“Pixel 2 and Pixel XL 2 will both ditch the headphone jack.” | Hacker News Reader

“Pixel 2 and Pixel XL 2 will both ditch the headphone jack.”

twitter.com

46 pointskevlar1818112 comments

Bluetooth Headset:

PRO:

- no cable that annoys you

CON

- heavy, thus fall out your ear while running. - small battery (which evolves, but slowely) - more expensive - redundant audio processors - mostly low quality audio processors - bluetooth is unstable

Cable Headset

PRO

- good audio quality - low price (in comparison) - light, stays in your ear while jogging - usable on a range of devices - compact design - make use of a huge battery, namely the one in your phone

CON

- the cable breaks after some time - the cable restricts you

I don't see the why I would want to change my standard headphones for a technology that is bound to fail me over time, either by running out of juice or by a bluetooth hickup. I wouldn't buy a phone without a headphone jack. Period.

Good analysis, and that doesn't even include the phone itself:

Having a 3.5mm Jack on a smartphone:

PRO:

- Compatible with nearly 100 years of audio technology

- Inclusion does not prevent usage of other means of wired/wireless audio transmission - usbc, bluetooth, wifi

CON

- Phone thickness minimum is hard-set to 3.5mm (not even sure this is a con)

- ....cost to.. design? I don't even know.

Not justifying, but waterproofing a phone is very hard if it has holes in it.

Microphone, speakers, charging port - lots of holes. The Sony Walkman Sport from back in the day was waterproof, it had a standard jack

The audio jack is not a hole at all. It is a sealed port with metal plates inside. (Unless you make one for cheapening purposes.)

Perhaps, but Samsung has it figured out.

I agree with Bluetooth 4.xx audio quality. It sucks, especially for bass (I have several giant wireless headphones including one from Bose for reference). Everything sounds more flat. Hopefully the new 5.x standards will fix it.

There's one pro that you're missing for bluetooth though. One less port means it's easier to protect Pixels from water.

I use these - https://www.amazon.com/Motorola-S305-Bluetooth-Stereo-Headph... and love them. The battery is worth a few hours, doesn't fall out (don't like earbuds), and decent sound quality (albeit i'm not an expert in what someone might deem 'quality')

so what's wrong with a pair of USB-C headphones?

Can't charge and listen at the same time. For many (most?) use cases, this wouldn't matter, but for example, taking a multi-hour plane trip and wanting to use your phone to watch a movie or two would be basically impossible.

If manufacturers are so dead-set on getting rid of the traditional 3.5mm headphone jack, I hope they move towards dual USB-C.

My guess is going to be the sound quality.

Bluetooth can handle a larger variety of tasks than just transmitting audio to the headset. In other words, the headphone jack limits what we can do with smart listening devices.

A music jack in no way limits a phones Bluetooth capabilities. As has been proven over the years, you can have and use both.

The big con for me is I already have great headphones that I'm guessing I'll use for another 5 years or more. They don't have bluetooth equivalents. I'm normally a big Pixel/Nexus fan so this is a big disappointment for me.

Bluetooth is necessarily lower quality as you're taking an audio source and compressing and decompressing it using a lossy algorithm. Granted, as most people are listening to streaming, they're already listening to a source that's been compressed and decompressed once or twice.

Only point I agree with about the Bluetooth headsets is that they're expensive. Although I must admit, the bigger ones do make you look a bit like Frankenstein's monster

I go running all the time with my Soundsports and have zero issues - battery life can be measure in weeks, they never fall out, bluetooth is rock solid, and the best bit is I don't even need my phone they can operate directly from my watch.

Each to their own, but I doubt I'll ever use wired earphones with my phone again.

So stupid. What a blatant attempt at grabbing money.

Headphone ports are one of the last truly ubiquitous pieces of technology still in use today. 1/8" headphone jacks work in EVERYTHING. And we want to throw that all away, because technology.

Isn't that what everyone said about RCA jacks and reel-to-reel tape machines?

RCA jacks are also widely used, when size and weight aren't a factor.

reel-to-reel wasn't ubiquitous, and RCA jacks are still charging strong. The rest of the world doesn't need or want to rotate from perfectly working and good stuff because they don't want their shit breaking all the time.

