Apple iPhone 7 Event Livestream

Steve said:
well shit, rumors were true...same ol' same ol'...in high gloss jet black and black :(
Click to expand...

Lets see how long it takes for every other Android phone to suddenly become available in glossy black metal and glass now... I'm sure Samsung have their photocopiers warmed up already...
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Looks like a sharp device.

Camera seems excellent, and for some people who only have the camera in their phone I guess that is a selling point. I rarely use my phone camera at all, preferring a real camera, but that's just me.

The lack of the 2.5mm jack is a non starter though. I rarely use headsets on my phone, but when I do I need them to work, and ha information to use an adapter you may or may not be able to find when you need it is not going to cut it.

If I had one of these, the wireless headphones would sit in my car unused for 4 months until the day I needed them, at which point they would be dead the only time I needed them.
Click to expand...
So to recap: you are pissed off about using an adapter for your ear buds but carry a separate camera around, refuse to use cordless drills, and instead carry an extension cord around so you can use your corded drill?

It's almost like you're doing everything backwards.
 
Bandalo said:
That covers Bluetooth. This is NOT Bluetooth. If Apple can show the FAA specs that say it operates in the same bands and similar power levels, it may be easy to approve. But the FAA approved Bluetooth because Bluetooth actually has known signal standards.
Click to expand...

How do you know this isnt bluetooth?
 
Kaitian said:
Yes, yes I do. Why do you ask, Mr. Paranoid? The internet brings up many wonderful searches on this! airplane mode - Google Search
Click to expand...

It's not about using airplane mode on your phone, it's about the fact that these devices may cause interference.

Kaitian said:
You just described a majority of travelers around the world that don't activate airplane mode just because the flight stewardess said so. Now, Apple is that way in Palo Alto and you can get on their case about it. Meanwhile, keep on trucking.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and they're idiots too. "Yeah, screw the regulators and engineers who said this might be dangerous, I need to post pictures to Instagram! My personal entertainment is far more important than the safety off all the people on this plane".

-Strelok- said:
Well then why don't you go ahead and call up Apple to make sure they adhere to the rules, because they obviously have no idea about any of this.
Click to expand...

I'm sure Apple will work with the FAA as necessary to get it ironed out, they're not completely stupid. We're discussing the new info they released today, and I didn't see that question brought up.
 
Sweet, we have FAA lawyers on this site.

But seriously, though...one guy brought up a good point...ear buds falling out when running or biking...that would suck. I do think its stupid to get rid of the 2.5 plug, but it was eventually going to die. If you don't believe that you're special.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
I'm not even going to google for you. You can do it yourself. Known vulnerabilities open for 2 years after they were published, Apples own Security lead criticized them after leaving in 2014 for not patching iOS vulnerabilities. The list is exhaustive.



Yes, Apple took a great stance against the FBI in the locked phone case, but the inability to unlock a locked phone is not the only aspect of security and vulnerabilities.
Click to expand...

Yeah, even if you are still correct, just how many Android phones receive patches the day after a vulnerability is fixed? How many Android phones out there are wide open to just about any script kiddie there ever was?

Buy an Android phone today, and good luck getting updates for it after 9 months.
 
///AMG said:
How do you know this isnt bluetooth?
Click to expand...


Apple said it's not Bluetooth. It's some "new wireless streaming" technology. It may operate in the same freq ranges, but it's not the Bluetooth protocol.
 
Bandalo said:
It's not about using airplane mode on your phone, it's about the fact that these devices may cause interference.



Exactly, and they're idiots too. "Yeah, screw the regulators and engineers who said this might be dangerous, I need to post pictures to Instagram! My personal entertainment is far more important than the safety off all the people on this plane".



I'm sure Apple will work with the FAA as necessary to get it ironed out, they're not completely stupid. We're discussing the new info they released today, and I didn't see that question brought up.
Click to expand...
Have you ever actually worked on an airplane or know anything about them other than the public press releases about them?

