Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Razer Unveils Gaming Smartphone With 120Hz UltraMotion Display, 8GB RAM and No Headphone Jack (cnet.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the new-and-improved dept.

Computer hardware company Razer has unveiled its first smartphone. While the design doesn't appear to be up to par with the competition, it does pack some impressive specifications under the hood. The Razer Phone features a 5.7-inch, 2,560x1,440-resolution display, Snapdragon 835 chipset with 8GB of RAM, 12-megapixel dual camera with a wide-angle lens and 2x optical zoom, 4,000mAh battery, dual front-facing stereo speakers, and Android 7.1.1 Nougat running out of the box. While there is a microSD card slot for expandable storage, there is no headphone jack, no waterproofing, and no wireless charging. The device also won't support CDMA carriers like Verizon or Sprint. CNET reports: [W]here most new flagship phones are shiny rounded rectangles with curved screens, the Razer Phone is unabashedly a big black brick. It flaunts sharp 90-degree corners instead of curved edges. You can even stand the phone on end. The 5.7-inch, 2,560x1,440-resolution screen is flat as a pancake, and you'll find giant bezels above and below that screen, too -- just when we thought bezels were going out of style. When the Razer Phone ships Nov. 17 for $699 or £699 -- no plans for Australia at launch -- the company says it'll be the first phone with a display that refreshes 120 times per second, like a high-end PC gaming monitor or Apple's iPad Pro. And combined with a dynamic refresh technique Razer's calling Ultramotion (think Nvidia G-Sync), it can mean beautiful, butter-smooth scrolling down websites and apps, and glossy mobile gameplay.

168 comments

  1. no Headphone, Jack by turkeydance · · Score: 4, Insightful

    jump back

    1. Re:no Headphone, Jack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, this is proof of a conspiracy against the jack.

      Also cant believe how dumbed down the specs for audio are now.

      It doesnt specify max bit-depth and sample rate or the DAC used, just heaphone jack yes/no... so dumb

      -Kaex

    2. Re:no Headphone, Jack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Fuck Razer. Did you know that their mice and keyboards requires an internet connection just to be able to change settings? I bought one of their mice recently and when I found out, I refunded that shit real quick and bought a Logitech like I should have from the start.

    3. Re:no Headphone, Jack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bluetooth audio uses lossy compression too. I bet that sounds REAL good to listen to a lossy compressed MP3 that is lossy compressed Bluetooth audio on top. And you can completely forget about doing anything with lossless audio.

    4. Re:no Headphone, Jack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Razer shit tends to die within 2 years in my experience. Not that it doesn't glow green, it does.

    5. Re:no Headphone, Jack by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Technically, Bluetooth audio supports existing compression - like MP3. It's just that phones and headphones don't both support it at both ends.

    6. Re:no Headphone, Jack by Barny · · Score: 1

      Great! That is the warranty period, of course.

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
    7. Re: no Headphone, Jack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No headphone jack, no interest.

    8. Re:no Headphone, Jack by Xenx · · Score: 2

      Lets be honest here. If audio quality from a phone is the only concern here, then USB C provides more options for better audio output. This is only a boon for anyone trying to get the best audio possible from their phone.

      In all honesty, it's less of an issue than people make it out to be. Not wanting to deal with the USB C to 3.5mm adapter is understandable. It doesn't make it some amazingly serious flaw in the phone. It's definitely debatable whether the removal is worth the inconvenience, but an inconvenience is all it is.

    9. Re: no Headphone, Jack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No headphone jack is a deal breaker. They blew it. The rest of the specs are irrelevant.

    10. Re:no Headphone, Jack by tehcyder · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Although I realise that having a standard headphone jack is more convenient if you just want to buy a set of disposable earphones from your local Poundland, I fail to see what the problem with having an alternative connection is for most people.

      But it appears to be a fetish here on slashdot. "The new XYP Phone cures cancer and costs $10, but it has no headphone jack so I'm not buying it".

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    11. Re:no Headphone, Jack by Thanatiel · · Score: 2

      If it cures cancer, then I would buy it without the headphone jack (just in case it's needed some day).
      But it does not : it's a (ugly) phone that will break because of humidity (lots of places on Earth), and has no headphone jack. It's out.
      To its credit : it's a flat screen. (Rounded glass sides be damned)
      (I'm not personally interested by wireless charging)

      --
      Irrelevant news and morons using moderation to mod down what they disagree on. 2018 resolution: so long.
    12. Re:no Headphone, Jack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I chuckle every time somebody says "Cuck"... what kind of person would use such a sissy word? It just sounds so gay if you hear it said it out loud.

    13. Re:no Headphone, Jack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      Really? Because I have a Razer keyboard and a Razer mouse, and I don't need an internet connection to do any of that. I need to install their custom drivers to be able to use all the features, yes, but that's fairly standard. Basic operation works fine with just the Windows default drivers. You can do all the standard adjustments you do can do with any other device through the Windows drivers. Their driver is only needed to adjust lights, and program macros and stuff like that. And even then, once it's installed, it doesn't need internet access to function, just to constantly bug you about available updates. Me's thinks you're talking out of your ass.

      Also, why is this marked +5 informative, 2 seconds of research would show that the guy is talking rubbish.

    14. Re:no Headphone, Jack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that will break because of humidity (lots of places on Earth)

      That's the dumbest fucking thing I've read today. Congratulations.

    15. Re:no Headphone, Jack by Thanatiel · · Score: 1

      That must be the first thing you have read today, then :)
      With the elaborate demonstration you've written to back up your statement, I can only bow to the heights of your intellect. (You can even read? I stand amazed.).
      Here, take a cookie. Now run along, you scrawny toddler. :)

      --
      Irrelevant news and morons using moderation to mod down what they disagree on. 2018 resolution: so long.
    16. Re:no Headphone, Jack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a configuration program called Razer Synapse that requires both a Razer account and an internet connection. I can't imagine the point of creating an account without "logging in" each time the configuration program is run. The default is "Stay logged in", by the way.

      As soon as I saw the "Create Account" button, I knew that I wasn't going to buy another Razer product. They're on the same moronic bandwagon as every other company that is turning their customers' identities into a commodity.

    17. Re:no Headphone, Jack by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      I'm with you up to the wireless charging. I thought it was a gimmick, but two things changed my mind: 1) The first thing to fail on my last 2 phones was the charging port. 2) It's so god damned convenient.

      Yes, it's not as efficient as wired charging. But the electricity cost is marginal. At work I toss my phone on my desk and it charges. At home I set it in the cradle and not only can I glance over to see what text or email came in because it's standing up, but it charges. Need to use the phone? Just pick it up. No cable to have to fiddle with, untangle, or unplug. The only place where I really plug my phone in anymore is in the car. And that's only on long drives, or after extended periods out hiking/walking.

      I did not expect to love wireless charging this much.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    18. Re:no Headphone, Jack by Thanatiel · · Score: 1

      Maybe I'll get hooked to it when I start using it then :)
      So far I've always been on the port.

