[complete transcription so that you do not need to visit X]
A crazy experience — I lost my earbuds in a remote town in Chile, so tried buying a new pair at the airport before flying out. But the new wired, iPhone, lightning-cable headphones didn't work. Strange.
So I went back and swapped them for another pair, from a different brand. But those headphones didn't work either. We tried a third brand, which also didn't work.
By now the gift shop people and their manager and all the people in line behind me are super annoyed, until one of the girls says in Spanish, "You need to have bluetooth on." Oh yes, everyone else nods in agreement. Wired headphones for iPhones definitely need bluetooth.
What? That makes no sense. The entire point of wired headphones is to not need bluetooth.
So I turn Bluetooth on with the headphones plugged into the lightning port and sure enough my phone offers to "pair" my wired headphones. "See," they all say in Spanish, like I must be the dumbest person in the world.
With a little back and forth I realize that they don't even conceptually know what bluetooth is, while I have actually programmed for the bluetooth stack before. I was submitting low-level bugs to Ericsson back in the early 2000's! Yet somehow, I with my computer science degree, am wrong, and they, having no idea what bluetooth even is, are right.
My mind is boggled, I'm outnumbered, and my plane is boarding. I don't want wireless headphones. And especially not wired/wireless headphones or whatever the hell these things are. So I convince them, with my last ounce of sanity, to let me try one last thing, a full-proof solution:
I buy a normal wired, old-school pair of mini-stereo headphones and a lightning adapter. We plug it all in. It doesn't work.
"Bluetooth on", they tell me.
NO! By all that is sacred my wired lightning adapter cannot require Bluetooth. "It does," they assure me.
So I turn my Bluetooth on and sure enough my phone offers to pair my new wired, lightning adapter with my phone.
Unbelievable.
I return it all, run to catch my plane, and spend half the flight wondering what planet I'm on. Until finally back home, I do some research and figure out what's going on:
A scourge of cheap "lightning" headphones and lightning accessories is flooding certain markets, unleashed by unscrupulous Chinese manufacturers who have discovered an unholy recipe:
True Apple lightning devices are more expensive to make. So instead of conforming to the Apple standard, these companies have made headphones that receive audio via bluetooth — avoiding the Apple specification — while powering the bluetooth chip via a wired cable, thereby avoiding any need for a battery.
They have even made lightning adapters using the same recipe: plug-in power a fake lightning dongle that uses bluetooth to transmit the audio signal literally 1.5 inches from the phone to the other end of the adapter.
In these remote markets, these manufacturers have no qualms with slapping a Lightning / iPhone logo on the box while never mentioning bluetooth, knowing that Apple will never do anything.
From a moral or even engineering perspective, this strikes me as a kind of evil. These companies have made the cheapest iPhone earbuds known to humankind, while still charging $12 or $15 per set, pocketing the profits, while preying on the technical ignorance of people in remote towns.
Perhaps worst of all, there are now thousands or even millions of people in the world who simply believe that wired iPhone headphones use bluetooth (whatever that is), leaving them with an utterly incoherent understanding of the technologies involved.
I wish @Apple would devote an employee or two to cracking down on such a technological, psychological abomination as this. And I wish humanity would use its engineering prowess for good, and not opportunistic deception.
I don't really see the big problem here? Like sure, it's silly that it's cheaper to make wireless headphones than wired ones (I assume - the manufacturers are clearly not too bothered by trademarks and stuff if they put the Lightning logo on it so they wouldn't avoid wired solution just due to licensing fees), but what business does Apple have in cracking down on this? Other than the obvious issues with trademarks, but those would be present even if it were true wired earphones. It's just a knockoff manufacturer.
Cheapest possible wired earphones won't sound much better than the cheapest possible wireless ones, so sound quality probably isn't a factor. And on the plus side, you don't have multiple batteries to worry about, or you could do something funny, like plugging the earphones into a powerbank in your pocket and have a freak "hybrid" earphones with multi-day battery (they're not wireless, but also not tethered to your phone). On the other side, you do waste some power on the wireless link, which is not good for the environment in the long run (the batteries involved will see marginally more wear)
Honestly the biggest issue in my mind is forcing people to turn on Bluetooth, but I don't think this will change anyone's habits - people who don't know what Bluetooth is will definitely just leave it on anyway (it's the default state), and people technical enough to want to turn it off will recognize that there's something fishy about these earphones.
