> How about: making the phones waterproof with one less difficult to tackle port, less width/height needed for the new port hence thinner phones, envisioning a wireless future (what with AirPods and co).

If some guy (he's obviously talented, but still a guy) can fit one inside an already manufactured iPhone 7, the company designing the phone obviously would have no problem fitting it in the dimensions it holds.

> The "best hypothesis"? That's the classic "lock-in" conspiracy theory. And Apple makes pennies on the headphones compared to what they make from the iPhones (and what they could lose in iPhone sales if the removal of the port proved unpopular) for that to be any great motive.

> The fact that there are pushing AirPods (which don't care for the jack at all) and that Apple gives a free conversion to mini-jack with each new iPhone, means that the theory "it's all about selling headphones/licenses for lighting headphones" is moot.

Doesn't the fact that Apple being the company selling the AirPods (for a mighty hefty fee I might add) at least suggest the opposite of "moot", since they're making a lot of money on new headphones by removing the jack?

You state and agree with all the factors needed to draw the conclusions of the "conspiracy theory" (or what I'd call market sense), yet you arrive at the opposite one, why is that?

>If some guy (he's obviously talented, but still a guy) can fit one inside an already manufactured iPhone 7, the company designing the phone obviously would have no problem fitting it in the dimensions it holds.

The company is not forever planning on using the same dimensions of the current model -- but they can still plan ahead the removal.

Besides, the "some guy" doing a mod doesn't have to meet the same guarantees (re: waterproofness, air-circulation inside etc) for the device, as Apple has.

>Doesn't the fact that Apple being the company selling the AirPods (for a mighty hefty fee I might add) at least suggest the opposite of "moot", since they're making a lot of money on new headphones by removing the jack?

You can still use any old pair of wired headphones with the free provided adaptor. So the removal doesn't force anyone to buy AirPods -- or any other of the tons of bluetooth headphones.

> You can still use any old pair of wired headphones with the free provided adaptor. So the removal doesn't force anyone to buy AirPods -- or any other of the tons of bluetooth headphones.

While it may in a dry sense be true that the removal doesn't _force_ anyone to buy AirPods, I will strongly suggest that their customers aren't convinced that the adapter solution is sufficiently comparable [1].

[1] (Reviews) https://www.apple.com/shop/product/MMX62AM/A/lightning-to-35...

> since they're making a lot of money on new headphones by removing the jack

Well, such a condition would rely on this being true and accurate. I'm not really confident there's any data that suggests how people are listening to music on their iPhone 7s at the moment, and really nothing to draw a conclusion from except "anecdata". The simpler explanation in my mind is that Apple wanted a thinner phone, and they did what they needed.

There was an article a few days ago from Xiaomi's Indian Product Manager who commented on the removal of the Headphone Jack on one of the Mi Phone releases. His insight was that despite what people say ("I don't care about thickness"), their surveys and testing overwhelmingly showed that consumers have a preference towards thinner phones.

With this in mind, to me it seems more reasonable that Apple just decided to ditch the jack less they be caught making the fat phone. Your personal preferences may differ, but I think the more reasonable and sustainable conclusion is simply that Apple is chasing the thin phone.

> Well, such a condition would rely on this being true and accurate. I'm not really confident there's any data that suggests how people are listening to music on their iPhone 7s at the moment, and really nothing to draw a conclusion from except "anecdata"

Whether at a sum that decision was lucrative or not is inconsequential, as that comes down to how the market responds to their decision, but what you can argue is whether they make more off headsets now than before.

Before they bundled regular corded buds, and you purchased new ones when your old ones broke. Now they sell $180 USD AirPods, and Beats, and bundle (IMO) clunky adapters. While I don't have data on this, I'm fairly confident in assuming their decision was made on this basis. The question is if this turned out as they hoped in sales.

> The simpler explanation in my mind is that Apple wanted a thinner phone, and they did what they needed.

How so, when there was obviously space enough for an end-user to fit a jack inside the final product?

> How so, when there was obviously space enough for an end-user to fit a jack inside the final product?

Looking at the iFixIt teardowns[0], where is this space supposedly at? If you remove electronics, sure, maybe you could fit it, but there very definitely is components where he put the headphone jack.

[0] http://url.vg/mNPn

> Before they bundled regular corded buds

They still do. The iPhone 7 comes with Lightning headphones AND a Lightning-to-analog-jack adaptor.

They also sell the bundled headphones separately, so you can replace them.

There wasn't enough room for the end user to fit a waterproof jack inside the final product, or to keep the barometer.

