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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The real reason is to close the analog hole and add DRM to even your headphones.
Surely if you want more from your headphones connection than we already have, just use Bluetooth and leave the rest of us to our 3.5mm-it-ain't-broke-so-stop-trying-to-fix-it serenity?
This [ ] left intentionally [ ]
More like a corporate obsession with overly complex solutions to problems ... and non-problems. The Red Queen races on.
For those -- probably not numerous -- situations where digital audio is needed, wouldn't it make for sense to put an ADC in the using device?
This "solution" would seem to require DACs (and amplifiers? (and therefore batteries)) in headphones and completely baffle a lot of non-geek users who would have to deal with three incompatible connectors -- 3.5mm audio, usb-C, usb-C with sidepins. And, of course, USB to usb-C adapter cables will turn up for folks who want to use older devices to drive usb-C devices. But they won't have audio on sidepins because regular USB doesn't support that -- yet. And software problems routing audio to the analog and digital hardware in the source device will probably make things worse.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
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.
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
What progress? Fuck off. This is a solution in search of a problem.