Slashdot Mirror
Intel Wants To Eliminate The Headphone Jack And Replace It With USB-C (9to5mac.com)
An anonymous reader writes: With rumors circulating about how Apple may do away with the 3.5 mm headphone jack on its upcoming iPhone 7, Intel has shared a similar desire, citing "industry singling a strong desire to move from analog to digital." Intel believes USB-C is the future audio jack. They believe USB-C has more potential than the 3.5mm audio jack as it allows users to add additional smart features to headphones in the future. For instance, a future pair of headphones could monitor one's pulse or inner-ear temperature for fitness tracking, something that could only be possible if the headphones were connected to a smartphone via a USB-C cable. What's also worth mentioning [quoted from 9to5Mac]: USB-C already supports analog audio transfer through sideband pins simplifying the engineering steps necessary to swap 3.5mm with USB-C in device designs. In the second quarter, Intel should have a finalized USB-C standard for digital audio transfer. Intel does note that the transition from analog to digital will be expensive as the headphones have to include amplifiers and DACs, but scale will offset the early costs over time.
Intel has gone berserk: nope not touching CPUs anymore. TOUCHING EVERY-F**KING-THING ELSE NOW.
Seriously. They are lost.
Or PC? Because what's the point of adding a USB-C connector to a PC?
I just use normal USB for that.
Also, I'm not really looking forward to replacing my headphones because a connector that has been in use for more than 30 years is replaced.
How about customer desire? I like my headphone jacks simple and robust, thanks.
I certainly could do without yet another converter and I don't feel like replacing my perfectly serviceable, simple and robust, headphones.
"USB-C has more potential ... as it allows users to add additional smart features..."
More to the point, it allows manufacturers to build DRM into the setup, so that this DRM decryption will happen inside headphones, instead of on the computer.
Not that this will stop determined rippers, but will make it easier to stop grandma from making a copy of her albums for use in her car.
All these radio and BT options are shite. Constant drop-outs despite being less than a yard apart, over-weight, poorly designed ergonomics that suggest no one bothers to test what they design.
Kill the sodding cable!
Chances are they won't mention it.
Two reasonably hefty wires to supply power, and a fibre optic cable, (or maybe two), for data. If they're going to break with the past, they should take the opportunity to make a really good interface. Too costly? FTA:
"Intel says that such a transition may make digital headphones more expensive, as the headsets will have to include amplifiers and DACs, but scale will offset the early costs over time".
I would think the same reasoning applies to fibre optic transceivers and connectors.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
Charging while using the headphones. Needs to be possible, or else this is an awful idea. The times when that particular case may arise may be few, but when it does, it's going to be really annoying.
I can't imagine that this wouldn't be considered, but no article I've read about this has mentioned it, unfortunately.
"industry singling a strong desire"
I think somebody misspelled "singing" .
So that means batteries, or pulling power from the source device ... yaaaaay(!)
So not only you monitor what we listen and say, but also our hearthbeat and temperature ?!? Aren't electronic devices getting a bit too close to this device?!?
I can get headphones, not good ones mind you, but still headphones, for $3-10. They're perfectly functional for what I do. They also break or get lost frequently.
I've tried more expensive ones, but they break as well.
What will USB-C and the necessary DSP do except make headphones more expensive? I understand that there may be more options to 'tune' the DSPs to the individual headphone, but my hearing is damaged enough that I don't think it matters.
I don't read AC A human right
Intel has shared a similar desire, citing "industry singling a strong desire to move from analog to digital."
And by "industry" they mean "intel". I think most makers of headphones or things using headphones would very much prefer to keep their existing processes rather than retool, especially as this likely won't go down well with their customers.
Intel believes USB-C is the future audio jack.
Of course they do because they make and sell (and license?) USB3 chipsets.
They believe USB-C has more potential than the 3.5mm audio jack as it allows users to add additional smart features to headphones in the future.
You can already buy USB headphones and they work perfectly with any computer if you want "smart features". I in fact have precisely one pair: a USB headset with a mic. It has some "smart features" I never use. Mostly I have it because my old headset was dual jack, not 4 pole and I got the USB one for free. There's no advantage of the "smart" one over the old analog one.
For instance, a future pair of headphones could monitor one's pulse or inner-ear temperature for fitness tracking,
That is literally the most pointless thing I have ever heard.
something that could only be possible if the headphones were connected to a smartphone via a USB-C cable.
That's great, but if you instead connected the headphones to a 13A plug (and used ethernet-over-mains to transfer the audio) they could also double as a hairdrier!
What's also worth mentioning [quoted from 9to5Mac]: USB-C already supports analog audio transfer through sideband pins simplifying the engineering steps necessary to swap 3.5mm with USB-C in device designs.