The iPhone 6s and the iPhone 7 are exactly the same thickness. There is even a big gap where the headphone jack was, that the author used to retrofit his own. The decision to remove it was not driven by here-and-now technical requirements.

> There is even a big gap where the headphone jack was

Not really, there was a little bit of space near the old jack, and he removed a critical part of the barometer to make the rest of the space. If you're removing parts you can't exactly claim that it was empty space.

See my reply[0] above and point out on the image where this big gap is...

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15193211

That's one consideration. The other consideration is what they DO with that thickness (e.g. re: battery, other electronics taking the extra space, etc).

This conspiracy theory is ridiculous. Apple must make 100x more money from iPhones than it does from AirPods and MFI combined. There is zero reason to degrade the value of iPhones to increase the value of accessories.

And taking out the headphone jack doesn't do much for AirPods, the iPhone still has wired headphones either way.

I'm pretty sure a company that recently acquired Beats, the notoriously overpriced headphone companies, and sells wireless earbuds at 169$ is most certainly not making "pennies" on headphones.

So this point is not moot, much to the contrary, yours about waterproofing is: three years ago Samsung had a phone with: headphone jack, SD card, removable battery. Lots of other phones have headphone jacks and are waterproof. So that point is moot.

Lastly, I'm pretty sure the rationale for any company's decision is "to sell more stuff", not to "envision a future".

> sells wireless earbuds at 169$

Just to play devil's advocate, those $169 AirPods are by far the cheapest fully wireless earbuds on the market, and at launch were ~$100 less than the only other competitor available. Most estimates peg Apples margin on them in the low single digits...

> Most estimates peg Apples margin on them in the low single digits...

Any references for this. My gut feeling doesn't match up with this. I can't imagine the bill of materials being more than 1/3rd of the cost?

Unless those estimates are including the R&D cost, I imagine these are low volume, and that Apple spent a lot of money on developing them.

Given the long lead time on orders for, what, nearly a year now, it seems likely these are not trivial to manufacture.

And these are really tiny computers and highly optimized batteries, so I'd be surprised if the BoM is that low, but determining that is definitely not my strong suit.

And beyond that, there's plenty of more than decent APT-X capable bluetooth headphones on the market at reasonable prices if you aren't looking for "fully" wireless. My Jabra Halo Smart cost me around $80, has audio quality anyone who isn't an audiophile can enjoy and enough battery I only charge them every couple days (mind you, I'm only using them for maybe 1-3 hours a day).

I don't see Apple getting rid of them, especially considering the acquisition of Beats, but the AirPods really feel like the Airport base stations - setting a standard of quality to try and guide the industry along.

>I'm pretty sure a company that recently acquired Beats, the notoriously overpriced headphone companies, and sells wireless earbuds at 169$ is most certainly not making "pennies" on headphones.

Maybe read their financial statements then?

(And I'm pretty sure they lost more money still for buying Beats that they've made from selling Beats products at the moment -- even though both was spare change for them).

Or "envision a future" where they "sell more stuff."

My last 2 samsungs have been waterproof, and have headphone jacks. They are not hard to waterproof, its just 4 conductors in a sleeve.

According to all the tests I saw online there was no Samsung phone that came close to matching that Apple phones ability to withstand water over time

The iPhone has an IP67 rating where the Samsung S8 with headphone jack has the higher IP68. The difference between the two is pretty minimal, 30 minutes each and IP68 gives a manufacturer specified amount of extra submersion depth over the IP67's 1 meter limit. (Samsung says an extra half meter). I wouldn't expect to see much if a difference in testing both devices though. That said specific devices may differ based on manufacturing anomalies (more glue on this one, less on that one)

The real difference between Apple and Samsung's IP ratings is going to be corporate risk profiles, not technical capabilities. IP ratings don't in and of themselves make a phone waterproof, they just define what the customer's expectations should be. Apple would have just as much incentive to underrate their phone as they would to accurately rate it.

> That's the classic "lock-in" conspiracy theory.

Why a "conspiracy theory"? Apple has a documented history of vendor lock-in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in

What "documented history"?

Noticed how all the link says is that Apple used to sell DRM music?

First, that was a demand from the record companies.

Second, Apple was actually the company whose's CEO took a public stand against DRM in music -- and eventually been able to remove it from their music store.

That's hardly a "documented history" of Apple being active on that front.

That's just an example. When you follow the WP link, you get to another example (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Apple_Inc.#Accusa...). There are plenty. For example, if you want to develop iOS apps, you are forced to buy a Mac. Technically, there's nothing to stop you from running macOS in a virtual machine, but Apple claims it's illegal and that you need to buy hardware from them. Everything, literally everything is well thought out as a way to make customers spend even more money. This is where Apple's marketing genius lies and this is where their huge profits are coming from.