Because I have, and I do. And I know how air planes work. While I get what you're saying about federal law and all that, at this point its just red tape. This shit doesn't actually affect anything. Technically you're correct about the law, but you're just being silly at this point thinking these things "COULD" affect the safety of an airliner.
 
Bandalo said:
It's not about using airplane mode on your phone, it's about the fact that these devices may cause interference.
Click to expand...
I highlighted the important part for you. Back to the simple solution: Don't turn on airplane mode if you think airpods won't work on Bluetooth. If you want to use airplane mode, then turn back on Bluetooth. Keep on trucking!
Bandalo said:
Exactly, and they're idiots too. "Yeah, screw the regulators and engineers who said this might be dangerous, I need to post pictures to Instagram! My personal entertainment is far more important than the safety off all the people on this plane".
Click to expand...
No one gives a fuck. How about that? Palo Alto is where Apple HQ is based at. Please go get on their cases and tell them that Airpods is a no no.
Bandalo said:
Apple said it's not Bluetooth. It's some "new wireless streaming" technology. It may operate in the same freq ranges, but it's not the Bluetooth protocol.
Click to expand...
It's a custom Bluetooth chip. This isn't the first time it's happened and won't be the last.
 
Bandalo said:
Apple said it's not Bluetooth. It's some "new wireless streaming" technology. It may operate in the same freq ranges, but it's not the Bluetooth protocol.
Click to expand...
Just like the Velcro on your jacket isn't actually Velcro, its technically "hook and loops" because Velcro is trade marked. Bluetooth is a trademark as well, so even if it is actually Bluetooth, they can't call it that.
 
damicatz said:
Apple engages in censorship and restricts your freedom. That alone should be reason enough to never buy anything from them unless you like being a slave.
Click to expand...

God damn... with that kind of logic none of you should pay your taxes either.
 
Bandalo said:
Apple said it's not Bluetooth. It's some "new wireless streaming" technology. It may operate in the same freq ranges, but it's not the Bluetooth protocol.
Click to expand...

What, I havent read or heard anything about new type of standard for wireless communication. I did read and see that they put in a new chip and all these extra sensors. I think the apple magic might have gotten to you if you think they would create a new standard just for earphones.
 
OEM said:
Have you ever actually worked on an airplane or know anything about them other than the public press releases about them?

Because I have, and I do. And I know how air planes work. While I get what you're saying about federal law and all that, at this point its just red tape. This shit doesn't actually affect anything. Technically you're correct about the law, but you're just being silly at this point thinking these things "COULD" affect the safety of an airliner.
Click to expand...

Most of my work has been on either ships, submarines, or satellites. BUT, I do get your point. The likelihood of actual dangers to flight are pretty small. That red tape is a HUGE problem though, since if someone DOES decide additional testing or certification is required, it'll take years. And if you've worked on planes, especially with the government, you know how long that kind of stuff can take. They probably will find no safety risk, but it could take a while. Unless they find some loophole where the "new wireless streaming" uses some frequency they've already tested.

OEM said:
Just like the Velcro on your jacket isn't actually Velcro, its technically "hook and loops" because Velcro is trade marked. Bluetooth is a trademark as well, so even if it is actually Bluetooth, they can't call it that.
Click to expand...

I get your point, but Bluetooth implies a specific frequency range and allowed power levels. If Apple is using the same range and power with a new protocol and software stack, then it won't matter and should be approved without any fanfare.
 
Stimpy88 said:
Yeah, even if you are still correct, just how many Android phones receive patches the day after a vulnerability is fixed? How many Android phones out there are wide open to just about any script kiddie there ever was?

Buy an Android phone today, and good luck getting updates for it after 9 months.
Click to expand...

My 2013 Nexus 7 is still getting updates.

To be clear, I'm equally turned off my the patching habits of Samsung/LG/HTC etc.

Nexus devices - however - receive at least monthly security patches, which currently is the best in industry.

IMHO it's still not quite good enough, but there are no better alternatives.

It's Nexus or bust.

