Sony: We removed the headphone jack due to the XZ2's design

[Enderman]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

No, it won't.

And here, ladies and gentlemen, we find the classic response to all technology-related futurisms.

 

Man will never land on the moon.

People will never need a personal computer.

There is nothing smaller than an atom.

 

Welp, I guess you're right, we might as well just quit everything now

[Blademaster91]

9 minutes ago, Enderman said:

It's not obsolete, it's just unnecessary on a super compact device that already has a USB port on it.

Apple wasn't the first to remove the headphone jack either, but of course you probably never noticed if all you are aware about is apple products.

Go ahead and buy a phone with a headphone jack then, they still exist.

I don't even understand why you have to argue about this when you still have the option to buy what you want.

Go buy a PS2 mouse and keyboard while you're at it if you like.

Apple are the ones pushing for removal of the headphone jack,and what makes it "unnecessary" as long as the connector fits into the device form factor?

If it's so unnecessary then why does the Samsung S9 still have a 3.5mm jack while still being a great looking phone and rated for IP68?

Except PS2 is also still a useful connector that many modern motherboards still have,wireless still can't replace a wired keyboard and mouse either.

[Enderman]

3 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

 

I don't think you understand.

USB carries a digital signal.

This digital signal can be display, audio, files, literally anything.

 

An audio jack carries audio, and sometimes gets adapter to work with some 3.5mm accessories.

3.5mm will never do all the things USB-C or thunderbolt does.

It would be like 30mm long if it had to have that many contacts in it.

[crystal6tak]

18 minutes ago, Enderman said:

I don't use apple products so there is literally no problem for me and most other people who use android.

Do you have two phones or something? Why do you care?

 

USB is a digital connection, aux is analogue and very limited.

This means USB can transfer any kind of data, including video, audio, files, and also power.

Aux can only do audio and whatever else is built into the circuitry that connects to the jack.

If you think the future is simply adding more pins to a 3.5mm jack to try to make it do what USB already does, then I feel sorry for you

 

Wireless will get better eventually.

For now the DAC built into USB C headphones is just as good if not better than the average phone, since phones have been squishing the size of their audio circuitry down for the past few years in order to fit more important stuff.

Just because you don't go from Apple to Android or Android to Apple or use both at the same time doesn't mean other people don't. The aux jack works well with both Apple and Android. Replacing aux jack with USB-C/Lighting as it stands today would be objectively using a inferior solution in terms of compatibility. This is not progressive, this is regressive.

 

I don't understand your second paragraph. Let me rephrase my point. If USB-C (or some new type of port) can do everything the aux jack can do and more, then I would indeed like the USB-C replacing the aux jack. That would be progressive.

 

Wireless, no matter how much better. Will inherently have a battery and need more circuitry parts than a wired headphone. Wireless and wired coexist and fill different needs. They can't replace one another. Wired is not better than wireless, and wireless is not better than wired. Its a matter of preference for which one suits you better.

[Dabombinable]

3 minutes ago, Enderman said:

And here, ladies and gentlemen, we find the classic response to all technology-related futurisms.

 

Man will never land on the moon.

People will never need a personal computer.

There is nothing smaller than an atom.

 

Welp, I guess you're right, we might as well just quit everything now

You can't ignore physics. Wireless physically can't surpass wired (or optical) when it comes to transmitting anything.

[Drak3]

Just now, Enderman said:

And here, ladies and gentlemen, we find the classic response to all technology-related futurisms.

 

Man will never land on the moon.

People will never need a personal computer.

There is nothing smaller than an atom.

 

Welp, I guess you're right, we might as well just quit everything now

Wireless will not surpass wired because physics doesn't permit it.

Signal loss and high interference are an absolute.

Wireless communication is the absolute obstical that wireless communication will never surpass. It is inherently inferior.

[Energycore]

2 minutes ago, Enderman said:

And here, ladies and gentlemen, we find the classic response to all technology-related futurisms.

 

Man will never land on the moon.

People will never need a personal computer.

There is nothing smaller than an atom.

 

Welp, I guess you're right, we might as well just quit everything now

I'll gladly welcome our new headphone-jack-less overlords when wireless headphones are a better value and more reliable than wired, and I don't have to worry about battery life on them.