As another author writes (http://www.business-standard.com/article/management/apple-s-...):

> Apple has adopted the opposite stance creating proprietary hardware and platforms that firmly lock you into their ecosystem and this is one of the reasons why today, despite falling market share, it remains one of the world's most profitable companies.

Apple almost got killed allowing clone makers. The fact that they don't allow it anymore isn't lock-in, it's common sense.

One doesn't exclude the other. Think about the history of PC. Allowing clones might have been absurd from the point of view of IBM, but it caused a massive revolution that enormously benefited the society.

Companies use vendor lock-in to maximize profits, it's something quite common among big players in the software industry - there is no need to pretend it doesn't exist or that Apple is avoiding it for some reason.

Again, the one time Apple's financial position appeared headed towards bankruptcy was the one time they allowed clones. Their business model doesn't work with licensing, they learned that and will never forget it. They are very careful where they allow their technology to be used.

> Apple makes pennies on the headphones compared to what they make from the iPhones

airpods cost $160 and beats headphones aren't cheap either. I doubt that's making pennies on headphones either way.

The "pennies compared to" argument is weird.

If you buy a third party set of headphones that use the lightning port, and require mfi status, yeah, they might make only a small amount compared to profit on iphone.

However, I think enough people will just default to another pair of airpods that any potential losses are offset. I have to imagine that was Apple's thinking. They may sometimes be wrong about stuff, but they're not stupid. If it helps move the market towards wireless, it may also push more wireless beats headphones, which are going to be relatively profitable too.

The quick way to look at this might be: How much was Apple making from headphone sales before this move? How much are they making from headphone sales after?

Bluetooth headphones are $20 on Amazon and Apple makes $0 on them.

I don't get why I need a waterproof iPhone? I'm not in the habit of getting my personal electronics wet? and if I had the choice between a waterproof iPhone (rarely a concern) and being able to use my headphones without charging them and/or a dongle the choice is clear for me.

Also, I'd buy into the whole "thinner is better" thing if they weren't actually making the screens bigger and the "wireless future" thing is a just a load of overdreamt baloney.

My S7 is IP68 water resistant and has a headphone jack. I don't think that's a challenge anyway.

1.5m for up to 30 minutes; enough time to retrieve from a toilet.

Twice I've revived phones for others that fell (ha) for this unfortunate fate.

Turn off immediately, disassemble as much as possible, rinse in clear water (tap for us, but it is not clorinated/flour), then dry in a bag of uncooked rice for a week or so. Boom. Instant Frankenstein phone.

Feels good to save the world a little (through less waste).

"dry in a bag of uncooked rice"

Don't actually do this. It's a myth.

You can only get rice dust inside your phone that way. That's the only thing you can possibly accomplish.

> Don't actually do this. It's a myth

I revived a display on a camera that got wet during a rain on Hawai'i after two years when I read about the "rice method" - it was working the next day. Similarly I saved a phone that went off my pocket into toilet - immediately removed battery, washed in water and packed in a box of rice for a day. Works still like new.

> Similarly I saved a phone that went off my pocket into toilet - immediately removed battery, washed in water and packed in a box of rice for a day. Works still like new.

Done the same thing, without removing the battery or using rice (and done similar things with all kinds of electronics that have gotten wet over the years, again, without a desiccant.) If it doesn't short anything out causing permanent damage, electronics that can get water in them can usually also dry out. Magic rice or anti-bear talismans are not required. A dessicant near the device may help trivially by reducing the surrounding humidity and accelerating evaporation from the device, but just arranging proper ventilation probably works better than using a closed container with a desiccant in most environments.

I wish it was so easy; my camera a few years back, Canon TX1, got wet in one of those rains on Hawai'i and display could never turn on, thought camera was operating normally, taking pictures. I tried to put camera on a sunny place for weeks, didn't help. After two years I read something on forums somewhere about rice. I told myself I don't have anything to lose, so I put rice in a box and immersed camera with display open into it. After a day or so, I took it out and voila, display was working again! Though I must say there was rice dust present on display from inside. Obviously, I would have rather used another desiccant, but where could I buy such thing quickly and in required quantity?

oh come on it may not be an optimal solution but it's hardly "bear talisman" territory ...

Is it? Usually we insist on people providing evidence to support controversial claims.

In what way is the idea that using "uncooked rice" to restore wet electronics the normal one, and challenging it is the "controversial claim"?

In that it's well established practice and I have a list of people who says it does. Versus a couple of internet grouches and a few guys selling device repair services that say it doesn't.