I am hopeful that Apple are changing their ways though. Their last iOS patch was swift and effective, but this is one data point thus far. If they do improve and this is the model going forward I would be much more positively inclined towards them.

I'd like to see them be more transparent, acknowledge discovered issues promptly, and give a public timeline to patching, and the deliver on it, while providing short term suggestions on how users can avoid trouble until the patch is available.

The standard operating procedure from Apple when there is trouble unfortunately still appears to be one of denying everything and covering everything up.
 
///AMG said:
What, I havent read or heard anything about new type of standard for wireless communication. I did read and see that they put in a new chip and all these extra sensors. I think the apple magic might have gotten to you if you think they would create a new standard just for earphones.
Click to expand...

It's not an open standard, it's an "Apple" standard apparently, and new with this W1 chip. Might be some kind of modified Bluetooth, might even use Wifi, or it might be something else entirely. The important part is Apple will get money for every device on either end of the link.
 
Bandalo said:
Most of my work has been on either ships, submarines, or satellites. BUT, I do get your point. The likelihood of actual dangers to flight are pretty small. That red tape is a HUGE problem though, since if someone DOES decide additional testing or certification is required, it'll take years. And if you've worked on planes, especially with the government, you know how long that kind of stuff can take. They probably will find no safety risk, but it could take a while. Unless they find some loophole where the "new wireless streaming" uses some frequency they've already tested.



I get your point, but Bluetooth implies a specific frequency range and allowed power levels. If Apple is using the same range and power with a new protocol and software stack, then it won't matter and should be approved without any fanfare.
Click to expand...
You didn't read the FAA's website that I linked you, did you? They've already streamlined the whole process reducing the process from years to quicker turnaround. Boeing (who I used to work for) and Airbus including other aerospace manufacturers can have much faster adoption of technologies because of this streamlined process involving PED's. When I was at Boeing, the Flight Test team I worked with had a bunch of PED gadgets (like the Hololens) that they wanted to use on their airplanes for testing before they delivered them to the airlines. The streamlined process actually helped. So Apple wouldn't have any difficulties getting Airpods approved since it operates in the same frequency (If they haven't done so already) and since it's a Bluetooth device, it wouldn't have problem getting approved (again if they haven't done so). Now, take your panties and unwad it.
boomboy2k1 said:
Do the airpods come with the iphone 7 or are they sold separately?
Click to expand...
Separately.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
My 2013 Nexus 7 is still getting updates.

To be clear, I'm equally turned off my the patching habits of Samsung/LG/HTC etc.

Nexus devices - however - receive at least monthly security patches, which currently is the best in industry.

IMHO it's still not quite good enough, but there are no better alternatives.

It's Nexus or bust.

I am hopeful that Apple are changing their ways though. Their last iOS patch was swift and effective, but this is one data point thus far. If they do improve and this is the model going forward I would be much more positively inclined towards them.

I'd like to see them be more transparent, acknowledge discovered issues promptly, and give a public timeline to patching, and the deliver on it, while providing short term suggestions on how users can avoid trouble until the patch is available.

The standard operating procedure from Apple when there is trouble unfortunately still appears to be one of denying everything and covering everything up.
Click to expand...

But the Nexus line are Google phones, yes? What about the remaining 95% of Android phones?
 
Kaitian said:
You didn't read the FAA's website that I linked you, did you? They've already streamlined the whole process reducing the process from years to quicker turnaround. Boeing (who I used to work for) and Airbus including other aerospace manufacturers can have much faster adoption of technologies because of this streamlined process involving PED's. So Apple wouldn't have any difficulties getting Airpods approved since it operates in the same frequency (If they haven't done so already) and since it's a Bluetooth device, it wouldn't have problem getting approved (again if they haven't done so). Now, take your panties and unwad it.

Separately.
Click to expand...

I already know the specifics, thanks. Your answer ASSUMES that this new whatever-it-is, is actually a "custom Bluetooth chip" as you said. If that's all it is, then sure, it's simple to approve since it's in the same ranges as Bluetooth, which is already approved. No problems. But Apple hasn't said what it is one way or the other.
 
