Comment Good (Score 1, Insightful) 426
I see no problem here (except with some employees who are complaining, who should probably be fired).
I see no problem here (except with some employees who are complaining, who should probably be fired).
The reason why they don't have an audio jack on the new iPad Pros is because it would intrude on the space taken up by the screen because there are almost no bezels—they've decided that aesthetic of small bezels is more important than the headphone jack.
No: in fact, it would be easier to place it on the new iPad Pro, because of the flat edges. There is more than enough room in the device for an audio jack. It has absolutely nothing to do with space.
But yes, it absolutely does have to do with the fact that Bluetooth headphones are becoming ubiquitous.
Yes, they did remove it — in large part —to make it waterproof.
Yes, it could have been made waterproof with the port, at additional cost and complexity. That doesn't make it not a reason.
Nope. As time goes on, more people will have more USB-C cables and chargers, from other devices. The pain will *decrease* the longer they push it out.
That’s what I do. I use that cable all the time.
You’re probably right. Yes, it means you cannot do a “hard reset” and plug it into a computer to fix it, etc. But almost all people never do that anyway. The rest of my family only ever plugs their phones in for charging or headphones. Any emergencies, take it into Apple for servicing, I guess.
That's really not how it works. We’ve seen it before, when iPhones went from the “Dock connector” to Lightning. When Macs went to Firewire, and then to Thunderbolt. They will not have two ports.
And I never said USB-C will “get better.” My point is that it will be a better business decision later. When? Well, since the premise I offered is that people have Lightning already, and not USB-C and since it is well-understood that more people are getting more USB-C devices every year then clearly, over time, the cost for individuals to go to a USB-C phone will decrease over time, since they are more likely to have other USB-C devices over time.
It’s not really complicated.
And that audio port is more expensive and more prone to failure. Shrug.
I have a USB-C-to-Lightning cable. No adapter required.
In fact, I have more of those cables, than I have USB-C-to-USB-C cables. I have a bunch of USB-A-to-USB-C, but one USB-C-to-USB-C (not including my MacBook Pro power cables).
It is worth noting that Apple has many devices with USB-C.
My MacBook Pro has *only* USB-C. Newer Apple TVs (last two or three gens) have only USB-C (in addition to HDMI and power). The new iPad Pro has only USB-C.
Apple isn’t anti-USB-C. But their existing customers are mostly longtime customers who have lots of cables and chargers, and do not want to be forced to buy new stuff.
Nah. There are many Apple-certified inexpensive Lightning cables these days.
he's a potential new customer
False.
He's someone who, in large numbers, would change the market-share of the product
Changing to USB-C would not pull in large numbers of new customers, obviously.
They removed the audio port to make it waterproof.
Considering I have a total of
Who cares? You’re not a customer.
Most customers want to keep the same connector, because they already have chargers and cables, and sometimes even accessories, for it.
USB-C is better in the long run, but that doesn't make it better now.
Love may laugh at locksmiths, but he has a profound respect for money bags. -- Sidney Paternoster, "The Folly of the Wise"