Um that's nice, and kinda strange. So now we'll have perfectly good analog headphones able to work with a cheap adapter, but we'll also have to use up one of the precious and relatively fragile USB-C ports instead of using the dedicated, robust audio one.
In the second quarter, Intel should have a finalized USB-C standard for digital audio transfer.
Well it was nice of them to unfinalize it in the first place given that we've only had an audio over USB spec for nearly two decades.
http://www.usb.org/developers/...
I can buy any random audio device, jack it into my old and busted USB1, 2 or 3 (and presumably type C) port and it will work with no drivers. So what the hell is this new spec meant to be? Do they actually include an inner ear temperature monitor in the spec? What about an atmospheric pressure and humidity monitor? And maybe a seismograph? What about something to measure the level of crap on my desk when I put my headphones down?
Intel does note that the transition from analog to digital will be expensive as the headphones have to include amplifiers and DACs, but scale will offset the early costs over time.
It won't be an expensive transition it will stay expensive since every pair of new headphones will need the digital stuff. They will always be mroe expensive to make than analog headphones because they are identical plus extra crap. Extra crap always costs more.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Oh yes, Tons and tons of electronic garbage is what our planet needs right now...
The problem I have is we won't have a choice. For some the ideal of spending more for a pair of headphones just for the sake of more options is OK if you want those options. But is it logical to have this as the only way to just plug in a pair of headphones just for music? I have nothing against Bluetooth but I also prefer to still have a wired connection to my headphones when possible. I know Apple is also trying to go towards a digital connection rather than analog jack but in reality the final output will always be analog. We don't listen to 1's and 0s we listen to sound waves. Bad digital to analog chips can really affect sound in a bad way. Sure you can make cheap Bluetooth speakers and most likely cheap USB C headphones too. But your going to have to spend more to get good electronics in headphones as well as good sound drivers. Tell me how all of this will be implemented in ear buds?
This will lead to more expensive headphones since they no longer can be passive, and will need a built in DAC and amplifier.
And make no mistake. The "strong industry desire" to move away from the audio jack has nothing to do with making better consumer products. It's all about making more money, and having DRM all they way to you ear so that they fully control when and how you listen to music.
I want to see their faces when they clash with the music production and entertainment industry, and the now vogue audiophile (...and pseudo-audiophile) community. They may well attempt to do so in the consumer world, but premium audio is all the rage these days and people won't want to downplay their expensive, high-res audio streaming services due to hardware companies wanting to save on ports, space, and that cumbersome DAC that occupies as much board as a 3g module. And yeah, I know the source is digital and the conversion process is lossy. But you go tell that to them vinyl lovers
In most gadgets the USB plug is the most flimsy part which breaks far too often and now they want us to abuse it even more? Also, tell me, how are we supposed to wear headphones and charge the phone at the same time (wireless charging is often not an option)?
A 3.5mm jack is sturdy as hell, perhaps that's what all this fuss is about. They want us to replace our headphones, gadgets and pay service centers a lot more.
Last but note least this "upgrade" will cost the consumer an arm and a leg, since from now on headphones will have to include their own DAC chip which doesn't come for free.
terimakasih atas bantuan yang telah diberikan :D
I want HEADPHONES. Not yet another device that needlessly invades my privacy to collect data for the oligopoly. Not yet another device that is more complex than it needs to be, requires charging, has a finite service live as a result of the lithium battery, and doesn't let me pick my amplifier.
FUCK YOU APPLE, AND YOU TOO, INTEL.
Leave my goddamn headphones alone.
This is an advertisers wet dream ... You WILL listen, and we have thermal sensor proof you had your headphones on. No listen, no goodies.
I can see that happening. And then I could see headphones that identify themselves as keyboards and do sneaky things.
HTC made a phone in the time with only a micro USB port... It was such a failure! The worst part was that it was impossible to charge the phone and have the headset plugged at the same time (very practical for long conf call). I made the mistake once, will not to do it twice.
USB headphones as a standard are horrible idea:
1- requires drivers
2- Malware and spyware will be infecting headphones,
3- complicates things
Headphones should be headphones, not computers.
So that the whole world and industry will be forcefully led into a situation where we have to pay yet more money, for something as trivial as sound?
How about customer desire? I like my headphone jacks simple and robust, thanks.
Nothing wrong with that. There is a real beauty in simple. However what might be optimal for you is not necessarily optimal for the majority. There is a saying in manufacturing that local maximums make for global minimums. Basically you can optimize one person's or group's requirements so much that it actually makes the overall system worse. For example for myself I almost never plug headphones into my phone. When I do connect it to an audio system I usually do it via wifi (home) or bluetooth (car). The audio jack really just is a place where dust gets into my phone and provides me no utility at all. So if we cater to your desires we are by extension making the product worse for me. Eventually something has to give.