To me, the science sounds plausible. Power it down, dry it up, introduce a desiccant to mop up what atmospheric moisture there is. Rice may not be the "best" desiccant available but it's commonly available and easily understood by most people.

I'd appreciate it if you and your friend could demonstrate that this is false rather than throwing around snarky rhetoric.

This article [0] appears to support your hypothesis but there's enough discussion in the comments that suggests their results can't be taken as conclusive.

I've read the original Gazelle article [1] too, and their methods are far from being clear or rigorous.

I'd need to see more replication before I'd consider this "myth" debunked.

[0] https://smartphones.gadgethacks.com/how-to/myth-debunked-unc...

[1] https://www.gazelle.com/thehorn/2014/05/06/gazelles-guide-wa...

You think "rice usage" is not a controversial claim in the first place? You are trying to create "negative humidity" with rice. Are you serious right now?

EDIT: Watch this rant from a guy who works in the repair shop.

No need to watch the whole video, you can see the "results" of the rice "cleaning" in the first couple of minutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPeITOz2_YM

it's called a dessicant.

and it's not controversial if everybody agrees it works.

you are in the minority here and you must support your position with facts.

EDIT

In fairness, I think in the last year we've moved beyond accepting a ranting guy on youtube as evidence.

I've actually seen this guy and he's great on many topics. I can see, and appreciate where he's coming from but I don't think it disproves anything.

Possible conflict of interest that should be declared is this guys fixes devices for a living and charges for the service.

>and it's not controversial if everybody agrees it works.

Well, people agree in all kinds of crap like homeopathy.

Many (most?) agreeing doesn't make something "scientific". Proof does. And it's those proposing a mechanism that must bring that proof.

Uncooked rice works as a desiccant and is found in most homes. If you wrap the phone in a paper towel there is no need to worry about rice residue or rice dust getting into the phone. It does work, but it takes 24-48 hours to dry your phone. Silica gel or other desiccants work better, but most people do not have these in their home.

Did you just cite homeopathy?

Did this just happen. Did you just strawman me?

No... you were the one that was using "everybody agrees it works" as the support of your position. He's offering an analogy that, rightly so, makes your position completely unsupported. If you're willing to say that homeopathy is crap despite the volume of people that support it, then you have to admit the same about your own argument. Provide evidence or support, not appeals to the masses.

Nobody agrees that homeopathy works what are you talking about

Stop being intentionally obtuse. You were the one that said keeping a phone in rice works because "everyone agrees that it works". That's circular logic. He was using that same logic with the example of homeopathy because, much like your rice trick, the only support of homeopathy is that "everyone [who believes it] agrees that it works".

You're wrong. Stop trying to wash it away and just admit it.

It's a common sense to me, but if you want, we can do the math. Should be pretty easy to calculate humidity and rice desiccant properties to end this joke once and for all. Logically, it should be better to let phone dry in open even, instead of creating closed space in the bag of rice.

You can watch the video muted btw. PCB condition shows clearly the level of corrosion from just a little bit of moisture.

"If rice is placed in a sealed container, the air in the container will gain or lose moisture until it attains an equilibrium relative humidity (ERH) corresponding to the rice moisture and temperature."

Source: http://www.kcomfg.com/_docs/pdfs/principles_of_rice_drying.p...

I didn't think I needed a waterproof iPhone either until I got it. I guess I still don't "need" it, but it is really nice to have. I love not having to worry about ruining my phone if I'm out in the rain, getting ready in the morning, hanging out by the pool, using it for recipes in the kitchen, and especially reading/web browsing in the hot tub.

I have to admit ... you do make it sound quite compelling, from a comfort perspective. I suppose my overriding wish is that I could have this cake, and the other cake as well.

Very handy with young kids. Saved mine twice in a year from "OK let me bend over to get you (or some item) out of the tub... damnit, there goes my phone". It'd be even more helpful if we let our kids play with our phones like a lot of people do.

Well, I've destroyed two iPhones by means of accidents that resulted in them falling into water.

I remember once upon a time, about 20-ish years ago when Nokias where the thing to have. I had one of the smaller ones that came after 3110 (3210?) and was working extra as a bar-something one night. I had a big bucket that pour out deserted drinks and bottles into, and now it was full of everything you can imagine.

I leaned forward while typing an sms and dropped the phone in the bucket and saw the screen during the fraction of a second before I snagged it back. It showed a message along the lines of

"This accessory is not supported"

Then it died. Only to be revived through a bath in rice. Nokia, whaddayaknow.

Yeah I have friends that have done that too. But like I say, if I had a choice between having to be careful with my device vs having to charge/pack an extra device on a continual basis it's a clear one for me ...

