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

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.

Comments

Makes perfect sense

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Makes perfect sense

[Austerity Empowers]

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

Re:Makes perfect sense

[The-Ixian]

Yeah, because that is Apple's MO, right? Build something that nobody other than Apple can use?

If the product says "Apple" or "iPhone" anywhere on the marketing material, packaging or product... they are getting license fees....

Re:Makes perfect sense

[DrXym]

That's a great idea for a kickstarter - an iPhone case with a built-in Galaxy S7 to do all the things the iPhone stops you doing.

Re:Makes perfect sense

[nwaack]

I wish I could mod this "-1 Wrong." What you're talking about is innovation. Innovation to replace a technology with a better technology is great. But this isn't innovation, this is forcing your users into using a proprietary technology that is cumbersome and worse than the technology it replaces, and then calling it innovation.

Re:Makes perfect sense

[fluffernutter]

When change makes things easier on me, I like it. You cannot deny that wireless headphones are more hassle than wired. In the gym, I can understand because the cord does get in the way. But if you're just sitting.. the cord is not a concern.

Again, your solution is to buy more stuff, which I have already rejected as a stupid alternative. Ok I'll say it, it is completely asinine to pay more for something that doesn't work as well for reasons I have explained. Less sound quality for the dollar, and on top of that wireless headphones are a consumable device because the battery will only last for a few years. Like the fact that you don't understand this very basic concept totally blows my mind. This is why America is so far in debt.

Yes, for your information I buy expensive headphones for listening to music. But the fact of the matter is, $300 is going to go further on wired headphones. This is another thing that you cannot argue. In every brand I check, the wireless version of similar audio quality (if indeed the bluetooth signal is not more compressed from the start) is more expensive than comparable wired headphones. Furthermore, I know wired headphones will work with everything from my kids cheap mp3 player to my van to my stereo to my phone. If I buy wireless I am relegated to only devices with bluetooth. Don't even get me started on interference issues.

I just don't have the time to make sure all the proper dongles are with me at the right time, and I don't need the burden of remembering to charge all the time. Plugging in every day just to charge gets too monotonous for me, especially having to do it more than once a day. It is my choice if I want to buy an expensive smartphone or not. My money goes to devices that solve more problems for me, not less. Anyone who buys something that doesn't have return for the value *for them* in convenience and usefulness is an idiot, which is exactly what you are suggesting I do.

Battery cases prove market for fatter phone

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:Battery cases prove market for fatter phone

[ausekilis]

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.

Re:Battery cases prove market for fatter phone

[bobbied]

Which is why I have an Android based Note 4.... It's not that the battery last a long time, being old it doesn't usually make 10 hours actually, but I can carry a spare charged battery which I can insert ANYTIME I choose and presto, I get another 10 hours. My "battery life" is governed by how many batteries I can carry (which is one spare that fits in my wallet case), not how much capacity is built into the phone.

It's not that I'm opposed to the Apple stuff.... But I like the endless capacity I get by having spare batteries that I can switch out on the go, so I never have to worry about not having any power when I'm out and about.

Re:Battery cases prove market for fatter phone

[tripleevenfall]

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.

Re:Battery cases prove market for fatter phone

[cdrudge]

But who wants a rigid, flat board to sit on. With thinner phones, they bend to your butt's contours so much more easily. And it also increases phone manufacturers and repair shop revenues nicely.

Now there is a company with courage

[burtosis]

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

Re:Now there is a company with courage

[plover]

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.

That video...

[ZorinLynx]

That video is so absolutely horrible, it actually wraps around and becomes good.

What were they thinking?

Offer a rugged version with bonus battery life

[sjbe]

I'd gladly pay the same price or slightly more for a slightly thicker/tougher, longer lasting phone.

Agreed. I don't really see the downside to offering a "rugged" version with extra battery life. I would think corporations would buy them by the bushel. I would probably buy one too.

As it is now, I have to get Otter cases for my phones for fear of them snapping or shattering.

I've always thought that the Otter cases were overkill for anyone who isn't suffering from parkinson's or has a terminal case of clumsy. I use a very minimal case make by Spigen and it's managed to keep my phone intact despite an occasional drop for over a year. If you want to be able to dribble your phone like a basketball then by all means get an Otter case but I don't think they are necessary for most and are WAY too bulky to be practical for the bigger phones like the iPhone 7plus.

The old nokia-style dumb bricks lasted forever. Sure, I couldn't browse the web but at the time I didn't care to.

That's a rationalization if I've ever heard one. You "didn't care to" because it wasn't an option. Even the early "smartphones" like the offerings from Nokia were absolutely terrible at browsing. I know because I owned several of them. They sucked.

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.

That means you don't use your iPhone a lot. If you use it heavily it will last 1 day max. I routinely wind mine down to near empty because I'm using it constantly. It's a rare day I don't dip below 50% charge at some point and I typically get to 20-30% with at least one mid-day recharge. I actually keep a charge cable in my car while driving. And in case you were wondering my battery works fine - I just use the phone a LOT.

Re:Offer a rugged version with bonus battery life

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd gladly pay the same price or slightly more for a slightly thicker/tougher, longer lasting phone.

Agreed. I don't really see the downside to offering a "rugged" version with extra battery life. I would think corporations would buy them by the bushel. I would probably buy one too.

The downside is that it would be durable, useful, and popular. The entire smartphone economy is based on the assumption that no one keeps a cell phone more than 2 years, and that it would be an improvement if everyone had to replace within 1 year.

As speed becomes less of a difference between annual models, designers are looking to make device failure a bigger factor. However, that is a hard trade-off. The glass used on modern phones is harder and more impact resistant than any mass-produced transparent material that came before. The vast majority of electronics are either faulty within a month or last for decades. As a result, the best target for medium-term performance decay is the lithium ion battery. Lithium ion batteries have a fairly well documented decay rate based heavily on partial discharges from full capacity. Encourage habits that wear down the battery, make replacement impossible, and you get your purchase cycle (not that I avoid the battery damaging behavior, it's much more convenient than trying to work with the chemistry's strengths).

Re:Offer a rugged version with bonus battery life

[phayes]

Apple & Samsung & everyone else have performed market studies that show that other than a nostalgic vocal few, not enough people would actually buy thicker phones to justify their development. The proof of this is that If the market for thick phones was as underserved as you pretend, sales of thicker phones and these thick, reinforced battery pack cases for todays thinner phones would be a significant percentage of all smartphone buyers. This isn't the case and battery cases & external batteries exist for those who need them and suffice for almost everyone.

Re:Offer a rugged version with bonus battery life

[squiggleslash]

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.

So ... lemme get this straight....

[Opportunist]

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