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

[79wjd]

5 minutes ago, crystal6tak said:

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

The point of your comment was that it would be ridiculous for phone manufacturers to use smaller batteries -- but the fact of the matter is that they ALL are and have been doing so for decades; they easily could have kept phones big and bulky, but they chose to go with small batteries at the expense of thinness and convenience.

[Blademaster91]

31 minutes ago, XenosTech said:

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)

I kind of doubt wireless could get through that much signal interference unless it was some certain frequency,but the Chinese phones are looking very nice when you can get all the features and still have a 3.5mm jack,microSD slot and a removable SIM card.

11 minutes 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.

Already there since companies are obsessed with making phones thinner, and wireless or a dongle drains the battery more more than headphones on a 3.5mm jack.

[AresKrieger]

20 minutes ago, Enderman said:

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

There is one issue with that, you need to actually innovate in order for removal of a feature to have any positive benefit. Did we stop flying planes to force people to build rockets? You cannot build a better mousetrap merely by removing the old one you actually have to build a better one then you have no need for the old one.

 

Oh and as for this gem

Quote

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

They wouldn't have to now if phone companies didn't follow an apple fad

[crystal6tak]

2 minutes ago, Enderman said:

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.

1) ??? If the phone only has 1 port, you're losing a lot of abilities such as charging and listening to audio at the same time. Listening to audio off a USB memory stick. Transferring files from memory stick to memory stick. (If we're using two USB-C ports) Reducing the number of ports is not an advantage to USB-C. ????

2) So we're going to remove speakers now too? The fact that it has a speaker means there's a DAC. You're not saving space anyways by replacing circuitry for jack with circuitry for USB. Sidenote, there are phones with incredible DAC such as the HTC U11, HTC 10, LG V30, LG V20.

3) Since when did aux jack ever need extenders or spliters?...

4) Yes...you can listen to music through aux jack too...

5) I donno bro, but not having the need to use an adapter seems better than needing an adapter.

[Enderman]

2 minutes ago, AresKrieger said:

There is one issue with that, you need to actually innovate in order for removal of a feature to have any positive benefit. Did we stop flying planes to force people to build rockets? You cannot build a better mousetrap merely by removing the old one you actually have to build a better one then you have no need for the old one.

 

Take a look at all the USB-C devices ever since apple released a USB-C only device.

That wouldn't have happened if they didn't force people into the new technology.

If you are opposed to technological progress, then that's your opinion, but there is clearly a massive increase in progression rate by forcibly removing older standards for new ones to take their place.

Now, digital is replacing analogue audio ports on phones. This is a fact.

[Enderman]

5 minutes ago, crystal6tak said:

1) ??? If the phone only has 1 port, you're losing a lot of abilities such as charging and listening to audio at the same time. Listening to audio off a USB memory stick. Transferring files from memory stick to memory stick. (If we're using two USB-C ports) Reducing the number of ports is not an advantage to USB-C. ????

2) So we're going to remove speakers now too? The fact that it has a speaker means there's a DAC. You're not saving space anyways by replacing circuitry for jack with circuitry for USB. Sidenote, there are phones with incredible DAC such as the HTC U11, HTC 10, LG V30, LG V20.

3) Since when did aux jack ever need extenders or spliters?...

4) Yes...you can listen to music through aux jack too...

5) I donno bro, but not having the need to use an adapter seems better than needing an adapter.

1) the amount of people who still listen to music on their phones is fairly low, and even lower the people that charge and listen at the same time, so it's a significant minority.

Most of the people who say "but what about charging and music at the same time!!!" never actually do it.

 

2) The circuitry for USB is already there, since every phone needs the USB/lightning jack. The audio port takes up extra space. It also does not use the same circuitry that the earphone uses, especially when it is made to work with 3.5mm accessories like someone mentioned earlier. Take a look at phone PCBs and you will see.

 

3) when you want to listen to stuff with friends, or use a longer cord to your headphones/speakers.

 

4) so you agree that switching to USB is not actually removing your ability to listen to audio, good, you're beginning to understand my point.

 

5) which is why you can buy USB-C headphones, wireless headphones, headphones with swappable cables, etc.

No need for adapter.

The adapter is just another option that is available to you.

[DanielMDA]

20 hours ago, Energycore said:

Sony thinking they can out-apple Apple

Next up, beautiful seamless computer cases without front IO.

Beautiful seamless case with Hidden Front IO= Phanteks Enthoo Evolv TG (And my dream case)

[crystal6tak]

7 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

The point of your comment was that it would be ridiculous for phone manufacturers to use smaller batteries -- but the fact of the matter is that they ALL are and have been doing so for decades; they easily could have kept phones big and bulky, but they chose to go with small batteries at the expense of thinness and convenience.

