to never use wired headphones ever again and I appreciate my phone being waterproof. I know that some people like wired headphones, but that is no reason to think Apple ditched that connector only for profit reasons.

</comment><comment><USER102> Not for me as wireless headphones are quickly lost and cost more then wired which were less then 10 bucks. If you lose/lost them not a huge deal you'll can easily afford another pair.

</comment><comment><USER103> I'm still waiting for a decent pair of bt earplugs that wouldn't cost me a fortune. Still have to use Sony SBH50 + Marshall Mode EQ as a half-way solution.

Wired wirelessness.

</comment><comment><USER104> Nope. Nor is grey text.

</comment><comment><USER105> It's even dumber than when Apple ditched the serial port, dooming a whole generation of fine hardware to obsolescence.

Just another marketing win, engineering loss.

</comment><comment><USER106> What the people who keep complaining about this don't realize and will never realize is that there are tons of users who prefer the new Jack and will never have any issues with it at all. You keep arguing about this "fiasco" but in reality Apple is fine, the majority of users are happy and this is all just an imagined issue like when they introduced the iPhone which would fail because it was just an iPod with a phone in it, or the touchscreen that would never be able to compete with tactile keyboards or the tablet that didn't even run a proper desktop operating system.

</comment><comment> swingline-747 It's possible to make an iPhone 6S 16 GiB into 256 GiB with a chip programmer and swapping BGA chips. Cost for the chip is around $50 USD.

</comment><comment><USER107> No. Simply because it have many use, from music play with external stereo to mobile-POS (credit card payment via audio/dummy modem) etc.

</comment><comment><USER108> The headphone jack of every portable devices I ever owned have all broken at some points.

I'd rather have Bluetooth everywhere with USB as a backup now.

</comment><comment><USER109> Some 3rd party accessories used 3.5mm jack to transfer data without MFI chip. Maybe Apple didnt like that for some reason. Just a thought.

</comment><comment><USER110> Does anyone truly believe they removed the headphone jack for any reason other than to sell more dongles and more wireless headphones?

<comment> evil-olive Yes. I've worked on phones in the past (Amazon's ill-fated Fire Phone) and there was no pressure that I perceived to sell more third-party accessories. There was, however, a very tangible pressure to make the phone thinner and lighter, and at the same time to pack it full of more shiny-seeming software features.

It's entirely conceivable, based on my experience, that removal of the headphone jack is attributable to ignorance and not to malice.

<comment><USER111> Does anyone actually want it thinner and lighter or is that just an assumption we have had and never questioned? I mean most people end up putting their device in a case anyway to protect it already. They are to structurally flimsy and fragile. Hell otterbox is valued at 2.5 billion and all they sell are thick bulky phone cases. A inch thick phone would be fine and have more room for battery, storage, etc, etc, etc... and still have room to have a sturdy case and most people wouldn't care.

<comment><USER112> Yes. I think this a "people want a faster horse" situation. The people who don't want phones to go thinner and wireless everything aren't thinking it through fully. I miss the head phone jack on my phone right now, I'd like longer battery life... but there is a future where a smartphone is the size of a credit card, is waterPROOF, and never plugs into anything ever. If you think it's not possible, consider that the chips in each AirPod are more powerful than the one in the first iPhone.

I am temporarily annoyed with the audio jack removal, but I get it. It's a "burn the boats" type strategy of pushing for the wireless, portless future.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER113> I use USB + Dragonfly. The obsession with the headphone jack is strange because the audio isn't very good.

</comment><comment><USER114> Was using light text on a bright background a good idea?

No.

<comment><USER115> I added this to my Firefox's userContent.css:

      @-moz-document domain(soundguys.com)
      {
        #sticky-bar {
          position: absolute !important;
        }
        p, div {
          color: initial !important;
        }
        body {
          text-shadow: initial !important;
        }
      }

<comment><USER116> I use Firefox's Reader View to fix low contrast text. You need to edit userContent.css to get the full contrast:

        @-moz-document url-prefix("about:reader") {
        body {
          background-color: #FFFFFF !important;
          color: #000000 !important;
          }
        }

If Reader View doesn't work, it's usually easy to find the font color CSS in the Web Developer tools.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER117> It surely was a bad idea. A good idea is to ditch handsets which ditched a headphone jack.

</comment><comment><USER118> I'm using an iphone 8 for the last 9 months. Not missing the jack at all.

