Hacker News Reader

Comment by jamesrcole | Hacker News Reader

Personally, I detest wired headphones. I find they always get caught on things while I'm wearing them, and because of the neck problems I have that's a big issue for me (and as well as that, they'd always get tangled up in my bag, which was a bit of a hassle).

So I'm personally glad they've removed the headphone jack, because it will help push wireless into the mass market (and bring down prices) at a faster rate than it otherwise would have.

Now of course, there's lots of people who don't find it a positive like I do. My point is not that everyone should find the jack removal great, my point is that it's wrong to claim that it's a disadvantage for everyone.

On a separate note, people like to shit on Apple for that "courage" claim, but even if removing the jack was a bad decision, I think it's fair to call it a courageous one, because they knew well that they'd get a lot of shit for making that decision. Look at what gets said every time the headphone jack issue is brought up on HN.

View on HN

I don't know, I don't think any of those personal reasons invalidates the arguments of the parent. Your mileage on cables may vary, but the removal of an interface that had been understood by laypeople and was universally supported for the last 50 years seems a more important point to me.

It invalidates the quoted bit they endorsed that said "no human's life is measurably better since Apple had the “courage” to remove the 3.5 mm jack." "No human's life" is a blanket, absolute statement, and it's wrong. Wireless headphones are much more ubiquitous and cheap these days, and a major brand removing headphone jacks is part of the reason for this.

I don't think it's wrong. How has removing the headphone jack made anyone's life better? I can't think of one way.

It's not as if you couldn't use wireless headphones before the headphone jack was removed. Now that the jack is removed, you're forced to use a USB-C dongle (which has its disadvantages) or purchase expensive Bluetooth headphones if you want a decent enough quality / battery life.

> How has removing the headphone jack made anyone's life better?

Ancestor comments of this have explained that.

Removing headphone jack speeds up uptake of wireless headphones, and greater uptake of them makes them cheaper. These are changes that have already happened. This has benefited people who want to use wireless headphones.

> Removing headphone jack speeds up uptake of wireless headphones

1) And by doing this we create even more e-waste!

2) I do _not_ want wireless headphones! I almost exclusively use headphones when I am traveling by bus and train. This happens every 2-4 weeks. At the moment I have a cheap pair of wired headphones in my backpack. They need 0 maintenance. if I need them I just use them. They never needs charging and they never will break. If I have to switch to wireless headphones a) I have to start to take care about charging them and b) they will break after 3 years because the battery dies and can not be replaced.

> 1) And by doing this we create even more e-waste!

You could say that about anything new.

> 2) I do _not_ want wireless headphones!

Good for you, no-one is forcing you to use them.

All I have ever done in this comment thread is argue against the idea that removing the headphone jack has zero benefits for anyone. And yet I'm getting piled on by people basically accusing me of trying to force everyone to go wireless.

As if pointing out that some people have different wants from theirs is somehow denying their wants. It's an amazing lack of perspective.

Is it that hard to accept that someone else has a different view from your own, and that them expressing it is not the same as trying to force it upon you?

But no-one was forcing you to use wired headsets before either. There were options for wireless available.

I think the question remains whether making wired headphones harder to use had zero benefits. That's a different question than whether making wireless headphones easier to use had.

You made an economic argument for the former question - but you can't make that argument and say "no one is forcing you" at the same time.

I made an argument about removing the headphone jack, not about making one thing easier or another thing harder. My argument was about a consequence of removing the jack.

I know no one was being forced to use wired headphones before. That has nothing at all to do with an argument about the consequences of removing the jack.

, and greater uptake of them makes them cheaper.

Does it really? I haven't noticed any change in price that could be attributed to this and I bought a pair a few weeks ago, so I'm somewhat up to date with the pricing.

Yes. Scale/volume makes things cheaper. And yes, the price has gone down over the last few years. For example, I've seen ones for AU$20 now, which was not the case a few years ago.

But that's has been the case for years now - well before this change.

What I'm saying is that I don't see any change that could be attributed specifically to the trend of removing headphone jacks from phones.

Reasons for saying it has an impact.

1) Prices have noticeably come down since they've been removed. This in itself is not proof, but at the same time, what is your proof that these phones have nothing to do with it?

2) Removing the headphone jack has given greater impetus for manufacturers to produce wireless headphones, and to produce lower-end models. More volume, more competition.

3) Removing the headphone jack has given more impetus for people to purchase wireless headphones. There are definitely people that have bought wireless headphones because of this, who wouldn't have bough them if their phones had a builtin headphone jack.

2 and 3 mean more volume, and that means lower prices.

Also, the argument I've been making is not focused just on now. It's also an argument about things going forward.

1) I bought a pair of bluetooth headphones from china about three years ago for $20, the price hasn't dropped.