      --
      Irrelevant news and morons using moderation to mod down what they disagree on. 2018 resolution: so long.
    19. Re:no Headphone, Jack by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Would you buy a top of the line calculator that cannot display the number 3?

      It is perfectly possible for a device to have a lot of awesome features but miss something so important it makes the other features irrelevant. The last $100 phone I bought has a removable battery, SD card slot, dedicated off-screen buttons, and headset jack. Why, exactly, is it so hard for a device that costs several times that amount to include those basic, core, features? Why do phones get shittier the more expensive they become?

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    20. Re: no Headphone, Jack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a pathetic fanboi/shill excuse.

      There is no way in hell that I'm creating yet another account and logging into Razer's servers every time I want to change a setting or to generate a standalone config installer.

    21. Re:no Headphone, Jack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Incorrect. MP3 compression is for the file and Bluetooth Audio compression is for the stream. They are independent of each other.

    22. Re:no Headphone, Jack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's be more honest here. Claiming that audio quality doesn't matter to anyone because it doesn't matter to you doesn't make the statement true.

      I can HEAR the artefacts in Bluetooth Audio compression, even on pricey Sennheiser Bluetooth headphones. Amplify those artefacts by a factor of 10 when listening to an already lossy format which then has to be reencoded for the lossy Bluetooth Audio stream.

    23. Re:no Headphone, Jack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a Razer keyboard and a Razer mouse, and I don't need an internet connection to do any of that.

      You do if you want to be able to have access to all of the features of the mouse. You know, the features that you pay the premium for?

      I understand that you feel the need to defend and justify your poor purchasing habits, but don't be dishonest here.

    24. Re:no Headphone, Jack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you charge it and listen to wired headphones at the same time?

      That's the problem with removing the headphone jack, most manufacturers don't replace it with an extra USB-C socket (or lightning in Apple's case) so you can charge and listen to something at the same time.

      Maybe you could use a cumbersome dongle to split the socket into 2, but that isn't a good solution for a mobile device.

    25. Re:no Headphone, Jack by Xenx · · Score: 1

      I fail to see how that pertains to what I said. I said if quality matters, USB C has the potential for better quality than 3.5mm. My other point was that to most people the need to use a USB C to 3.5mm adapter is at most an inconvenience. I even said it was debatable whether the benefits of removing the 3.5mm was worth the inconvenience of needing the adapter. At no point did I claim anything at all about bluetooth, whether positive or negative. All I pointed out is that there are perfectly valid wired options, some of which are superior to 3.5mm.

    26. Re:no Headphone, Jack by robvdl · · Score: 1

      It is annoying yes, we have a Razer on one PC too and yes it updates frequently and needs the Internet, but Logitech isn't the best alternative either, they are utter junk these days... a company that used to be good but produce a lot of crap these days. This probably isn't a good example, but those tiny laptop sized mice Logitech do, I burn through one per year roughly, they just randomly crap out and you get another one. I keep getting them because they are cheap and just for the TV but still. For my desktop PC I had a Logitech G7, it died, they replaced it with a G9 because the G7's had a bad run apparently. But guess what, the G9 also died. I now have a Roccat.

    27. Re:no Headphone, Jack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My Logitech G Pro is going just fine. It has the world's best sensor in it and you can definitely feel it. I could never go back to using anything less.

    28. Re:no Headphone, Jack by Ranbot · · Score: 1

      Bluetooth audio uses lossy compression too. I bet that sounds REAL good to listen to a lossy compressed MP3 that is lossy compressed Bluetooth audio on top. And you can completely forget about doing anything with lossless audio.

      You are right, of course... However, this is a smartphone with mobile gaming in mind. How important is audiophile quality sound with those sorts of applications? And there is still a USB-C option. There are places for high and low quality sound.

      These arguments about smartphone sound quality are similar to when audiophiles fault exercise/sport type ear buds because they don't sound as good as studio-grade cups. They are designed for different purposes/needs and should be judged accordingly.

    29. Re:no Headphone, Jack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How important is audiophile quality sound with those sorts of applications?

      "Here, let me plug my phone into this speaker so we can enjoy some tunes."

      ^I do that all of the time, so it's very important.

      And there is still a USB-C option.

      I have never seen a speaker or stereo that has a USB C port and I sure as hell ain't buying a new one if they do eventually come out.

      There are places for high and low quality sound.

      Yes, high sound quality is for people who enjoy music.

      These arguments about smartphone sound quality are similar to when audiophiles fault exercise/sport type ear buds because they don't sound as good as studio-grade cups

      OK, now I know you are an idiot. I have a pair of Sennheiser sports earbuds that sound better than most decent pairs of headphones. Using lossy compression on top of what is most likely to be already lossy compressed audio is fucking stupid and sounds like utter shit. You'd have to be deaf not to notice.

    30. Re:no Headphone, Jack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think it's far from the truth if at all. Apple uses AAC as the bluetooth codec if I recall correctly, though you won't find it on anything else. AAC is very, very close to MP3. MP3 is used as an internet streaming codec - and MP2 too, digital radio broadcast is either MP2 or AAC.

      Yes this may allow Apple to cheat by sending the same AAC music bits due to being that much vertically integrated.
      Perhaps MP2 would have been a useful codec, low decoding complexity, perhaps a low end ARM microcontroller can decode in software.

      Most promising is likely Opus, a shame it doesn't get put in one of the bluetooth n+1 versions that always seem to come out with new useless networking features or whatever. Low latency, best compression, and I think there could be an adaptive bitrate (but adding yet another bluetooth profile maybe?). Or maybe the solution would be some company say "fuck it, we're going 5GHz".
      Speculating about that isn't helpful I know but when using bluetooth you almost always have line of sight or going through a clothes' pocket.

  2. That's three by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Pixel 2, iPhone 7/8/X, and now Razer. No. Headphone. Jack.

    I guess those hugging their Samsung POS still like analog static in their ears.

    1. Re: That's three by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get a decent Bluetooth like an Anker Bluetooth headset (and not a cheap one) and I challenge you to give me one reason why I should prefer the headphone jack to bluetooth.

    2. Re:That's three by war4peace · · Score: 1

      While I don't get the lack of a headphone jack in the other phones, here it makes a bit of sense. The speakers get in the way, I guess.
      Frankly if I had the money I would buy this phone, the design is strangely appealing to me.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    3. Re: That's three by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Battery life

    4. Re:That's three by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Part of the conspiracy to close the analog hole. Of course, the fools will fall for it because shiny.

    5. Re:That's three by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      Ironic considering that Razer sells headsets with headphone jacks.

    6. Re: That's three by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      And sound quality. Bluetooth Audio uses lossy compression.

    7. Re: That's three by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      My cars use the headphone jack to input to car stereo. I prefer the simplicity of a cable vs another gadget I will have to power to act as an interconnect.