I manufacture wire harnesses for a living. Believe me when I say that I appreciate the beauty of a simple interface better than most. But at some point keeping things simple starts holding back progress. I think we've just about reached that point with the 3.5mm jack.
I certainly could do without yet another converter and I don't feel like replacing my perfectly serviceable, simple and robust, headphones.
You wouldn't have to replace them. At worst you'd have to get a small adapter for them. I understand you not wanting to but I think the writing is on the wall on this one. The 3.5mm jack forces too many design compromises for it to remain in place forever.
I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.
I absolutely *HATE* this idea. And I predict the consumer reaction will be swift and severe.
Phono jacks are a global standard for audio connectivity. They are an old standard, yes. Very old. But there's no reason to try and make it obsolete. It's perfectly suited to it's task, and we are so path dependant now that making such a huge change requires more than the availability of a potential replacement tech. If there isn't a pressing need for a replacement, like a serious engineering or tech limitation, why bother?
I know why Apple would want to 'bother' - shitty behavior. USB-C means they can lock out 3rd party headphones and force everyone to buy their own.
For instance, a future pair of headphones could monitor one's pulse or inner-ear temperature for fitness tracking,
Guess that can only happen if the bud stays in the ear while doing said fitness activity. The one pair of in-ear earphones (bundled with phone mind you) I have, I struggle to keep in the ear even sitting, and start to hurt after a dozen minutes or so. (Then again, apparently my ear canals are somewhat narrower than normal.)
Good thing then that I didn't pay megabucks for the various over-ear replacements I tried until I found something comfortable and with adequate sound quality. I'm sure a pair that included all sorts of extra circuitry would not be quite as inexpensive...
I can imagine that if a number of the bigger mobile manufacturers start to bundle such USB-C earphones with their wares, it may start to gain traction, but hopefully their normal penny-pinching will continue to prevail and just-barely adequate underwelming gear will continue to be fostered on the consumer.
Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
"For instance, a future pair of headphones could monitor one's pulse or inner-ear temperature for fitness tracking, something that could only be possible if the headphones were connected to a smartphone via a USB-C cable."
Complete and utter BS. Bluetooth can do this right now and honestly wireless is the answer not a freaking special DRM encumbered digital connection. the reason everyone sticks to analog is because there is zero need for complex electronics in the headphones making them CHEAP. USB-C will require the DtoA and amp to reside in the headphones making them no different than bluetooth headphones except they have added DRM.
And that is what this is all really about... Intel desperately wants headphone DRM.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I am by no means an "audiophile" I just like to listen to music while I work and I have never used a pair of USB headphones that didn't have a loud constant humming noise even when no audio is playing. I have never had this problem with even the cheapest 3.5 mm ear buds. Still love my original analog Razor Carcharias headphones, inexpensive, comfortable, and have good sound (not the new Xbox version, tried it for my wife but it requires a USB connection to power them or some damn thing and as soon as you plug in the USB you get the hum.)
"They believe USB-C has more potential than the 3.5mm audio jack as it allows users to add additional smart features to headphones in the future."
But thats why every damn phone has bluetooth, why we need yet another connector to do same? I also like mu 3.5mm headphone connector, its nice and robust and if it brakes, i can still charge my phone.
This is just an excuse to try to bake DRM into your headphones.. after all, the analog headphone is the only remaining place where you can listen to music without someone's permission. You can plug your headphones into any device that has the jack and listen to music on it. In fact, you can physically borrow someone's digital music player or phone and listen to their libraries - WITHOUT PAYING FOR IT. OMG!
This will allow them to digitally tie a pair of headphones to a specific device and only allow the headphones to work with that device. Oh, and if you want to unlock an EQ, you can pay a little extra monthly subscription for that. Or, if you want a higher sample rate, you can pay a little extra for that, too.
This has nothing to do with innovation or user convenience.
A cheap but somewhat functional set of headphones can be had for $1. Granted I tend to pay a bit more for mine but at the end of the day they're not expensive.
If all headphones needed a DAC and other fancy circuitry the minimum cost would jump up dramatically - not to mention that at any pricepint the average quality level of what you're getting would go down.
The whole thing is a solution in search of a problem.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
As long as someone manufactures a cheap USBC to 3.5mm stereo jack socket connector I don't care.
> a future pair of headphones could monitor one's pulse or inner-ear temperature for fitness tracking
Typical pointless use of technology. If you want to monitor your pulse or inner ear temp use some other, purpose built, tools that are better suited.
