Slashdot Mirror


Google Is Latest Company To Ditch Headphone Jack In Its Newest Smartphones (cultofmac.com)

When launching its original Pixel smartphone, Google mocked the iPhone 7's missing headphone jack in its marketing material. According to Cult of Mac, Google won't be doing the same for the Pixel 2. "The company has decided to remove the aging port from its latest handsets," reports Cult of Mac. "A new leak reveals that the lineup will rely solely on USB-C for wired connectivity." From the report: Incredibly reliable leaker Evan Blass has published pictures and details of Google's upcoming Pixel 2 smartphones on VentureBeat. He has also confirmed that neither device will feature a headphone jack, which means users will have to rely on a USB-C adapter or Bluetooth. It also means Google will no longer be able to put out Pixel ads that take sly swipes at the iPhone's missing port. Blass says both Pixel handsets will be powered by a Snapdragon 835 chipset -- the same one found in the Galaxy S8, the LG V30, and other 2017 flagships -- not a faster Snapdragon 836 processor as originally planned. Other features are said to include 12-megapixel cameras, 4GB of RAM, and 64GB or 128GB storage options. The smaller Pixel will pack a 5-inch 1080p display with a 16:9, while its larger sibling will pack a 6-inch Quad HD display with an 18:9 aspect ratio. Is the lack of a headphone jack a deal-breaker, or do you think the Pixel's other features, like stock Android and front-facing stereo speakers, will make up for it?

23 of 391 comments (clear)

  1. Not the market leader by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Samsung, the biggest cellphone maker of them all, still supports the 3.5mm jack. My new Note 8 has one, and with the 256 GB MicroSD card installed I have a ton of downloaded Tidal albums...

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  2. And the loser is... by Sin2x · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sony and Nokia have phones with the same processor but with the 3.5mm jack, expandable storage and water/dust resistance. Their software is close to Google's and Sony contributes to AOSP. Google loses. Oh, and if you want to make good photos, buy a goddamn dedicated camera. No phone comes close and none will due to the laws of optics.

    --
    Waka Waka!
    1. Re:And the loser is... by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A modern cell phone takes better pictures than a top-of-the-line DSLR from ~10 years ago. Those DSLR photos were touted as being great quality.

      Not even close. A top-of-the-line DSLR from 10 years ago would be a Canon 1Ds Mk III. With a full-frame sensor at 21.1 megapixels, it wipes the floor with most smartphone cameras even if you don't factor in things like oh, I don't know, zoom lenses....

      A modern cell phone takes great quality photos that are good enough for well over 95% of the population in over 95% of circumstances.

      That would be the 95% of the population who have never used an actual camera, of course....

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    2. Re:And the loser is... by unimacs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A modern cell phone takes better pictures than a top-of-the-line DSLR from ~10 years ago. Those DSLR photos were touted as being great quality.

      Not even close. A top-of-the-line DSLR from 10 years ago would be a Canon 1Ds Mk III. With a full-frame sensor at 21.1 megapixels, it wipes the floor with most smartphone cameras even if you don't factor in things like oh, I don't know, zoom lenses....

      A modern cell phone takes great quality photos that are good enough for well over 95% of the population in over 95% of circumstances.

      That would be the 95% of the population who have never used an actual camera, of course....

      So my daughter takes from 12-20 pictures (most of which are selfies) on her way to school each day to post on snap-chat and instagram. Do you think she'd get better quality pictures from a 10 year old full frame dslr than her smart phone? I think she'd get some super high resolution photographs of her ear lobe, her left elbow, the backseat of the car, etc. The bulk of the camera, the relatively tiny 3" rear facing LCD, and lack of any sort of Internet connectivity would make the Canon an extremely poor choice.

      Yes, that camera could be used to produce some really large prints that would look like crap from a phone camera. It's also better suited to dealing with challenging light or photographing things from a distance, but at a very high price, both in terms of cost and convenience. What did that camera cost when released, about $8,000? That's 10 times the price of even a very expensive smart phone. And that's just for the camera body. Lenses that make a camera like that even worthwhile are also going to cost a small fortune and would be quite bulky. And how many fps was the Canon capable of? 5? Compare that to the burst mode of a modern smartphone. Could a 5D even shoot video?

      For the photos most people shoot the vast majority of the time, using a full-frame DSLR is like using a dump truck to pick up groceries. Whatever added benefits there might be are far outweighed by the cost and inconvenience.

      Now don't get me wrong. I own a decent DSLR, a classic SLR (actually 3 at the moment), a Range Finder, and a medium format film camera. I have a really nice film scanner and some good quality glass. I appreciate what a good DSLR and other high end equipment can do. But they are overkill for most of what people take pictures for.

    3. Re:And the loser is... by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think you fundamentally miss what it is that motivates people. It's not that people aren't interested in photography and only want to take snapshots, it's that people don't want to carry something.

      I'm into photography (FE, F5, D40, D70, D200, D800 owner here) but the majority of my photos are done on my cellphone as it is the camera I have with me.