    8. Re: That's three by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      You need to keep it charged. And the less batteries you need to take care of, the better. In fact it is common for bluetooth headphones to have an analog backup using a headphone jack.
      Almost all the best headphones use a jack connector (mini or full size). Just try to find a professional or an audiophile headset that use anything else. If you have a budget over $100 and you want good sound quality, BT will severely limit your options. And note that you can definitely notice the difference in sound quality between good $150 headphones and the cheap (but sometimes overpriced) stuff. And unless your headphones are high impedance, you don't need an amp or anything fancy for that.
      Also, you may have some device with a headphone jack and no bluetooth you want to use your headset with. The Nintendo 3DS for instance, or a desktop PC. Some BT headsets also have a headphone jack but then again, it limits your choices.

    9. Re: That's three by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most car stereos have Bluetooth built in. You can buy one with FM radio, Bluetooth, SD card slot, USB port, aux in and a remote control for as cheap as $20 these days.

    10. Re: That's three by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cause BT sounds like your mom gargling balls

    11. Re: That's three by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      I've got a pair of these

      https://www.bragi.com/theheadp...

      They're actually great for watching videos on my tablet at the gym or listening to podcasts because they can block out outside sounds very effectively. However when I VOIP call people some of them complain it's less clear than my $20 7-11 headphones.

      The Headphone (dumb name) goes for $119 at NewEgg

      https://www.newegg.com/Product...

      Because I'm in Asia I paid a fair bit more than that since they're imported ultra low volumes.

      I.e. a fairly high end bluetooth headset is actually worse than a really cheap set of wired headphones. Plus of course bluetooth headsets are usually running in SBC mode unless the planets align sufficiently for them to run in a better codec - both the phone and the device must support the same high end codec.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      SBC is a low computational complexity which doesn't honestly bother me, but it bothers the hell out of some people.

      Looking here

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Each A2DP service, of possibly many, is designed to uni-directionally transfer an audio stream in up to 2 channel stereo, either to or from the Bluetooth host.[2] This profile relies on AVDTP and GAVDP. It includes mandatory support for the low-complexity SBC codec (not to be confused with Bluetooth's voice-signal codecs such as CVSDM), and supports optionally MPEG-1 Part 3/MPEG-2 Part 3 (MP2 and MP3), MPEG-2 Part 7/MPEG-4 Part 3 (AAC and HE-AAC), and ATRAC, and is extensible to support manufacturer-defined codecs, such as aptX.[3]

      So SBC is mandatory and the fallback compatibility option. If you buy your headset and phone from the same company you'd probably get MP3, AAC or aptX. Unfortunately my phone is an ageing Galaxy S5 and so I'm probably stuck with SBC - I couldn't figure out a way to see which codec is actually in use.

      Of course this sort of thing is probably where iOS has an advantage over Android - Apple could just make sure both their Apple/Beats branded bluetooth devices and the latest handsets all support the same, possibly proprietary, codec and then Time Cook can give a Jobs style keynote about how great it is.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    12. Re: That's three by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      BTW if you want to find out what codec your Android device uses for A2DP enable "Bluetooth HCI snoop log" in "Developer Options". Toggle Bluetooth off and on so it reads the setting.

      Connect to the device and stream some audio and then disconnect. Turn off the logging and toggle Bluetooth off and on so it reads the setting. Now you can adb pull btsnoop_hci.log and open it in Wireshark.

      And that shows me that, as expected, an S5 talking to a Bragi The Headphone ends up using SBC because that's they best than can mutually agree on.

      Source___ Destination Protocol
      Galaxy S5 BRAGI HP 48 SBC
       
      Frame 630: 736 bytes on wire (5888 bits), 736 bytes captured (5888 bits)
      Bluetooth
      Bluetooth HCI H4
      Bluetooth HCI ACL Packet
      Bluetooth L2CAP Protocol
      Bluetooth A2DP Profile
      Real-Time Transport Protocol
      Bluetooth SBC Codec

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    13. Re: That's three by Thanatiel · · Score: 1

      Then again, last time I checked (years ago, granted) BT was utter crap. (If you like Hi-Fi, and not "boom boom")

      --
      Irrelevant news and morons using moderation to mod down what they disagree on. 2018 resolution: so long.
    14. Re: That's three by Thanatiel · · Score: 1

      I've read BT as BeaTs ... >_.
      Please disregard previous comment.

      --
      Irrelevant news and morons using moderation to mod down what they disagree on. 2018 resolution: so long.
    15. Re: That's three by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There currently is no such thing as great sound and Bluetooth, the two are mutually exclusive regardless of price of the headset as nothing the headset can do can overcome the quality degredation caused by the codecs required to connect via Bluetooth.

    16. Re: That's three by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get a decent Bluetooth like an Anker Bluetooth headset (and not a cheap one) and I challenge you to give me one reason why I should prefer the headphone jack to bluetooth.

      Price.

      Existing headphones: $0
      Not cheap bluetooth headphones: $$$$$
      Failing to realize how easy it is to find ONE reason: priceless.

    17. Re: That's three by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't use headphones, I use the aux jack on my car and boat stereo. My car does not have bluetooth, and I will eventually lose a dongle.

    18. Re: That's three by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily:

      https://www.lifewire.com/what-...

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    19. Re: That's three by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      That's not a Bluetooth problem, that's a modern headphones problem.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    20. Re: That's three by dbialac · · Score: 1

      And audio lag, which is of course what you want with a gaming platform.

    21. Re: That's three by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      Not any more it doesn't.

    22. Re: That's three by AC-x · · Score: 1

      Price.

      I mean, I'd hope the Razer came with a free USB-C to 3.5mm adapter like other jackless phones do, so they should still work it's just a bit of extra inconvenience.

    23. Re: That's three by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, let's see: possibility of connection problems, time it takes to connect, lack of reliability, inability to move quickly between different devices, incompatibilities, limited playtime, requires separate charger, generates and suffers from RF interference, more expensive for a given audio quality. How's that for starters?

    24. Re: That's three by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      1. Lossy audio compression in bluetooth..
      2. Wireless lag.
      3. Wireless disruptions in certain situations and areas.
      4. Battery life that you have to worry about on an extra device.

      Since you wanted one, pick the one that inconveniences you the most.

    25. Re: That's three by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many phones support aptX Lossless (which is not the same thing as regular aptX, which IS lossy)? How many headphones support aptX Lossless?

    26. Re: That's three by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bull-fucking-shit. 99% of all Bluetooth capable devices use lossy Bluetooth Audio.

    27. Re: That's three by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? BT (Brian Transeau) is a musical genius. Easily a modern day equivalent to a classical master.

  3. I thought iPhone was the gaming phone? by known_coward_69 · · Score: 2

    Best phone CPU/GPU combo

    Apple API for direct access to hardware

    The most games in the App Store

    1. Re:I thought iPhone was the gaming phone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd have to be a complete fucking moron to "game" on a phone.