Headphones should do one thing and one thing only. Reproduce the audio signal to the best quality possible.
Of all the pirating methods I have seen used over the years, the "analog hole" was only done by 12 year olds copying cassette tapes or straight off the radio. Not exactly a high loss area of music pirating.
Movie pirating, on the other hand, has had telesyncs for a long time. A telesync is a bootleg copy of a film recorded in a theater with an adjustable frame rate camcorder and audio from an FM microbroadcast for the hearing impaired.
Except one of the first things that'll come on the market is a dongle so you can plug your nice expensive Senheiser's or Bose's or whatever into the USB3 port.
And then watch the industry adopt something analogous to AACS's Image Constraint Token. A Blu-ray Disc can require all analog outputs to be downsampled to standard definition. Likewise, something like ICT for audio might require a compliant dongle to convert the analog output to mono and bandpass it to telephone bandwidth (300-3300 Hz).
In past exploits, attackers have scattered a few shiny USB thumb drives in parking lots in the hope that some employee will plug one into a work computer, infecting it with the malware payload the drive contains. Soon USB-C headphones will be the vector of choice. Who is going to do a security audit on a headphone?
I almost never plug headphones into my phone. When I do connect it to an audio system I usually do it via wifi (home) or bluetooth (car).
If someone's current car happens to support neither Bluetooth audio nor an ISO 7736 aftermarket head unit, I don't see who's willing to spend thousands of dollars for a new car or a newer used car just for Bluetooth audio. We might end up seeing Bluetooth-to-3.5 mm and Bluetooth-to-tape adapters (and Bluetooth-to-FM adapters in those countries that allow unlicensed micropower operation in the FM band).
PCs still come with a PS/2 port [...] so that I can plug my model M in (which works fine on a "modern" i7 and is a superior keyboard to 99.99% of the junk available now).
With the other 0.01 percent being Unicomp's USB keyboards that continue the model M's buckling spring tradition, correct?
Awesome. Yet another way they want to screw us. While this might sound smexy-smexy to some, I don't see any upsides for consumers. We'd have to replace massive amounts of existing equipment, worry about the fragility of the new connectors and it's another opportunity for the music industry to lock down an interface with DRM.
I have a significant investment in music production equipment and ham radio equipment (both purchased and home-built). Having to worry about availability of something as simple as a set of headphones or how I'm going to get an analog signal between two points is utter BS.
Evidently, they want to keep content locked down so tightly, it will make things painful for the customer. Why not just force everyone to get a brain implant so they can bill us if one of their songs is stuck in our head?
They already screwed us over with everything else, why not this too?
Don't anthropomorphize computers, they don't like it.
The only practical consequence will be that now you will have to carry a proprietary dongle/adaptor that will convert from USB to the usual analog jack, because being tied to the universally crappy headphones commonly sold with the phones is going to be even less popular than this.
BTW, the USB consortium actually explicitly discourages putting on USB jacks on the headphones themselves in the spec.
I think the consumers will vote with their feet - fragile, expensive proprietary dongles that you need to carry only so that the manufacturer can save a few cents and millimeters in the phone are not going to be popular. They never were - like the early phone camera add-ons which were in this form.
I wouldn't be worried about DRM here. Who is recording music through the analog jack of their phone?? And pretty much nothing else is concerned - purely digital analog interfaces for computers have been around for decades and have never managed to push out the purely analog interfaces. People simply want to connect their stereos and loudspeakers. The only reason for this is cost cutting and space saving - especially Samsung and Apple are taking this to the extreme at the expense of usability.
fuck intel...
How does this even come close to closing analog hole?
Sure, we have a protected path, Phone->HDCP->HEADSET->HDCP->DAC->Speaker Magnets.
I can still listen to it, I can still extract the data,
What we need, is DRM chips implanted in our ears, and headphones matched to those DRM chips.
Then, everyone needs to wear drm glasses, which can't be removed.
Analog audio jacks fall outside the scope of any digital DRM, especially the DRM of the full hardware and software stack that is what "Trusted Computing" was designed for. It allows the headphones or speakers, themselves, to require decryption authentication by Trusted Computing.
Forget audio, it needs to support the next generation of VR-headsets or it is not worth it.
1) USB connectors -- ALL of them -- are less robust than audio jacks. They're going to fail sooner. Guaranteed.
2) There are a bazillion analog headphone / earbud options. Do you want them obsoleted?
3) DRM. Do you want it? Ever pipe the output of your phone/pad elsewhere? Say goodbye to that.
4) We already have bluetooth if you want digital, plus, no wires, an actual reason to use it.