None of these new school dips seem to care about interoperability, or the TRILLIONS of devices out there today that use those ports (everything from TI calculators to 70's stereo amplifiers to random garage kit) with their simple and easy-to-analyze signals.

We are the center of this complexity fetishism, and we should be ashamed of ourselves for it.

My turntable still uses RCA jacks. ;)

Yeah, same. The amp I used takes RCA in and banana plugs out, and it's nowhere close to old. RCA is far from dead.

RCA jacks are still ubiquitous in my experience; is there some movement to get rid of them?

I don't see it as an attempt to grab money. Seems more like a "us too" move.

As the third lemming said to the second lemming, "Yeah, the rush of speed and the wind blowing is interesting but why did we just follow that guy off the cliff?" :-)

More seriously, tradeoffs between things like water resistance vs wired headphones? wrap around screens vs non wraparound screens? etc etc.

"It's the way we've always done it" is all I hear.

This is just a rude and dismissive comment for no reason other than smug snarkiness.

I'm not trying to be rude or smug. I'm trying to extract the meaning from their statement that I feel is conveyed. When you strip down what they're saying, to me, it's just "new is worse".

That is exactly what it is.

I wonder if OP is busy defending Serial, Parallel, and even the PS/2 port to this day as well?

Of those three, the only port with any kind of ubiquity is serial, and yes I would defend it even though I hate it with a vengeance, because it will let me talk to old and esoteric gear. Just like headphone ports.

This new shit doesn't do that.

A well defined, and common standard that is bluetooth doesn't let you interact with hardware?

I'm sorry this is ridiculous. To imply that a common wireless standard prevents you from connecting hardware basically ends the conversation here, as your point of view is refusing to see both sides.

How much esoteric hardware will bluetooth let me talk to?

Can I talk my best friend's telescope? What about my coworkers oscilloscope? What about the kiln in our chem lab, or the cash register at the deli I bought lunch at? Old CANBUS ports?

What does bluetooth talk to? Headphones, fitness trackers, car stereos... and aside from a few random appliances, not much else.

Yeah maybe in twenty years when everything and their mother was made with bluetooth support, but that is a LONG ways away

Oh and which well defined common bluetooth standard? V2? V3? V4?

There's a weird mesh of which devices can talk to which receivers. Just the other day I bought a new V4 USB receiver that refused to talk to an old wireless headset, and problems like these are emdemic.

You know what format didn't have these problems? 1/8" headphone jacks. Because it is simple, and analog, and DOESN'T CHANGE.

> and even the PS/2 port to this day as well

I'm still waiting on a explanation of why upgrading mouses and keyboards to USB was worthwhile? In fact, it was a downgrade on windows 95/98 which demanded they be plugged into the same port after a restart.

PS/2 was pretty terrible. It required a special port which couldn't be used for anything else, taking up extra space and making plugging your device in less convenient. It didn't officially support hotplug. The standard PS/2 mouse protocol only supported 3 buttons and two axes - there was a nasty hack on top of that to add a scroll wheel and another two buttons, anything beyond that is completely proprietary. It's so convenient by comparison to be able to plug a keyboard or mouse into whichever USB port is easiest and have it just work without special drivers.

PS/2 supports n-key rollover for keyboards; something you need custom and proprietary drivers to do with USB. They also don't have to deal with shared bus interrupts, which can cause imprecise keyboard and mouse movements.

I use USB too, but PS/2 has its pluses.

Thanks, the scroll wheel is a good reason, but I don't find the others compelling.

> It required a special port which couldn't be used for anything else, taking up extra space and making plugging your device in less convenient.

I don't find that a negative, the mouse is always connected and I've never once thought "I wish I could unplug the mouse so I can plug in the printer and charge my phone".

> It's so convenient by comparison to be able to plug a keyboard or mouse into whichever USB port is easiest and have it just work without special drivers.

For most people with a standard mouse and keyboard this was never an issue (except for the scroll wheel one you mentioned). For non-standard ones, it still has to install a driver doesn't it? I thought windows just installed it transparently.