      Let's pick the worst possible interface, and go with that. Great work.

    2. Re:I thought iPhone was the gaming phone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Another fucking luddite irrationally fixated on UI devices with physical buttons and displays larger than 5 inches across just because of some anachronistic obsession with "accuracy" or "responsiveness" or "being able to see shit".

    3. Re:I thought iPhone was the gaming phone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know why someone modded you down. This is a pretty fun jab at mobile gaming promoters.

    4. Re:I thought iPhone was the gaming phone? by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      They're just like the audiophiles who insist on listening to music on their phones and expecting it to sound like their high-dollar setup at home. Or the ones who insist on taking photos with their phones and expecting them to look like ones taken with a professional-quality DSLR.

      It's a phone, people, not a "do-everything-the-greatest" device.

    5. Re:I thought iPhone was the gaming phone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget no place to put my quarter when I want to call next.

    6. Re:I thought iPhone was the gaming phone? by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      I'm a hardcore PC gamer and I still play some games on my phone, and no not really casual ones.

  4. What by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    MicroSD slot? Decent speakers? If the bootloader is unlockable this is my next phone!

    1. Re:What by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mSD, good speakers, minimal bloatware and a body not designed around high fashion. Pricetag is a bit steep and needing a dongle for headphones is annoying, but otherwise it's a solid device.

  5. Because they sound average? by thesupraman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Mostly because even the best widely supported audio codec for bluetooth sound bad?
    AptX (HD) is about as good as you will get, and it is somewhat... average.

    Certainly good enough for cheap(ly made, sometimes expensive priced) earbuds, 'fashion' headphones, etc.
    However, still a far FAR distance from the quality available with high quality headphones.

    And if you want good lipsync with video, you better either accept lower quality, or be able to adjust the video delay,
    because the advanced codec add a lot of latency (166ms for AptX, less in low latency mode, but quality is reduced).

    So sure, YOU may not care about the quality, and prefer your bluetooth - good on you.
    Some other people still prefer quality - and this in no LP/CD comparison, there is a VERY measurable degradation with all bluetooth codecs.

    1. Re: Because they sound average? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to disagree with you, because I support keeping the headphone jack, but Android does support USB audio devices. You could get a good quality USB DAC and probably get better audio quality than if you even still had the jack.

    2. Re: Because they sound average? by Aereus · · Score: 2

      So you're going to plug in a USB DAC, which is generally larger than a cellphone, into the cellphone to get decent audio quality. What courage to drop that headphone jack.

    3. Re:Because they sound average? by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Mostly because even the best widely supported audio codec for bluetooth sound bad?

      I'm so astonished at this statement that my $5 ear buds popped right out of my ears!

      Phone companies bundled shitty ear buds with phones. Consumers then thought ear buds were acceptable as headphones. Phone companies accidentally conditioned consumers to accept terrible audio quality.

      Unrelated, I can't fathom why anyone thinks consumer action is a good replacement for government regulations. Consumers are idiots.

    4. Re: Because they sound average? by doctorvo · · Score: 1

      You mean this tiny thing?

      Or these tiny noise canceling earbuds?

    5. Re:Because they sound average? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Mostly because even the best widely supported audio codec for bluetooth sound bad?

      To be fair this is changing. Bluetooth has support for transferring AAC audio directly without transcoding however headphone support is still limited. More on point though is that a large portion of headphones need to dedicate earcup space for batteries, wireless receivers and shitty little amplifiers which has an impact on the quality of the audio due to the speaker space design. Also it doesn't help that much of these are incredibly shit (even Bose can't produce a set of headphones that don't hiss when they are turned on, my phone doesn't...)

      It may be possible to get high end with bluetooth eventually but currently decent bluetooth headphones which aren't seriously limited are rarer than rockinghorse poo. ... I used to say hen's teeth, but in 2000 the movie Chicken Run came out, and all the hens had teeth.

    6. Re: Because they sound average? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a USB DAC, which is generally larger than a cellphon

      I don't think you know what a DAC is. Even the ancient Covox Speech Thing (and similar homemade DAC) is much smaller than a mobile phone. Nowadays, an external DAC can fit inside the space of an inline ferrite bead.

    7. Re:Because they sound average? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unrelated, I can't fathom why anyone thinks consumer action is a good replacement for government regulations. Consumers are idiots.

      Firstly, because it's morally sound. Some people care about right and wrong.

      Secondly, because consumers have a stronger incentive to look out for their own interests than do government regulators.

      Back to the topic: Has it occurred to you that, to most people, "terrible audio quality" is good enough?

  6. Simply doing what others refused to do. by J.+T.+MacLeod · · Score: 1

    Every phone using chipsets capable of high/variable refresh rate should have been released with it.

    Every phone with room ought to have dual, front-facing speakers. (Although I'd definitely take waterproofing over the ginormous speakers Razer uses.)

    Although I doubt Razer will have an enormous hit with this, I really hope it sells like hotcakes. It is absolutely ridiculous that flagship phones in 2017 weren't already leading the way with these features, and it's even more ridiculous that the only reason that's the case is because somemone declined to implement them. That sort of foolishness deserves losing sales to a competitor.

  7. And here's the video by boudie2 · · Score: 2

    The verge put a video up of the phone. Has a dongle for the headphone jack.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  8. FM by YuppieScum · · Score: 1

    How about being able to listen to FM broadcast radio - without eating into your data allowance.

    No headphone jack means no cable to use as an FM antenna.

    What I'd like is to see someone add DAB+ to a phone - that would be my next purchase... as long as they didn't fuck it up by not having dual-SIM and microSD.

    --
    This sig left unintentionally blank.
    1. Re:FM by ebrandsberg · · Score: 1

      Moto x4 has headphone jack, FM Radio and is waterproof. Different models have different configurations for dual sim, although the Project Fi Android One version has single sim+Micro SD.

    2. Re:FM by YuppieScum · · Score: 1

      Yes, thanks for that, but you've kind of missed my point.

      I'm entirely aware that there already exist many dual-SIM, FM capable phones - I have owned several, and own one now.

      However, my post was in answer to the question "...give me one reason why I should prefer the headphone jack to bluetooth."

      --
      This sig left unintentionally blank.
    3. Re:FM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I would *love* to see is a phone with AM radio.

      It's funny thinking back on it, but when I was younger, the only radio I would listen to was FM and I couldn't understand why anyone would want to listen to "boring talk radio" on AM. Now I am approaching middle age and mostly listen to AM talk radio. I do put on K-Earth 101 FM sometimes to hear oldies from the 70s, 80s and 90s (scary that they are considered oldies now, where did the time go?).

    4. Re:FM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing, and I mean NOTHING good comes from AM radio. Good news for you, both android and iphone have a get off my lawn app for you to use.

    5. Re:FM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought the same when I was a child too. Wisdom has a way of changing one's perspective on many things.