2) Aliexpress has nearly 100k results for bluetooth headphones there has always been plenty of competition, they are still shit. https://www.aliexpress.com/wholesale?catId=0&initiative_id=S...

3) I agree with this more people have spent alot of money on bluetooth headphones that don't work, how is this a benefit to anyone but the corporations that profit from it?

As you said yourself you can get bluetooth headphones for $20, but you wouldn't because they are shit. We don't need lower prices we need better value headphones, removing the headphone jack has done nothing to help this.

There where cheap and shitty, wired and wireless headphones before they removed the headphone jack, there are cheap and shitty wired and wireless headphones after, the market is not better off and the customers are especially not better off.

Edit- AirPods are the first decent bluetooth headphones, they are the competition not the lack of a jack. Look at that aliexpress link its not even a competition they are just copying the style and shoving the same shitty gear inside.

The single feature I've seen that provides any actual value is pairing via NFC - but that came before any mention of forcing wirelessness.

Also the value comes from the fact that manual pairing is still shit - I only do it via NFC because I haven't been to date able to do so alternatively.

I personally feel 'cord getting caught is the real motivation behind killing the jack. Every time I've dropped my iPhones since the first one came out, it was because the headphone cable got caught on something and yanked the phone out of my hand or pocket. I am unwilling to use bluetooth as the signal cuts out, batteries are always dead and occasional pairing difficulties. When my iPhone SE dies...(my 9th iPhone) I will likely have to switch to an Android.

The real motivation for removing the jack was to sell airpods at 180$.

> I think it's fair to call it a courageous one, because they knew well that they'd get a lot of shit for making that decision.

Doing something you know will be unpopular is not automatically "courageous". Sometimes it's just stupid. I'm sure you can think of plenty of examples.

Even if it was stupid, that doesn't stop something from being courageous.

What stops it from being courageous isn't that it's stupid, but that "taking a lot of shit" isn't inherently dangerous. Apple's a behemoth with a captive audience, and their past history taught them that they could push I/O changes on their customers with little risk. Little risk = no courage needed.

They've been courageous in the past, and its generally worked out well for them (keyboards?), but no two cases are the same, and the past doesn't determine the future, so it still takes courage. It's still risky. There are plenty of companies that wouldn't have the courage to do something that is going to, in the short term at least, annoy so many people.

Well yes, it's technically courageous, in the sense that punching a random person on the street is courageous.

Whether you like something or not has nothing to do with whether it is courageous or not.

I don't disagree with you, I'd just question why that particular kind of courageousness is relevant to the discussion.

My point is that there isn't some different kind of courage that separates this from everyday notions of "courage".

Many people mock the idea that removing the headphone jack required any courage.

No, we're mocking the idea that Apple would use "courage" as an excuse for stupidity while also pointing out that they go hand in hand. Yeah, a guy running up to a bear and punching it in the face is "courageous", but it should be no surprise when the bear gets sick of the guy's antics and decides that it's maul o'clock.

In this simile, the consumers are the bear, and Apple is the moron punching it.

Say they're stupid all you like, but whether something is "courageous" and whether something is "stupid" are completely separate issues.

but that doesn’t really answer the question of “why remove it?” keeping the audio jack does not prevent the use of wireless headphones. and keeping the audio jack does not really pose a problem.

It does answer it: as I said, it forces quicker uptake of wireless, and thus quicker reduction of cost.

But that argument is justification works for removing any technology, whether superior or not.

If you allow only one technology, it will be cheaper irrespective of whether the disallowed technology is better or not.

This makes Apple’s decision worse. It’s an admission that wireless audio is an inferior technology, and that the only way for it to succeed is by removing the alternative, ans/or making it significantly worse.

I think wireless headphones are a good thing, so making them cheaper is a good thing. As you can see in my original comment, I'm just saying this is my view, and I know many people see it otherwise.

I can see your point but I disagree that it's worth it. I think wireless would have gotten better even if we did not remove the headphone jack.

But that's different to my point, in two ways. 1) I was talking about cost not quality (c.f. "wireless would have gotten better even if"). 2) I wasn't arguing about whether it would get better or not, but the rate at which it happens being changed by removing the jack (c.f. "would have gotten better even if we did not remove the headphone jack.")

i guess my point is that i don’t see how that follows. if bluetooth headphones are so great compared to wired headphones, then wasn’t that incentive and market already there? in fact, it just shows the truth, in that apple just wants to be able to sell more and more dongles and bluetooth headphones, so they force this onto their users.

You say you don't see how it follows, yet you yourself say it will cause more wireless headphones to be sold. And if it causes Apple to sell more wireless headphones, then it will also cause other manufacturers to sell more wireless headphones. Greater volume of sales will bring down the price of wireless headphones.