Change for change's sake much?

All I ask is that the solution presented than headphone ports is better. Bluetooth is so far away from being "better" that literally the only thing it has going for it is wireless.

You'll never see more than tepid support (if any) from the Sennheisers or Grados or whatever because you can't drive high-quality cans without a proper amp, of which batteries can't provide the power to. The audio scene will continue its ghettofication into more shitty 'trendsetters' pimping colorful, low-quality, compressed, lossy plastic trash.

People really want a future full of thes proprietary incompatible walled gardens? This is why standardization became a thing in the first place! Which means the pendulum will eventually swing back into motion -- hopefully wiping the board clean of all these "technologists" and "entrepreneurs"

While I do own a few pairs of Bluetooth headphones I have yet to have any, from the cheap to the expensive, not have occasional hiccups. Because of this I love using my headphone jack.

I'm sad that this is a trend especially without a good, alternative and standard way of using headphones over, say, USB-C. I mean I would be _completely fine_ with removing the 3.5mm if you could re-use another jack for the same purpose but being restricted to Bluetooth or USB-C dongles, at least to me, sucks.

Have you tried Apple's AirPods?

No but I am interested in the ideas they're showing. I decided to try out the bragi and I'm actually _super_ impressed; I thought they would be terrible based on a lot of reviews I've seen (I know they're not entirely comparable as the Air Pods have a touch interface but it's the closest I've used).

So I'm excited to see more wireless headphones like the Air Pods and what kind of innovation they can bring.

I've got AirPods and have since launch. I LOVE them.

To be fair: I've had to re-pair them twice after they just wouldn't connect.

Once in a while only one comes on at first and it takes a few seconds for the other to 'kick in', but that's automatic.

A handful of times I've had one cut out and come back within a second or so.

But that's daily (at work) use since launch. I'm perfectly happy with them, these aren't serious issues.

I second this. I've been using Bluetooth headphones and earbuds for years and I was shocked at how well the AirPods worked. Zero dropouts.

If you're into higher-end headphones, I can heartily recommend the B&W P7 Wireless. Fantastic sound and the Bluetooth has been extremely stable for me. And they have a wired port as well, so if you want to go that route at any time they still have you covered.

Curious about audiophile perspectives - I tried them and found the audio quality to be abysmal. But, I'm a snob, so who knows.

There is a standard way to listen to headphones over usb-c. There just aren't a ton of headphones on the market yet because it's relatively new. But they do exist.

Sorry, I understand that and was the point I was trying to make but perhaps I didn't do a good job of it.

For example I can go to Target, Walmart, Best Buy, etc and there are WALLS of headphones and right about 100% of them are 3.5mm. To make a good transition I would expect at least _some_ of them to be of other port types. I practically never see the lightning headphones for the iPhone and I know the iPhone 7 is crazy popular.

I get the demand isn't there for USB-C headphones therefore they're not really being sold so there _has_ to be a catalyst; it's just hard for me to personally pay out $600+ for a phone that won't work with not just my own headphones but almost all of the headphones I can currently buy.

1. 100% of the headphones absolutely do not have 3.5mm jacks. Almost every pair of new "sports" headphones are bluetooth and have no 3.5mm jack to speak of.

2. It's disingenuous to claim it "won't work" with the headphones. Does it need an adapter? Yes. Is that annoying? Slightly. But they absolutely will work.

3. Again... have a little patience. The whole point of the Nexus line is to push other android manufacturers to be better... and to drive adoption of technologies Google wants to see. The Galaxy S8 will have USB-C. Apple is going whole-hog towards USB-C. We are literally on the cusp of it being a broader standard. Are we still 18 months away from it being ubiquitous in Target? Probably... but to pretend like it's not going to happen is silly. IF the argument is "the phone shouldn't move until the headphones do" - why on earth would a headphone MFG start making headphones that don't actually work with ANY phone on the market?

To answer (3), there are a lot more uses for headphones than listening to music on one's phone. Switching to USB-C means asking all those device makers to switch from relatively simple analog hardware to a new connector with an established protocol, which means more (unnecessary) logic, which means more costs. I suspect it will be a long time before this stuff become ubiquitous for the low-end.