    6. Re:FM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think DAB+ might be big in UK or some scandinavian country but uncommon or even completely unknown in most of the world (e.g., in France)

      I won't be like all the ***holes who would tell you don't need DAB radio, or radio, and that you're an idiot for wanting the feature (sigh). But compared to FM radio, DAB is very niche. Surely a small company could make a dumbphone that can receive DAB+. Dumbphones do have, really have FM radio, micro USB, headphone jack, dual SIM and micro SD (even those which don't have any web browser). You didn't say something about the phone being "smart"!

      No headphone jack means no cable to use as an FM antenna

      I wonder if the FM antenna can work over the USB port, as there are analog USB headphones and the USB to jack adapter, so when there is an analog audio path on that USB port perhaps there'd be an FM antenna path too. If someone with a no-jack phone can confirm this, this would be helpful.

      Note to annoying people : I'm one of those who don't care if "headphones" or "earphones" is the correct term, I'll say "headphones" for both.

      There is an uncommon possibility : FM antenna is in the phone's body, the phone can receive FM radio without an antenna. Rare but it's like this on a particular dumb phone.

      Another way would be to use an external USB tuner (generic one for TV/FM and "unofficial" arbitrary SDR). This sucks of course. I don't know about the software. But barely more ridiculous than USB to jack adpater or external USB DAC.

    7. Re:FM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where I live I can tune in to a lot of Spanish talk (funny how they're speaking really fast, but I don't understand anything, it serves me as a remainder how social people in Spain are). More interesting is several stations of North African music! There it's all music and no talk (perhaps the odd infrequent announcement, or not even), here I suppose those are politically "harsh" countries and so AM is for musical entertainment, must work in the desert and such. AM mono fits the genre. It is what it is. Perhaps it's still better than a 40kbps or 64kbps internet stream.

      It was even possible to listen to "Voice of Russia" or whatever it's called, to get brainwashed on evenings! There's likely BBC on some frequency, etc.

      Sadly, I lost a great tuner in a move (late 70s I think, with dual RCA out). All the radios with "digital" tuning (a small display and plus/minus buttons) can receive jack shit, one national station on "large waves" and nothing at all on the medium waves. A proper radio or tuner seems to receive a hundred or more stations on medium waves.
      So : token AM radio support would be entirely useless. We'd probably need a standalone battery powered (Li-ion) AM radio with 3.5mm jack and bluetooth, with an analog control, and as big it need be.

      (and btw if the speakers are that good on the Razer Phone it would be useful to have jack INPUT on the phone. USB-C jack input (ADC converter) would be easily doable, whether it gets available might be a test of how wealthy the USB-C device market is)

    8. Re:FM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *I meant healthy not wealthy :)
      tho there is a problem with wealth, in that everything is financial and nothing ever gets made anymore if it doesn't sell to two million or twenty million people.

  9. And no mechanical keyboard! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck that!!!

    1. Re:And no mechanical keyboard! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Maybe if Razer would design a nice addon slider keyboard that worked well (many are available for the iPhone, but that's a silly toy) it could be a decent compromise. If it did have a mechanical keyboard I'd be preordering one right now.

      The lack of a headphone jack isn't ideal, but with my latest phone I've only used it once, and that was because the bluetooth wasn't working at the time due to a software problem.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  10. No wireless charge, no waterproofing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is a major fail .. since 2015 if you were a respectable phone you have wireless charge capability and waterproofing too. If you arenâ(TM)t waterproof then at least have a swappable battery as an excuse.

    1. Re:No wireless charge, no waterproofing by vux984 · · Score: 1

      wireless charge is ...meh.
      I've got a phone with it, i'd rather plug it in.
      It charges faster plugged in, it charges cooler plugged in, and it takes less electricity to charge it plugged in.

      wireless charging is pretty much a step backwards in every possible way... except a slight convenience.

    2. Re:No wireless charge, no waterproofing by n329619 · · Score: 2

      Is a major fail .. since 2015 if you were a respectable phone you have wireless charge capability and waterproofing too. If you arenâ(TM)t waterproof then at least have a swappable battery as an excuse.

      This and also a full waterproof, wireless charge and no headphone jack could ensure a complete sealed device. If it had none of that, then what is the point of no headphone jack and non-removable battery? Seriously, it is a fail.

    3. Re:No wireless charge, no waterproofing by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Except on phones with badly designed micro USB ports - then it's the only way the charger stays connected.

    4. Re:No wireless charge, no waterproofing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So make better ports?

    5. Re:No wireless charge, no waterproofing by omnichad · · Score: 1

      I can't. I don't have my own fabrication facility.

    6. Re:No wireless charge, no waterproofing by tsqr · · Score: 1

      wireless charge is ...meh. I've got a phone with it, i'd rather plug it in. It charges faster plugged in, it charges cooler plugged in, and it takes less electricity to charge it plugged in.

      wireless charging is pretty much a step backwards in every possible way... except a slight convenience.

      The average annual cost of charging a smartphone is estimated at $0.25; about 1/16 of what it costs to run an LED lightbulb 10 hours/day for a year. If wireless charging is only half as efficient (my personal experience says it's not that bad, but it's not worth arguing), the cost goes up to a whopping half a buck. What will you do with all the money you save?

      The convenience factor is, I suppose, in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I'm much more likely to keep my phone's battery at or near fully charged while at work if I have a wireless charger on my desk than if I don't, and for me, a fully charged phone is a major convenience.

    7. Re:No wireless charge, no waterproofing by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      I feel the opposite way. I love my wireless charging. Set the phone down, it charges. Pick it up to use it, it stops. No fiddling with plugs or wires. Once every few months I need to fast charge my phone, so I plug it in. 15 minutes and I've got 3-4 hrs of battery ready to go. But other than that, plugging it in is a hassle. And the micro USB port was what went on my last two phones, so I'm hoping that the wireless gets me another couple of years out of this phone.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    8. Re:No wireless charge, no waterproofing by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Set the phone down, it charges.

      When I had a wireless charger, it was annoying trying to place it right on the pad so that it was charging.

      Pick it up to use it, it stops. No fiddling with plugs or wires.

      I can do that with my phone dock.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    9. Re:No wireless charge, no waterproofing by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Thanks that's actually pretty informative, putting the cost into real pespective instead of just relative efficiency.

      I will say that I still don't like that my phone is always quite warm to the touch when its on its wireless charger. I instinctively beleive that's not "good for it".

      And that stuff like those addon USB battery packs and solar chargers and crank chargers don't work as well because there the loss of efficiency really matters. But I concede that's more of a niche.

    10. Re:No wireless charge, no waterproofing by vux984 · · Score: 1

      " Once every few months I need to fast charge my phone, so I plug it in. 15 minutes and I've got 3-4 hrs of battery ready to go."

      That pretty much nails the issue. I'm not excited by wireless charging, but i have no objection to it either. ... I wrote "meh" precisely because I'm not committed either way.