 

Otherwise the only advantage they have is no wires. That's not very significant imo

[XenosTech]

I'll just keep using older phones that have headphone jacks til they get wireless solutions that:

1) Will last me almost an entire day

2) Won't drain my phone battery faster than the wired pair

3) Affordable while still having decent sound quality

 

not to mention they have to be every good at tuning out signal interference from the type of environments I work in (Server ,electrical and generator rooms)

[Enderman]

1 minute ago, Blademaster91 said:

Apple are the ones pushing for removal of the headphone jack,and what makes it "unnecessary" as long as the connector fits into the device form factor?

If it's so unnecessary then why does the Samsung S9 still have a 3.5mm jack while still being a great looking phone and rated for IP68?

Except PS2 is also still a useful connector that many modern motherboards still have,wireless still can't replace a wired keyboard and mouse either.

1) half of all phone manufacturers are removing the headphone jack, it seems to me like the only companies you've heard of are apple and samsung?

 

2) because the engineers at samsung have a different opinion of what they want on their phone. Nothing wrong with that. They'll remove it eventually, no doubt.

 

3) 99% of motherboards don't. "many motherboards" =/= 1%

Wireless can certainly replace wired, take a look at all the wireless keyboards and mice on the market that exist.

Whether they are better than wired or not is a different debate, but they definitely can replace wired ever since they were invented like a decade ago.

Logitech has wireless mice that have no more latency than wired, in fact less than some wired mice.

The only down side is that it needs to be charged somehow, which usually requires a wire, but now there is development being one on wireless charging mouse mats so you never have to plug it in.

[Dabombinable]

Just now, Energycore said:

I'll gladly welcome our new headphone-jack-less overlords when wireless headphones are a better value and more reliable than wired, and I don't have to worry about battery life on them.

 

Otherwise the only advantage they have is no wires. That's not very significant imo

To be blunt. I loathe cables but wireless just isn't good enough.   I have to move my router off the kitchen bench when cooking, which cuts wifi speeds down to around 3Mbps since it then has to go through 2 more walls+cupboards+the dishwasher.

[XenosTech]

Just now, Dabombinable said:

To be blunt. I loathe cables but wireless just isn't good enough.   I have to move my router off the kitchen bench when cooking, which cuts wifi speeds down to around 3Mbps since it then has to go through 2 more walls+cupboards+the dishwasher.

So literally everything and the kitchen sink

[Energycore]

3 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

To be blunt. I loathe cables but wireless just isn't good enough.   I have to move my router off the kitchen bench when cooking, which cuts wifi speeds down to around 3Mbps since it then has to go through 2 more walls+cupboards+the dishwasher.

Yeah, this is why I'm annoyed at this trend. It's not about being against progress and innovation. I'm upset because we're being forced into a technology that isn't yet competitive.

 

To make an analogy, this feels like being forced to use DDR4 in the latest computers before DDR4 is actually faster than DDR3. It's the consumer taking a less effective solution in the spirit of "innovation", in quotes because you can't call something innovative if it doesn't do something better.

 

As I said above, the only advantage right now that wireless has is that there is no wire.

 

Here's another one: Imagine General Motors announcing that their flagship cars (dunno much about which) are going to be electric only now. People would be outraged that you can't purchase a 2019 Camaro (or whatever) that's fuel-powered, because there's very few places to charge an electric car and the technology just isn't ready to replace petrol yet.

[Drak3]

4 minutes ago, Enderman said:

Wireless can certainly replace wired, take a look at all the wireless keyboards and mice on the market that exist.

Every single one of them inferior to a half decent wired alternative.

They exist because they do not require high bandwidth, latency is not consiquential, range is not that large, and their chipsets are lower power.

[Enderman]

14 minutes ago, crystal6tak said:

Just because you don't go from Apple to Android or Android to Apple or use both at the same time doesn't mean other people don't. The aux jack works well with both Apple and Android. Replacing aux jack with USB-C/Lighting as it stands today would be objectively using a inferior solution in terms of compatibility. This is not progressive, this is regressive.

 

I don't understand your second paragraph. Let me rephrase my point. If USB-C (or some new type of port) can do everything the aux jack can do and more, then I would indeed like the USB-C replacing the aux jack. That would be progressive.