      The thing is quality wise in a standard well lit scenario it is very difficult to tell a cellphone from a DSLR. It's only when you want to get fancy, depth of field, low light, non standard zoom ranges (the GP calling out the ability to zoom as a killer feature makes a mockery of those of us with 50mm f/1.2 lenses), or issues which demand extreme dynamic range, THEN the DSLR stands out.

      It's why Apple's marketing department showed some hipster douchebag doing a studio model shoot on his iPhone with fantastic results. There's an element of just because you can doesn't mean you should, but for the vast majority of the population who's cells are in their pocket and who's SLRs are at home, the option doesn't exist.

      Also nitpick, cellphones weren't the only thing that killed the point and shoot. I know a great many people who now have jumped on the mirrorless bandwagon which offers them a lot of the advantages of an SLR without the heft. Around here you'd be hard pressed finding a household which doesn't have a mirrorless or SLR around.

    4. Re:And the loser is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      A modern cell phone takes better pictures than a top-of-the-line DSLR from ~10 years ago. Those DSLR photos were touted as being great quality.

      Not even close. A top-of-the-line DSLR from 10 years ago would be a Canon 1Ds Mk III. With a full-frame sensor at 21.1 megapixels, it wipes the floor with most smartphone cameras even if you don't factor in things like oh, I don't know, zoom lenses....

      A modern cell phone takes great quality photos that are good enough for well over 95% of the population in over 95% of circumstances.

      That would be the 95% of the population who have never used an actual camera, of course....

      So my daughter takes from 12-20 pictures (most of which are selfies) on her way to school each day to post on snap-chat and instagram. Do you think she'd get better quality pictures from a 10 year old full frame dslr than her smart phone? I think she'd get some super high resolution photographs of her ear lobe, her left elbow, the backseat of the car, etc. The bulk of the camera, the relatively tiny 3" rear facing LCD, and lack of any sort of Internet connectivity would make the Canon an extremely poor choice.

      Yes, that camera could be used to produce some really large prints that would look like crap from a phone camera. It's also better suited to dealing with challenging light or photographing things from a distance, but at a very high price, both in terms of cost and convenience. What did that camera cost when released, about $8,000? That's 10 times the price of even a very expensive smart phone. And that's just for the camera body. Lenses that make a camera like that even worthwhile are also going to cost a small fortune and would be quite bulky. And how many fps was the Canon capable of? 5? Compare that to the burst mode of a modern smartphone. Could a 5D even shoot video?

      For the photos most people shoot the vast majority of the time, using a full-frame DSLR is like using a dump truck to pick up groceries. Whatever added benefits there might be are far outweighed by the cost and inconvenience.

      Now don't get me wrong. I own a decent DSLR, a classic SLR (actually 3 at the moment), a Range Finder, and a medium format film camera. I have a really nice film scanner and some good quality glass. I appreciate what a good DSLR and other high end equipment can do. But they are overkill for most of what people take pictures for.

      No offense but maybe you should talk to your daughter and tell her to get over herself and that no one cares about her daily trip to school etc... Make her a realist and not a snowflake. Life is hard, unfair and filled with difficulty. the sooner kids learn this the better they will be prepared for the grind that most 95% will have to face in the world.

  3. It would be great.... by SQLGuru · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It would be great if in conjunction with removing the headphone jack they were also releasing a bunch of affordable USB-C headphones. My current phone still supports regular headphones, but it also has USB-C. So every once in a while, I look to see if there are any USB-C headphones I can grab --- because I assume the audio quality will be better. But there's hardly anything on Amazon and what is there is more expensive than similar or better headphones that have the traditional plug.

    And it's not much better in the Apple space, either.

  4. Re:what about by desdinova+216 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I, like many /. readers I want a phone with a MicroSD slot and regular security updates for at least 2 years.

  5. Yes by markdavis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >"Is the lack of a headphone jack a deal-breaker"

    100% yes. Although I am not happy with lack of SD cards, I can handle that if a reasonable storage size is available, 64+GB. I am never happy with a non-swappable battery, but it seems that is beating a dead horse. Certainly also unhappy that wireless charging is so rare. Other unhappiness- lack of NFC, thinness instead of battery size, pixel density instead of brightness and efficiency, huge screen instead of portability.

    But I have to draw the line somewhere, and it is at losing a simple, compact, compatible, easy, reliable headphone jack. There is simply no really good reason to remove it. I don't know when I will or won't need it, and I don't want to carry a stupid adapter that also is expensive, easy to lose, sucks more power, is likely to break, makes the phone weak and awkward while using it, and prevents charging while using it.

  6. Re:bluetooth headphones by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sucks to get stuck with Bluetooth if you want to travel, though... Many overseas airlines will not allow use of Bluetooth headphones, and technically the FAA did not allow them either (just BLE-based devices). And that's not even talking about the audio quality hit you'd get with Bluetooth unless you're running something decent like AptX or AptX HD (neither of which is available on iOS).

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  7. Simply plugging the "analog hole" by orionpi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This shouldn't come as any surprise considering how it was discussed in the context of DRM a decade ago. People choose the cloud, people loose choice.