      I guess I do like the CHOICE though.

      I figure it won't be long before courageous it is to remove the charging port and remove that choice too.

      And then the people using solar chargers while camping will be pissed, and the people with usb batteries will be pissed, and the people used to rapid charging it occasionally for whatever reason will be pissed...

    11. Re:No wireless charge, no waterproofing by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      I completely agree.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    12. Re:No wireless charge, no waterproofing by tsqr · · Score: 1

      I will say that I still don't like that my phone is always quite warm to the touch when its on its wireless charger. I instinctively beleive that's not "good for it".

      I've seen lots of comments similar to this, so I guess it must be true. My personal experience, for what it's worth, is that my phone gets no warmer when charging wirelessly than it does when plugged into the charger. If wireless is less efficient, then the charging current to the battery should be lower than it is when the phone is plugged in. So where is the heat coming from? Is the wireless charger getting hot and transferring heat to the phone? Again, not my personal experience. You want to get your phone hot? Plug it into a car charger and use Google Maps to get turn-by-turn directions for about an hour.

  11. gsm only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    rules me out.. and others who live in the over half the lower-48 that can't get a reliable, usable gsm signal.

    1. Re:gsm only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Basically the only part of the world still using CDMA.

  12. Not listening! by markdavis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >"While there is a microSD card slot for expandable storage, there is no headphone jack, no waterproofing, and no wireless charging.

    Companies still are not listening. It seems many of us want:

    1) Larger batteries/ removable batteries
    2) Larger storage
    3) Wireless charging
    4) Headphone jack
    5) Stock/plain Android (or as close as possible)
    6) Water and drop resistance (reliability/robustness)
    7) Works on all carriers and unlocked

    It sounds like this company got a few things right (large battery and SD slot) but still focus on more useless resolution and more RAM than probably ever needed. Many people also are looking for SMALLER SCREENS (5") but without sacrificing specs (they want a small phone, not an under-powered/under-featured phone).

    1. Re:Not listening! by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Many people also are looking for SMALLER SCREENS (5") /quote
      Yeah, I thought this was most of the point of the Retina hype. And it was for me (once it got to Android). Smaller screen without sacrificing resolution.

    2. Re:Not listening! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Xperia Compact line.

      Aside from #5, it ticks all of your boxes, and the Sony overlay is actually pretty useful, speaking as a Z3C and Z3 Tablet owner.

    3. Re:Not listening! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That doesn't cater for those of us who don't want Android/Google within a mile of our phones!

    4. Re: Not listening! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are just stuck with whatever your single-sourced vendor pumps out this year, then.

    5. Re:Not listening! by hazardPPP · · Score: 1

      Many people also are looking for SMALLER SCREENS (5") but without sacrificing specs (they want a small phone, not an under-powered/under-featured phone).

      This.

      My first smartphone had a 3.8" screen or so and specs near the top of what was available at the time (I didn't buy the most expensive thing available, but it did cost around $500). It was a great phone and I used it for 5 years (it still works, and I still use it occasionally when I need a secondary phone).

      By the time I was shopping for a replacement, everything 4.0" and below was crap, the kind of stuff you can't run more than 2 apps on and which becomes obsolete within a year. So I thought I'd go for a 4.5" phone. There I had trouble finding many options where you had at least 1 GB of RAM (the minimum needed for decent performance). The ones that had decent hardware specs didn't have the 4G support I needed (a lot of them had just China-specific 4G frequencies). So in the end I settled for a 5" phone, since it had all the specs I needed - this was much bigger than I wanted initially.

      At some point, screen size and performance became correlated. For the life of me, I can't understand why. There's no reason why you can't put 4 GB of RAM and a powerful CPU in a 4.5" form factor as well as in a 5.5" form factor. Apple seems to be the only company that still gets that people want smaller phones (all the examples I've mentioned are Androids). I want a phone that fits in my pocket. If it has a 4" form factor, I don't care if it's not super thin.

    6. Re:Not listening! by Frederic54 · · Score: 1

      And NFC !!!
      I saw the Moto G5S Plus, really nice phone for the price, 5.5" 1080p, 5GHz wifi, SD card, quick charge, NFC, etc.
      Then I realized that the North American version does not have the NFC while elsewhere in the world it has it.
      It's like a $2 component? Why remove it? I'm using Android Pay everywhere! For me NFC is as important as audio jack.

      --
      "Science will win because it works." - Stephen Hawking
    7. Re:Not listening! by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How many, exactly, is "many of us"? Have you done quantitative market research? Who exactly is the 'us' that you sampled? Did you make an effort to adjust your findings to match the demographic profile of phone purchasers?

      I mean, I'm not arguing that anything on your list is good or bad, but your 'us' seems like it might just be the like-minded technologically-knowledgable people that you surround yourself with and not any kind of 'us' that represents the broader purchasing market. Companies spend huge sums developing products, and they get severely punished if consumers don't want them. As an epistemological statement, I would bet they are right more often than you are on (even if not always).

      More broadly, computing is no longer the domain of the knowledgable. Democratizing tech has made its benefits more widely available but it also means that the opinions and attitudes of the masses rarely more weight. We can deny the facts, we can sulk over it, or we can accept that tech is no longer the domain of techies even though we were 'here first'.

    8. Re:Not listening! by haibane · · Score: 0

      >"While there is a microSD card slot for expandable storage, there is no headphone jack, no waterproofing, and no wireless charging.

      Companies still are not listening. It seems many of us want:

      1) Larger batteries/ removable batteries 2) Larger storage 3) Wireless charging 4) Headphone jack 5) Stock/plain Android (or as close as possible) 6) Water and drop resistance (reliability/robustness) 7) Works on all carriers and unlocked

      It sounds like this company got a few things right (large battery and SD slot) but still focus on more useless resolution and more RAM than probably ever needed. Many people also are looking for SMALLER SCREENS (5") but without sacrificing specs (they want a small phone, not an under-powered/under-featured phone).

      S8 active.

    9. Re:Not listening! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many people also are looking for SMALLER SCREENS (5") but without sacrificing specs (they want a small phone, not an under-powered/under-featured phone).

      But Sony's "compact" isn't selling that great, so it's clear that what people say they want isn't what they're prepared to put their money down on

    10. Re:Not listening! by F34nor · · Score: 1

      If it doesn't it in a Carhart pen pocket I don't want it.

    11. Re:Not listening! by F34nor · · Score: 1

      Moto Z play. You have to use mods and the waterproofing is a coating but it is also cheap.

    12. Re:Not listening! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      * Larger battery: Check
      * Larger storage: SD expansion available
      * Stock/Plain Android: Any indication it won't be? It uses Nova Launcher which is really customizable.
      * All carriers: It's literally a different set of hardware technologies to do that for one phone. CDMA sucks.

      Wifi charging is cool but meh, headphone jack would seem vital for gaming/entertainment, and water resistance would be really nice.