> in fact, it just shows the truth, in that apple just wants to be able to sell more and more dongles and bluetooth headphones

The idea that this is simply a cheap cash-grab sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.

But even if it's a purely financial decision, so what? Aren't financial considerations behind most things companies do?

If HN is to be believed, most people absolutely hate the fact that the phones don't have headphone jacks. So if people hate it, and won't buy the phones because of it, then how can it also be a cash grab?

> You say you don't see how it follows, yet you yourself say it will cause more wireless headphones to be sold.

no i didn't. i said apple wants to sell more wireless headphones and dongles. removing the audio jack forces users to look at the new shiny airpods, or whatever they're called, and say "i need that". then they need dongles for integration purposes. yet, they didn't need the dongle before and could still buy wireless headphones.

of course it's a cash grab. that is how apple operates. conspiracy theory? the ceo is literally an expert in operations and logistics, probably apple's greatest strength behind their marketing. it can't be any other decision, because like i said, other phone makers are able to integrate it just fine.

"Apple will sell more wireless headphones, but this won't mean they sell more wireless headphones." That's what you're saying.

If people are going to buy more wireless headphones because of these phones, then they're going to buy them from a range of manufacturers -- in fact mostly other manufacturers because the Apple ones are so pricey.

If people are going to buy more wireless headphones because of these phones then the prices will go down. Do you dispute this? Because this is the point that you originally claimed I didn't make.

> i said apple wants to sell more ... dongles.

Do you know that the phones (up until latest models) come with a dongle so there's not going to be a large number of sales of them?

> of course it's a cash grab. that is how apple operates

It's ridiculous to suggest that everything apple does is just a cheap cash grab.

> It's ridiculous to suggest that everything apple does is just a cheap cash grab.

What's so ridiculous about it? Have you not seen the rate at which Apple are increasing the prices across all their products?

And petty practices like not including the lightening to 3.5mm adapter or fast charger on a $1000+ phone e.t.c.

The person I was replying to said "of course it's a cash grab. that is how apple operates". Increases in the prices of their products hardly equates to everything they are doing being a cash grab. Are their privacy, accessibility or environmental (manufacturing processes, packaging choices, etc) measures all, for example, cash grabs?

i just want to remind you that the original discussion that i initiated was to point out that apple has not given any legitimate reason for removing the audio jack. there is simply no need to remove it. creating a thin or water resistant phone is not an explanation since other manufacturers include the audio jack and have no issues with these features.

your argument is that it helps the wireless headphone market. i don’t think it does in a way that actually matters, but even that doesn’t explain why it was removed in the first place. why does apple care about that market outside of their own sales? the real reason why they removed it is to further increase accessory sales and to market themselves as a design leader, which further sells devices. they have created this mystique that they do and others will follow. unfortunately, that is somewhat the case given other dynamics.

the fact of the matter is that there is zero benefit to the consumer of an iphone for having the audio jack removed. there is benefit to apple’s cash flow by removing it. and here we are.

what you originally said was "but that doesn’t really answer the question of “why remove it?”". You're shifting the goal posts by saying "apple has not given any legitimate reason for removing the audio jack. there is simply no need to remove it." I've given a reason for removing it. You don't just get to declare a reason as not "legitimate". You say "the fact of the matter is that there is zero benefit to the consumer of an iphone for having the audio jack removed.", which just ignores the cost benefit, without arguing against that benefit.

Apple has always removed design features that they don't think are where things should head in the future. That's important to do in the longer term. If you consider any single one of the things they've removed from their computers, it might not seem a big deal, but together they are. Removing things they don't see as part of the future helps them to push technology in the direction they think is best. And removing what they see as unnecessary features can save on costs - costs that might be small per unit but large in terms of the sorts of volumes they are dealing with.

Somethings that bothers me about your argument, is that Apple doesn’t support existing highend audio codecs (presumably to avoid paying the licensing fees) and doesn’t include wireless headphones or an adapter for 3.5mm in the box.

Instead they include wired headphones with a proprietary plug.

If you want high quality headphones with an iphone you have to buy some that license a proprietary Apple protocol or chip or settle for lower sound quality generic Bluetooth audio.

> Apple doesn’t support existing highend audio codecs

I am aware this is an issue for some people. At the same time it's not an issue for other people.

> doesn’t include wireless headphones or an adapter for 3.5mm in the box.

Their latest models don't include adapters, their earlier ones without headphone jacks did.

> If you want high quality headphones with an iphone you have to buy some that license a proprietary Apple protocol or chip or settle for lower sound quality generic Bluetooth audio.

The issue with Bluetooth isn't Apple's fault, though.

But if you want high quality headphones then, yes, you have that choice to make. But we need to acknowledge that not everyone has those requirements.