5) Digital wiring tends to generate RF interference. Analog wiring doesn't. Both can carry RFI from inside the device, but generally don't. Much.
6) Passive analog earbuds are less expensive to manufacture; you'll pay more for digital earbuds, which must be active
7) If anyone thinks an analog option will remain with these connectors, be aware that part of the proffered approach is the ability to "inform the user that analog audio is not supported" based on hardware support choice of the manufacturer; if, knowing that, you still think analog audio will remain an option, I have a bridge to sell you.
The smart thing here is to refuse to purchase anything that uses a USB-C approach to audio headphones. Consumers already let themselves get screwed over hugely by accepting HDMI incorporating HDCP; they're probably about to do it again with this, but there's still an outside chance a similar debacle could be forestalled or prevented.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I'm one of those who likes phones that have a builtin FM receiver, such as recent Lumias (yeah, Windows Phone user), and an old HTC Imagio (Windows Mobile), along with some plain old MP3/FM players, and they require the headphone wire for the antenna. How would this proposed change impact that usage? Also, being deaf in one ear, I always have cut off the cord for the earpiece that would go to the deaf ear to make for a "lighter package". Would that mess up this new scheme?
I do have a relatively functional BT Jabra headset, that is monaural, and works fairly well for calls, vocalizing texts, and playing MP3 files on the phone, but no FM radio use then. Also, it is not very loud as it sits on my ear (cannot STAND things plugged into the ear canal), and if they block out sound too effectively, my only hearing ear is not picking up environmental sounds which can be inconvenient, if not outright dangerous.
Looks as though I would follow my usual practice of lagging all this "wonderful advancement" of technology to save money and the hassle of early adoption/conversion costs and glitches. I wonder how many others will behave similarly, for whatever reasons, to delay getting on board, and thus those vaunted economies of scale Intel anticipates?
Their are places and people who want a simple analog device that costs less and didn't require a computer. Do Intel wants me to have one head set for their system and a nice, simple analog ear piece for my radio, MP3, and other devices?
No, USB will never overcome existing analog devices and exist in every device. Intel can stick it I their own HOLE.
Ah. But people are forgetting that phone sales are flat and this makes manufacturers sad.
Their answer? Do away with the robust and simple audio jack and move to the fragile and critical USB jack. This way people have to use it much more and wear it out/break it. And then make it so they can't replace the battery for the new power sucking standard.
Won't anyone think of the billion dollar companies that need this to stay profitable?
It's all about Digital Rights Management folks. Sure, you can have the file for free. Oh, you want to HEAR it? Well, cough up some money for a listening license.
Ok so usb-c is better, we hear you. But, guess what... nobody cares. You'll have to give us both for awhile and let the community make their own decision just like in nearly every other standards conversion to digital. Apple jamming it's ideas down people's throats doesn't surprise me, that's kinda what they do. But I expected more from Intel.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
If someone's current car happens to support neither Bluetooth audio nor an ISO 7736 aftermarket head unit, I don't see who's willing to spend thousands of dollars for a new car or a newer used car just for Bluetooth audio.
You can buy a bluetooth adapter that plugs into the aux jack of your car for as little as $40. I have done just that and it works great. Even Dewalt makes them. No need to buy a whole new car just for bluetooth since it is trivial to add it to almost literally any existing car with a stereo.
Something I haven't seen mentioned are products besides headphones that use the jack. I am pretty sure that at some point Apple required a fee for anyone designing a hardware platform that would interface with their other port. Companies like Square avoided that fee and provided a reader that would work with nearly any phone or pad. There are also companies making medical thermometers, ECG monitors etc. that use the headphone jack. In some cases those companies selected the jack for low power advantages along with allowing for cross platform use.
How are we supposed to charge our phones while listening to music with one USB-C jack?
Seems like a pretty common use case, are all USB-C headphones going to come with a charging port?
Also, as pointed out by every other commenter in this thread, now my headphones can give me malware. It WILL happen, right from the factory.
John McAfee needs to lay off the bathsalts for a while and engineer a bacteriaphage to guard our sensitive USB ports.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Doesn't work on headphone jacks. What abouts USB-C?
There's no shortage of people who make use of audio jacks. Just because you don't use something doesn't mean other people don't.
Never argued otherwise. However you have the argument backwards. I like minimalist devices where you add features you need/want rather than complicated devices that come with features you'll never use. Many people listen to music via the 3.5mm jack but not all users do. As such adding that feature adds cost and complexity while simultaneously being redundant and reducing the reliability of the device. It's like when everyone was still buying PCs with floppy drives because everyone else had them long after they had been rendered redundant by newer technologies.