 

Wireless, no matter how much better. Will inherently have a battery and need more circuitry parts than a wired headphone. Wireless and wired coexist and fill different needs. They can't replace one another. Wired is not better than wireless, and wireless is not better than wired. Its a matter of preference for which one suits you better.

Just because someone does something doesn't mean a company has to cater to that need.

Otherwise your PC would have 50 USB ports, 20 XLRs, 3 phase 4 pole power outlets, BNC video inputs, and literally every other connector on the planet just because there is someone who needs it.

 

11 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Wireless will not surpass wired because physics doesn't permit it.

Signal loss and high interference are an absolute.

Wireless communication is the absolute obstical that wireless communication will never surpass. It is inherently inferior.

Signal loss through a cable is also absolute.

Interference through a cable is also very significant.

Please do some research on your physics, clearly you have trouble understanding the difference between electromagnetic wave transmission and electrical transmission.

 

Stuff you seem to have forgotten:

-wires will pick up interference along the entire length, and act as an antenna, while wireless does not need to flow through a conductor and can actually travel through any medium, including space.

-wireless signals also travel near the speed of light, just like signals through a cable.

-wires require shielding and physical medium to transmit the data

there are many differences between wireless and wired, there is no "this one is better because physics", that just shows that you don't understand what "physics" really means.

[Beef Boss]

9 minutes ago, Energycore said:

I'll gladly welcome our new headphone-jack-less overlords when wireless headphones are a better value and more reliable than wired, and I don't have to worry about battery life on them.

 

Otherwise the only advantage they have is no wires. That's not very significant imo

40 hour battery life on my wireless Sony xb950n1's. These sound way better than any wired headset I've tried, AS Is. 

 

4 minutes ago, Energycore said:

Yeah, this is why I'm annoyed at this trend. It's not about being against progress and innovation. I'm upset because we're being forced into a technology that isn't yet competitive.

 

To make an analogy, this feels like being forced to use DDR4 in the latest computers before DDR4 is actually faster than DDR3. It's the consumer taking a less effective solution in the spirit of "innovation", in quotes because you can't call something innovative if it doesn't do something better.

 

As I said above, the only advantage right now that wireless has is that there is no wire.

It's not necessarily always BETTER, but more convenient. And that's all us consumers care about is how convenient it is to have. For my wireless headphones, I don't have to worry about switching from my Linux machine that has no headphone jack to my windows tablet and computer that I use wireless to my iPad, android tablet and phone too. It stops me from having to buy a USB to audio jack adapter or lighting adapter to headphone or USB C to headphones 

[Energycore]

Just now, Enderman said:

Signal loss through a cable is also absolute.

Interference through a cable is also very significant.

Please do some research on your physics, clearly you have trouble understanding the difference between electromagnetic wave transmission and electrical transmission.

 

Stuff you seem to have forgotten:

-wires will pick up interference along the entire length, and act as an antenna, while wireless does not need to flow through a conductor and can actually travel through any medium, including space.

-wireless signals also travel near the speed of light, just like signals through a cable.

-wires require shielding and physical medium to transmit the data

there are many differences between wireless and wired, there is no "this one is better because physics", that just shows that you don't understand what "physics" really means.

Ignoring your ad hominem attack, can you show evidence of this interference in wires being a widespread problem in any device? Any news of people not being able to use their wired headphones in the subway at rush hour? I'd love to be made aware.

[Enderman]

4 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Every single one of them inferior to a half decent wired alternative.

They exist because they do not require high bandwidth, latency is not consiquential, range is not that large, and their chipsets are lower power.

There is this really cool thing called engineering which, with a bit of thinking, leads to improvements and innovation over time.

I see a lot of people around here are close-minded and seem to disagree, that's ok, my grandparents also think that the TV remote causes cancer.

[Energycore]

Just now, BadluckBrian said:

40 hour battery life on my wireless Sony xb950n1's. These sound way better than any wired headset I've tried, AS Is. 

Just curious how much they were? One day I expect wireless headphones to not have a premium over wired but that day is not today.