Cheap Bluetooth might have connection hitches and, to my knowledge, Bluetooth doesn't work with airplane mode although I think most airplanes these days aren't actually affected or we'd have planes dropping out if the sky daily.
Also, does Bluetooth get saturated the way WiFi does? That, I don't know, but an airplane full of 100 people all on Bluetooth might create some noise issues that would hurt the performance.
Apple sort of shot themselves in the foot here with removing the headphone jack if they had any interest in this issue.
The radio regulations were amended about 10 years ago to allow both Bluetooth and Wifi frequencies to be used on airplanes in flight. And so cell phone manufacturers have shifted what airplane mode actually means, even to the point of some phones not even turning off Wi-Fi when airplane mode is turned on. And regardless of defaults, both wireless protocols can be activated and deactivated independently of airplane mode on most phones now.
I don't think so. Bluetooth is such a low bandwidth use that it can handle many simultaneous users. It's supposed to be a low power transmission method, in which it bursts a signal only a tiny percentage of the time, so the odds of a collision for any given signal are low, plus the protocol is designed to be robust where it handles a decent amount of interference before encountering degraded performance.
I didn't know that part (the rest yes). So much for using airplane mode to conserve battery. I suppose it's the tower handshake that is most energy hungry in my experience.
100% although my comment was in the context of people who don't really understand Bluetooth at all.
+1 for the rest, thanks.
Your understanding is slightly off.
Airplane mode Does In Fact Turn off your CELLULAR Radio This radio is what powers your (2/3/4/5)G and LTE (This is 4G btw) connection to the cell towers.
Most international radio communications laws can prohibit the use of Cellular Radio in flight; however they often don't prohibit the use of shorter range radio technologies such as WIFI or Bluetooth.
It's all about 'loudness'. Think about it. Your phone must 'scream louder' at a farther away cell tower than it would need to communicate with a nearby WiFi router or a Bluetooth headset.
Also, phones don't use a lot of power to purely listen for Wifi beacons. They're not transmitting until they actually try to join, so leaving wifi on doesn't cost significant power unless you just happen to be near a remembered network.
Your comment missed the mark entirely. Please don't reply-guy me; I know what I'm talking about.
Not sure why you're saying that. I wasn't disagreeing with any of your points, but adding to them another angle that answered the parent comment's concerns about whether leaving wifi on for airplane mode drains battery. You addressed the cellular radio side, and I was adding a separate point about the WiFi radio that complements what you were saying.
Fair enough, but I've only ever seen this happen with cheap wireless cards / chipsets that do both Bluetooth and WiFi and don't properly avoid interference between these two (for example, I can get perfectly functioning Bluetooth audio out of my laptop with shitty Realtek wireless card if I completely disable WiFi (not just disconnect)). I think this is less of an issue for dedicated Bluetooth devices.
Yeah, that's true. As for the second part, AFAIK there was never an issue with 2.4 GHz radios (which is the frequency band Bluetooth uses) interfering with planes, it was more of a liability / laws thing - the plane manufacturer never explicitly said that these radios are safe (so the airline just banned them to be safe) and/or laws didn't allow non-certified radios to operate on planes.
Eventually yes, but it's much more resilient than WiFi - 2.4 GHz WiFi only has three non-overlapping channels to work with (and there's a whole thing with the in-between channels being even worse for everyone involved than everyone just using the same correct three channels that I won't get into), while Bluetooth slices the same spectrum into 79 fully usable channels. It also uses much lower transmission power, so signal travels a shorter distance. And unlike WiFi, it can dynamically migrate from channel to channel (in fact, it does this even without any interference). 100 people actually seeing each other's devices might be a problem, but I don't think that's a realistic scenario - Bluetooth will use the lowest transmit power at which it can get a reliable link, so if everyone's devices are only transmitting over a meter or so, there shouldn't be any noticeable interference on the other side of the plane.
And most other manufacturers too for following the stupid decision to remove the headphone jack.
The primary problem in this story is the lying. If there are Bluetooth earbuds in the box then it should say Bluetooth on the box.