Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Replaces Its USB-C Headphone Adapter With a More Expensive Version (theverge.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the nickel-and-dime dept.

Google is now selling an updated headphone adapter that's supposed to be more responsive and drain less of your phone's battery. But these minor improvements come at a cost. The new dongle costs $12, whereas the old dongle sold for just $9. "That also means Google's headphone adapter now costs more than Apple's equivalent adapter for the iPhone," The Verge notes. From the report: Physically, though, the dongle is nearly identical to the USB-C to 3.5mm adapter that Google has been selling since last October: this new version is just a hair smaller in almost every dimension. Google says the new dongle will connect to your phone ever so slightly faster, and, more importantly, it's supposed to draw less power, translating to 38 percent more playback time. Android Police first spotted the update.

51 of 86 comments (clear)

  1. Whelp, there goes my avocado toast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Bummer

  2. Your phone has a DAC, why not use it? by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 1

    The high-end Snapdragon processors come with a very good DAC built in. Probably better quality than these cheap dongles and also capable of higher output power.

    You can even use USB-C Audio Accessory mode to route analog audio through the C jack, meaning cheaper $1 adapters, but Google is one of the last holdouts in supporting this.

    Why force people to buy two DACs, Google?

    1. Re:Your phone has a DAC, why not use it? by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately the USB standards says an official certified device may not rely on Audio Accessory mode being present, so they are forced to also have fallback logic, which is expensive, power draining, and dumb (in this case).

    2. Re:Your phone has a DAC, why not use it? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      No wonder why the Google phones are not selling anymore.

      The Google phones are not selling any more because they are made by garbage companies LG and HTC. Neither one knows how to make a device worth one tenth of one shit. Burned once by a supposedly "premium" device, how many users do you think will go back for another?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Your phone has a DAC, why not use it? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It works for apple. People repeatedly buy shit iphones for "premuim" prices.

      Yeah, but Apple has the market cornered there. Google is insane to think that they can compete in that arena when Apple has it on lock.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Your phone has a DAC, why not use it? by sexconker · · Score: 1

      No wonder why the Google phones are not selling anymore.

      The Google phones are not selling any more because they are made by garbage companies LG and HTC. Neither one knows how to make a device worth one tenth of one shit. Burned once by a supposedly "premium" device, how many users do you think will go back for another?

      Nononono

      The Pixel phones are all made by Google!
      They had a huge marketing campaign! They had a hashtag! #MadeByGoogle

      How DARE you insinuate that Google has no actual hardware design or manufacturing capability! I don't CARE about the truth!

  3. Sigh... by Pollux · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If I get modded down as a troll, so be it, but I feel it needs to be said.

    Not everything that shows up on The Verge needs to be a headline on Slashdot. Especially an article tries to make a $3 markup on a headphone adapter sound like an assault on consumers.

    Let me know when you find an article analyzing the circuitry of these headphone adapters and explains exactly how modifying something as simple as a headphone adapter can extend battery life by 38%.

    1. Re:Sigh... by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      The original price should be below $1, so yes that is offensive.

    2. Re:Sigh... by omnichad · · Score: 1

      The assault is not offering it free to every Google phone owner that is plagued with reliability problems on the included adapter.

  4. Damn .... by Freischutz · · Score: 2

    The new dongle costs $12, whereas the old dongle sold for just $9. "That also means Google's headphone adapter now costs more than Apple's equivalent adapter for the iPhone," The Verge notes.

    Damn .... It'll be interesting to hear the Apple haters rationalise this.

    1. Re:Damn .... by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      At least there are other choices for Android phones.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    2. Re:Damn .... by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      Damn .... It'll be interesting to hear the Apple haters rationalise this.

      You're forgetting that many Apple haters also hate other phone vendors. I have never owned any pixel-addressable-screen-equipped mobile device that lacked an audio jack, and I don't intend to do so in near future.

      If people buy crippled phones based only on fashion value, shame on them!

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    3. Re:Damn .... by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

      I don't need a dongle to plug a 3.5mm headphone plug in to my Moto X4

    4. Re:Damn .... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's not really the cost of the adapter that irks me so - it's the fact an adapter is needed in the first place. At least the VAST majority of Android phones still have a headphone jack. Oh, and most support AptX, AptX HD, and hi-res audio (unlike iOS devices) if you care about those things...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    5. Re:Damn .... by Megol · · Score: 1

      Why should one rationalize it? And why do you think there are only two choices?

    6. Re:Damn .... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Damn .... It'll be interesting to hear the Apple haters rationalise this.

      Other than Apple eating the cost of its devices? After all, before Google showed the world how cheap these adapters actually are, do you even remember the cost of the Apple adapter?

    7. Re:Damn .... by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      How about this:

      If Apple hadn't courageously started the trend to needless remove a universal standard adapter that has stood the test of time from their devices, nobody would need a stupid dongle now.