Audio over USB C is analog as well, no chips required. 4 wires in the USB C socket just become the analog equivalent.

I stand corrected then. If the only thing that changes is the physical connector then that is not nearly as bad.

A physical connector that cannot rotate and will break and tangle cables.

I think the biggest problem people (well, those who really care about the quality of the music) will identify will be that the audio DAC will go from being a (generally) distinct component of the phone to an integrated component of the USB-C driver. I believe this will likely lower the quality of the DAC (as the rest of the chip will be mostly, if not all digital components) and the overall music as a result.

IOW, you may still want to have a discrete DAC dongle for your USB-C phone.

> 1. 100% of the headphones absolutely do not have 3.5mm jacks. Almost every pair of new "sports" headphones are bluetooth and have no 3.5mm jack to speak of.

I said "about" but I should have clarified I meant only corded headphones. I've never actually seen a USB-C pair of headphones out in the wild, only one lightning pair and I think it was Beats.

> 2. It's disingenuous to claim it "won't work" with the headphones. Does it need an adapter? Yes. Is that annoying? Slightly. But they absolutely will work.

Maybe? USB-C is mostly standardized but not necessarily the protocols each type of device uses. Granted hopefully all headphones are the same but it's technically possible some headphones could use a different protocol making it not work with everything.

Maybe I'm just projecting my bias with the issues of HDMI <-> USB-C.

> Again... have a little patience [...] but to pretend like it's not going to happen is silly

I never pretended it wouldn't and I would LIKE it to happen. The problem is, right now the user experience kinda sucks with adapters and trying to find a pair that you want and can work with your device if you lack a headphone jack. Personally, I just don't want to deal with any of that which is why I either use bluetooth headphones or only buy phones with 3.5mm plugs

I hope you're right with the 18 months I just find the rush to get devices to ONLY USB-C while accessories are almost non existent a bit premature. Again, think of the UX here especially with people who are not technical savvy. This is not super straight forward...yet.

Are their DACs better than the ones in today's phones?

My (desktop) wireless (non-standard) USB headphones work fine with all my Android devices using a USB-C OTG adapter. But needing a dongle for a dongle that's going to stick out of your pocket sucks, compared to just plugging in the cable. Plus the whole battery thing...

Phone connectors are rubbish, ancient technology. The only thing they have going for them is the network buy-in from literally 140 years of legacy.[1]

They are fine in static audio applications, but their performance on mobile devices is abysmal. Put the device in a pocket, and every time you move or sit down, you're putting huge lateral stress on the connector. Either the contacts get deformed and become intermittent, the plug bends and/or shears off in the jack, or the wire on the plug side develops an open circuit from wear. I've personally damaged or destroyed the headphone jack on every phone I've owned that had one.

In the last couple of weeks I've transitioned most of my audio to Bluetooth. BT isn't exactly a pleasant experience, but once paired, it's relatively seamless. I even converted my ubiquitous ATH-M50x headphones to BT using a module[2].

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phone_connector_(audio)#Modern... [2]: https://www.amazon.com/Bluetooth-Adapter-Amplifier-Technica-...

I've broken plenty of headphones, normally when the wires go, but over many years and many devices I've never had a broken jack. That includes some rather violent tugs they've had. How on earth are you breaking the headphone jack on phones?

Easy enough to do. I think the biggest single culprit is cumulative damage from sitting down or walking with my phone in my pocket with headphones plugged in. Second biggest one is catching the cable on stationary objects. Doorknobs, shelves, armrests on office chairs.

I'm pretty sure it's a big enough problem that it's a service item. When I opened up my Nexus 5 to do the screen, I noted that the headphone jack was a floating module, connected to the mainboard by spring contacts. If connector damage and serviceability wasn't an issue, it'd be soldered directly to the board.

> Easy enough to do. I think the biggest single culprit is cumulative damage from sitting down or walking with my phone in my pocket with headphones plugged in. Second biggest one is catching the cable on stationary objects. Doorknobs, shelves, armrests on office chairs.