    13. Re:Not listening! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very broad strokes over the techie domain, phones were never a part of that. Ever. They were made with dollar signs in mind. Just look at the charging types for calls, dazzling.
      Even recent advancements in tech to replace the computing power of MANY desktop jobs was certainly not techie induced. Until my recent find of Pythonista for iOS I thought any attempt to use my phone for something useful would require me to get gud with Obj-C, I fucking hate Obj-C.
      Still waiting for librem, that will be for me, a techie.

    14. Re:Not listening! by hazardPPP · · Score: 1

      Companies spend huge sums developing products, and they get severely punished if consumers don't want them. As an epistemological statement, I would bet they are right more often than you are on (even if not always).

      You're making the assumption that companies only respond to market demands, which we know is not true (if it were, nothing truly new would come on to the market - how many focus groups would tell you in 1995 that everyone wants touchscreen smartphones?).

      Companies actively shape market demand (or at least exert a lot of effort attempting to do so), sometimes they succeed, sometimes they fail. Ergo a lot of what goes out there as product is a result not of market research are people's current tastes, but of someone's conscious and directed design and marketing decision.

      .

    15. Re:Not listening! by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 1

      You are confusing "what people say they want" with "market demand".

      It's really easy to figure out the former -- you look at what's available and how well it's selling and there you go. Market research focuses on answering, "would people want this if we put it on the market", in advance.

      Companies focus exclusively on market demand -- what people would buy if it were offered to them.

  13. aptX bluetooth by n329619 · · Score: 1

    Get a decent Bluetooth like an Anker Bluetooth headset (and not a cheap one) and I challenge you to give me one reason why I should prefer the headphone jack to bluetooth.

    It's not about "any" Anker Bluetooth headset (or expensive ones) but you have to have the ones that support the aptX compression. aptX compression ensures that the audio from the game doesn't lag (or feels like it doesn't lag). Those Bluetooth headset without that will have a lagging gaming experience.

    With a wired headset/headphone however, you get the same experience with a standard cheap headphone and even better with an expensive one. Bluetooth on the other hand, all those without aptX support will give the same terrible gaming experience. This doesn't even consider the downside of lossy quality and price of Bluetooth headsets.

  14. With that refresh rate... by doug141 · · Score: 1

    It sounds targeted at VR.

  15. The Razer Razr? by omnichad · · Score: 2

    I expect a trademark lawsuit from Motorola on this one. The name is not so different than Razr and they could easily argue that a phone under the name "Razer" will create confusion about Motorola's involvement or lack thereof.

    1. Re:The Razer Razr? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Razer made a phone under their already established trademarked name. Doubt there would really be a case.

    2. Re:The Razer Razr? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and Apple Computer made a computer with a music store - and got sued by Apple Corps. Trademarks are granted under very specific markets, and are not protected universally.

    3. Re:The Razer Razr? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. And, perhaps notably, Razer's main trademark registration on the name specifically excludes phones (and phablets).

    4. Re: The Razer Razr? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple got sued because they agreed to never get into the music business in order to get the apple computer tm in the first place, bc the apple music company already existed.

      So your complaint is stupid.

    5. Re: The Razer Razr? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      in order to get the apple computer tm in the first place

      And this is why they couldn't easily get the trademark in the first place. Actually, they should have been able to anyway (for computers) - it's just that Apple Corps was extremely litigious. Fruitopia shampoo is not made by Coca-Cola. Home Depot uses Nicorette's slogan of "You can do it. We can help." Trademarks are not universal. Otherwise, Microsoft would never be able to trademark a name like "Windows."

    6. Re:The Razer Razr? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I expect a trademark lawsuit from Motorola on this one. The name is not so different than Razr and they could easily argue that a phone under the name "Razer" will create confusion about Motorola's involvement or lack thereof.

      Actually the model is called just "Phone". Razer is the name of the company and has existing trademarks in consumer electronics. It would be hard to justify a company not allowing to use their own company name on a product just because a specific model of product from another company sounds the same.

    7. Re: The Razer Razr? by retchdog · · Score: 1

      you're not wrong, but more than that, Windows isn't an acceptable trademark even within the field of window-based operating systems. that's why Microsoft settled its cases against people violating the mark; they knew they stood a good chance of having the trademark invalidated if it went to court.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    8. Re:The Razer Razr? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      And Apple called their music store iTunes. It would be hard to justify a company not allowing to use their own company name....blah, blah, blah. Except they had to settle with Apple Records in the end - after fighting with them to get a trademark to use on computers in the first place.

    9. Re:The Razer Razr? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Except that one was company name vs company name.

    10. Re:The Razer Razr? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      That was also just quick example. It holds whether it's a company name or not.

  16. Scroll your web pages more smoothly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I care mostly how they look when they're still and I'm trying to read them

  17. Yeah no. by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    No removeable battery? No SD slot? No thanks.

    1. Re:Yeah no. by Aereus · · Score: 1

      No SD slot when they want you loading "games" onto it? Wat.

    2. Re:Yeah no. by Thanatiel · · Score: 2

      You may try to read the headlines again. (Maybe they have changed since you wrote this).
      Or the linked article (since the headlines can be wrong).

      --
      Irrelevant news and morons using moderation to mod down what they disagree on. 2018 resolution: so long.
  18. My favorite part of the internet... by JackAxe · · Score: 1

    Is scrolling. I'm always amazed as walls of text and adverts fly past my eyes. It's so beautiful when it's even MORE smooth. I don't care about the information, just that I can move the web page up or down with either a flick of an appendage or the scroll wheel on my mouse. I don't know how I EVER made it through life before this became so beautiful...

    1. Re:My favorite part of the internet... by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Skimming while scrolling is useful. You get a lot of judder on phones when trying to scroll, mostly due to the latency of the refresh rate of the panel itself rather than the input frequency. But I can accept that it's useful - 60Hz is not some magic number for UI.

    2. Re:My favorite part of the internet... by JackAxe · · Score: 1

      I can agree with that assessment, useful it is.

  19. Defective by design. by Hallux-F-Sinister · · Score: 2

    An AUDIO DEVICE with no headphone jack is like...

    - a refrigerator where the heat-exchanger takes up the entire inside of the box
    - a pencil that is a solid piece of wood with no graphite core, or for that matter, eraser
    - a computer mouse with no buttons, switches, knobs, or ball, frankly
    - a drill with no chuck
    - a chain with no saw
    - a ham with no burger...

    Yeah, you keep that.

    --
    Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
    1. Re:Defective by design. by omnichad · · Score: 1

      alarm clock
      car stereo
      landline telephone
      Etc.

      But really, it's not an "audio device." Yes, this one has some emphasis on multimedia, but its entire purpose is not to be an audio device - which is true of most phones. I don't want a monolithic device that's supposed to do literally everything - but I'm also not a cell phone gamer, so I'm not part of this target market.