  5. I am kind of annoyed by toonces33 · · Score: 2

    That they keep coming up with all of these variants of USB connectors, requiring us to keep a drawer full of cords and dongles of one sort or another.

    1. Re:I am kind of annoyed by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      I know, it's hard to keep up.
      I mean for small devices there's been 3 different types! Two of which have been used on cellphones!
      There's the usb mini, which wasn't really used and wasn't designed for lots of insertions
      There's the usb micro, which is very common
      Now there's usb type-c!

      I'm completely lost now.

    2. Re:I am kind of annoyed by blindseer · · Score: 1

      It's been said that those who don't understand FireWire will be condemned to reinvent it, poorly.

      Maybe I have that quote confused a bit. It does work though, USB was supposed to be a cheaper and easier alternative to FireWire. It took them a while (only about 30 years) but they got all the features of FireWire, but all the baggage of backward compatibility with an inferior spec.

      The USB-C connector isn't bad but without Thunderbolt and/or DisplayPort on the cable it's only barely better than what I had from FireWire 10 years earlier.

      What a fucked up spec. They have at least 10 different connectors and how many different speeds? I hear they want to boost the speed again with another revision, USB 3.2... now with "SuperSpeed Plus"! Congratulations! You just reinvented Thunderbolt 2! POORLY!

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    3. Re:I am kind of annoyed by toonces33 · · Score: 1

      It is more than that. I once had an HTC phone with some other proprietary connector. My old Samsung S5 had some other variant of micro to support USB 3. And now USB-C. I don't think I have ever had two cellphones that had the same connector.

      And then there are all of the little gizmos that really only use USB just to charge the battery. Mini, micro - all still quite common.

    4. Re:I am kind of annoyed by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      requiring us to keep a drawer full of cords and dongles of one sort or another.

      No that's silly. Just throw away all your old hardware. It doesn't have any street cred anymore anyway.

    5. Re:I am kind of annoyed by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      It is more than that. I once had an HTC phone with some other proprietary connector. My old Samsung S5 had some other variant of micro to support USB 3. And now USB-C. I don't think I have ever had two cellphones that had the same connector.

      And then there are all of the little gizmos that really only use USB just to charge the battery. Mini, micro - all still quite common.

      Damn, that's ridiculous!

      So, for all the Fandroids' bitching about Apple connectors, over the past 11.7 years, they have actually only had TWO charging/data connectors.

      And before you whine about Lightning being a proprietary connector, remember it was out and working in the real-world Before USB-C was a viable option.

    6. Re:I am kind of annoyed by swb · · Score: 1

      Technology innovation has kind of stopped being about simply making better products, not its about using it to drive product segmentation, long roll-outs of features which maximize an innovation's earning power and driving lock-in and all its derivative product sales.

      USB seems to suffer particularly because while it is a standard, it's at the mercy of actual hardware vendors to go ahead and implement it and they run it through their profit maximizing models first, leading to weird, slow adoptions and selective feature enablements.

    7. Re: I am kind of annoyed by adolf · · Score: 1

      The S5 has regular micro USB, and works perfectly well using any gas station micro USB cable.

      It can support USB 3, using a wider (and quite standard) connector, but nobody ever gave a shit about that *and* it is optional *and* those extra pins have nothing to do with charging the device.

      So the outlier here is early HTC. Fortunately, that's not very representative of the Android market.

      --
      Kid-proof tablet..
    8. Re:I am kind of annoyed by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Firewire is dead like EISA and MCA before. Or what about SCSI which cost hundreds dollars in controller and cables and terminators just to connect a fucking 2X CDROM drive. Firewire had many connectors too, like SCSI.

      Firewire is not dead, it's just moved on to the professional and "prosumer" market.

      When it comes to connectors Firewire has had only 3, each identified by pin count, 4, 6, or 9. It's had only 2 speeds 400 and 800Mbps, with some rarer devices going beyond that to 1600 and 3200 with only the 9 pin connector supporting those speeds. This is far simpler than USB with it's dozen or so connectors, with type A, B, AB, and C variants to complicate it further. Then it's got 5 (or 6?) wildly varying data rate specifications and not always being backward/forward compatible.

      I don't know why you bring SCSI into this other than to find something that USB might be considered an improvement over. Yep, SCSI was pretty messed up. That might explain why things like eSATA, Firewire, and Thunderbolt, replaced it.

      As for Thunderbolt it's good for turning a $25 PCIe board into a $400 Thunderbolt peripheral even if you just wanted a couple serial ports.

      If you are spending hundreds of dollars on a controller for a CD-ROM, or hundreds of dollars on a serial port adapter, then you are doing it wrong. If you just want a cheap serial port adapter then that's what things like PCIe, and of course USB, are for.

