Headphone Jack Removal; Good or bad?
Apple, as many now know, have remove the 3.5mm headphone jack on the iPhone 7, and at least one other phone maker is following suit. All of this begs the question... is this truly a revolution for the better? Or something else?
As far as I can tell, there isn't a good reason for this. Or at least, not a good enough one. Yes, the tech is roughly some 100 years old. That doesn't make it bad. Roofs for instance have been in use for millennia, yet I don't see Apple advocating for their removal. Like roofing, while the concept may be ages old, it isn't exactly the same as it was at it's inception.
Size for instance. The original connector actually wasn't the 3.5mm one. It was the 1/4 inch one. Also, sound quality is determined by a number of factors, all of which have improved substantially since the 1950's when the 1/8 inch (3.5mm) jack was introduced. Better shielding, stronger signal, noise filtering and physical equipment. In other words... the stereo jack is only over 100 years by the same standards that the roof is thousands of years old. It is insulting to an entire industry to imply that the current state is archaic. And it is just false to promote the notion that it has somehow reached the end of its useful life.
I think the most amusing article I read was one discussing whether or not the audio quality over the new dongle is better than it was in the iPhone 6. WHY?!?!?! It STILL uses a stereo headphone jack. If it produces better sound quality all that proves is that there was a better way to deliver the signal to the headphone jack, not that the headphone jack is an inferior tech. In fact, it would just bring into question why they didn't simply run a separate direct lightning bus to a physical headphone jack on the phone? Tt would prove to strengthen what I alluded to above; that not only is the current tech not comparable to the 1870's tech it came from, but also that the existing framework still supports further technological advances.
Are there no benefits then? Well sure there are. Some will consider cordless a good thing. It also reduces another physical impediment to minimum device thickness. It eliminates a potential source of dust within the device. Makes it easier to make a device water resistant/proof. Basically, for the most part it serves the same purpose and master that removing the physical home button does. It serves Apple. It makes the device more resistant to warranty claims. I don't want to claim that is a bad thing. But, it is certainly something which must be weighed against the pros and cons of the change.
So... pros and cons. Allowing for devices to be made thinner. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say since maybe as far back as the iPhone 4 "my iPhone isn't thin enough". And, with every iteration which made it thinner came more and more structural problems. In other words, the headphone jack is basically a defender of structural stability. The thicker the phone needs to be, the more structural elements can be included. If you bend your phone, your warranty won't cover it. So, it benefits Apple none. But people go ape shit over a device being another 0.5mm thinner, which sells more units, which Apple does care about. So, subjectively, you could say this swings both ways.
Dust build up almost never kills a device. People shatter screens, drop them repeatedly, store in improper temperatures and basically kill their devices in an insanely large number of ways which have nothing to do with dust.
Water proofing on the other hand probably will save a few devices and certainly a lot of scares. But, it will probably cause some additional cases as a result. I've never killed a phone in water, but I know probably 4-5 people who have (and amongst them, most have killed multiple this way), so it is hard to write off this benefit. But, it is worth noting... companies have waterproofed phones with headphone jacks... so it wasn't ever really a requirement, it just makes engineering a water proof device easier. Since, my experience has been that those who have drowned one phone will drown more, if you have, this might be a valuable feature for you. But still, the vast majority of people I know have never killed a device this way.
Oh, and when I say it likely cause additional incidents, I mean that is because the device isn't truly water proof. Read up on the definitions of what it means for an electronic device to be water proof. Even if you know to what depth it is rated, it doesn't mean you can submerge it that depth safely and certainly not that you can leave it there. It creates a false sense of security. More people will bring them out on boats now, or use them more carelessly around water. Inadvertently, this will result in a number of people learning the hard way.
Is the audio quality better? Well, that is a complex question. As above, you can't test it with the dongle since all that tells you is if the signal quality to the 100+ year old tech is better and I'm not aware of any headphones which can be used as both corded and wireless. Note: A lot of the advances are in the earpieces themselves, especially on wireless units which already need to include a BT receiver.