But they aren't using smaller batteries though. Flagship phones easily do 7+ hours of screen on time.

 

My point to enderman was that if being progressive means switching to inferior solutions just cause not many people need it, companies will be slashing battery capacity to 1500-2000 mah range so screen on time would be 4-5 hours.

 

My main point isn't about batteries though, it's the concept that switching to inferior solutions (from an already well established superior solution) just because the inferior solution can satisfy most people is ridiculous and definitely not progressive.

[AresKrieger]

9 minutes ago, Enderman said:

If you are opposed to technological progress, then that's your opinion

I'm opposed to proprietary standards, company licensed dongles, and technological backsteps disguised as progress. It all feels very much like DLC in video games where you have to pay more for less due to a bunch of developer nonsense that is "better" for the user.

 

You don't have to force anything if what you present is uncompromisingly better. Framing it as "you appose progress" is idiotic and rather pointless as it doesn't add to any sort of discussion it merely results in further push back.

[XenosTech]

12 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

I kind of doubt wireless could get through that much signal interference unless it was some certain frequency,but the Chinese phones are looking very nice when you can get all the features and still have a 3.5mm jack,microSD slot and a removable SIM card.

Server rooms probably but the other two not so much, would have to be a sparse room or a small generator but I'm working at a cricket stadium so I'm in a generator room with generator that's the size of a semi and the electrical rooms vary in size from little closets to freaking hallways.

[Enderman]

1 minute ago, crystal6tak said:

My point to enderman was that if being progressive means switching to inferior solutions just cause not many people need it, companies will be slashing battery capacity to 1500-2000 mah range so screen on time would be 4-5 hours.

 

My main point isn't about batteries though, it's the concept that switching to inferior solutions (from an already well established superior solution) just because the inferior solution can satisfy most people is ridiculous and definitely not progressive.

8 minutes ago, AresKrieger said:

I'm opposed to proprietary standards, company licensed dongles, and technological backsteps disguised as progress. It all feels very much like DLC in video games where you have to pay more for less due to a bunch of developer nonsense that is "better" for the user.

 

You don;t have to force anything if what you present is uncompromisingly better. Framing it as "you appose progress" is idiotic and rather pointless as it doesn't add to any sort of discussion it merely results in further push back.

USB C is not a proprietary standard, I agree it is a bad decision for apple to keep using lightning.

Proprietary dongles also suck, and I agree that it is a bad decision for companies to be making those when USB C is supposed to be open.

I am not arguing about those things being good, I am talking about simply the removal of 3.5mm in favour of USB C.

 

The fact that a large analogue port is being replaced by digital, on a device that is meant to be compact and streamlined, is not idiotic or pointless.

There is a reason why digital audio replaced analogue even though it is not "uncompromisingly better"

There are plenty of compromises in digital audio.

 

The problem is that people are too close minded to see past the immediate inconvenience of having to use a dongle or different headphones.

This is what holds most progress back, people who are afraid of change.

 

If you take a minute to think about where this is all going, maybe you can imagine your USB headphones working on all your USB ports on phones, laptops, desktop, you can plug it into your monitor, you can use a USB C extension if you need it for audio or for video or if the power cord to your laptop isn't long enough, your single USB-C hub can charge and use multiple devices at the same time, while also listening to music, etc etc etc

[crystal6tak]

3 minutes ago, Enderman said:

1) the amount of people who still listen to music on their phones is fairly low, and even lower the people that charge and listen at the same time, so it's a significant minority.

Most of the people who say "but what about charging and music at the same time!!!" never actually do it.

 

2) The circuitry for USB is already there, since every phone needs the USB/lightning jack. The audio port takes up extra space. It also does not use the same circuitry that the earphone uses, especially when it is made to work with 3.5mm accessories like someone mentioned earlier. Take a look at phone PCBs and you will see.

 

3) when you want to listen to stuff with friends, or use a longer cord to your headphones/speakers.

 

4) so you agree that switching to USB is not actually removing your ability to listen to audio, good, you're beginning to understand my point.

 

5) which is why you can buy USB-C headphones, wireless headphones, headphones with swappable cables, etc.

No need for adapter.

The adapter is just another option that is available to you.

1) Again with the "just cause not not everyone needs it, we should remove it". The list of advantage of having two ports massively outweighs the advantage of only having one port, which the only advantage I can think of is "better aesthetic" which by itself is subjective. IMO, two ports is simply better than one port.