    2. Re:Defective by design. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bought a Sony T637 in 2004, still my 2nd favorite phone. floAt's Mobile Agent and a slew of accessories made it very very sweet at the time. Admittendly,. coming from a Siemens S46,

      And it had Bluetooth.

      I bought the only BT headset available at the time, a Jabra. Remember, the crescent-shaped abomination that announced to the world 'I am a true geek, lost to my passion for technology and finding new ways to ignore YOU'. Surprisingly, it neither made me a pariah nor prevented my meeting and marrying my wife. She got a headset also when she got a new phone, for the real reason BT was invented was to prevent headphone cables from becoming entangled in the stick shift... Yes, really. All else was superfluous until the Millennials destroyed the manual transmission market.

        Since that phone, of course, I've bought nothing else The BB 7105t I next had included BT, no stereo yet. And then The Dream - HTC G1. Bluetooth was supported a few months after launch, so yes, I was in virtual hell for a bit, but they came through. And then I could finally retire my Minidisc player... I've still got it, with remote, a bunch of blank discs, battery case, and car mount, if you;re interested. I'll even throw in a new rechargeable battery if you give me a few days, make an offer. MiniDisc is underrated tech.

      I really cannot imagine using corded headsets. the hassle, the limitation, not being able to leave the phone on the garage workbench while I mow the lawn, just touching my ear to answer a call. It really is time for the Butlerians to relent and use the useful technology that is Bluetooth. Or not, and whine about having to use a dongle-enabled wired set of buds for however long they must.

  20. Bluetooth audio lag by Aereus · · Score: 2

    I'm waiting for there to be the inevitable latency issues with the BT audio which makes using it in a game setting impossible. Not that there are any games on mobile worthy of 120hz play. Its all funbux cashgrabs and gacha games.

    1. Re:Bluetooth audio lag by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 1

      I'm waiting for there to be the inevitable latency issues with the BT audio which makes using it in a game setting impossible. Not that there are any games on mobile worthy of 120hz play. Its all funbux cashgrabs and gacha games.

      It's already like that. Playing SNES emulator with car bluetooth, its super creepy cuz the sounds are off just that little bit to mess with you.

  21. "Gaming Phone" by Chas · · Score: 1

    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

    ALMOST as irrelevant as Blackberry!

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  22. Aww come on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure the battery will last for more than 30 minutes.(15 minutes after a thousand charges).

  23. No jack, no sale by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And you know, I never use my jack, but damnit, I want it there for when I DO NEED it. No jack no sale. kthxbye.

    1. Re:No jack, no sale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think we all need to take a step back and embrace courage.

  24. sounds spectacular want one .... NOT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    no head phone jack. no deal plain and simple

  25. They missed a chance to innovate here... by advocate_one · · Score: 1

    the stereo speakers are at the bottom of the display... they could have had a pair of speakers at the top as well and when playing in landscape, switch the speakers so that they still give stereophonic effect in landscape.

    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
  26. nnn by bico540 · · Score: 1

    https://www.al-awa2el.com/%D8%...">

  27. how about this niche instead. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't understand the point of dual cameras or fancy front facing speakers. Their sales would be better if it not only came with a headphone jack, but had speakers that only played 16 bit sound clips for that glorious retro gaming feel.

  28. Computer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why should i buy this when a 700 buck computer... ... has a headphone jack..?

  29. 120 Hz on Android? by thsths · · Score: 1

    My Android phone struggles to keep 30 Hz refresh, not just in games, but also in Google Chrome and other apps. iOS has real time scheduling and native code, while Android is still messing around with translation and the JVM. The result is that iOS is smooth, while Android invariable stutters.

    1. Re:120 Hz on Android? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even the power use of sending 2560x1440 pixels at 120Hz to the display seems not trivial (I assume it uses the Vesa stream compression standard that's found in Displayport 1.4)

      If it can run games at 720p 120Hz (and variable refresh rate) there might be some use for the higher refresh in games.
      If variable refresh rate does work most of the time, it might struggle at times but do tear-free 40Hz, 42 Hz etc. on the spot. This ought to be very helpful.

  30. Open GL or Open GL ES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it really is a gaming phone it will support OpenGL in addition to OpenGL ES so that the NVidia Shield ports can work on it. Somehow I doubt it does that.

    1. Re:Open GL or Open GL ES by tsqr · · Score: 1

      If it really is a gaming phone it will support OpenGL in addition to OpenGL ES so that the NVidia Shield ports can work on it. Somehow I doubt it does that.

      And honestly, it's not yet clear what, beyond the Razer brand, makes this a gaming phone. When we ask, Moss downplays that idea a bit. "It shouldn't just be a gaming phone, it should be a phone for gamers," he tells us. - TFA

  31. Smacks head by kfh227 · · Score: 1

    The reason for rounded corners is so it is comfortable in your pocket. IDIOTS

  32. Take my money. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hands down the best tangent of a company in years. This exceeds the specs of all other phones, though I dislike the less than 6" screen.
    Otherwise a phone with Dolby Atmos and super loud speakers? Yes please.

  33. No headphone jack = free advertising by TheOuterLinux · · Score: 1

    People think it's just to get you to buy Bluetooth products. But consider this, do you know any assholes that won't buy BT headphones or know the kind of people that could care less what they are broadcasting to people around them. It's a clever ploy to boost iTunes sales. It's also free advertising. Now we all have to hear commercials on Spotify and Pandora. I'll just stick with a terminal for music. Can't wait for the Librem 5. https://vid.me/m7oky

  34. I Guess Razer is Courageous, Too... by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

    so Razer is following the trend, and ditching the old-skool 3.5 mm headphone jack.

    Color me unsurprised.

  35. No such thing as a "gaming phone" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL what is the fucking point of this? There are no real games on a phone, at least no action games that require any sort of performance. The phone as a gaming platform is a fucking wasteland. There's nothing but money clickers, skinner boxes with pretty decorations.

    Stop trying to market fucking phones for games. They're shit in every single way. They haven't done anything to better real gaming platforms in the past 10 years, and they never, ever will because of factors that are inherent to the platform itself.

  36. You're about 10 years behind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My headset has an in-line detachable DAC (does both input and output) on the cord, it is about the same as a small tic-tac box.

    The actual board inside is even smaller, it just needs room for the volume/mute etc buttons.

  37. The point of dual cameras by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Two cameras, one is wide angle and another narrow angle for filming far out things.
    You might decide you don't need that feature but it seems a bit useful for me, and I'm the first one to hate gimmicks and useless features or hardware.

    Makes me think of someone with presbyopia (i.e. basically everyone after a certain age), using glasses to read fine print things or just text in general, removing glasses to see afar. So you have two cameras on the phone like on old person has glass on and glass off (or dual focus glasses etc.)
    Phone cameras can't be much adjusted if at all, being so thin and tiny. Whereas a bigger camera, even cheap regular consumer ones might have the "f" setting to play with - like a young eye might be able to see fine at both short and far distances.