<comment><USER118> Thanks for downvotes. Explain.

<comment><USER118> Oh yeah, someone got really upset now. Explain instead of clicking this stupid downvote button.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER119> Author must have been heartbroken when cell phones started removing VGA ports.

</comment><comment><USER120> No.

</comment><comment><USER121> There are a few reasons it was a terrible idea:

      - You can't take lightning headphones
        and use them as headphones in all
        lightning ports.

      - You can't take lightning headphones
        and use them on any other Apple
        product other then modern, premium
        iPhones.

      - It doesn't enable compatibility with
        other new Apple products. In fact, it
        hinders compatibility with USB-C ports
        in newer Apple laptops. *What?*

      - If Apple went all-in on USB-C with
        laptops, the lightning port on new
        iPhones feels like either an anachronism
        or accentuates the lock-in attempt.

      - Bluetooth really isn't very good, not
        at a level that guarantees perfect,
        continuous audio streams. It's not
        an ideal step up from a good, durable wire.

      - Air pods and  other headphone upgrades
        are double disposable, in that, not only
        are they particularly expensive options,
        but easily lost, stolen or destroyed.
        Laundry and drop hazards, above and beyond
        theft, basically add constant anxiety to
        the total cost of ownership for air pods
        in particular.

      - General inconvenience of replacement
        forces odd work-around strategies for
        times when you can't find your headphones.
        If you're running late, and you lost them
        in the couch cushions or under the bed,
        what are your options?

I can think of a number of additional diminishingly valuable what-ifs, but you get the point. Life always turns out better with the widely adopted standardized options, since headphones take on the primary expendable accessory, and the alternatives are hemmed in, such that they're always worse.

But now what? It's just going to be this irritating thing, until an excuse lets Apple back down while saving face.

Whatever.

</comment><comment><USER122> try the iphone 5 or SE

</comment><comment> brian-armstrong It is painfully obvious that Apple removed the jack not because it was the right choice but because it lets them sell more accessories. Discussions about this choice should be framed in that perspective. It was a user hostile decision.

</comment><comment><USER123> My wife dropped her phone down the toilet. It survived! So the no Jack was a big win for her.

The article is missing that very reasonable use case for no Jack.

<comment><USER124> There is no correlation in being waterproof and not having a headphone jack. Several phones have both

<comment><USER123> It's one of of the quoted reasons at least: [https://www.macrumors.com/2016/09/07/apple-explains- headphon...](https://www.macrumors.com/2016/09/07/apple-explains-headphone- jack-removal/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER125> The case made by the article strikes me as surprisingly clear: 50% of dollars spent on wireless headphones we're going to Apple and they wanted that percentage to grow larger. Forcing their customers to buy wireless headphones directly increased the amount of money Apple makes and has allowed them to dominate another product segment.

This argument about the quality of the headphones seems very much beside the point. For those purchasing these newer smart phones, there is only one type of headphones that work. Clearly that is the one they will buy.

</comment><comment><USER126> To paraphrase Doc Brown, "Where we're going, we don't need headphone jacks"

Airpods are awesome, and they'll only get better. A cord running to your pocket is seriously a thing of the past, and all these posts will age terribly. Just like the serial port ones, the floppy ones, the cd rom ones...

And for all this noise, what I can't for the life of my understand is why these people can't just use a god damn adapter. They make high quality DAC ones, too. Just leave it attached to your headphones. What's the damn problem? The rest of us get a better, thinner phone.

<comment><USER127> Did you read peapicker's comment before posting your own? (It's older by an hour). Some people need wired headphones and if the port is used for something else then they can't.

Also it's completely untrue that the iPhone is "thinner" without a headphone jack; this guy added a jack to an iPhone 7 without external modification:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utfbE3_uAMA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utfbE3_uAMA)

The video has over 6M views.

Apple doesn't care much about their users -- but it's hard to blame them, since said users are apparently happy with it.

<comment><USER128> Is the modified phone as waterproof as before?

<comment><USER92> I assume not, but a factory designed one would be. Several of my phones are waterproof and have 3.5mm plugs.

<comment><USER128> I would so very much like to know how the design and engineering analysis was. For the original.

From my limited knowledge it certainly seems _easier_ to make it waterproof without a headphone jack.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Hosts you use for your projects answered - <AUTHOR> http://www.teabuzzed.com/2009/09/favorite-hosts/

<comment><USER2> I would have liked to see a couple that could host .net projects.</comment>