I've done quite a lot of everything in that list. Thousands of hours of walking, cycling and other activities, I've caught it on door knobs and other things very violently. I've never had an issue with the jack breaking though, on phones, MP3 players, walkmans or my PC (I've tripped over the cord a few times).

I'm sure it can break, but the post I responded too said it happened with every phone they've had, which I find very doubtful.

Curious, my experience is completely the opposite of yours. Over the course of 5 smartphones from different vendors (apple, samsung, lg), I've yet to destroy a single one. This is from heavy use (near daily during lifting, running, motorcycling, plugged into phone aux, at work).

Even if you prefer bluetooth, why not include the jack as a backup/alternative? All the phones with 3.5mm that I know of also have bluetooth.

Out of the scenarios OP listed I've only ever had problems with cables wearing out, which is why most decent headphones come with detachable cables

2.4GHz wireless isn't exactly a great solution for transmitting signals between devices separated by a big sack of mostly water either. Supposedly reflections from nearby surfaces can help a little, if there are suitable surfaces nearby, but it's inherently tricky.

There exist headphones with low-profile 90 degree connectors. In my experience those solve pretty much all the durability issues the older style jacks had.

Please call when you can make something like Sennheiser HD650 run on Bluetooth with lossless audio (or at most as lossy as a good DAC and amplifier combo) and last more than 3 hours. Oh, and it having less than 10 ms latency. (Not compensated junk, games won't work with it.)

If those are your criteria, you aren't listening to audio from the headphone jack on your phone anyway.

At least in the case of the Pixel, it'll be a USB-C port instead of an Apple-controlled Lightning port. I prefer the lightning connector but I don't like it being only on the iPhone (you can't even use iPhone headphones on the Mac!) and locked down to Apple's approval for everything.

There's a right way and a wrong way to transition to a new interface technology.

The right way is to offer the new interfaces as options or have them be there in addition to the legacy interfaces. That way people with peripherals that are only compatible with legacy interfaces can still use them, while allowing early adopters to use the new interface.

This is what happened when the USB standard was released. Computers were sold with both USB and the old serial/parallel ports. It took many years to get to the point that serial and parallel ports were no longer standard: well, after most every consumer had already switched to using USB for just about everything.

The wrong way to go about this is what's happening in this instance, where a widely-used legacy interface is being completely ignored in favor of a new interface that has relatively little adoption.

No wonder so many consumers are upset, and that doesn't even touch issues like DRM and the analog hole, where non-DRM-forcing legacy interfaces are clearly better for the consumer.

Heh, to be devil's advocate, sorta, we have had BT option for 17 years or so. The problem is, BT audio quality is sketchy, seamless connections are hit/miss, interference &, my fav, waning battery life.

My question to those who would take the jack away is: why would I want to exercise $50+ option that is dependent on batteries when a $5 always reliable option exists? Probably the same reasons the h/w keyboard went away: profit, elegant fragility & control.

Akin to my thinking. Bluetooth still sucks. In terms of connectivity, it is in no way comparable to the seamless functioning of the older port. The data rate has required compression that screws with the signal quality, and then there are the latency issues.

If Bluetooth was "great", everyone would already be using it. They aren't. Ergo, it's not time for the "legacy" port to go.

I am also concerned about the push to end-to-end digital delivery. Which also gets DRM-ed up the wazoo. Sorry, I don't agree that whoever's coding up whatever implementation gets to determine my usage rights based upon their private project, implementation, and incentives as opposed to my actual, legal rights (which their lawyers are simultaneously busy trying to erode).

I'm a new bluetooth headset adopter. I've been growing increasingly keen with them:

You can grab them on Amazon for $20 to $50.

- SoundPEATS Bluetooth headphones is $19.99 with Amazon Prime. Some hiccups on this one with connecting. I keep this one as a backup when battery runs out.

- Phaiser BHS-730 works like a charm. $39.99 with Amazon Prime. Nice magnet feature that allows you to wear the unit around your neck when not using it.

They work with your smartphone and your laptop.

So the major downside? These things run out of battery power after 4-5 hours on average. This sucks because you're typically using them on the go.

Hopefully more people using bluetooth will result in future headphones with improved battery life.

So what you are basically saying is: they are shit?

Or, you know, learn to route a cable through your clothes and then there's one less battery to be concerned with.

Outside of the RIDICULOUSLY narrow and short-sighted use-case of "I want to listen to the tunes on my phone" and a few other like scenarios, bluetooth headsets are is absolutely USELESS for anything else.

Not justifying the removal of the headphone jack by any means, but bluetooth earphones (good ones) are amazing when it comes to running, working out, skiing, biking etc. when you don't want to deal with wires running through your clothes.

I use my Bluetooth earbuds and headphones to listen to music and podcasts on my phone, my tablet, and my laptop, and to connect to my TV to watch movies or play games late at night when my roommate is sleeping. I use them at the gym, where having a cable get in the way could be a problem. I also use them to make phone calls when my hands are occupied. They work wonderfully for all these uses. I'd say that covers a lot of peoples' needs, though it sounds like it may not cover yours.

So your solution here is to hope that battery life improves, rather than using the already present, more widely supported an almost objectively better solution of headphones jacks?

My wired headphones don't run out of battery and drain a tiny amount of power from my phone - far less than bluetooth.

> They work with your smartphone and your laptop.

You mean like my wired ones do? With the added benefit of better audio quality?

I relied on wired headphones for a long time.

The problem is smart phones are beginning to ditch these ports: it's not just the article, the iPhone is the latest device to get rid of the headphone jack. (Though you can get an adapter)

Over time though, I learned to manage dealing with wired headphones. Even in tricky situations. The best compromise for me was headphones that allowed the wire to disconnect from the headset with enough force (and potentially be replaced). https://i.imgur.com/Ud1e6QU.jpg

I gave bluetooth headphones a try since I used RS 185, sold them, and sennheiser bluetooth over ears (which I sold). Then, there were $20.00 bluetooth headphones on Amazon. So what the hay, gave it a shot?

The sound quality was decent. Not having to worry about leaving your seat with wires was also pleasant. Especially if you switch headphones between laptop and phones often, you can lose orientation.

So, while I used to have cynicism of bluetooth headphones, I gave them a shot with $19.99 headphones and was pleasantly surprised.

So instead of buying headphones for about $5 which last as long as your phone does, has no connection issus, and can be kept plugged in so it won't get lost, I have to spend $30 for something which is easy to lose and needs to be kept charged (and no, there's no way a little ear piece will have as big of a battery as my phone, and besides for which, I can keep my phone plugged in during the day at work).

And for what?

I forgot to add:

I went through maybe 10? in-ear headphones over 5 years.

Those things break all the time. And boy does it get annoying and expensive to replace these things:

- Sennheiser CX300-B In-Ear Stereo Headphone

- Sennheiser CX 400 In-Ear Headphone (Black) - 4 of these

- Etymotic Research ER6i Isolator In-Ear Earphones (Black)

- Many Sony headphones from the corner store :P

It's been maybe a year, with bluetooth headphones, my first bluetooth in-ear headphones still work. Maybe because there's less stress on the ear piece-wiring connection? I don't know.

Maybe I wasn't gentle enough with them, had bad luck, or got bad products. I don't know.

Also I forgot to mention how lame it is when the headphone jack itself on the laptop wears down or breaks. And you have to take the whole unit in for repair.

I look forward to never having to worry about that again :P

Personally, I never really invested money into them. I found that the moderately expensive ones break just as often as the cheap ones, but even if you break a $2 pair twice a year, that's $4 a year. To pay off a $20 piece, it'll take you five years of breaking earpieces without losing or braking your Bluetooth.

And no one is saying that Bluetooth is _bad_ and should be banned. We're just complaining that a usable and ergonomic technology is going away.

The trick is to buy headphones with replaceable wires so you don't have to buy new headphones, just new wires.

Horrible idea. I'm on holiday at the moment, didn't bring my headphones - don't often use them, but on flight and occasionally lazing by the pool would have liked to listen to my audiobook.