What I can say is, I doubt it. The stereo jack can support a LOT of information and ever inch of the connection can theoretically be properly shielded against virtually all interference. Out in the real world this isn't true of Bluetooth. And, as such headphone proliferate, you could find the problem exacerbated in areas with lots of other wireless head phone users. Open air is NOT shielded. Even if the impact is minimal, signal quality is likely degraded more even in current homes than the signal from the jack is.
Next is battery life. Headphones are tiny. Even Apple's wireless pods only get about 5 hours. It doesn't matter that the carrying case holds an even longer charge. You can't wear and charge them at the same time and 5 hours isn't long enough for many audiophiles.
The dongle is an inconvenience too. It can get lost or left behind and if you don't buy a 3rd party jack you can't charge and listen to music. And while I will agree that I don't usually charge my device and listen to music at the same time, it is a death by a thousand cuts scenario.
By now, I think my opinion is clear. The 100 year old claim is a farce. And while there are subjective benefits, the headphone jack is still more convenient and in most scenarios there simply isn't a problem that needs fixing.
In other words, on a phone, removing the headphone jack is a fix in search of a problem. There is no reason for such a device to not have one. And the world isn't really trending towards wireless headphones so it isn't even a natural move at this stage.
I don't have anything against the move either. There are some benefits. And most of them are for Apple. It is their prerogative and expectation that they will do what serves them. The controversy itself will undoubtedly help. People are eating up the PR. I don't know how many times since the unveiling I've heard that stereo headphone jacks are 100 years old... but they are actually nearer 140 years old (138 to be exact, having been out since 1878). That everyone is using the exact same number Apple used tells me enough that the people rehashing this story aren't even doing the research, they are just spewing the same things Apple told them. That is clearly a good thing. Anyone who actually did research might come up with actual reasons why the move isn't necessary.
Also, while I doubt the quality is explicitly and always better than wired tech... most people couldn't tell the difference, and without tech to actually test and the fact that headphones will likely continue to improve no one will have any reason to know. If you're happy with your AirPods or whatever silly name they have, more power to you.
As far as I can tell, there isn't a good reason for this. Or at least, not a good enough one. Yes, the tech is roughly some 100 years old. That doesn't make it bad. Roofs for instance have been in use for millennia, yet I don't see Apple advocating for their removal. Like roofing, while the concept may be ages old, it isn't exactly the same as it was at it's inception.
Size for instance. The original connector actually wasn't the 3.5mm one. It was the 1/4 inch one. Also, sound quality is determined by a number of factors, all of which have improved substantially since the 1950's when the 1/8 inch (3.5mm) jack was introduced. Better shielding, stronger signal, noise filtering and physical equipment. In other words... the stereo jack is only over 100 years by the same standards that the roof is thousands of years old. It is insulting to an entire industry to imply that the current state is archaic. And it is just false to promote the notion that it has somehow reached the end of its useful life.
I think the most amusing article I read was one discussing whether or not the audio quality over the new dongle is better than it was in the iPhone 6. WHY?!?!?! It STILL uses a stereo headphone jack. If it produces better sound quality all that proves is that there was a better way to deliver the signal to the headphone jack, not that the headphone jack is an inferior tech. In fact, it would just bring into question why they didn't simply run a separate direct lightning bus to a physical headphone jack on the phone? Tt would prove to strengthen what I alluded to above; that not only is the current tech not comparable to the 1870's tech it came from, but also that the existing framework still supports further technological advances.
Are there no benefits then? Well sure there are. Some will consider cordless a good thing. It also reduces another physical impediment to minimum device thickness. It eliminates a potential source of dust within the device. Makes it easier to make a device water resistant/proof. Basically, for the most part it serves the same purpose and master that removing the physical home button does. It serves Apple. It makes the device more resistant to warranty claims. I don't want to claim that is a bad thing. But, it is certainly something which must be weighed against the pros and cons of the change.
