Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Patents Apple

Apple Patents Cutting 3.5mm Jack in Half 369

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the twice-as-proprietary dept.
An anonymous reader writes with an article on a recent patent application by Apple. From the article: "Apple likes thin devices and considers the depth of the iPod, iPhone and iPad as critical component of the aesthetic appearance of a product and has been very aggressive in finding ways to trim fat from its portable devices: The 3.5 mm audio-connector stands in the way of future design improvements: Apple suggests to simply cut it in half."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Patents Cutting 3.5mm Jack in Half

Comments Filter:
  • Re:I'm confused (Score:4, Insightful)

    by EraserMouseMan (847479) on Thursday August 18, 2011 @02:54PM (#37132912)
    Steve wants to force you to buy a $20 adapter that costs $0.03 to manufacture.
  • by Giometrix (932993) on Thursday August 18, 2011 @02:55PM (#37132928) Homepage
    Won't a thinner connector make it much easier to snap off ?
  • by cervesaebraciator (2352888) on Thursday August 18, 2011 @02:57PM (#37132950)
    From the perspective of those who are likely to sell you the connector, that's a feature.
  • Rotated (Score:0, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18, 2011 @03:06PM (#37133098)

    The whole point of the jack connector is that it can rotate. Using a semicircle destroys this ability and any rotation will break something.

    It would be better to use a flat multipin connector.

  • Re:I'm confused (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jo_ham (604554) <joham999NO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday August 18, 2011 @03:21PM (#37133318)

    You need practice in reading comprehension I feel, like every second post on this whole story. If proof were needed that almost no one at slashdot reads the articles, this story is it, with 30 people immediately posting factually incorrect information that is addressed in plain english in the article itself.

  • Re:I'm confused (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18, 2011 @03:26PM (#37133402)

    Which is bullshit. Think about it - if half the connector is missing and you're using magnets to hold this in, that means that both old plugs and new plugs are going to fall out all the fucking time.

    Don't forget, this is a phone. When using a head set, you're going to drop it in your pocket. It's going to get jostled. It's going to get popped out.

    OK, so fine, instead they use a backing cover to clip it in so it won't fall out. Oops, that means it doesn't fit with old plugs any more, magnet or not.

    Oh, well so they make the cover large enough to hold it in. Oops, now they've thrown out the size savings (well, minus the 1.75mm they apparently can remove from the contacts - which I'd swear most plugs already do), leaving them with a port that's (nearly) the exact same original size, solving nothing.

    Which means either the "it works with existing plugs" is bullshit (my guess), or the "it saves space" is bullshit. You can't have both.

  • Re:I'm confused (Score:4, Insightful)

    by JWyner (653364) on Thursday August 18, 2011 @03:52PM (#37133828)
    Except, again, if you bother to RTFA, you'll note that the author clearly defines what he means by "jack" (i.e., plug), when he states "The audio jack consumes about 3.5, while the port and its ring add another 2.5 mm." Of course, I'm sure it's more fun to play Language Nazi than actually discuss the implications of the article...
  • Re:I'm confused (Score:2, Insightful)

    by initdeep (1073290) on Thursday August 18, 2011 @04:20PM (#37134316)

    except that it wont look as good, and since this is about aesthetics in the first place, apple will certainly play up to their customer how much better the new design looks and that only their design looks good with the players/phones, and that will mean that aftermarket suppliers will need to make something with the "good looking" plug to sell to the apple customers.
    so yes, it is, in part, about the possible licensing fees.

Organic chemistry is the chemistry of carbon compounds. Biochemistry is the study of carbon compounds that crawl. -- Mike Adams

Working...