      Nice straw man there. Still doesn't change that USB brings what we got from Thunderbolt and Firewire a decade earlier. I'm baffled why the USB people are bothering with USB 3.2 when Thunderbolt 3 already exceeds its performance now on the same connector. All they are doing with this "not invented here" syndrome would be to bring further confusion to their products and add nothing of any real value.

      If they work on making people forget that the USB type-B connectors even existed, and really lean on getting people to adopt type A (for low speed/power/cost uses on hosts) and type C connectors (for high speed/power, or small space, uses on hosts and clients) then they might have something good for a long time yet. Don't add more confusion with yet another USB 3.2 "alt-mode" on top of USB 3.0/3.1, DisplayPort, Thunderbolt, HDMI, MHL, and this already very frustrating audio accessory mode.

      What we find with this audio accessory mode, which was already a solved problem with using a cheap and tiny USB 2.0 audio device chip, is confusion added on top of confusion. You want to make fun of needing expensive adapters for Thunderbolt, Firewire, or SCSI? Well, at least with those you'd know they would work. With the nonsense we have now people might need 2 or 3 different USB-C to audio adapters depending on the device they want to plug their headphones into.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  6. Re:Sigh... (battery life) by craighansen · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Can I offer a wild-ass guess that increasing buffer space on the DAC chip can allow the phone to extend the time between wakeups and thereby spend more time sleeping, extending battery life?

  7. Re:38% seems nuts for an adaptor by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

    The original adaptor seems like it must be super poorly designed if a new version can reduce draw by 38%!! That seems like an insane gap. Seems like the original adaptor must have also gotten quite hot with that kind of extra draw?

    Even if it's slightly more expensive I don't see where a dollar or two would make much of a difference, you're only going to be buying one or two adaptors at most (and many people need 0 if they just stick to bluetooth headsets).

    That's exactly what I was thinking!

    The averageQualcomm based Android Phone has a battery with about the capacity of 3-4 old-Sokol "D" cell flashlight batteries!

    I wonder if Google was worried about BURN lawsuits from the melting insulation on that old headphone adapter!!!!

  8. Ya know ... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Google is now selling an updated headphone adapter that's supposed to be more responsive and drain less of your phone's battery.

    A standard 3.5mm headphone jack is *really* responsive and doesn't use *any* battery power. Just sayin' ...

    And for those vendors crowing about better water-proofing w/o this jack, my Kyocera Hydro VIBE from 2014 has a standard headphone jack and is "Certified waterproof for IPX5, and IPX7. Immersible for up to 30 minutes in up to 3.28 feet (1 meter)."

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Ya know ... by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      and doesn't use *any* battery power.

      It's best not to put emphasis around anything that is demonstrably wrong. Unless you think speakers move through the motive force of hopes and dreams rather than electrical power.

    2. Re:Ya know ... by omnichad · · Score: 1

      You mean like for the on-board DAC to translate and amplify the audio? Yeah, that doesn't use power.

    3. Re:Ya know ... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      You mean like for the on-board DAC to translate and amplify the audio? Yeah, that doesn't use power.

      The headphone jack itself doesn't use any power and that was all I said. But, granted there are other considerations overall...

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  9. Re:38% seems nuts for an adaptor by viperidaenz · · Score: 4, Informative

    An single alkaline D cell has over 18W/hr of energy, That's at least a 4600mAh 3.85V cellphone battery. The Pixel 2 has a 2700mAh battery.

    The "talk time" rating is about 16 hours, that's while running an active 3G session for voice. That's about 600mW average power consumption.
    That's not a whole lot of power and I assume playing MP3's is much less power than a voice call. Apparently the 3G performance of the Pixel 2 is not very good.

    It's also not just the dongle consuming power. It's the USB host inside the phone as well. If the new chip in the new dongle is better at USB power management, that means less power consumed by the phone while it's in use. It probably has a more efficient amplifier too.

  10. Re:38% seems nuts for an adaptor by hawguy · · Score: 1

    The averageQualcomm based Android Phone has a battery with about the capacity of 3-4 old-Sokol "D" cell flashlight batteries!

    A single D cell alkaline battery has a capacity of 10000 - 20000 mAh depending on power draw. Assuming 10000 mAh, that's 15Wh of power.

    The Google Pixel 2 has a 2700mAh, 3.85V battery, or 10.4Wh of power.

    Even the old carbon-zinc D cells had around 8000mAh of capacity, or around 12Wh of power

    So a single D cell battery has a higher capacity than a typical android battery.

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

  11. But.. But.. by thesupraman · · Score: 1

    Of course it is an assault on consumers!
    Mostly, I would imagine, because it is not an Apple product, and that is the Verge.

    A headline like 'Google released improved USB-C headphone adapter, with small price increase' would be WAY too much to ask for.
    After all, Google is evil (true), Apple is not evil (ummm...).

