Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New iPhone 7 Case Brings Back the Headphone Jack (thenextweb.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the revolutionary-design dept.

Apple removed the headphone jack in the iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus, forcing users to use either Bluetooth, the Lightning port or included Lightning to 3.5mm headphone jack adaptor in order to listen to music through headphones. However, one company took it upon themselves to create an iPhone 7 case with a built-in 3.5mm headphone jack. The company is called Fuze and they recently launched an Indiegogo campaign that promises to bring the audio port back to the iPhone 7. The Next Web reports: To achieve this, the company is taking Apple's Lightning to 3.5mm adapter and building it straight into a case, where you can plug your headphones with "no dongles, no adapters, no problems." In addition to the audio port, the Fuze Case will also serve as a battery pack as it adds 2,400mAh of extra battery life to the iPhone 7 and 3,600mAh to the 7 Plus. It will be available in five different colors including white, black, gold, rose gold and blue. The case is currently available for $49 to "super early bird" backers, but will increase to $59 once more people have chipped in and will eventually sell for $69 in retail. The company expects to start shipping the accessory in December later this year.

11 of 377 comments (clear)

  1. Makes perfect sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Apple customers can never pay enough ... milk them as much as you can, if they're that stupid.

    1. Re:Makes perfect sense by MitchDev · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Apple can fly the banner "Mission Accomplished". Pay more to get basic functionality that the phone used to have...

    2. Re:Makes perfect sense by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Pretty sure Apple has absolutely no financial interest in this product succeeding, possibly would prefer it failed.

    3. Re:Makes perfect sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Why would I want to pay more for headphones when I could buy better sounding ones with a wire for less?

      If you're buying headphones for the sound, then you're spending hundreds of dollars, regardless of whether they're wired or wireless. If you're not spending hundreds of dollars on your headphones, then you - simply put - don't give a shit about the sound quality, because you are objectively NOT buying high quality headphones which will produce a good sound. Yes, it's that simple. If you want to argue audio quality, then you're already spending hundreds of dollars on that single accessory, so pretending that a $30 dongle that allows you to charge & listen at the same time is pocket change.

      I don't want to buy more stuff

      Then don't buy an iPhone. Buy an android, until they start removing headphone jacks, too. Or get used to the fact that technology moves on, and move on with it.

      You suggest that like it's buying a can of soda. These accessories are expensive and I prefer to spend my money on other things.

      You just suggested you're buying headphones for high quality sound. If that's the case, the cost of your headphones (wired or wireless) are way more than any sort of connector.

      You can't just suggest people buy more stuff and pretend that is an adequate solution.

      Yes, I can, because it *is* an adequate solution. You know how you could save even more money? Don't buy a fucking expensive smart phone. Don't buy high quality headphones (wired, or wireless). If you're going to say you "need" the phone and the expensive headphones, don't pretend that $40 is a significant expense.

      These buds only have a 12 hour battery life brand new. I would use them for 8 hours at night and then what?

      Then you charge them? Or you stop wasting power by running them for hours when you're not actually listening to them. Or you spend $40 on the accessory that lets you listen to your wired headphones and charge your phone at the same time. There are plenty of options, it's clear you're just looking for a reason to gripe.

      I have to somehow charge them during the day instead of taking them with me to work?

      They charge over usb... they weigh like 2 ounces. You can't carry them plus a usb cable to work, and charge them at your desk?

      What a pain in the ass, considering the adequate solution has been in place for 50 years now. As they get older the battery will start to fail as all batteries do, and then what? I have too many things to charge already, I don't need something else to worry about.

      It sounds like you have a very limited mental capacity, and are desperately averse to change. Perhaps you should consider moving to Amish country, and eschewing all technology, since it's always changing and clearly the cognitive load of keeping up is too difficult for you.