 

2) The circuitry for the aux jack is also already there, since every phone needs the DAC for the speaker. I checked and yea the aux jack does take up a few mm more than the type-C connector, I'll give you that. 

 

3) But that's the same with USB-C... How does USB-C have an advantage over aux jack? In both case a longer cord is required

 

4) I already said if USB-C can do everything the aux jack can do and more, I don't mind USB-C replacing the aux jack. My problem is that currently USB-C can't do everything the aux jack can do, and companies aren't even replacing the aux jack with USB-C, they're straight up removing the aux jack with no replacement.

 

5) Yes except USB-C headphones currently have worse compatibility than aux headphones. So this point should actually be an advantage to aux jack.

[Mooshi]

21 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

I really hope people realize that this is happening and will stop complaining. The headphone jack is dying, accept it. 

The pro audio world disagrees. Not everyone is down for janky Bluetooth connections.

 

Edit: I'll be over here with my LG V30 with superior audio while still remaining thin AF haaaaa~

[dalekphalm]

1 hour ago, Blademaster91 said:

I agree with dalekphalm, dongles and adapters while getting rid of a useful standard audio port that hasn't had the need to go away until Apple convinced you that it's "obsolete" isn't progress at all, that is just Apple selling form over function. Android phone makers copy the worst aspects of these iPhones to have the excuse of having a more aesthetically pleasing phone,and attracting the crowd that upgrades with every new phone.

I'll take my opinion and just buy a phone that has more features for less, instead of giving into the billion dollar companies that want to sell everyone expensive adapters and wireless headphones.

Indeed - Furthermore, the entire reason Apple removed the 3.5mm headphone jack actually has nothing to do with "improving" wireless audio technology.

 

It's simple: Money.

 

Apple can't charge license fees on 3.5mm headphones.

 

Apple removed the headphone jack so that they can push people to buy their first party Air Pods, which no doubt make Apple a decent amount of money.

 

Additionally, they make money when people buy their 2nd party headphones (Beats - a subsidiary of Apple) - which have multiple models with integrated Lightning Connectors.

 

Furthermore, for those die hards who use 3.5mm headphones? Yep. Apple makes money off us too! If you buy a 3.5mm to lightning adapter, Apple makes money on that too (even third party ones, unless they're sketchy knockoffs that aren't certified).

 

Apple is not doing this for your benefit. They are doing it to make it more likely you'll buy more Apple products. If Apple made license income off 3.5mm? You can be damn sure they would have never removed the port.

59 minutes ago, BadluckBrian said:

Yes, they CAN last that long, but most, Most, would get newer better headphones way way before that. And in 30 years, heck even 5 years I'm willing to bet that there will be a headphone jack on a very small percentage of phones. All my phones have headphone Jack's, but I never use them now because of wireless headsets. 

What are you talking about? Why would most people replace their headphones long before that? Especially if they are higher end headphones?

 

Most people replace their shitty $20 headphones with more shitty $20 headphones, because $20 headphones are shitty and break easily. $20 Bluetooth headphones will be just as shitty and will break just as often.

 

If you buy a good quality pair of headphones, they will last a long time. And there would be little reason to replace them.

 

High end headphones from 40 years ago are still high end headphones today.

56 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

Yes, but did we send an Astronaut to the moon before developing a working, tested, and fully functional Space Suit?

 

Did we ditch the Mainframe before working out the kinks in personal computers?

 

Your examples are nonsense. We are not advocating for stopping research and development of Wireless solutions. There's a market (and a use) for that. But by artificially forcing it when it's not ready, you present a clusterfuck situation, instead of the much better natural progression of clearly superior replacement technology.

 

Technological progress is amazing and is incredibly important. Forcing inferior solutions upon people by removing a superior solution because it's "old" is ridiculous.

 

You don't replace something that's old just because it's old. That would be like the government forcing all car manufacturers to ban the tire, because wheels are "old", and forcing all new cars to be hover cars. Despite making devices more expensive, and introducing a lot of drawbacks in the process.

[Dabombinable]

4 minutes ago, Mooshi said:

The pro audio world disagrees. Not everyone is down for janky Bluetooth connections.

Still remember the time I found out that my Tecra M5's bluetooth driver....would only allow the laptop receive audio over bluetooth not transmit it.

[DrMacintosh]

6 minutes ago, Mooshi said:

The pro audio world disagrees.

The Pros can get Thunderbolt Audio interfaces and dedicated equipment then. Oh wait they already have that, so they don't care. 