You're also neglecting the use of audio jacks for other purposes, like for the vision impaired.
I'm not neglecting it at all. Riddle me this. Exactly what use is a 3.5mm jack to a vision impaired person on a smartphone with no tactile interface. The front is a smooth piece of glass. Headphone jack or not, such a smartphone is mostly useless to them if they are substantially blind and if they aren't then the lack of the jack is of little consequence.
Want some fancy device interaction? Do it over bluetooth.
Or do it over the USB port that is ALREADY on the device and isn't going away. There is nothing the 3.5mm jack does that cannot be replicated in some fashion via USB and/or Bluetooth. A single purpose port on a modern mobile device is an idiotic idea.
Have gnu, will travel.
Headphones work great, are an incredible consumer value and are universally compatible. How can we bust all that up, charge more, then sell it as a consumer win? "Skip buttons!" "DRM 'protecting' music quality" "Buzz words?" "Embedded ads in text scrolling display in-line with headphone cables!"
This ideas is as bad as the 3.5mm jack is good.
Recent developments with USB-C are so retrograde that I wouldn't be surprised if they were done with the express intention of persuading Apple to use the format.
Intel Wants To Eliminate The Headphone Jack
Headphone Jack is innocent, OK?
Besides the 3.5mm analog output being *the* standard also for non-headphone equipment, why would I want yet another accessory that requires a battery and/or recharging equipment?
I can tolerate them taking away the jack if they add two or three extra usb ports. You can't charge the device with a keyboard plugged in, ridiculous! Now they want me to be unable to listen to music while charging.
Well, maybe, but I think the primary distinction they were trying to make was vendors .vs. customers, not Intel .vs. everyone else.
Intel says "us vendors want to restrict customer purchase options and increase vendor sales options." There's a pretty clear subtext of "we'll tell the consumers what they want, and they'll like it." but hey, you know, the honesty is kind of refreshing, sort of like Trump telling everyone that he's going to completely change his tune after we're done voting for him. We all know that all politicians do that (except Bernie, Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, all totally unelectable unless the voting machines get hacked a lot more than usual) but it's bleakly refreshing to hear somebody admit it.
We might end up seeing Bluetooth-to-3.5 mm [...] adapters
You can buy a bluetooth adapter that plugs into the aux jack of your car for as little as $40.
Exactly. But this $40 has to be added to the total cost of ownership of one's first phone not to include a 3.5 mm jack. Can they make the phone $40 cheaper to compensate?
Memo to Apple and Intel: I doubt very seriously that I'm alone out here - don't waste your breath on that whole "superior connectivity" thing, and absolutely don't try to tell me that there will be adapters for dinosaurs such as myself.
Besides - I've been using (and got my wife using) Bluetooth headsets - digital and wireless, although there is a 3.5mm jack and audio cable provided on our comfortable ear-cup headphones. Not on my ear buds, but I suppose that would be counter to their design.
The question you should be asking yourself is why do they want to spy on your ears? Can they tell if you like an advertisement by some change in your ear? This is really about getting bidirectional bandwidth to your ears!
"For instance, a future pair of headphones could monitor one's pulse or inner-ear temperature for fitness tracking,"
No, just, no
I am looking forward to a day when my cellphone will have no jacks whatsoever and will be entirely sealed against any moisture entering the chassis.
Motorola had a whole series of phones that you could connect USB Mini headphones to, though I don't recall whether they'd eliminated the 3.5mm jack (I thought they had, but can't remember what model phone I had then....).
USB mini to 3.5mm adapters suddenly became important.
fencepost
just a little off
Do you know what the right way to add functionality to future headphones is?
Bluetooth. Just add another profile, no assholish "can't use those headphones you really love" necessary.
Seriously, most people at my gym are already on bluetooth headphones. The 3.5 headphone jack, with TRRS, is the one standard that the industry agreed on and stayed with literally for *decades*, everyone loves its simplicity, why screw with it?
But this $40 has to be added to the total cost of ownership of one's first phone not to include a 3.5 mm jack.
Wrong question. It's a sunk cost or will become one. The 3.5mm jack is almost certainly going away. You can either buy the bluetooth adapter now or you can buy it later but eventually you are going to have to buy it or an equivalent usb adapter of you prefer a wired connection. As such it is a sunken cost.
Can they make the phone $40 cheaper to compensate?
Probably not but Apple and Samsung and the rest aren't going to keep the aux jack solely so you don't have to spend $40 the next time you upgrade your phone.
Um, if only there was this connection that could be made between the headphones and the device that would allow data and media communication between them.
hm..nope, can't think of anything. Good thing Intel is on the case!
What a spectacularly horrible idea.