OEM said:
Have you ever actually worked on an airplane or know anything about them other than the public press releases about them?

Because I have, and I do. And I know how air planes work. While I get what you're saying about federal law and all that, at this point its just red tape. This shit doesn't actually affect anything. Technically you're correct about the law, but you're just being silly at this point thinking these things "COULD" affect the safety of an airliner.
Click to expand...

This...

And also the FACT that a commercial airliner has NEVER been brought down by a mobile phone making a call onboard. This whole thing with consumer electronic devices interfering with avionics is total bullshit, and came about when the vast majority of the public did not own such devices, and needed comforting that planes were still safe to fly when the one passenger with a huge mobile phone came onboard.
 
Bandalo said:
I already know the specifics, thanks. Your answer ASSUMES that this new whatever-it-is, is actually a "custom Bluetooth chip" as you said. If that's all it is, then sure, it's simple to approve since it's in the same ranges as Bluetooth, which is already approved. No problems. But Apple hasn't said what it is one way or the other.
Click to expand...
It is a custom Bluetooth-like chip which means it will operate in the same frequency as the Bluetooth standard. Now do you know who the shell company was that they trademarked Airpods under? "Entertainment in Flight LLC". Don't you think they've thought about this?

The fact that you think this will affect the operations of the airplane or the safety thereof is absurd.
 
I wonder if this magic new wireless ear bud technology will suffer from signal interference. I'm not at all concerned about planes or the FAA, as reality is these devices likely won't have any impact on a airplane, but I can see them having signal issues if everyone on the plane is using them.

Edit - To be clear and clean of any tinfoil hats, I'm not talking about interfering with the Plane at all, its a ridiculous notion fed by lack of consumer understanding and media fear mongering. I'm talking about airbuds interfering with other airbuds within proximity.

2nd comment, wasn't the purpose of dropping the headphone jack to allow for a larger battery? Wouldn't the airbud system pretty much eat that extra power?
 
Last edited:
Stimpy88 said:
I must admit, if I ever went Android, the Nexus range would probably be it.
Click to expand...

Well, apparently that will no longer be an option. The Nexus brand is apparently dead.

Googles next gen phones reportedly won't even have any Google branding. They will just be named the "Pixel" for the version replacing the LG Nexus 5x and the "Pixel XL" for the version replacing the Huawei Nexus 6P.
 
Aireoth said:
I wonder if this magic new wireless ear bud technology will suffer from signal interference. I'm not at all concerned about planes or the FAA, as reality is these devices likely won't have any impact on a airplane, but I can see them having signal issues if everyone on the plane is using them.

Edit - To be clear and clean of any tinfoil hats, I'm not talking about interfering with the Plane at all, its a ridiculous notion fed by lack of consumer understanding and media fear mongering. I'm talking about airbuds interfering with other airbuds within proximity.

2nd comment, wasn't the purpose of dropping the headphone jack to allow for a larger battery? Wouldn't the airbud system pretty much eat that extra power?
Click to expand...


Not sure. They say it is not bluetooth. I guess that is a good thing, because they few times I have used bluetooth audio, I have found the quality to be disappointing compared to analogue output.
 
OEM said:
Really? Because I have a Droid Turbo provided by work and a personal iPhone and my iphone is superior in every single way. Battery life, speed, doing simple things like scrolling a page, accuracy on my screen, app loading times, website loading times. Everything. My droid is a piece of shit. Both phones are 100% bone stock using stock apps. So it literally is an apples to apples comparison. Don't even suggest that I root it, because I shouldn't have to, it just shouldn't suck shit out of the box.

The only nifty thing about it is I can wave my hand over the screen and it turns on the screen. Other than that its a huge piece of shit. Once I upgrade my phone I'm going to ask my work to make my old personal iphone my new work phone.


So its a gimmick on the iphone, but not on an Android?

