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?

12 of 391 comments (clear)

  1. 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 ewhac · · Score: 5, Informative

      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....

      Hello. Pentax K-S2 owner here, with five lenses (only three of which I regularly use).

      I'm on your side -- I think cell phone cameras are atrocious. The ergonomics are terrible, the sensor is tiny and noisy (though admittedly improving all the time), the lenses are short, the aperture is effectively fixed so you have no control over depth of field (you have to fake it in software), and rolling shutter is the rule of the day. There are various kluges around these shortcomings, but they are just that -- kluges.

      That said... 95% of people don't care, and can't be made to care. All they want is something to take snapshots. This is why the market for point-and-shoot digital cameras is disappearing. Cell phones absolutely crush them on features (larger screen, larger storage, built-in network connectivity, etc.) and have long been their equal in image quality. If you want something to take snapshots, your cell phone is absolutely the way to go.

      However, if you want to get in to photography, then you'll need something better. Alas, there just don't seem to be that many people looking to do that.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. No headphone jack, no replaceable battery... by Trogre · · Score: 5, Funny

    No SD slot, and likely no Miracast.

    This is shaping up to be a very courageous phone design team indeed.

    Please note I'm using the modern definition of "courageous", ie pants-on-head loony.

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    1. 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
  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. Re:Jack is the de-facto standard for the people. by lordlod · · Score: 5, Informative

    I know this is blatantly off topic and I'm just feeding a troll but I've been hooked and can't let go.

    USB is a serial bus (2 pins for supply + 2 pins for serial signal), but USB-C isn't because is a parallel bus.

    The Universal Serial Bus is a parallel bus?

    USB-C is a new plug which can implement the USB3 protocol.

    The USB3 protocol uses two sets of differential pairs for high speed communication. This is a serial bus and the same setup as many other systems including Serial ATA.

    For backwards compatibility USB3 plugs contain wiring for both the serial USB2 signal and the serial USB3 signal, typically referred to as a dual signal. A typical device enumerates on one of the two busses, hubs enumerate on both to form two hubs one of which handles downstream USB3, the other downstream USB1/2.

    However multiple serial busses does not make it a parallel bus, especially because the two signal sets run independently are clocked at different rates.

  8. Re: SD Slot? Get over it already by Squiddie · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hearing the difference now isn’t the reason to encode to FLAC. FLAC uses lossless compression, while MP3 is ‘lossy’. What this means is that for each year the MP3 sits on your hard drive, it will lose roughly 12kbps, assuming you have SATA – it’s about 15kbps on IDE, but only 7kbps on SCSI, due to rotational velocidensity. You don’t want to know how much worse it is on CD-ROM or other optical media. I started collecting MP3s in about 2001, and if I try to play any of the tracks I downloaded back then, even the stuff I grabbed at 320kbps, they just sound like crap. The bass is terrible, the midrangewell don’t get me started. Some of those albums have degraded down to 32 or even 16kbps. FLAC rips from the same period still sound great, even if they weren’t stored correctly, in a cool, dry place. Seriously, stick to FLAC, you may not be able to hear the difference now, but in a year or two, you’ll be glad you did. /pasta

  9. Re: SD Slot? Get over it already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Do you hear the crack of the sound barrier as the whoosh flies overhead?