From TFA: "USB-C already supports analog audio transfer through sideband pins simplifying the engineering steps necessary to swap 3.5mm with USB-C in device designs. " Note that they are talking about *analog* audio over USB-C, not digital.
The motivation behind a move like this is likely reducing parts count, not draconian DRM, which Apple eschews anyway.
Monoprice's "Premium Hi-Fi DJ Style Over-the-Ear Pro Headphones". $16 before shipping. I've bought 3 so far.
I've tried USB 'phones before. I kept having to tell my computer where to send the data. No thanks.
Round pin adapters are better and proven. They can't be plugged in upside down and it's fool proof. Nobody asks which way to plug in a round connector. The circular pin shape can take more abuse than a flat thin design. Why are we still making power adapters than can be plugged in upside down? Is the power cable end and socket lobby that strong?
Seems like this would totally remove the (need for an) audio chip on the motherboard.
.. and make it harder to make music.
If they do this it will be a LOT Harder to make music, stream, create you-tube videos, etc.
NO! NO! NO!
I would love to see a good digital headphone standard come out
For instance, a future pair of headphones could monitor one's pulse or inner-ear temperature for fitness tracking, something that could only be possible if the headphones were connected to a smartphone via a USB-C cable.
On second thought if this is the best example you can come up with, I guess I really don't need or want digital headphones.
I don't think it's lower power than a 3.5" headphone jack. Aren't we all about saving power on the mobile devices these days? Keep it simple, stupid!
So don't buy items without 1/8" mini jacks. Some new laptops (my work PC) only have one for either mic or headphone, which already sucks. Yes, outboard sound devices that use USB are pretty cheap, but who wants to have to carry more crud around? Just give me my two analog stereo mini jacks. It takes up very little space. Drop the stupid fingerprint readers instead.
So now to plug in headphones I need DRIVERS?
NO THANK YOU
SPDIF?
I hate it when there's this nice digital standard for decades go neglected for the sake of analog ease, and then invent some new creepy digital standard as if SPDIF never existed.
The end game for Apple is to have specific headphones that ONLY work with the iphone 7.
(due to custom-encrypted USB-C and bluetooth).
This is why they bought the loss-making beats by dre company.
(Side note - calling it beats when Dre is a known woman-beater? strange choice)
Next plan for Apple is to 'secure' usb-c/bluetooth by changing the encryption again so you have to REBUY new headphones for iphone 8
as a pure 100% coincidence, the encryption will not be available to android phones......
Apple...seeing how far they can fuck fanbois wallets before they change sides since 1986
But are Intel and Apple going to subsidise the extra cost to the user too?
Fuck them in their analog hole. I already have enough content to last me forever and I don't even care if I don't get any more. If I was cut off it would be an opportunity to step out of that rut and actually experience life, and that's probably what scares them most. So go ahead media, fuck yourselves. Please. It will enrich my life.
I don't need a smart headphone, to hook to my smart tablet, that syncs with my smart car, so I can be a smart ass.
Large company wants to replace an ubiquitous standard with a proprietary overly-complex and unnecessary interface that they control.
Why should we listen to these guys again?
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Intelligent headphones that can sense the pulse, temperature of my ear etc. What crap? I use commodity $6 headphones and I am happy with them. Now Intel and friends want me to buy separate $60 loaded with crap headphones, that will sound just like my $6 headphones . And I will have to carry 2 sets of headphones. That's exactly why monopolies suck.
Layoffs aplenty, yet they still won't learn & are stuck to x86 and media lock-in (DRM) tech.
Bluetooth's the superior multi-interface (including digital audio). My $60 headphones have it.
Science & open-source build trust from peer review. Learn systems you can trust.
Human ears are ANALOG.
At some point, the audio data MUST be converted to air pressure fluctuations in the ear canal. There is no technical advantage to switching from [a] a public domain standard stereo plug and simple pair of thin wires leading to a mini speaker in an earbud to [b] a patented high-tech cable and connector assembly leading to an earbud containing a teensy digital computer driving a mini speaker.
Who is served by this INCREASE in complexity for no consumer benefit? [a] companies with patents on the tech who want to extract licensing fees, [b] standards orgs who get annual licensing and membership fees for use of the IP and logos and compliance testing, [c] established firms who want to keep new upstart companies from entering the market by raising the barriers to entry.
There is NO benefit to the consumer from moving the digital-to-analog conversion from the product's main PCB to the earbud/headphone. The consumer, however, loses by getting reduced options and increased prices. There is simply nothing wrong with the standard stereo jacks and plugs and earbuds/headphones which carry no compliance issues, are not burdened by IP issues, and are fully-interchangeable across manufacturers, products, etc. For businesses however, the current audio hardware is one of the last places in the consumer computer hardware field where there are "lost opportunity dollars"; they've spent the past 20 years killing-off all the free and standard interfaces on computers.