How is that better?
Click to expand...
You should calm down, I was being sarcastic, those mega SoCs from Samsung and MediaTek suck.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Not sure. They say it is not bluetooth. I guess that is a good thing, because they few times I have used bluetooth audio, I have found the quality to be disappointing compared to analogue output.
Click to expand...
Because BT compresses and only supports stereo probably. The output is fine most of the time.

Aireoth said:
I wonder if this magic new wireless ear bud technology will suffer from signal interference. I'm not at all concerned about planes or the FAA, as reality is these devices likely won't have any impact on a airplane, but I can see them having signal issues if everyone on the plane is using them.

Edit - To be clear and clean of any tinfoil hats, I'm not talking about interfering with the Plane at all, its a ridiculous notion fed by lack of consumer understanding and media fear mongering. I'm talking about airbuds interfering with other airbuds within proximity.

2nd comment, wasn't the purpose of dropping the headphone jack to allow for a larger battery? Wouldn't the airbud system pretty much eat that extra power?
Click to expand...
Probably not, wireless technology has a way of ignoring like signals that are interfering. It's usually signals that have a lot of power that cause interference.

The purpose for getting rid of the Jack had nothing to do with the battery. They wanted a second speaker, they also wanted to better support headphones with external DACs, plus having it makes getting the IP67 rating that much harder.
 
That's not a second speaker at the bottom, the "second" speaker is the earpiece you also use for calls.
 
Kaitian said:
It is a custom Bluetooth-like chip which means it will operate in the same frequency as the Bluetooth standard. Now do you know who the shell company was that they trademarked Airpods under? "Entertainment in Flight LLC". Don't you think they've thought about this?

The fact that you think this will affect the operations of the airplane or the safety thereof is absurd.
Click to expand...

I don't think this will ACTUALLY affect the safety of any plane. I do think it might run afoul of any number of government regulations. And in dealing with government regulations, common sense is NOT a factor. So I could totally see these being banned by airlines for no real, actual engineering reasons.
 
Bandalo said:
I don't think this will ACTUALLY affect the safety of any plane. I do think it might run afoul of any number of government regulations. And in dealing with government regulations, common sense is NOT a factor. So I could totally see these being banned by airlines for no real, actual engineering reasons.
Click to expand...
So don't fly with that airline. For example, Delta doesn't care even in their safety videos. Problem solved.

This is the latest one from Delta:
 
OMFGBBQ! New iPhone!!!111

woorld.jpg
 
OEM said:
But seriously, though...one guy brought up a good point...ear buds falling out when running or biking...that would suck.
Click to expand...

If there was only something they could do... like attach a tether to the earbuds. And even allow you to charge it while it's being used by having it plug in, too. If only.
 
I can't wait to see Anandtech's analysis. According to the GS7 Edge benchmarks the newest Android flagships barely keep up with or are completely outrun by the year-old iPhone 6S, and the 7 is even faster.

Like Apple or hate them but nobody else in mobile can touch their silicon
 
rat said:
If there was only something they could do... like attach a tether to the earbuds. And even allow you to charge it while it's being used by having it plug in, too. If only.
Click to expand...
Everyone was eventually going to go away from the audio jack. So you're just being silly. They need a better solution than what they have now, but the current plug was eventually going to go away.
 
natos said:
Not interested in a phone that the only new feature is the removal of the headphone jack.
Click to expand...

they also removed the home button, quad core CPU, developed new power saving tech, and upgraded the camera. but yeah.. focus on outdated tech on a hardware enthusiasts forum.
 
Orddie said:
they also removed the home button, quad core CPU, developed new power saving tech, and upgraded the camera. but yeah.. focus on outdated tech on a hardware enthusiasts forum.
Click to expand...

Analogue audio is not, and will never be outdated tech.

Tech is relevant as long as it is still what best meets the end users needs, and for the overwhelming majority of people, an analogue headphone jack meets our needs MUCH better than any wireless solution can.

IN engineering we work by the KISS principle. "Keep it Simple Stupid". Never design a product to be any more complicated or complex than the simplest solution that will do the job.

From this perspective, wireless headsets are just plain stupidity, and a major step backwards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top