I decided to get a new cheap pair when I was shopping, remembering just in time that my phone model doesn't have standard audio equipment. So from what was available instead of a simple €5 purchase, I would be on the hook for another little adapter cable priced at €10 or €39 for another set of Apple's headphones with their bespoke charging port.

It's not "brave" it's shit and annoying. Also travelling with Bluetooth speakers, which use standard cables, means I need to carry multiple cables around because of proprietary charging port that they continue to be able to get away with.

I like my phone, does what I need, but not being able to pick up a cheap pair of headphones on holiday, yeah thanks Apple. Shit decision. Google... please read this real world experience, don't make your equipment annoying too.

While I am sad about this, at least it is likely to be USB C, which means my dongle and/or head phones will work with more than just my phone.

That is the only silver lining here that I can see.

Your headphones would need a DAC if you want to charge your phone and use the headphones at the same time.

Ideally you would be able to use a splitter that would male USB-C on one end and female 3.5mm + female USB-C. Unfortunately you'll be stuck with only 500mA.

The USB-C spec calls for the negotiation of power delivery (amperage) via two lines that are used for audio passthrough. When those lines are occupied the device will only pull 500mA from the cable to ensure components aren't fried.

Now if your splitter had a DAC, you could get full power but it sucks you have to spend money to listen to audio and charge your phone at the same time.

From USB Type-C Specification Release 1.3:

Analog audio headsets are supported by multiplexing four analog audio signals onto pins on the USB Type-C™ connector when in the Audio Adapter Accessory Mode. The four analog audio signals are the same as those used by a traditional 3.5 mm headset jack. This makes it possible to use existing analog headsets with a 3.5 mm to USB Type-C adapter. The audio adapter architecture allows for an audio peripheral to provide up to 500 mA back to the system for charging.

That's terrible. I wouldn't buy a phone without a way to plug in. I would lose headphones that are not attached with a wire.

There's plenty of other phones. Bluetooth is absolute utter shit. No, it's worse than shit. It's an atrocity. Half the time it doesn't connect. Another third it says it's connecting but it's playing from your phone's speakers still. And when you finally get it working--if you do before smashing the damn phone into the ground--it has shitty sound quality. The engineers who work on this should be ashamed of what they've put out into the world: an ugly monstrosity that seems to be a terrible solution looking for a problem. Reliable wireless connections would be nice, but I'm done hoping it will ever happen as long as Bluetooth is a standard. Not a single Bluetooth product I've ever operated has operated with any reliability whatsoever. It's just absolute garbage.

I haven't used or tried AirPods, but every Bluetooth device i have tried has a noticible to awkward lag when watching video on a phone.

This ranges from earphones to my sound system in the house. So unless wireless can solve that problem, it seems like we are giving up something by making the switch.

I'm going to take the contrary view here.

I hate hate headphone cords. OTOH I've use 3 different cordless headphones regularly (ironically not AirPods) and I don't have any particular problems.

Positives: The cord doesn't get tangled, the remote works properly on all phones and laptops (unlike the multiple standards for wired remotes).

Negatives: The battery life. They cost more for similar quality (although this isn't as clear cut anymore: eg less than $100 gets quite competent JBL BT headphones).

Neutral: I don't find the audio any worse. Some wired headsets are better, but many aren't.

I have one of the iPhones without the headphone jack and it's a constant pain. I tend to agree with Apple's moves of this sort, but this particular one was a bad idea. It just plain sucks.

Good lord people, if you don't like it then don't buy it. I swear to god this exact same reaction occurs every time something old starts getting replaced by something new.

Same thing happened with the iPhone 7, even though it came with a very neat little adapter so you can plug whatever headphones you want into it.

Even in some dystopian future where phones are completely wireless, I'm sure you can still buy a little Bluetooth adapter to put on the end of your electrostatic headphones that you wear whilst jogging each day.

Except that adapter has a max voltage of 0.5v IIRC, which significantly reduces the quality of any high impedance headphones.

I believe this is an objectively stupid idea.

I want to be openminded and understand why I would buy a phone that doesn't have a headphone jack, when there are phones that exist that do have a headphone jack (AND bluetooth!).