  12. Re:38% seems nuts for an adaptor by CrashNBrn · · Score: 1

    A D-Battery is 1.5V @ 2000 - 2500mAH. A Cell battery is 5V @ 3000 - 4400 mAH.

  13. Re:38% seems nuts for an adaptor by CrashNBrn · · Score: 1

    OOps that's a AA battery, A D-Cell is probably 3-4 times that much... Still 1.5V though.

  14. Re:38% seems nuts for an adaptor by Megol · · Score: 1

    While you call them the same they aren't the same. The D cell is a battery, the phone "battery" is actually an accumulator or secondary battery.
    One kind is one use, the second is designed for repeated charging and a longer lifetime.
    If wanting to make skewed comparisons why not use aluminum-air batteries for comparison? Much higher capacity, still one use.

  15. or we could show some courage by ruddk · · Score: 1

    or we could show some courage and include the old 3.5mm connector again.
    If that means the phone gets slightly thicker, they are more than welcome to add more battery capacity.

    --
    L'Idiot
    1. Re:or we could show some courage by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 1

      If that means the phone gets slightly thicker, they are more than welcome to add more battery capacity.

      Agreed, I don't know what the point is of having a paper thin phone? Hell, I bought one of those shock proof and water proof phones, it was at least an inch thick and it didn't bug me at all, battery life was good for three days (at least in the beginning) I used it for 7 years and eventually the battery died. I am sure if I replace the batter it will keep going for another 7 years. The only problem I had with it towards the end, was the lack of space on the phone and the fact that more and more stuff refused to run on an OS that old.

      --
      There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
  16. Re:Sigh... (battery life) by Reemi · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't that increase latency?

  17. Re:38% seems nuts for an adaptor by GrpA · · Score: 1

    A cell battery is 3.6v... Not 5v

    --
    Enjoy science fiction? "Turing Evolved" - AI, Mecha, Androids and rail-gun battles. What more could you want?
  18. Re:3$ by anegg · · Score: 1

    But how does it compare with the battery drain for running a pair of traditional headphones through a 1/8" (3.5mm) jack?

  19. Re:38% seems nuts for an adaptor by torkus · · Score: 1

    The S9+ has a 13.48Wh battery.

    Alkaline D-cell capacity varies of course, but is typically 18-27Wh depending on brand, current draw, etc.
    A modern rechargeable NiMH clocks in around 12-15Wh

    So no. At best your phone comes short of a SINGLE Alkaline (old-skool) D-cell battery and ties a single, modern NiMH. At least check your facts before ranting on...

    --
    You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
  20. Re:38% seems nuts for an adaptor by torkus · · Score: 1

    If you're going to try and technical, at least read what's being replied to...which was "old school" flashlight batteries.

    But fine...take a modern NiMH D-cell which is 12-15Wh. That still puts a single D-cell on-par with what's in a phone.

    --
    You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
  21. New Tech Needed by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

    If only there was some sort of adapter, a "jack" if you will, that could be built into the phone itself. You could make it a single standard that practically all audio devices could use. I wonder how much technology will need to advance before such a novel idea is possible ...

    1. Re:New Tech Needed by wed128 · · Score: 1

      Eh, sounds like it'll be big and hard to seal against water and dust.

  22. Re:38% seems nuts for an adaptor by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

    The S9+ has a 13.48Wh battery.

    Alkaline D-cell capacity varies of course, but is typically 18-27Wh depending on brand, current draw, etc.
    A modern rechargeable NiMH clocks in around 12-15Wh

    So no. At best your phone comes short of a SINGLE Alkaline (old-skool) D-cell battery and ties a single, modern NiMH. At least check your facts before ranting on...

    While I sincerely apologize to all the Sladotters that got so Butthurt about my accidently mis-remembering the capacity of a D-Cell battery when I posted that at around 3:30 am (yes, I still should have taken an extra minute and checked!), I feel obliged to point-out that "Checking facts before ranting on..." almost never seems to be a priority when some Apple-Hating Anonymous COWARD wants to (intentionally?) incorrectly state "facts" regarding whatever it is they are "on"-about regarding Apple when they vent their Spleen.

  23. Re:38% seems nuts for an adaptor by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

    a battery with about the capacity of 3-4 old-Sokol "D" cell flashlight batteries

    Sokol batteries? So a bunch of Czech gymnasts turn up and run on a treadmill to power your flashlight?

  24. Re:38% seems nuts for an adaptor by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

    a battery with about the capacity of 3-4 old-Sokol "D" cell flashlight batteries

    Sokol batteries? So a bunch of Czech gymnasts turn up and run on a treadmill to power your flashlight?

    Haha!

    Obviously, I meant the slang-term "SKOOL"

  25. Re:38% seems nuts for an adaptor by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

    Just put a D-cell socket inline on your earbud cable. Problem solved!