pixel 3xl Pixel 3 XL finally leaked in a video!

[D13H4RD]

4 hours ago, D33P said:

Snip

Mate, the real issue is that it didn't follow the guidelines. 

 

You can't just slap a frankly questionable video and call it a day. You need to add some input of your own and add a source from someone else who covered it like a news source to add some credible information. 

 

It doesn't really matter if the video itself is all that questionable because that's what the opinion side will cover. Check out the other posts in the subthread and you'll see what I mean. 

[Multiversal]

On 2018-8-12 at 5:09 PM, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

Mate, the real issue is that it didn't follow the guidelines. 

 

You can't just slap a frankly questionable video and call it a day. You need to add some input of your own and add a source from someone else who covered it like a news source to add some credible information. 

 

It doesn't really matter if the video itself is all that questionable because that's what the opinion side will cover. Check out the other posts in the subthread and you'll see what I mean. 

accepted....now this news is past?

[ehurleyrobert]

On 8/10/2018 at 3:36 PM, Streetguru said:

Why is samsung the only good smartphone manufacturer left?

amen brother

 

[ehurleyrobert]

not the notch!

 

[XR6]

Apparently a dutch phone website has already leaked the Pixel 3 XL's design with a phone case. It doesn't show the whole phone but it shows a bit of it, and it gives a rough idea as to what the 3 XL looks like.

[kabamman]

On 8/10/2018 at 3:47 PM, bobhays said:

 

I generally liked the pixel 1 but now there are too many sacrifices for a nicer camera. 

 

No microSD 

Not waterproof

No headphone jack

Notch

I have a pixel 2 it is waterproof and has no notch. Plus headphone jacks are 120 years old and Bluetooth headphones are great. As a runner my headphone jacks always failed after 2 years 

[Darkseth]

2 minutes ago, kabamman said:

I have a pixel 2 it is waterproof and has no notch. Plus headphone jacks are 120 years old and Bluetooth headphones are great. As a runner my headphone jacks always failed after 2 years 

And after 120 years they are still the best connector, that are used in every studio and hifi setup. Think, there might be a reason to it? Probably.. because analog Headphone jack > Bluetooth? Ding ding, 100 points.

 

Bluetooth headphones are heavier (battery), they always need a seperate charge, and can die while listening to music if you don't keep them full always.

The battery can get old, and either you're able to replace it, or your entire headphone is trash.

 

I have 4+ years now UE 900 inears (349-399€ back then, got them on saleout for 199).

There are no bluetooth headphones / inears at all (no matter what price), that have a compareable soundquality.

 

And this comes to.. Soundquality. Bluetooth headphones aren't "good". there are a FEW good ones among all the Crap out there. Your choice, if you really want a higher end quality, are very limited. And you will have to be happy with either the Comfort, or the Sounding they provide. Either you like them, or jokes on you.

With cable headphones / inears, you ha ve MUCH more choice, and it's more likely to find something that fits your taste perfectly.

 

We're not even at the Argument, that the Audio quality is limited to the often bad Soundchip (DAC/Amp) that is built into the bluetooth headphones, there is no way around it.

 

 

But you know what's the most crazy thing? If they keep the headphone jack, everyone can be happy ;-) YOU with your bluetooth headphones (Bluetooth can still work when the phone has a headphone jack), and the people who already have good headphones, they don't want to throw into the Trashcan to buy something inferior.

 

TL;DR: headphone Jack headphones are superior to Bluetooth headphones. They offer a much better soundquality and build quality than similar priced Bluetooth ones. In fact, often you pay 50-100% more just for the Bluetooth connection itself. They sound better, they last longer, they are far more versitile. You can use them on anything. Computers, your stereo setup in your living room (any AV-Receiver), any smartphones, tablets, any mobile device that can playback music.

Bluetooth headphones only on devices where bluetooth is enabled.

 

How old something is has nothing to do with how good it works, or disadvantages or advantages.

 

The best wiskys are also much older than the few year cheap-stuff from walmart. There is a reason it's used for so many decades. Because it works well, versitile, and robust.

[GoodBytes]

1 hour ago, Darkseth said:

And this comes to.. Soundquality. Bluetooth headphones aren't "good". there are a FEW good ones among all the Crap out there. Your choice, if you really want a higher end quality, are very limited. And you will have to be happy with either the Comfort, or the Sounding they provide. Either you like them, or jokes on you.

With cable headphones / inears, you ha ve MUCH more choice, and it's more likely to find something that fits your taste perfectly.

Actually ALL Bluetooth headphones are bad. The problem is that Bluetooth was VERY poorly designed for audio streaming.

In fact, Bluetooth is a freaking mess of a standard. I guess this forum is fill with too many young people, but the sheer amount of people having Bluetooth connectivity issues with their car (a technology put in car for over 10 years now), and even accessories highlight the issues on how it was poorly designed.

 

If you spend a moment looking at Bluetooth standard, you'll quickly realize how, just to start with, Bluetooth is a freaking mess. Basically, if YOU didn't buy one of the most popular phones that sold like hot cakes, expect issues with accessories, cars, and more. This is because manufactures only tests with popular products, and if you got a phone that wasn't hugely popular, because you have unique taste and special needs, too bad for you!