They're $15 and have kevlar in the cord so tugging doesn't snap the wire inside. Mine have lasted a long time and sound as good as high end models
Actually, it's the other way around. If any significant percentage of customers are plugging in and unplugging 3.5mm plugs several times per day, then replacing those with much-more-fragile USB-C connectors dramatically reduces the reliability of the device for that percentage of your customers.
Let's assume what you are saying is true for a moment. You don't have data but your supposition is a logical one. However it's also incomplete. You're forgetting a few important facts because you are only considering the failure modes from repeated connections of the connector. That's important but there are other failure modes to consider. Failures from dust/water entry into the device. Failures of the extra electronics. Failures of the software to manage the extra hardware. Etc (this isn't an exhaustive list) The list of failures does not stop at and may not be dominated by # connections. Further if the MTBF for USB-C substantially exceeds the typical time of ownership then it is a moot issue for most people.
You also have to consider what the cost of each of these failure modes. I'm pretty sure Apple and other smartphone makers have copious data about the various failure modes and their relative costs. A failure mode might be infrequent but expensive to mitigate. Failures have to be weighed against the costs they create. Its not merely a question of frequency but also severity and difficulty/cost to mitigate.
No, it isn't even slightly like that. People bought PCs with floppy drives, and something like one percent of them used them more often than once a year.
The floppy drive was obsolete LONG before that become the case. There were technologically better options commonly available by the early 1990s and yet floppy drives limped on for another decade and were still in shockingly common use until the late 1990s. Software was still routinely installed by floppy disk even as late as 2000. It wasn't until the late 90s before software became most commonly distributed on CD.
And even if the adapter were only $5 (instead of a more typical $20 early adopter penalty), every affected customer would still pay a lot more for even a single adapter than they would for the 15-cent headphone jack.
By separating the headphone jack you are letting those who want one a means to pay for it without imposing the cost of it on others who have no need for it. If it is worth $5 (or $15) to you then you should be willing to pay that. The makers of these devices aren't running a charity. If customers really do turn out to want one then either it will find its way back on the the device (unlikely) or people will migrate over time to other options. In the mean time we find out what the real economic value of that particular feature is.
In those 52 years, that connector has not changed significantly, despite many, many companies trying to do so. It isn't going to magically go away just because a couple of badly misguided consumer electronics companies think it it is out of date....
Nobody is claiming the jack will disappear entirely. It won't. But there is no reason it necessarily needs to stay on your smartphone if its cost exceeds its utility. We seem to be getting close to that point if we haven't passed it already. I'm sure some smartphones will still come with a headphone jack for those who still want one. Others won't and I'm reasonably confident that the ones that don't have one won't miss it very much. Personally I'd rather the space currently devoted to a headphone jack be used for more battery instead but that's just me. The headphone jack is (near as makes no difference) a unitasker on a device that by its very design is supposed to be multi-function. A single purpose connector really doesn't make any sense on a compact mobile computer.
Or maybe its just that they don't control that standard?
And in the darkness bind them
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
How to make investments in earbuds and headphones obsolete in a flash! Also jacks in cars. This idea is beyond stupid.
Already have bluetooth headphones eliminating the need for the jack entirely.
A jack for audio. How quaint. How behind Intel and Apple are. At least two years with the watch, looks like about 5 years with this. Anyone want apple stuff anymore?
Remember when Apple tried to force us to buy headphones with volume and selection controls built-in by removing the controls from smaller their music players? Didn't last long. I've invested in decent headphones. I won't be buying players that force me to replace them or use a shitty external DAC.
...and also there's a little bit of drm in it.
Well, we've got audio audio audio drm and audio. That's not got much drm in it.
Coming soon!
The Intel model 666 microprocessor with the L.U.C.I.F.E.R bionic interface.
This new system will change the world. A simple procedure of Implantation in the forehead.
Enhance Intelligence, speed, strength and coordination.
Advanced features such as terrorist detection and elimination!
The feature uses a wi-fi linked AI based supercomputer. When it detects terrorist thoughts a small charge of plastic explosive detonates eliminating the terrorst threat while notifying homeland security to investigate their own family and friends to eliminate the terrorist threat that they pose!
Note: The 666 logo must be facing out and clearly legible in order to be eligible for:
Work
Pay
Food
Clothing
Driver's license
Medical treatment
Education, all levels
Political office
Voting
Etc...
Order yours today!
Notice:
Three years after release of this product, anyone not having this device properly installed will be hunted down and shot.