I suspect it is a clear one for a lot of people. The problem is that don't think it would be the same choice.

I moved back to Asia last year. And since then the combination of driving a scooter + rain season means my phone is soaked wet a couple times a year (sometimes it just rains and you really have no choice). If it is not waterproof, I have to always bring a backpack with me.

Ever place your phone on a table or bar, and there's gunk on it, and now that gunk is all over your phone? Nothing better than just being able to go to the restroom and rinse it off.

OK, for you maybe. For me I'd much rather have the thinner waterproof phone than a port I never use collecting pocket lint. Making the screens bigger is different in that it's a tangible benefit that a bunch of people are willing to trade size for, but that trend has also reversed itself (the Nexus 6P is smaller than the Nexus 6 for instance).

How do you plan to hold these razor thin phones then? During last years I went from 9.3mm (iPhone 4S) in small formfactor to 8.9mm in 5.0" phone to recent 7.4mm in 5.5" phone. The last one even after almost a year of usage is insanely hard to hold and use naked. It is slippery (metal) and always tend to almost fall when I reach far corners or put it in the pocket. I bought spigen case entirely to have a better grip on this thing, not for the protection I don't really need. With thicker rubber case it is less of ergonomic nightmare and I don't fear that it will slip out. Why on Earth would you want a thinner phone? (I'm not even talking about subpar iPhone batteries)

I've never had this problem or realized it was even an issue. I tend to use my fingers on the back of the phone to hold it. I'd like it to be thinner because it's in my pocket all day.

Just out of curiosity, what's the payoff of having a slimmer, yet ultimately bigger phone?

I guess there's a cohort of iPhone users that never use the jack but in the early days at least it was a compelling feature for many. (remember all those proprietary connectors we had back in 200x?)

The idea here is maximizing both screen space and portability. Obviously contradictory goals but the headphone jack compromises one without helping the other.

>I don't get why I need a waterproof iPhone? I'm not in the habit of getting my personal electronics wet?

Well, it's not like the world revolves around what some particular individual does. Other people might be more clumsy. Or might live in places with frequent rains (from London to the tropics and India), do all kinds of stuff outdoors, etc.

Many people approve of a waterproof phone. And in any case, it's a nice feature to have even when you don't need it. It gives piece of mind for using it to call in the rain for one -- and if you have ever been outside in London or tons of other places you'd have seen the utility.

I'm in Dublin here, I know all about rain ... the problem with these arguments "it's not like the world revolves around people with x point of view" is that you can't necessarily say that it should revolve around people with y point of view. A great many people like the jack too so why should they be discommoded when all you have to do is put your phone in a waterproof case.

Or why can't we just have both.

Waterproof cases are often bulky, awkward to use, and ugly. Apple is always, always going to choose encouraging forward thinking (wireless) over supporting legacy technologies by adding bulky, awkward covers.

That's not true. They set the precedent for using the jack in mobile phones in the first place because "usability" - before the iPhone nearly all mobile phones had proprietary connectors.

A wireless future is a future I don't want to live in. Bluetooth earbuds blow, and they need to constantly be charged. Wires aren't a downside.

For you.

Wires are a definite downside to me and many others. I see this problematic description pop up a lot around here and other sites. What is problematic for you may not be problematic for others or even the majority. This is how we ended up here.

In my own use case, I love the AirPods, I don't think they "blow", and I only have to charge them occasionally since the case keeps them charged. I have yet to experience these downsides that you claim and yet I still have the benefit of not needing wires. You can continue to dislike wireless and say wires aren't a downside but you can't just state it as some kind of universal fact. People are different. Some people will like things that others don't.

That would be a sensible argument against removing Bluetooth, not in favour of getting rid of wires.

Can't it be both? I don't want the wires if they don't have to be there and I don't need them for anything. Apparently, most people agree with that sentiment.

Not to mention interference, and opening the whole solution up to problems with audio/video sync that pretty much don't exist with wired headphones.

Do you think that in future wireless/Bluetooth earbuds will never improve? That what we have is going to be the best we're ever going to get?

My Bluetooth Sony MDX-1000X headphones are amazing, the best headphones I've ever owned. If they're the future of wireless audio, then bring it on.

>That's the classic "lock-in" conspiracy theory

How is increasing customer retention rates a "conspiracy theory" and not a common business strategy?

The difference is on attributing every move to a lock-in motive -- instead to a motive of improving the product, ensure future capabilities, etc.

"Apple makes pennies on the headphones"

prices of their BT headsets are around $200. i think apple makes quite a few pennies on the headphones.

I'm sure they could have gone another road regarding sealed phones and sockets.