  2. Battery cases prove market for fatter phone by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Subject says it all. They keep making phones slimmer so they can brag but we know beyond any shadow of a doubt that many people will pay for more battery life.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Battery cases prove market for fatter phone by ausekilis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is one of my pet peeves with phones and one of the deciding factors about which one I go with. I'd gladly pay the same price or slightly more for a slightly thicker/tougher, longer lasting phone. None of this "bendgate" B.S., none of this race to paper-thin. If it fits in my pocket, can stand a couple drops from 3-4 feet and will put up with the occasional abuse from a kid, that's perfectly fine by me. As it is now, I have to get Otter cases for my phones for fear of them snapping or shattering.

      The old nokia-style dumb bricks lasted forever. Sure, I couldn't browse the web but at the time I didn't care to. The early smart phones (android 1-2) were getting there, I had one that would last 3-4 days between charges. Then I had a Galaxy S3 (if I remember right) that barely lasted a day on a single charge. Now with the iPhone 6, I'm able to go a couple days between charges... Less if I'm looking at the thing a lot or streaming music. It's not great, but its acceptable.

    2. Re:Battery cases prove market for fatter phone by tripleevenfall · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To me the thickness of the phone is a "who cares?" factor. The length and width determine what sort of pocket I can fit the phone in.

  3. Re:Now there is a company with courage by plover · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Next step is to include a free wire so you don't lose those wireless earbuds.

    This is Apple we're talking about. "Free"? Expect to pay $39.99 for a iWire, and have to put up with standing in line waiting for a Genius install it for you.

    --
    John
  4. Re:Exactly as predicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Burdened". "Burdened by a headphone jack".

    Let that sink in. There are people out there burdened by a headphone jack. Luckily we have a company courageous enough to save these poor souls.

  5. So ... lemme get this straight.... by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You buy a superspecialawesome phone that is ultrasuper thin. Then you stick it into a phone case, returning it to the 3-4mm you had before.

    So ... you have a phone with a crappy battery life because they can only include a paper thin battery pack, which has to be glued on and can't be exchanged "or it would get too thick", you accept that they take away your headphone jack for the sake of thinness, then you pay extra to put a case around it that returns it to brick size.

    Let me spell that in a way that you people understand:
    #idontgetit

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  6. Re:Offer a rugged version with bonus battery life by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Insightful

    With respect, I don't think any of that's true, but it's one of these great assertions of utter donkeyballs that, if thought about, actually leads to the truth.

    Wanting a more rugged phone with a decent battery life has nothing to do with "nostalgia", and battery life is actually one of the top complaints amongst smartphone users. So why doesn't the market support that?

    Well, because the market is not the same as "most smartphone buyers". Most smartphone buyers do not spend $600 on a f---ing smartphone. Most smartphone buyers spend under $200 on a device with the biggest screen they can find, and then $10 on a "case" that makes it three times as thick.

    Who doesn't do this? The people who pay $600 for a phone.

    What's so special about $600 phones? Is it the innards? (No) Is it the screen? Uhm.... kinda, but you're looking at a screen that probably cost Apple or Samsung a cool extra $20 to incorporate. Better camera? Ditto.

    No, what's special about a $600 phone, which cost maybe $50 more to build than the $60 BLU R1 HD in my pocket, is that has a very pleasing to the eye design.

    That is it. That's the difference between a very good $150 phone, and a top of the line Galaxy.

    This is why, more than likely, that under $200 phone will actually be more useful than the $600 iGalaxy. It may well have on bezel buttons, resulting in a less awkward UI. It may have a removable battery, or an SD card slot, or both. It may well have dual SIM support.

    It may even have a battery that lasts more than eight hours before spluttering out.

    The majority of smartphone users want better batteries, features, robustness, and we really don't care about how slim it is. But the majority of smartphone users are barely profitable, with tiny single digit percentage margins. So they literally don't care about us: they care about that minority that's willing to pay $600 for a phone with a build cost of well under $200.

    And that minority is the group that wants paper thin phones.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.