Wall Street Not Impressed with iPhone 7, Apple shares fall 3%

[Commodus]

Seeing how Apple's shares have fallen because of their decision to get rid of the headphone jack in place of the gimmicky "Airpods", no I don't think Samsung will adopt their strategy.

I wouldn't be surprised if Apple adopts OLED display technology, however. They already signed a contract with Samsung to buy 100 million OLED panels starting from 2017.

Apple orders 100 million Samsung OLED panels for the 2017 iPhone
http://www.gsmarena.com/apple_repor...led_panels_for_the_2017_iphone-news-17792.php

They're not getting rid of the jack strictly for AirPods. It's a design decision to make room for other tech and push wireless as a whole (I don't think Apple actually expects widespread adoption of Lightning headphones).

And you say you don't think Samsung will adopt the strategy, but remember: it also took away removable batteries and the microSD slot in its bid to chase Apple design (not blatantly, but certainly overall) with the Galaxy S6. This is also the company that redesigned the entire outer shell of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 within a few weeks of seeing the iPad 2. Samsung is still very much reactionary, in other words -- don't rule out a Galaxy S8 without a headphone jack, as even its jab at Apple at the Note 7 event isn't necessarily representative of what it'll do going forward. If the iPhone 7 continues to outsell the Galaxy S/Note line by a significant margin, Samsung may feel compelled to follow in Apple's footsteps.

And yes, Apple seems likely to go OLED with iPhone 8. Leaks and rumors have suggested that for the better part of a year. It's not a shock, and Apple has already sourced displays from Samsung in the past -- even in 2012 (such as for the Retina Display iPad) at the height of the patent lawsuit frenzy. LG would be the only other real source for OLED, and I'm not sure it has the capacity right now. Japan Display is reportedly working on OLED, but might not be ready for another couple of years. I suspect Apple will try to reduce its dependency on Samsung as soon as it can, as it has with processors, but it's not so proud as to refuse a competitor's parts when they're necessary for a design goal.

 

[Kazukian]

Seeing how Apple's shares have fallen because of their decision to get rid of the headphone jack in place of the gimmicky "Airpods", no I don't think Samsung will adopt their strategy.

I wouldn't be surprised if Apple adopts OLED display technology, however. They already signed a contract with Samsung to buy 100 million OLED panels starting from 2017.

Apple orders 100 million Samsung OLED panels for the 2017 iPhone
http://www.gsmarena.com/apple_repor...led_panels_for_the_2017_iphone-news-17792.php

]

Ok, this is just getting stupid, come on mods, please move this thread somewhere else, please?

 

[Fingolfin269]

How would adopting a no headphone jack strategy benefit Samsung though? The obvious benefit to Apple is headphone sales where Beats has 25% of the wireless market already. I'm not aware of Samsung having the same benefit. And I certainly didn't notice some fantastic new tech we got from Apple by them removing the headphone jack so it's not like Samsung is missing out on something there either.

What am I overlooking here?

 

[Commodus]

How would adopting a no headphone jack strategy benefit Samsung though? The obvious benefit to Apple is headphone sales where Beats has 25% of the wireless market already. I'm not aware of Samsung having the same benefit. And I certainly didn't notice some fantastic new tech we got from Apple by them removing the headphone jack so it's not like Samsung is missing out on something there either.

What am I overlooking here?

Apple's motive isn't strictly to drive headphone sales, though. The absence of the jack allows for more room for haptic feedback, the battery and camera tech. It could also allow for a slimmer device if the headphone jack is the limiting factor (it isn't in the iPhone 7's case).

If Samsung ditched the headphone jack in the S8, it could accomplish many of the same things. Your S8 could last longer on a charge or slim down. And besides, let's not forget that public perception is a factor: Samsung is clearly the kind of company that sometimes worries more about its image than raw functionality. The Galaxy S6 and Galaxy Tab 10.1 revamp are prime examples of that. Samsung didn't want to be seen as lagging behind, even when the changes were either unnecessary or required extreme measures.

Again: I'm not saying this is a certainty by any stretch. I'm just saying that Samsung may be more receptive to the idea of dropping the headphone jack than you might think.