  8. I miss my audio port! by oic0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My car has aux in. They talk about how 3.5mm Jack's are crap and wear out. Well now I'm going to wear out my charging port and turn my phone into a paper weight. I think about it every time I plug my phone in to it.

  9. It's not just a headphone jack... by bsdaddict · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I use it in my car to connect to my oem head unit. I use to connect to some old powered PC speakers in the bathroom. I use it to connect to aux in on a few other devices. In other words, DEAL BREAKER.

    1. Re:It's not just a headphone jack... by nebular · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The most advanced of soundboards still use connectors developed before WWII. This is literally an ain't broke, don't fix it situation. 3.5mm was just a shrinking of the size of patch cords. Requiring USB-C just adds unnecessary complexity to the simplest type of connection, basic stereo audio.

  10. Do they still sell MP3 players? by Maltheus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Looks like we're going to need to go back to multiple devices soon.

  11. Re:SD Slot? Get over it already by tepples · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What happens once you stop paying your Dropbox bill? I thought in such a case, files past 2 GB got deleted. And how well does Dropbox work when upstream is $5 to $10 per GB, such as satellite or LTE, or when upstream isn't available at all, such as between a laptop and tablet on a city bus?

  12. No headphone, no sale by AbRASiON · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We're talking about a plug which is on possibly billions of devices.

    This isn't just headphones and headsets, this is being able to plug into the analog port on amplifier, this standard is used on boom boxes 20 years ago, on audio 'in' ports for the past 20 or 30 years on a plethora of devices.

    It's all fine and dandy for smarmy tools to say "oh shut up, get USB-C headphones!" but USB-C headphones won't work on my OTHER devices easily and I sure as shit don't see them changing any time soon, literally billions of devices over the world.

  13. Re:SD Slot? Get over it already by baker_tony · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's even easier using Airdrop.

  14. Re:what about by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just 2 years? I've had my current smartphone for 4 years, and I'm just starting to think about a new one. I think it's insane that we don't get at least 4-5 years of guaranteed security updates for a device that costs nearly a thousand dollars.

    I don't personally care about a headphone jack or an SD card (although I understand why some people do). I can even live without a removable battery, even though that's the only part of my phone that's slowly degrading. It's the assumption that I'll only be keeping this device for 2 years that's killing me. It may even drive me to Apple for my next device, as they seem to provide better long-term support for their phones, which was quite surprising when I did a bit of investigation into this. Even so, the Pixel is still on the table as a possible next phone.

    --
    Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  15. Google discriminating again! by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The company has decided to remove the aging port from its latest handsets.

    That's ageism! Seriously though, what the fuck is wrong with companies? The headphone jack still works, digital wireless headphones have to use audio compression to have enough bandwidth and we're already listening to compressed audio in the first place. Are all new engineers deaf?

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  16. Re: No headphone jack, no replaceable battery... by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why are people so blind and so quick to dismiss their elders? We didn't bitch and moan when USB replaced serial ports, parallel ports and PS/2 ports, because USB was clearly superior. We didn't bitch and moan when USB flash drives replaced floppy drives because we were already way past the 1.44MB capacity of those damn discs.

    But ditching the headphone jack? Why? Bluetooth is not superior in any way: for losing the wire, all you gain is low-quality compressed audio, expensive headphones and yet another battery to recharge every day.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  17. Imperfect, but standard by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In my house, I have a minimum of several dozen devices with standard 3.5mm headphone jacks. This includes my stereo, my TVs, my iPads (no intention of upgrading, they're good enough), my Windows tablets (we have at least 15 laying around the house), Kindle (for text to speech) ,etc...

    To switch the headphones, I would need to replace about $40-$50,000 of devices.

    3.5 mm jacks are imperfect and always have been. They're a terrible design but probably the best we could hope for given the manufacturing equipment of the time. The original 1/4" "telephone plug" or monaural plug dates to 1878. The 3.5mm jack dates from the 50's but I can't find anything more precise from Googling. The fact that something so small could be made in the 50's... especially when most things had to be hand-assembled back then is truly amazing.

    So that said... given a standard that already dates back 60-70 years... I have no intention of giving up my headphones and their wires. They work well enough... I don't have to charge them... and since I prefer ear buds, I sure as shit don't want to lose them constantly because they're not physically attached to my phone.

    Oh... and dongles are just plain stupid... I have Ajay 5 headphones and have bought 20-30 pairs of AJays over the years because they are more durable than most others. They don't make dongles of comparable strength or cable quality.

  18. Re: No headphone jack, no replaceable battery... by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    People who quote the horseless carriages in this case only show their own ignorance of history.

    It took a good 30 years for the horseless carriage to catch on. By that time the costs plummeted and it started showing real advantages including actually being faster and more comfortable than the horse drawn counterpart. There was a long history before mass adoption where the horseless carriage was a piece of shit that was slow, useless, and in some cases even required a person walking in front of it to be used legally.

    That is where wireless headphones are right now. There's not a single wireless headphone on the market that can out perform its wired counterpart in any metric other than not having a wire.

    They have their use cases, but they are not in the general all encompassing case superior.