Well, despite the wishful thinking on the part of people who mysteriously want the jack to go away, it's not going away for a few years yet.
It might end up going away on new high-end phones, in which case I'll buy old or used high-end phones. But, worst case, if it ends up going away for all phones that otherwise meet my needs and the Bluetooth situation is still unacceptable, then I'll have to join you and carry a second device for music.
It's such a shame that the industry is taking a step backwards to it again being necessary to carry multiple devices. Having everything in one device was the major win of smartphones.
A competitive duopoly is much better for consumers than a monopoly.
Well, yes, a duopoly is better than monopoly, but not by very much. If a duopoly is firmly established, then the two tend to start colluding and generally acting together as a monopoly.
I'm a little torn on the security issue -- most of my professional work has been around security for years now, and I've seen enough impressive-looking security systems fail completely because of this.
I remember years ago, when relatively affordable fingerprint scanners were first hitting the market, I worked on a product that was, essentially, an API layer so that software could use scanners but not be tied to specific hardware. I was playing with the two dozen most popular scanners at the time, and discovered that with 20 of them, you could guarantee a false positive simply by completely covering the scanner window with your thumb. Oddly, the four that weren't so brain-dead were the cheapest ones.
This sort of thing concerns me greatly, particularly with new complex systems. I don't know what it is, but I'd bet money that Face ID has some equally simple way to defeat it. It's too new and complex not to.
However, you tend to trade off security and convenience -- and that's not only legitimate, it's unavoidable. There's no such thing as perfect security, and there's no such thing as total convenience, so you are always choosing some point between those two extremes.
If you really have information that is extremely sensitive on your phone, none of the stock defenses are sufficient anyway. You'd be separately encrypting the data and keeping the key off the phone, have special locking software that lets you enter a "panic code" instead of your normal credential to wipe the phone, etc.
I think a good argument can be made that the correct amount of security is not always "maximum". It's better to recognize that a compromise is inevitably and always being made, and to choose the nature of that compromise according to circumstances.
I can't wait till the darkened theater starts lighting up with the people's phones lighting up their face so they can log in.
Ummm.. isn't that happening anyway? No matter how you're unlocking your phone, it's lighting up in the dark. How else are you going to read the screen?
I still think it sounds like someone could just hold the phone up in front of you, unexpectedly, perhaps with a shield over the phone so you don't even know your phone is checking your id so you don't close your eyes etc, and unlock itself for your captors.
They could torture and/or imprison you until you provided the unlock code.
You can think up ways to defeat all of the available unlock systems. In a situation such as you're describing, I think your captors could get you to unlock your phone no matter what sort of credential is used to do it.
I don't know how Face ID's security compares with PIN or fingerprint, but it seems likely that it is no worse than them.
Apple's Airpods and Google's Pixel Buds are probably decent. I don't know about the Airpods, but the Pixel Buds still have that really annoying problem with battery life.
But both of those are horrendously overpriced for what you get.
I agree. I think people are jumping to conclusions about this being a malicious act on Apple's part. This looks more like it's just another example of how buying into a closed platform can bite you.
I don't object to the idea of removing the headphone jack. I just want manufacturers to wait until there's an adequate replacement for it -- and that doesn't exist yet.
First, the primary issue is the need for a dongle in the first place. Dongles suck at any price.
Second, you can't just get any old adapter. Most of the cheap adapters are only passing through the analog audio from USB-C, but the Pixel 2 has no on-board DAC and so those won't work with it. You need an adapter that also includes its own DAC. Same with any other USB-C audio devices you might want to use.
Which brings up another big issue: the removal of the headphone jack, combined with the removal of the DAC, greatly complicates everything. You can't just buy any random USB-C audio device and expect it to work, so now there's a high potential for error when there used to be zero potential for error.
Even if they gave everyone an unlimited supply of free dongles, I still won't buy a phone without a headphone jack. Particularly one that costs nearly $1000. For that price, I shouldn't have to compromise functionality.
Yes, I do that. I don't consider that "brand loyalty", though, as the instant an alternative that is better for me comes around, I'll buy it instead with no qualms.
That's what I meant by the slang sense, but isn't technically part of the what "professional" means. The only difference between a "professional" and an "amateur" is that the professional gets paid.
I do understand that -- I've seen plenty of "twisty" movies where I didn't see the twist coming. It's fun!
movies with big twists often replay key scenes in some sort of brief montage, which allows the viewer to re-watch those scenes to confirm the double meaning for themselves.
It always irritates me when movies do this, though. It's too much like spoon-feeding and eliminates a lot of the fun of the twist. It's right up there with when movies are posing an unstated question through the whole story, but then wuss out and state it at the end (this is why, although I really love the original Total Recall, I hate its ending. Asking overtly "is this real" just deflates it.)
Slashdot Mirror
It has a DAC for the phone, but there is no DAC that is connected to the USB-C port.
Well, despite the wishful thinking on the part of people who mysteriously want the jack to go away, it's not going away for a few years yet.
It might end up going away on new high-end phones, in which case I'll buy old or used high-end phones. But, worst case, if it ends up going away for all phones that otherwise meet my needs and the Bluetooth situation is still unacceptable, then I'll have to join you and carry a second device for music.
It's such a shame that the industry is taking a step backwards to it again being necessary to carry multiple devices. Having everything in one device was the major win of smartphones.
A competitive duopoly is much better for consumers than a monopoly.