 

The way Bluetooth audio works is as such (to put it simply): You phone plays the music muted, than stream the data in some special format with high compression as it plays, then compresses the data further, passed down to the device you are sending it to, decompresses it, and now it can pass it through its own receiver end, to pass it in its DAC to output the audio.

 

WHY?! Why not just stream the music as is once decoded by your phone, and allow the receiver end to just pass it to the device DAC.

 

It is for VERY good reason why Apple made its own protocol for its AirPod's. It does wireless audio streaming right (it is just a shame that their AirPod audio quality matches their crappy earphones). Bluetooth should follow the same.  Also, because with AirPods the wireless audio protocol allows only the phone to do the work, and not have BOTH do work, it has superior battery life for the battery capacity the device has.

 

Bluetooth 5.0 attempts to fix this, but poorly. It doesn't fix the underlining issue, it just improved the compression to be less compressed, and pushes Bluetooth chips that are more energy efficiency, thanks in part to the protocol optimization done. But that is still not fixing the stupid implementation of Bluetooth for audio streaming in the first place! And don't jump in joy over Bluetooth 5.0 with "good enough for me", most phones still doesn't support it, and most accessories including headphones don't, and to my knowledge no cars either, despite being finalized in 2016. Bluetooth 5.0 is a crappy patch up work for a response of Apple wireless air protocol, to not encourage other manufacture like Samsung to make its own wireless signal, and worst.. open source it. This would be a big revenue loss for "Bluetooth Special Interest Group". Oh and Apple i part of it... so if THEY choose to make its own thing, you know how bad things are.

 

I agree with you. The argument of "Oh it's old, let's replace it..." on the headphone plug is stupid.. it is like saying "Oh, the way we generate electricity is old, homes should be on 25V 120Hz world wide! Why? 'cause its new!". It is so silly statement as it ignore why the choices where made initially, the current geographical location of power plants (distances, for example) it ignores the repercussions of the change, it ignores all the complications in having to design new plugs, new electric plugs needed, new fuses, switches, safety regulations related to it that needs to be changed, and much more, not to mention its current advantages... all for: "Just because it is old we need to change it" argument. A great invention lasts for ages.

 

The headphone plug (and all similar design plug) can easily be placed in the list of best ideas ever made. It has no disadvantages, especially that the connector has been perfected over the many years it has been on the market (assuming you get quality device with a properly made plug and cable). You have near 0, if not a true 0 manufacture errors, and was and still is extremely low cost. Bluetooth headphone is the exact opposite. They are no ups, beside being wireless, which is more of a SLIGHT convenience than anything. It costs more, and now you have battery to worry about, circuitry design flaws, manufacture error on the chips, you need more elaborate quality control, more testing, more R&D.... Why all this when it is not needed?

 

I don't recall anyone in the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, 00's, and even today complain about the headphone plug. It works, it is reliable, it is lossless, it has a solid connection, it is used widely by audio enthusiasts, and professionals who both seek perfections in audio quality and reliability of requirement. If there is something new, they'll jump on it! (at least most will). Heck even if the equipment is age old, smashed on the floor, beyond repair... well you know 1 thing... the headphone plug still works (assuming it wasn't purposefully broken, like a screwdriver was inserted and excessive force was used to deliberately break it (and even then, it might still work to some degree)).

 

Every time this conversation comes up, I ask, and still waiting for an answer: Give me a real advantage of using Bluetooth over a headphone barrel plug connector that can justify only SOME (look how nice I am) of the upsides of switching to it over the "old" connector. Beside:

• "It's new" (even thought it is untrue, we had this support for many years now),
• "waterproof" (even though by magic, no issue with the micro-USB and USB Type-C connectors which neither where design to block water, AND we had water proof phones that had the headphones plug. Not to mention that today's "waterproof" phones are not even waterproof, and
• "wireless", which as I said, it was never a complaint for the on the go usage. People at the gym don't complain, people running outside don't complain, people riding the bus don't complain. Maybe the wire might be too short, but that can be fixed by getting longer cable headphones/earphone or get an extension cord or get headphone/earphones that has replaceable wires, and again, its not like we didn't have Bluetooth before either. My point, nice, but weak argument, especially that we have WAY WAY WAY better ways to this, like any wireless headphones that uses lossless compression (audio comes in the headphone base station, and uses its own lossless compression and protocol to send the audio in a efficient way to the headphones, resulting in the same or near same quality as wired).

[bobhays]

22 hours ago, kabamman said:

I have a pixel 2 it is waterproof and has no notch. Plus headphone jacks are 120 years old and Bluetooth headphones are great. As a runner my headphone jacks always failed after 2 years 

but I don't want to buy new headphones because my phone lacks a port. I use them with my phone and laptop and it's much faster to switch a cable than to reconnect with Bluetooth. I also use it in the car with an aux port. My friend has the pixel 2 and is always forgetting the adapter.