"The idea that this is simply a cheap cash-grab sounds like a conspiracy theory to me."

Conspiracy theories are sometimes true.

In this case, vendor lock-in is Apple's bread and butter, and it doesn't take any mental gymnastics at all to recognize that removing a standard and universal port without any actually good reason fits that pattern remarkably well.

1) it still allows standard 3.5mm headphone jacks to be used.

2) Bluetooth is a standard, and Apple isn't the only company that makes Bluetooth headphones.

...if you want to settle for lower quality Bluetooth audio.

Apple don’t support high quality Bluetooth audio standards except with the license of their own proprietary technology.

Yes. I have never said or implied that it's suitable for everyone.

This same point applies to the criticisms of a lack of a headphone jack, too: the things those people are concerned about, such as sound quality, aren't an issue for everybody, either.

If wireless enables quicker reduction in cost then when do iPhones keep getting more expensive?

I never said that. I said if wireless is the only option in those phones then this will cause more wireless headphones to be sold, and this will cause wireless headphones to become cheaper. (This is clearer if you read the earlier comments in this sub-thread. By the time the discussion got to the comment you were replying to, that context was being assumed).

So creating a demand for a market that wasn't in demand, that sounds artificially created, infact it is.

So what? That's how the history of technology goes. Innovations come along that people didn't want until they were there. The technology creates the demand. Henry Ford said (and I paraphrase) "if I had asked people what they wanted they would have said 'faster horses'".

But people could still ride horses when cars came about and they still can, the transition happened over decades. But this change is happening over a matter of years, the reasons for which are not utilitarian.

And people can still use phones with headphone jacks.

Did the existence of cars destroy the existence of horses? Is Apple stopping all companies from using headphone jacks?

> it will help push wireless into the mass market

They are already in the mass market the problem is they suck.

I have tried a bunch of cheap Chinese bluetooth headphones that cost from $20-$60 they all sound like $5 wired headphones have about 2 hours battery life and break after a month.

I have tried bluetooth head phones that where $200 beats by drea they worked as well as the Chinese headphones they just cost 10 times the price.

Removing the headphone jack has forced people to spend a lot of money on shitty headphones, thats what your glad of.

> They are already in the mass market

...and the headphone jack was removed several years ago, so what's your point?

What I'm saying is that it's makes the prices go down. That means better quality ones will get cheaper.

The bluetooth headphones I use are fine. I've heard most people say that AirPods are great.

> Removing the headphone jack has forced people to spend a lot of money

How is it forcing anything on anyone? One, you don't have to buy the phone, and two, you can use the supplied lightning-adapter headphones, or use an adaptor.

I have a hate relationship with wired things too. Irony is that when I use BT ones, I stay sit thinking I can't leave or I will rip the wire from the device.

I think the issue is that BT has always been a catastrophy in terms of ergonomy, today things are better but still a bit hazardous. Maybe a super simple wireless protocol for managing audio streams (and handling multiple sinks) would change that

Removing the headphone jack doesn't push wireless into the mass market. It was already in the mass market and it was going to be in the mass market regardless of how Apple designed their phones. If you want to use a wireless headset, you always could. Removing the headphone jack didn't give you any sort of advantages as a wireless user, it just removed an option you didn't use.

And no, it's not courageous to do something dumb and getting skewered for being dumb is not evidence of courage.

It has increased the speed of wireless headphones uptake.

You can call it dumb all you like, but whether something is dumb or not is completely separate from whether it is courageous or not.

I'm amazed by people hating something so much that therefore, in their minds, makes it impossible to have other qualities that might have a positive connotation.

As a frequent long flight traveler I have range anxiety on my wireless headphones. I like the 3.5mm jack guarantees me one less device or peripheral to worry about, it just works (even if the noise cancellation may stop working when the battery dies, sound still goes through)

See also: Floppies, RS-232 serial, optical drives.

The options that replaces each of those items were superior to the older design.

A wireless headset requires charging, requires pairing, is more expensive, is more likely to break. It's not a superior technology, it's an alternative technology. You don't eliminate options just because alternatives exist.

They're viewed by everyone as superior in hindsight, but anytime anything gets taken away there are vocal voices complaining about how the newer alternatives are inferior in various ways (and technically the newer options are always inferior in certain ways, especially in terms of using them within existing ecosystems and usage patterns).

That is completely untrue. No one got rid of the floppy drive just because new technology existed. They got rid of the floppy drive because it took dozens of floppies to do what one CD could do. It was a genuinely inferior product with regard to its primary function.

In the case of headphones, their primary function is to connect to a device and deliver sound to your ears. Wireless headphones do not do this better than wired headphones. At all. They have a specific use case advantage related to the connection format, but that isn't universally better because it carries drawbacks as well.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com