Well, yes, a duopoly is better than monopoly, but not by very much. If a duopoly is firmly established, then the two tend to start colluding and generally acting together as a monopoly.
Nope, that's why I said "probably".
So now seems like a good time to remember Bruce Schneier's interview titled Complexity the Worst Enemy of Security.
Indeed, thank you for reminding us of this.
I'm a little torn on the security issue -- most of my professional work has been around security for years now, and I've seen enough impressive-looking security systems fail completely because of this.
I remember years ago, when relatively affordable fingerprint scanners were first hitting the market, I worked on a product that was, essentially, an API layer so that software could use scanners but not be tied to specific hardware. I was playing with the two dozen most popular scanners at the time, and discovered that with 20 of them, you could guarantee a false positive simply by completely covering the scanner window with your thumb. Oddly, the four that weren't so brain-dead were the cheapest ones.
This sort of thing concerns me greatly, particularly with new complex systems. I don't know what it is, but I'd bet money that Face ID has some equally simple way to defeat it. It's too new and complex not to.
However, you tend to trade off security and convenience -- and that's not only legitimate, it's unavoidable. There's no such thing as perfect security, and there's no such thing as total convenience, so you are always choosing some point between those two extremes.
If you really have information that is extremely sensitive on your phone, none of the stock defenses are sufficient anyway. You'd be separately encrypting the data and keeping the key off the phone, have special locking software that lets you enter a "panic code" instead of your normal credential to wipe the phone, etc.
I think a good argument can be made that the correct amount of security is not always "maximum". It's better to recognize that a compromise is inevitably and always being made, and to choose the nature of that compromise according to circumstances.
I can't wait till the darkened theater starts lighting up with the people's phones lighting up their face so they can log in.
Ummm.. isn't that happening anyway? No matter how you're unlocking your phone, it's lighting up in the dark. How else are you going to read the screen?
I still think it sounds like someone could just hold the phone up in front of you, unexpectedly, perhaps with a shield over the phone so you don't even know your phone is checking your id so you don't close your eyes etc, and unlock itself for your captors.
They could torture and/or imprison you until you provided the unlock code.
You can think up ways to defeat all of the available unlock systems. In a situation such as you're describing, I think your captors could get you to unlock your phone no matter what sort of credential is used to do it.
I don't know how Face ID's security compares with PIN or fingerprint, but it seems likely that it is no worse than them.
My gloves have conductive fingertips. I can use my phone without taking them off.
Apple will embrace Face ID as its authentication method for a competitive advantage over Android smartphones.
We'll see how much of a competitive advantage that is. Certainly, it is an advantage -- but I suspect it's a pretty small one.
Apple's Airpods and Google's Pixel Buds are probably decent. I don't know about the Airpods, but the Pixel Buds still have that really annoying problem with battery life.
But both of those are horrendously overpriced for what you get.
I agree. I think people are jumping to conclusions about this being a malicious act on Apple's part. This looks more like it's just another example of how buying into a closed platform can bite you.
Apple engineers promised they would resign if ever asked to do that by apple.
That's meaningless. They can always hire more subservient engineers.
Well said.
I don't object to the idea of removing the headphone jack. I just want manufacturers to wait until there's an adequate replacement for it -- and that doesn't exist yet.
They are including one in the box with the phone. You'll only need to buy one after you lose that.
First, the primary issue is the need for a dongle in the first place. Dongles suck at any price.
Second, you can't just get any old adapter. Most of the cheap adapters are only passing through the analog audio from USB-C, but the Pixel 2 has no on-board DAC and so those won't work with it. You need an adapter that also includes its own DAC. Same with any other USB-C audio devices you might want to use.
Which brings up another big issue: the removal of the headphone jack, combined with the removal of the DAC, greatly complicates everything. You can't just buy any random USB-C audio device and expect it to work, so now there's a high potential for error when there used to be zero potential for error.
Does the dongle let you charge the phone while using the headphones? some kind of pass through T connection?
No. There is such a dongle that will be released soon, but it costs $40.
This.
Even if they gave everyone an unlimited supply of free dongles, I still won't buy a phone without a headphone jack. Particularly one that costs nearly $1000. For that price, I shouldn't have to compromise functionality.
The only sensible reason I can see is for waterproofing.
Except that other phones have higher water resistance ratings than the Pixel 2 while keeping the headphone jack.
Has anyone figured why they dropped support for good old audio out port?
Apple did it to sell overpriced accessories, but what are google's motives?
To sell overpriced accessories.
Yes, I do that. I don't consider that "brand loyalty", though, as the instant an alternative that is better for me comes around, I'll buy it instead with no qualms.
That's what I meant by the slang sense, but isn't technically part of the what "professional" means. The only difference between a "professional" and an "amateur" is that the professional gets paid.
You are mistaken. Damore plays no role in my opinion of Google.
They already did. Wal-Mart joined this "alliance" a while back.
Umm, did you mean to reply to my comment? It seems entirely unrelated.
I do understand that -- I've seen plenty of "twisty" movies where I didn't see the twist coming. It's fun!
movies with big twists often replay key scenes in some sort of brief montage, which allows the viewer to re-watch those scenes to confirm the double meaning for themselves.
It always irritates me when movies do this, though. It's too much like spoon-feeding and eliminates a lot of the fun of the twist. It's right up there with when movies are posing an unstated question through the whole story, but then wuss out and state it at the end (this is why, although I really love the original Total Recall, I hate its ending. Asking overtly "is this real" just deflates it.)