Uuuuhhhhh if you had any "insight" you'd realize that Ligntning is not "as simple as a cable". It is a long-term technology that will allow for significant future expandability using a common interface by allowing the 9 connection pins to be dynamically reconfigured based on what the chip in the Lightning cable tells the phone it is supposed to do. I mean in theory it could do USB2.0, USB3.0, FW, digital video, act as a USB controller for USB peripherals, etc. -- MicroUSB cannot do all of that without requiring a lot of proprietary stuff on its own.
Firewire: Apple removing Firewire from the MacBook line is a sign to me that they are moving away from the technology. I seriously doubt they would ever do firewire.
Digital Video: You posted a link, so I'm SURE you understand MHL. I guess you could define "a lot of proprietary stuff" as a MHL adapter - but then again the apple device (lightning to HDMI) will be just as proprietary. Also: the SGS III is the only one with a "modified" MHL and there are workarounds.
Act as a USB controller: Really? USB On-The-Go.
USB 3: USB 3 Micro has yet to be a defined standard. It could use the same form factor for all we know. Also - USB 3 requires 9 pins and Lightning MIGHT support USB 3. Samsung has shown that MicroUSB can accomodate up to 11 pins in a regular MicroUSB connector - and still remain backwards compatible with existing connectors.
Everything you listed is available on MicroUSB. All require some sort of "proprietary stuff" - as do the lightning adapters.
You've failed to mention ANY possible "benefit" of the Lightning connector. The ability to insert it in either direction is about it.
The decision to use lightning vs MicroUSB is 100% about money and control. That is it. Read here for more. If you believe it was for any other reason you are sorely mistaken.
Actuallly since the iPhone comes with 1 - and every future iPad/iPhone that I buy will come with one too I probably won't have to spend any additional for a single other Lightning cable for the next 10yrs anyways as I've already bought a few extras.
But I guess you just like using devices without any 3rd party accessories available
Yes that exact device you've just linked: ---------- FROM BOSE FAQ PAGE: ---------------- How do I switch between playing my iPod® or iPhone® and playing music from a Bluetooth device? The SoundDock 10 Bluetooth system comes with two docking elements, a universal dock adapter for your iPod/iPhone and Bluetooth adapter. Simply unplug the system and remove the universal adapter from the dock, then insert the Bluetooth dock (it snaps securely into place). When you plug the system in again, the Bluetooth light will blink to indicate the system is in discoverable mode. Turn on the Bluetooth feature in your music phone (or other device) and select "Bose SoundDock 10" from the list of found devices.
Will the Bluetooth dock work with any Bluetooth phone? Any Bluetooth phone purchased after January 2007 is likely to work. Phones purchased before that date may also work. To be sure, simply bring your phone to a Bose® store and try it out.
--------------------------------- Hmm, ANY Bluetooth phone you say? After Jan 2007 you say? Where can I possibly find one of those? Oh yeah, that's right, pretty much any smart phone and probably half of regular phones out there!
Ah, but the iPhone can sit in it docked, and an Android phone will have to be on a shelf next to it (or pretty much anywhere in the room). Which would be a great point if it wasn't for ..... wait for it...... The all new and improved lightning connector. That's right, a connector so advanced, it makes all your $600 docks obsolete!
But, but I can buy a converter (and for only $29.99 I might add), so everything will work again. Well yes, you can, however it is very unlikely that a phone with a converter will fit in the dock, so it will have to be a cable then, in which case it's the same functionality as you would get with Bluetooth, only tethered. So you might as well just turn to the Bluetooth functionality even for iPhone and render the whole "Made for Apple" argument pointless. Unless the idea is to change the slogan to "Made for Apple, just not the new ones"
1) If you use bluetooth you just paid $500 to listen to music that's re-compressed to 128kbps.
Yeah because my entire music collection is losless audio and I can tell a difference between 128, 256, vbr, losless or whatever encoding was used. /sarcasm. Most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference, especially considering how much re-processing Bose systems do on their end.
Yeah really. While A2DP CAN support 320kbps in HQ, few devices use that by default. Additionally that kind of bit rate needs 20MHz in the 2.4GHz band (crowded space) and if the audio isn't already a SBC compatible payload like MP4 audio it's transcoded before being sent.
If bluetooth audio was using the 802.11 working group standards that would interest me.
BT audio is it's own profile within just 1 part of the 802.15 (WPAN) standard and it is well fermented at this point. It is horribly slow and not meant to provide high quality audio. It is merely a solution for short range wireless 2ch audio.
You missed my point. Bluetooth does not use a full 20MHz channel to pull off a 320kbps transfer with no room to spare.
EDIT: For the uninitiated, there are 79 Bluetooth channels, each 1MHz wide. Bluetooth 2.0 and 2.1+EDR are 3.0mbps over a single 1MHz channel, with 2.1mbps available to the application (in this case, streaming your 320kbps stream). Bluetooth 3.0+HS (supported by any phone currently on the market in the iPhone 5's price range, and many cheaper models) can use a Bluetooth channel to negotiate an 802.11 connection, then use that for up to 24mbps.
It's on Wikipedia if you don't want to trawl through whitepapers for the info. It's in the whitepapers, if you don't trust Wikipedia.
If the headsets used WiFi or high profile PAN for their connectivity, great, but they use A2DP (at least all the ones I use) and it's a spectrum hog, 768kbps of a 1-3Mb BT2.1 capacity of which you can use 320kbps for actual audio transport as part of the standard; I'm assuming to permit substantial overhead for retransmits etc.
So while THEORETICALLY you could use that channel space to get decent audio, in practice you don't and the devices set default bit rates in the crapper which is why I stated you can improve quality by changing those default settings in some cases but even then, you aren't going to get good quality from 'em. In practice with the transcoding they'll have 128kbps quality. Not unlistenable but far from great.
Where are you getting 3Mb per channel from BT? BT 2.1 is 3Mb TOTAL from what I've read with 3.0 pushing 24Mb total as you describe.
My point was that 2.1mbps is a fair bit more than the 320kbps needed and that it's done in a 1MHz, not a 20MHz channel. The bit about BT3.0+HS using 802.11 was secondary, in response to skeechan's comment that he'd be interested to learn such a thing.
The problem with consumer audio is they don't see the 'reference' bandwidth. They dumb down throughput to ensure reliability, thus bit rates that are in the crapper. So you end up with 64kbps or 128kbps audio if you are lucky.
I've never had quality issues with bluetooth at any reasonable range (anywhere in my apartment, for example, where I've used Bluetooth for nearly double the typical "it works within 10 meters" range with no issues) except in an electronics store, where I'd get cut-outs if I stepped more than 5ft from the source. It takes a pretty saturated spectrum to cause problems in the real world.
I use it all the time, with decent equipment, and there is no discernible difference between bluetooth, line-out, or playing the file directly on the receiver in well over 99% of cases.
The 3mbps channel gives up 900kbps for the overhead and retransmits you mention, which is why 2.1mbps remains for application usage.