So... pros and cons. Allowing for devices to be made thinner. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say since maybe as far back as the iPhone 4 "my iPhone isn't thin enough". And, with every iteration which made it thinner came more and more structural problems. In other words, the headphone jack is basically a defender of structural stability. The thicker the phone needs to be, the more structural elements can be included. If you bend your phone, your warranty won't cover it. So, it benefits Apple none. But people go ape shit over a device being another 0.5mm thinner, which sells more units, which Apple does care about. So, subjectively, you could say this swings both ways.
Dust build up almost never kills a device. People shatter screens, drop them repeatedly, store in improper temperatures and basically kill their devices in an insanely large number of ways which have nothing to do with dust.
Water proofing on the other hand probably will save a few devices and certainly a lot of scares. But, it will probably cause some additional cases as a result. I've never killed a phone in water, but I know probably 4-5 people who have (and amongst them, most have killed multiple this way), so it is hard to write off this benefit. But, it is worth noting... companies have waterproofed phones with headphone jacks... so it wasn't ever really a requirement, it just makes engineering a water proof device easier. Since, my experience has been that those who have drowned one phone will drown more, if you have, this might be a valuable feature for you. But still, the vast majority of people I know have never killed a device this way.
Oh, and when I say it likely cause additional incidents, I mean that is because the device isn't truly water proof. Read up on the definitions of what it means for an electronic device to be water proof. Even if you know to what depth it is rated, it doesn't mean you can submerge it that depth safely and certainly not that you can leave it there. It creates a false sense of security. More people will bring them out on boats now, or use them more carelessly around water. Inadvertently, this will result in a number of people learning the hard way.
Is the audio quality better? Well, that is a complex question. As above, you can't test it with the dongle since all that tells you is if the signal quality to the 100+ year old tech is better and I'm not aware of any headphones which can be used as both corded and wireless. Note: A lot of the advances are in the earpieces themselves, especially on wireless units which already need to include a BT receiver.
What I can say is, I doubt it. The stereo jack can support a LOT of information and ever inch of the connection can theoretically be properly shielded against virtually all interference. Out in the real world this isn't true of Bluetooth. And, as such headphone proliferate, you could find the problem exacerbated in areas with lots of other wireless head phone users. Open air is NOT shielded. Even if the impact is minimal, signal quality is likely degraded more even in current homes than the signal from the jack is.
Next is battery life. Headphones are tiny. Even Apple's wireless pods only get about 5 hours. It doesn't matter that the carrying case holds an even longer charge. You can't wear and charge them at the same time and 5 hours isn't long enough for many audiophiles.
The dongle is an inconvenience too. It can get lost or left behind and if you don't buy a 3rd party jack you can't charge and listen to music. And while I will agree that I don't usually charge my device and listen to music at the same time, it is a death by a thousand cuts scenario.
By now, I think my opinion is clear. The 100 year old claim is a farce. And while there are subjective benefits, the headphone jack is still more convenient and in most scenarios there simply isn't a problem that needs fixing.
In other words, on a phone, removing the headphone jack is a fix in search of a problem. There is no reason for such a device to not have one. And the world isn't really trending towards wireless headphones so it isn't even a natural move at this stage.
I don't have anything against the move either. There are some benefits. And most of them are for Apple. It is their prerogative and expectation that they will do what serves them. The controversy itself will undoubtedly help. People are eating up the PR. I don't know how many times since the unveiling I've heard that stereo headphone jacks are 100 years old... but they are actually nearer 140 years old (138 to be exact, having been out since 1878). That everyone is using the exact same number Apple used tells me enough that the people rehashing this story aren't even doing the research, they are just spewing the same things Apple told them. That is clearly a good thing. Anyone who actually did research might come up with actual reasons why the move isn't necessary.
Also, while I doubt the quality is explicitly and always better than wired tech... most people couldn't tell the difference, and without tech to actually test and the fact that headphones will likely continue to improve no one will have any reason to know. If you're happy with your AirPods or whatever silly name they have, more power to you.
Comments
Post a Comment