I don't think I can understand these companies' motives unless I can be convinced there's some benefit here. Can someone who likes phones without headphone jacks tell me why they are a better product that phones that do have headphone jacks?

Not even a year since they mocked the iPhone for the lack of headphone jack and they themselves removed it. It’s a matter of time before the rest of the phones ditch it too. Or may be it becomes a “feature” for the high end phones. Got to say Apple saw it first.

This phone better be waterproof...

I do not understand how this benefits anyone except the "must be thinner" fetishists. With Apple it was their usual form-over-function problem, which is at least what we expect from Apple, but why would Google follow suit?

The benefit of removing an analog audio output is that you can control what sort of device may play some audio. I am not looking forward to the new world of music DRM.

I can't see how this is a DRM play. With HDMI, it's not as if you could easily capture the FPD-Link signals after the video had been decrypted. With digital audio, you still have to drive a two terminal analog transducer. It's trivial to turn a signal for driving a speaker into something that can be recorded with an audio interface.

> It's trivial to turn a signal for driving a speaker into something that can be recorded with an audio interface.

In theory, yes, it's trivial. But it's not trivial to 99.9% of people that listen to music.

Also, I don't think it will be about preventing the re-recording of the music. Nobody wants to keep a music library anymore, just as nobody keeps a movie library. Is the music industry really losing money to "pirates" anymore?

The DRM will be used to control which devices you can listen to music on. As Jay-Z's last album was only available on his streaming service, I predict that the next gimmick will be that you can only listen on his headphones.

It's trivial for anyone who would try to use the analog hole to begin with.

just to play devil's advocate..

you don't see how it benefits people that use wireless headphones and are glad the phone has more space inside for say.. memory/battery/dissipating heat for a faster chip, etc?

we technologists have a very weird love/hate with progress. deep need to revolutionize and move forward and make progress and not do what our parents did and then.. they touch the wrong port and OH MY GOD

Yet memory, battery, heat, etc are vague, quite technical arguments while 99% of headphones not working is a decidedly non-technical argument.

So my car doesn't have bluetooth. I use a headphone adapter thing. I had a bluetooth one that failed after less then a year and was quite expensive. My option I guess is to play the roulette and buy another bluetooth adapter brand hoping it works better?

Or maybe people think I should buy a new car? Obviously I need to buy new headphones, which sucks because mine are nice. And then these bluetooth headphones run out of batteries frequently, you need to remember to charge them, batteries don't usually last more than 3-4 years either so you are rebuying all your headphones every 3-4 years now?

I'm all for improved technology, but for me this is a step strictly backwards. It doesn't improve quality, it's far less convenient, and far more expensive.

Apple's phone comes with a little adapter to connect up a 3.5mm jack - can't charge at the same time though, but I'm pretty sure there are solutions for that, with a bit of dongle juggling - which would be not too bad a solution in a semi-permanent place like your car

The extra battery capacity that will be used for.. having to keep BT active 24/7?

Phone design isn't zero-sum. It's not a matter where you can have extra RAM or a headphone jack, choose only one. You could have both and make the phone a bit bigger. You could have neither and make it a bit smaller. In either case, the difference is not going to be detectable in daily use.

Google can have courage too!

"Thinner is better" is a red herring used to justify a variety of disruptive and OEM-control-enhancing "improvements", of which Apple is leading the charge.

One day we're all going to look back at open, ubiquitous standards wistfully, because they've all been consumed by capitalist dipshits.

I was rummaging through a bin of outdated tech the other day looking for something. I found an old iPod Nano (3rd gen I think). That thing is smaller and thinner than any smartphone and still packs a headphone jack. The 'thinness' argument is bogus.

It may be useful if they trade the space saved by removing the headphone components to accomodate more battery capacity. This assumes that you're already using BT for your phone audio needs.

Hey, remember when they specifically called out Apple for not having a headphone jack at the first Pixel reveal? I wonder how they’re going to spin it now.

I just don't understand why we can't have the best of both worlds. I mean, having the headphone jack doesn't mean not having bluetooth.

The current Pixel bluetooth support is horrendous. I hope this is not true.

Do not believe it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com