[Drak3]

2 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

That would be like the government forcing all car manufacturers to ban the tire, because wheels are "old", and forcing all new cars to be hover cars. craft

I could support that. Driving would be safer for two reasons:

Fewer idiots on the road because they can't afford it OR pass the test.

The skirt would act as a bumper and absorb some of the impact.

[Mooshi]

4 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

The Pros can get Thunderbolt Audio interfaces and dedicated equipment then. Oh wait they already have that, so they don't care. 

Skrillex with a MacBook doesn't count.

 

But in all seriousness, I do believe wireless is the future, but Bluetooth is not that standard. It's way too finicky to be a true replacement. 

 

Thunderbolt isn't the future either if we're serious in a unified standard. AUX isn't going anywhere so long as there is a lack of a true successor.

[Drak3]

36 minutes ago, crystal6tak said:

3) Since when did aux jack ever need extenders or spliters?...

Sharing your music.

 

Which V-Moda thought of with 2 convenient solutions!

Audioshare cable (long cable with an additional female port)

Daisy chaining headphones (Doesn't work with Crossfade Wireless, the other over and on ear models have 2 aux inputs).

 

 

 

 

Not paid for by V-Moda*

 

*yet

[Mooshi]

I'm curious why some are so damn determined to nuke something that works for "progress". I mean, we have smart bulbs that can be controlled via an app, but that doesn't make a light switch suddenly obsolete.

[D13H4RD]

Jesus, you guys really don’t fucking get it, don’t ya?

 

I am all in favor of having a singular port for everything. It reduces hassle and makes it simpler since there’s no faffing around.

 

But why does it seem that everyone is completely missing the point that I have made earlier?

 

 USB-C is a complete clusterfuck thanks to OEMs making idiotic decisions

 

I mean, look, you can argue however you want about progress, dongles or whatever, but why are you guys completely missing the point I have been trying to make all this while? Android OEMs are a bunch of idiots, and aside from pointlessly copying the notch, nowhere is that more obvious than in USB-C. 

 

I mean, take a look.  Some phones have botched implementations that ruin DP and USB PD, but especially many without headphone jacks supply dongles that literally only work with one device or one device family.

 

I don’t understand why people skimmed over this. I keep hearing “USB-C is an open standard”, which is true, but is completely ignoring the statements I’ve made about the clusterfuck of different interfacing standards by OEMs. It’s almost as proprietary as Lightning, and sometimes even worse as it is an open-connector, meaning there is zero guarantee that it will work.

 

So you’re removing a open-standard that while old, has served needs just fine and doesn’t give a faff over what is connected to it, and going to one that is currently a complete clusterfuck? 

 

This is coming from a guy who is already part of the #donglelyfe and #wirelesslyfeyo, so don’t accuse me of “withholding progress” when I have already given these people my money.

 

To date, if I had to buy a jackless phone, only Google, Essential and even Apple are the only ones on my list because at least those companies aren’t trying to fuck over USB-C.

[Drak3]

2 minutes ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

I mean, look, you can argue however you want about progress, dongles or whatever, but why are you guys completely missing the point I have been trying to make all this while?

Perhaps we don't agree with the point.

 

2 minutes ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

So you’re removing a open-standard that while old, has served needs just fine and doesn’t give a faff over what is connected to it, to one that is currently a complete clusterfuck? 

Not to mention has no realistic benefit what so ever.

 

3 minutes ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

guy

Fieri?

[D13H4RD]

15 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Perhaps we don't agree with the point.

There's nothing to agree or disagree with. 

 

It's something that I have tried and tested and have zero doubts. 

 

Moto dongle only works with Moto phones and Xiaomi dongle only works with Xiaomi phones. They all use USB-C. I seriously don't understand why you guys never see this as a huge problem 

[Drak3]

8 minutes ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

There's nothing to agree or disagree with.

Moving to a new standard.

 

8 minutes ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

They all use USB-C. I seriously don't understand why you guys never see this as a huge problem

I don't see it as a problem because it just illustrates the absurdity of moving from a single standard that works flawlessly, to a set of standards that have no benefit and can be implemented so many different ways. It also hurts this regression, which I'm pretty much for.

[D13H4RD]

Just now, Drak3 said:

I don't see it as a problem because it just illustrates the absurdity of moving from a single standard that works flawlessly, to a set of standards that have no benefit and can be implemented so many different ways. It also hurts this regression, which I'm pretty much for.

This is why we can't have nice things

 

USB-C was supposed to be the dream come true. The dream of having a singular port type for everything. 

 

Of course, OEMs have to ruin it with their crappy proprietary interfacing standards...