 

[Eug]

Motorola did it before Apple too even.

 

[Anubis]

Motorola did it before Apple too even.

yea and we all thought it was a moronic derision then as well.

 

[pmv]

Apple's motive isn't strictly to drive headphone sales, though. The absence of the jack allows for more room for haptic feedback, the battery and camera tech. It could also allow for a slimmer device if the headphone jack is the limiting factor (it isn't in the iPhone 7's case).

If Samsung ditched the headphone jack in the S8, it could accomplish many of the same things. Your S8 could last longer on a charge or slim down. And besides, let's not forget that public perception is a factor: Samsung is clearly the kind of company that sometimes worries more about its image than raw functionality. The Galaxy S6 and Galaxy Tab 10.1 revamp are prime examples of that. Samsung didn't want to be seen as lagging behind, even when the changes were either unnecessary or required extreme measures.

Again: I'm not saying this is a certainty by any stretch. I'm just saying that Samsung may be more receptive to the idea of dropping the headphone jack than you might think.

Why would a phone 'last longer on charge' just because the headphone jack has been removed? Surely BT requires more power than wired headphones? Or you have to power an adaptor.

Apple's move seems like a bit of a gimmick to me, something to get attention and look as if they are doing something innovative when they can't think of anything else. Having to worry about earpod batteries running out as well as the device itself strikes me as a right pain, and the adaptor looks a bit awkward, dangling off the lightning port, and I suspect I'd not like using it much like I usually don't bother with my external amp on my ipod.

But to be fair, I don't even own a smartphone, so what do I know? (Can't even be bothered with my dumbphone any more, I'm happy with my modded ipod and a landline).

 

[Anubis]

 

[ControlD]

^^

Maybe it's just me, but the top picture looks a lot more courageous.

 

[Commodus]

Why would a phone 'last longer on charge' just because the headphone jack has been removed? Surely BT requires more power than wired headphones? Or you have to power an adaptor.

Apple's move seems like a bit of a gimmick to me, something to get attention and look as if they are doing something innovative when they can't think of anything else. Having to worry about earpod batteries running out as well as the device itself strikes me as a right pain, and the adaptor looks a bit awkward, dangling off the lightning port, and I suspect I'd not like using it much like I usually don't bother with my external amp on my ipod.

But to be fair, I don't even own a smartphone, so what do I know? (Can't even be bothered with my dumbphone any more, I'm happy with my modded ipod and a landline).

Headphone jacks consume a significant amount of space in a phone. Removing it can create more room for the battery, which appears to be the case here (the iPhone 7 has a larger capacity lithium-ion pack). It also made room for that newer haptic feedback engine and the camera system.

I don't think yanking the headphone jack was a gimmick so much as just a decision based on what Apple wanted to achieve in terms of those features I just mentioned. That doesn't necessarily mean that it was the wisest decision, just that it wasn't arbitrary.

 

[Yakk]

^^

Maybe it's just me, but the top picture looks a lot more courageous.

Plug-in courage right there, yep.

 

[mrochester]

How would adopting a no headphone jack strategy benefit Samsung though? The obvious benefit to Apple is headphone sales where Beats has 25% of the wireless market already. I'm not aware of Samsung having the same benefit. And I certainly didn't notice some fantastic new tech we got from Apple by them removing the headphone jack so it's not like Samsung is missing out on something there either.

What am I overlooking here?

It's not about benefiting the manufacturer, it's about benefiting the consumer. Forcing headphones manufacturers and users towards a wireless future brings the cost of wireless headphones down and the quality up. Consumers win.

 

[Midwayman]

Why would a phone 'last longer on charge' just because the headphone jack has been removed? Surely BT requires more power than wired headphones? Or you have to power an adaptor.

Apple's move seems like a bit of a gimmick to me, something to get attention and look as if they are doing something innovative when they can't think of anything else. Having to worry about earpod batteries running out as well as the device itself strikes me as a right pain, and the adaptor looks a bit awkward, dangling off the lightning port, and I suspect I'd not like using it much like I usually don't bother with my external amp on my ipod.

But to be fair, I don't even own a smartphone, so what do I know? (Can't even be bothered with my dumbphone any more, I'm happy with my modded ipod and a landline).

Bigger battery is possible without the port.

I think the real reason they did it is they want to push their own wireless standard- the w1 chip. If it takes off they get to have royalties on every singe device made that supports it. If they weren't user hostile they would have just supported atpx.

 

[mrochester]

Bigger battery is possible without the port.

I think the real reason they did it is they want to push their own wireless standard- the w1 chip. If it takes off they get to have royalties on every singe device made that supports it. If they weren't user hostile they would have just supported atpx.

Does APTX do what the W1 chip does?

 

[Fingolfin269]

It's not about benefiting the manufacturer, it's about benefiting the consumer. Forcing headphones manufacturers and users towards a wireless future brings the cost of wireless headphones down and the quality up. Consumers win.

I just don't even know how many stages of grief you had to go through to get to this line of thinking. The consumer wins absolutely nothing here. Did you forget that Apple owns Beats? Why does Apple need to remove the headphone jack from the iPhone in order to improve quality on Beats headphones? If you make a good quality headphone, that just so happens to also be wireless, then consumers will purchase it if the price is right.

 

[mrochester]

I just don't even know how many stages of grief you had to go through to get to this line of thinking. The consumer wins absolutely nothing here. Did you forget that Apple owns Beats? Why does Apple need to remove the headphone jack from the iPhone in order to improve quality on Beats headphones? If you make a good quality headphone, that just so happens to also be wireless, then consumers will purchase it if the price is right.

Because Apple has to find a way to incentivise other manufacturers to create cheaper and better wireless products. I'm sure Apple will continue to improves Beats headphones regardless.

 

[Yakk]

Does APTX do what the W1 chip does?

This is not new tech, and as far as I've been able to read, does nothing better. I can only imagine Apple didn't want to pay license fees to Qualcomm.

https://www.aptx.com/history

https://www.aptx.com/how-it-works

 

[WelshBloke]

It's not about benefiting the manufacturer, it's about benefiting the consumer. Forcing headphones manufacturers and users towards a wireless future brings the cost of wireless headphones down and the quality up. Consumers win.

They could do that by just... well... just by reducing the price of their wireless headphones and increasing the quality.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Because Apple has to find a way to incentivise other manufacturers to create cheaper and better wireless products. I'm sure Apple will continue to improves Beats headphones regardless.

Beats already owns the majority share in the wireless headphone market (25%). Why would it be in their interest to entice other manufacturers to create cheaper and better wireless products?

 

[mrochester]

This is not new tech. I can only imagine Apple didn't want to pay license fees to Qualcomm.

https://www.aptx.com/history

https://www.aptx.com/how-it-works

So it doesn't do what the W1 chip does then?

 

[mrochester]

They could do that by just... well... just by reducing the price of their wireless headphones and increasing the quality.

And they'll do that when the market is forced to move on, like Apple is doing.

Like, isn't this blindingly obvious?!

 

[mrochester]

Beats already owns the majority share in the wireless headphone market (25%). Why would it be in their interest to entice other manufacturers to create cheaper and better wireless products?

Because Apple are pushing a future that's better for consumers.

 

[Fingolfin269]

And they'll do that when the market is forced to move on, like Apple is doing.

Like, isn't this blindingly obvious?!

Not at all. Wouldn't it make more sense to do it before the market has moved on so you can corner the market? Which econ point am I missing here?

 

[mrochester]

Not at all. Wouldn't it make more sense to do it before the market has moved on so you can corner the market? Which econ point am I missing here?

But they won't do it unless they are coerced. You have to incentivise business to do business.

I seem to be amongst luddites who want technology to remain stagnant here!

 

[ControlD]

But they won't do it unless they are coerced. You have to incentivise business to do business.

I seem to be amongst luddites who want technology to remain stagnant here!

Why do they need to be coerced? Bluetooth headphones are already outselling wired headphones as it is. I would think consumer demand in this case is enough to convince headphone manufacturers to concentrate on wireless models, and in fact they already are.