Just now, BadluckBrian said:

40 hour battery life on my wireless Sony xb950n1's. These sound way better than any wired headset I've tried, AS Is. 

 

It's not necessarily always BETTER, but more convenient. And that's all us consumers care about is how convenient it is to have. For my wireless headphones, I don't have to worry about switching from my Linux machine that has no headphone jack to my windows tablet and computer that I use wireless to my iPad, android tablet and phone too. It stops me from having to buy a USB to audio jack adapter or lighting adapter to headphone or USB C to headphones 

I don't think you should be generalizing consumer sentiment to your sentiment. If it's convenient to you, doesn't mean it's convenient to the gross of the market just yet.

[79wjd]

23 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

You must live/work (look for work in my case) far from a large population then.

TIL NYC is a small sparsely populated area.

[crystal6tak]

2 minutes ago, Enderman said:

Just because someone does something doesn't mean a company has to cater to that need.

Otherwise your PC would have 50 USB ports, 20 XLRs, 3 phase 4 pole power outlets, BNC video inputs, and literally every other connector on the planet just because there is someone who needs it.

Right so, just cause not everyone need something, we should just switch a set standard to an objectively worse solution. How progressive.

 

We should literally start reducing mah capacity for phones then. Who needs 6-7 hours of screen on time? Let's just use objectively worse batteries cause 4-5 hours screen on time is enough for most people.

[Enderman]

1 minute ago, Energycore said:

Ignoring your ad hominem attack, can you show evidence of this interference in wires being a widespread problem in any device? Any news of people not being able to use their wired headphones in the subway at rush hour? I'd love to be made aware.

Yes, actually, which is why XLR cables exist and are used instead of RCA in professional audio.

The cables pick up EMI from everything around them.

Simply shielding them is not enough, they also use twisted pairs, as well as balanced audio in order to remove the interference.

You can learn more about XLR on google if you wish.

 

Digital cables are shielded too, but they are digital so there is a lot less of a chance of problems.

 

 

If you ever plug your headphones into front panel audio and hear noise in the background, that's EMI being picked up by the audio cable.

 

Wireless transmission is still far from perfect and currently there are a lot of issues, which is why I think it's a good idea to still have a single USB port on phones, even though one of the guys suggested that it is also unnecessary.

[Beef Boss]

3 minutes ago, Energycore said:

Just curious how much they were? One day I expect wireless headphones to not have a premium over wired but that day is not today.

I don't think you should be generalizing consumer sentiment to your sentiment. If it's convenient to you, doesn't mean it's convenient to the gross of the market just yet.

I got these for $110,but now they are back to up around $170. The XB950B1 headphones which are around $90 last I checked are almost identical, but with a few less hours of battery life and non rotating ear cups. As a consumer I don't purchase an item if it is not convenient to own and use,and I'd be damned if you buy things that are not convenient for you to own and use. 

[79wjd]

Just now, crystal6tak said:

Right so, just cause not everyone need something, we should just switch a set standard to an objectively worse solution. How progressive.

 

We should literally start reducing mah capacity for phones then. Who needs 6-7 hours of screen on time? Let's just use objectively worse batteries cause 4-5 hours screen on time is enough for most people.

That's already been done. No one wants to carry around a brick that lasts for a week.

[Enderman]

1 minute ago, crystal6tak said:

Right so, just cause not everyone need something, we should just switch a set standard to an objectively worse solution. How progressive.

 

We should literally start reducing mah capacity for phones then. Who needs 6-7 hours of screen on time? Let's just use objectively worse batteries cause 4-5 hours screen on time is enough for most people.

It is objectively better because

1) there is no additional port opening on the phone

2) there is no additional audio circuitry inside the phone

3) there is no need for a second type of cable, (if you ever carry around extenders or splitters now you only need one kind)

4) there is still the option to listen to music on the phone through wireless or USB C headphones

5) there is still the option to use your old headphones using an adapter

 

About the battery, ideally we wouldn't need to charge the device every day, so having a larger battery is still important.

Eventually devices will no longer need to be repeatedly charged every day.

[crystal6tak]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

That's already been done. No one wants to carry around a brick that lasts for a week.

You do realize most flagship nowdays have around 8-10 hours of screen on time? And no, they are not bricks: