Why did the headphone jack cross the road? OnePlus says it's due to the in-display finger scanner

[Curufinwe_wins]

21 minutes ago, Enderman said:

snip

 

Imagine if before DVI was finalized or better than VGA, they stopped making VGA display outputs all together. That is what this is. It's a blatantly inferior product with 0 upside whatsoever.

 

And your example is hilariously awful because DVI is JUST NOW being removed from Nvidia graphics cards. HDMI came out in 2002. It shipped more units than DVI for the first time in 2009 and took until 2018 to be removed from top of the line graphics cards.

 

Please continue to compare it to your situation where an inferior product without a cohesive implementation or mature ecosystem is justification for removal of that older superior product.

[D13H4RD]

3 minutes ago, Pohernori said:

 

Sadly I've only seen htc include a decent one

The Essential one is actually pretty decent. It's built quite well and has a decent DAC inside. Works with pretty much every USB-C device too since it's digital, as it should be. 

 

12 minutes ago, Enderman said:

The replacement is USB C.

It can do everything the headphone jack can along with millions of other things, thanks to digital communication protocols.

I wish I shared your optimism. 

 

But sadly, this is one case where intention and theory doesn't quite match up to reality. 

 

USB-C as a concept and in theory is great. Having a bunch of ports streamlined into a singular type is wonderful and simplifies a lot of things. 

 

The problem is exactly what is going on now; No proper enforcement of the specifications. 

 

It's why you still see manufacturers bundle analog dongles with their jackless phones even though the spec specifies that they should only do digital. 

[Nowak]

Just now, Enderman said:

The replacement is USB C.

It can do everything the headphone jack can along with millions of other things, thanks to digital communication protocols.

Such as:
 

• Lose the ability to fast charge if you use a third-party cable to replace a too-short stock cable
• Not be immediately clear if it's USB 2.0, 3.0 or a Thunderbolt 3 cable, leading to inconsistent data transfer speeds
• Not have any additional features (e.g. DisplayPort-Alt) be immediately obvious, leading to users having to spend hours looking at forum posts to try to get a conclusive idea if their device's USB-C port will support things like DisplayPort, Ethernet, audio or other additional features
• Allow companies to create proprietary implementations of it, leading to situations like this and this (source for the latter)

In theory, it's a replacement. In practice, it's far from that. But, please, lemme live in this world where USB-C is perfect and there are no compatibility issues with it, and you don't have to worry if a USB-C accessory or even cable will work with your device as expected.

 

Stop looking at theory and look at how reality is. USB-C is a damn mess. You're gonna have to accept that your USB-C idealism doesn't line up with how things actually are, because if they were like that, articles like this, this and this wouldn't exist. They wouldn't have to exist.

[Enderman]

6 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

Imagine if before DVI was finalized or better than VGA, they stopped making VGA display outputs all together. That is what this is. It's a blatantly inferior product with 0 upside whatsoever.

And your example is hilariously awful because DVI is JUST NOW being removed from Nvidia graphics cards. HDMI came out in 2002. It shipped more units than DVI for the first time in 2009 and took until 2018 to be removed from top of the line graphics cards.

Please continue to compare it to your situation where an inferior product without a cohesive implementation or mature ecosystem is justification for removal of that older superior product.

1) Did you know that DVI adapters could be used to adapt DVI to VGA for all the people who still used VGA displays? Ah, but it had to be a DVI-A adapter, otherwise it would need to be active. And DVI-A and DVI-D look almost identical.

 

2) USB C is definitely finalized, the connector, the pinout, the communication protocol, everything works as intended. Crappy companies making crappy adapters (because they want to cheap out on circuitry and just make it passive) has nothing to do with the phone manufacturer or the USB C standard.

 

3) USB C is far from inferior to the analogue 3.5mm connector. As I said earlier, it can do millions of things, interface with practically unlimited devices thanks to digital communication. It's not my problem that you refuse to see the advantage of a digital connector over an old analogue jack.

[Enderman]

3 minutes ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

The problem is exactly what is going on now; No proper enforcement of the specifications. 

Again, problem is the manufacturer or reseller of the adapter.

It has nothing to do with the phone.

All USB C phones have a properly functioning USB C interface that conforms to standards.

[Blademaster91]

20 minutes ago, Enderman said:

I'm sure if you look hard enough you can find some chinese seller that sells a "display cable" without saying whether it is HDMI or VGA.

And yes there are plenty of other examples like active vs passive display adapters, active vs passive USB cables, etc etc etc.

Again, the problem is not the phone, it is the accessory manufacturer/reseller.

The replacement is USB C.

It can do everything the headphone jack can along with millions of other things, thanks to digital communication protocols.

 

Guess why your computer no longer has a printer port, a serial port, and a game port?

Oh that's right, they all got replaced by USB A to reduce space and complexity.

There also were people like you, who hated USB A and wanted to stick to the well known parallel port because "well my printer port works just fine, screw new technology!" "it is too complicated!"

 

PS- I'm sure your 20 year old air conditioner is also just as efficient as two year old technology  totally

The problem wouldn't exist if Android manufacturers would quit trying to copy Apple using while using sh*t excuses to remove a standard port. Flagship tier phones should be having more features,not less.

And no,usb-c doesn't replace it because it's still a huge mess, and usb-c headphones cost a lot more than comparable 3.5mm ones do.

Does your computer still have 3.5mm jacks? Unless its a ultrabook thing it does because there isn't any good reason to get rid of it.

But yeah it's totally more efficient to toss away something like an air conditioner after 2 years and buy another than one that lasts. The shi*ty fragile dongles that break to keep you buying more is also a waste of money and resources imo.

[Enderman]

Just now, Blademaster91 said:

The problem wouldn't exist if Android manufacturers would quit trying to copy Apple using while using sh*t excuses to remove a standard port. Flagship tier phones should be having more features,not less.

Does your computer still have 3.5mm jacks?

Android phones were the first to remove headphone jacks.

Like 5 of them did before apple.

 

Also, yes my PC has 3.5mm, I haven't used it in the past 5 years thanks to digital interface communication over USB, which is superior.

[Curufinwe_wins]

1 minute ago, Enderman said:

1) Did you know that DVI adapters could be used to adapt DVI to VGA for all the people who still used VGA displays?

 

2) USB C is definitely finalized, the connector, the pinout, the communication protocol, everything works as intended. Crappy companies making crappy adapters (because they want to cheap out on circuitry and just make it passive) has nothing to do with the phone manufacturer or the USB C standard.

 

3) USB C is far from inferior to the analogue 3.5mm connector. As I said earlier, it can do millions of things, interface with practically unlimited devices thanks to digital communication. It's not my problem that you refuse to see the advantage of a digital connector over an old analogue jack.

1. Yes. If and ONLY if it was implemented via DVI-I (or technically DVI-A, but that wasn't actually used for a while). The point remains.

2. USB specs are under constant revision, and analogue audio pass through is part of the spec. As is various other things. Optional, but still officially spec. The fact that not only adapters but also the implementation of the ports themselves within devices are non-compliant with the spec is a serious part of the problem in the first place.

3. It does a worse job at doing the job of the Audio jack. Having one does not in any way shape or form reduce your ability to do the other. The thinnest phone ever produced still found room for a headphone jack. The most technologically advanced phone on the market today still has room. 

[Enderman]

8 minutes ago, NowakVulpix said:

• Lose the ability to fast charge if you use a third-party cable to replace a too-short stock cable
• Not be immediately clear if it's USB 2.0, 3.0 or a Thunderbolt 3 cable, leading to inconsistent data transfer speeds
• Not have any additional features (e.g. DisplayPort-Alt) be immediately obvious, leading to users having to spend hours looking at forum posts to try to get a conclusive idea if their device's USB-C port will support things like DisplayPort, Ethernet, audio or other additional features
• Allow companies to create proprietary implementations of it, leading to situations like this and this (source for the latter)

 

1) 3.5mm cannot charge your phone

 

2) 3.5mm cannot carry USB protocol, thunderbolt protocol, or do any (significant) digital data transfer.
 

3) 3.5mm does not support ethernet, displayport, or any other additional features.

 

4) companies make 4 pole headphones and then there are thousands of posts on forums wondering why their mic doesn't work when plugged into their PC. Every week I tell someone they need to buy a 4 pole to 2x3 pole splitter.

 

So yeah, nothing is perfect. But 3.5mm is VERY far form it and has tons of limitations.

[Curufinwe_wins]

13 minutes ago, Enderman said:

Again, problem is the manufacturer or reseller of the adapter.

It has nothing to do with the phone.

All USB C phones have a properly functioning USB C interface that conforms to standards.

Funny you mention that. Because Analogue audio output is part of the spec.

 

Audio Adapter Accessory Mode[edit]

In this mode, all digital circuits are disconnected from the connector, and certain pins become reassigned for analog outputs or inputs. The mode, if supported, is entered when both CC pins are shorted to GND. D- and D+ become audio output left L and right R, respectively. The SBU pins become a microphone pin MIC, and the analog ground AGND, the latter being a return path for both outputs and the microphone. Nevertheless, the MIC and AGND pins must have automatic swap capability, for two reasons: firstly, the USB-C plug may be inserted either side; secondly, there is no agreement, which TRRS rings shall be GND and MIC, so devices equipped with a headphone jack with microphone input must be able to perform this swap anyway.^[43]

This mode also allows concurrent charging of a device exposing the analog audio interface (through V_BUS and GND), however only at 5 V and 500 mA, as CC pins are unavailable for any negotiation.

GND	TX1+	TX1−	VBUS	CC1	R	L	MIC	VBUS	RX2−	RX2+	GND
GND	RX1+	RX1−	VBUS	AGND	L	R	CC2	VBUS	TX2−	TX2+	GND

 

 

Wow. It's almost like we have demonstrated proof that many USB-C interfaces in phones are not being used to the full spec. Wow.

 

Do we even need to talk about the messing around manufacturers do with the PD spec?

[Salv8 (sam)]

1 hour ago, OnyxArmos said:

I'm kinda happy we're moving towards getting rid of the headphone jack

1 hour ago, Enderman said:

Cool.

You're in the minority.

Good thing there are still phones that have headphone jacks, so buy one while you still can.

the 3.5' headphone jack has been a standard since around the 1950's, thats over 60 YEARS, i can get headphones today and use them with a device thats older then me!

every single device i have seen that produces audio in some way, has this jack or an adapter to the standard!

plus Bluetooth compresses the audio and to some, it makes their music experience worse. it's unfair to them and other who love this jack, either for the convince or it's looks on a device such as a mobile phone.

 

[D13H4RD]

8 minutes ago, Enderman said:

Again, problem is the manufacturer or reseller of the adapter.

It has nothing to do with the phone.

All USB C phones have a properly functioning USB C interface that conforms to standards.

Again, nobody said the port itself or the specs are to blame.

 

And it's also to blame on the phone's manufacturer.

 

For instance, USB-C specs specify that for fast power delivery, non-proprietary means of fast charging that varies voltage and such should not be used or it can risk breaking spec and other features like DisplayPort. And guess what? A lot of phones still use Qualcomm's Quick Charge 3.0 and Samsung is still using their Adaptive Fast Charging tech based on QC 2.0

 

As a result, my Moto Z, which uses USB PD, charges just fine on its USB-C fast charger, but using my Note8, it's very flaky, sometimes triggering fast charging, but other times, just goes into standard charging.

 

The problem isn't USB-C. The problem is people not following the specs and the USB-IF failing to enforce said specs in order to ensure that incompatibility issues don't arise.

 

5 minutes ago, Enderman said:

1) 3.5mm cannot charge your phone

 

2) 3.5mm cannot carry USB protocol, thunderbolt protocol, or do any (significant) digital data transfer.
 

3) 3.5mm does not support ethernet, displayport, or any other additional features.

 

4) companies make 4 pole headphones and then there are thousands of posts on forums wondering why their mic doesn't work when plugged into their PC. Every week I tell someone they need to buy a 4 pole to 2x3 pole splitter.

 

So yeah, nothing is perfect. But 3.5mm is VERY far form it and has tons of limitations.

Well, no shit.

 

It's a port that's specialized for audio (although used for data transfer in the iPod Shuffle) versus a jack of all trades port.

[Enderman]

1 minute ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

1. Yes. If and ONLY if it was implemented via DVI-I (or technically DVI-A, but that wasn't actually used for a while). The point remains.

2. USB specs are under constant revision, and analogue audio pass through is part of the spec. As is various other things. Optional, but still officially spec. The fact that not only adapters but also the implementation of the ports themselves within devices are non-compliant with the spec is a serious part of the problem in the first place.

3. It does a worse job at doing the job of the Audio jack. Having one does not in any way shape or form reduce your ability to do the other. The thinnest phone ever produced still found room for a headphone jack. The most technologically advanced phone on the market today still has room. 

1) nope, if you have DVI-D then you can find an active adapter. Even more confusion!

2) pretty much all phones I've ever heard of have a proper USB C port that can do the exact same thing. No idea where you're getting this non-compliant thing, maybe you're talking about cheap chinese phones, of course then anything can become non-compliant.

3) As I said before, it's about removing unnecessary things. You can remove the headphone jack and still get audio from USB. You can't remove USB and still get charging, data, etc. from 3.5mm.

4) It does a better job at audio than the audio jack, because it is in digital format and therefore has the source quality, whereas the audio jack outputs analogue audio which then has it's quality determined by the DAC inside the phone. Also, additional EMI due to the analogue traces inside or outside the phone. Moving the DAC outside the phone is better, and moving the dac next to the drivers in the earphones/headphones is even better as it eliminates the entire analogue signal through the cable.

[Nowak]

1 minute ago, Enderman said:

1) 3.5mm cannot charge your phone

 

2) 3.5mm cannot carry USB protocol, thunderbolt protocol, or do any (significant) digital data transfer.
 

3) 3.5mm does not support ethernet, displayport, or any other additional features.

 

4) companies make 4 pole headphones and then there are thousands of posts on forums wondering why their mic doesn't work when plugged into their PC. Every week I tell someone they need to buy a 4 pole to 2x3 pole splitter.

 

So yeah, nothing is perfect. But 3.5mm is VERY far form it and has tons of limitations.

I'm not saying that the 3.5mm jack is perfect. It's far from it. Nothing is. But also, the 3.5mm jack is a pretty specialized port used for audio and basic data transfer (the Xbox adaptive controller uses it for expansions) while USB-C tries to be a jack-of-all-trades port. A master of none, at that.

 

Also, why do you think I brought up my air conditioner? And why one got to be 25 years old? Because it does this cool thing called 'work'.

 

 

How do you think the 3.5mm jack got to be a standard since the 19th century? Because it works too. It does the thing it's meant to do very well. USB-C has no guarantee if it'll work like it's expected. The 3.5mm jack does. For something to replace it, it must also work as expected. USB-C is not that.

[dizmo]

This doesn't surprise me at all, and I figured about as much when I saw what their sister company was releasing. I'd bet they bring it back with the 7. They seem to put more effort into their non T models, which I guess makes sense given their short release cycle compared to their other offerings.

 

You mention the Note...which doens't have an under screen fingerprint reader. Until we see what Samsung does with it's next line of devices, I think anything mentioned regarding their abilities is a little premature, and frankly, irrelevant.

 

People seem to be glossing over the fact that OnePlus is releasing USB C headphones, akin to their Bullet line. So. They're not leaving you up shits creek, they're giving you something that will work should you want to listen to music that way. I'm sure they'll also offer a dongle. Don't like either option? Join the minority, vote with your wallet, and buy something else. Though, really...I doubt most of you were seriously considering the phone before you heard about this anyway.

 

You just love to bitch.

 

1 hour ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

Here's the problem.

 

On an iPhone, removing the jack is more-or-less an inconvenience. That's due to the Lightning port. It's proprietary, but it also means that accessories you get will most likely work with them, and certified accessories are easy to get and look out for.

 

On Android, it's more or less a mega mess. That's down to USB-IF's refusal to encorce USB-C specifications. As a result, you end up with dongles that work with one phone but not the other, or ones that offer limited functionality. The really sad part is that there's no real way of knowing whether or not it'll work until you try.

I don't think it's really fair to say it's fine for Apple, yet when Android OEM's do it, have their own line of USB C headphones, wireless headphones, and dongles it's suddenly wrong. You can't have it both ways. Just because there's more companies with their hands in the pot isn't any other single companies problem.

1 hour ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Isn't that the sad truth... almost every Android phone maker seems hellbent on copying the things that Apple gets away with rather than the things that let them get away with it.

Personally I can't wait until they copy that folded bottom Get rid of the chin if you're going towards a fully touch based UI!

1 hour ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

Link a couple

 

Because I'm sick and tired of even needing to search for crap that should work out of the box without issues.

 

This was why I dislike the removal of the headphone jack without something to properly replace it.

 

If you don't have the universal plug-and-play trait of the jack, then dump it in the dumpster fire, where it belongs.

 

Everyone should just supply the Google dongle. At least that one works.

OnePlus has one coming out themselves (USB C headphones) and I'm pretty sure they also have the adapter. If you buy from the same brand, obviously it'll work with said device.

1 hour ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

They never should have been placed there to begin with, that's a separate issue, and I don't see how this has anything to do with the headphone jack honestly.

Odd. I actually prefer them on the back. Much better when pulling it out of the pocket. Need to access it when it's on the desk? Double tap the screen to wake, input code, voila.

18 minutes ago, huilun02 said:

I'm someone who will spend more on a headset than a phone

And if they don't go together, screw the phone

I find it odd that you wouldn't be going for something that offers higher audio quality, like a higher end DAP.

[ZacoAttaco]

40 minutes ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

Tbh though, only Apple somehow managed to pull it off (no jack). 

  

The reason is that at least most Lightning accessories are guaranteed to work. Why most? Those cheap ones at the dollar store can be flaky 

If I ever need a replacement adaptor I'll have to do some research to see what will work and what won't. I've heard some don't work in certain situations, like some won't work in a car audio jack but work fine in others.

 

Android as a platform needs to fully adopt USB-Type-C, then it would make it less confusing. It's a two edge sword for Apple users, there's no variety but then again, you get a more consistent experience.

 

Isn't Samsung still on Micro-USB?

[Curufinwe_wins]

5 minutes ago, Enderman said:

snip

With an active adapter, and a tiny bit of programming... I can use active adapters to carry data via 3.5mm port. You can do basically anything with an active adapter. Pointless statement.

 

Besides... you don't even need to. It's already been done. It's still even in use. Examples:

 

Quote

Some miniaturized electronic devices use 2.5 mm or 3.5 mm jacks as serial port connectors for data transfer and unit programming. This technique is particularly common on graphing calculators, such as the TI-83 series, and some types of amateur and two-way radio, though in some more modern equipment USB mini-B connectors are provided in addition to or instead of jack connectors. The second-generation iPod Shuffle from Apple has one TRRS jack which serves as headphone, USB, or power supply, depending on the connected plug.

 

Samsung YP-S MP3 player "pebble" uses USB-to-3.5 mm TRRS jack adapter for charging as well as for data transfer.

 

But of course, it doesn't do these other things very well. It does it better than most phone's implement usb audio though.

[D13H4RD]

5 minutes ago, dizmo said:

You mention the Note...which doens't have an under screen fingerprint reader. Until we see what Samsung does with it's next line of devices, I think anything mentioned regarding their abilities is a little premature, and frankly, irrelevant.

You're right, it doesn't.

 

But it does have a silo for its stylus that takes up a pretty significant portion of the interior which would make it difficult to fit a large battery and a headphone jack together. Though it is also quite a bit larger.

 

I'm not sure if the screen being pressure-sensitive also adds to that.

[Enderman]

15 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

Audio Adapter Accessory Mode[edit]

"The engineering specification states that an analog headset shall not use a USB-C plug instead of a 3.5 mm plug. In other words, headsets with a USB-C plug should always support digital audio"

 

13 minutes ago, Salv8 (sam) said:

the 3.5' headphone jack has been a standard since around the 1950's, thats over 60 YEARS

Good, it's about time we got rid of an old standard in favour of moving forward.

Just like all the analogue printer ports, game ports, serial ports, VGA ports, etc.

 

10 minutes ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

Well, no shit.

It's a port that's specialized for audio (although used for data transfer in the iPod Shuffle) versus a jack of all trades port.

Good, so we agree USB C is a better port.

Now if you want a device to have only one port, which would you choose? 3.5mm? or USB C?

I would personally like my device to charge and have a data connection, as well as audio, so USB C.

 

8 minutes ago, NowakVulpix said:

USB-C has no guarantee if it'll work like it's expected. The 3.5mm jack does. For something to replace it, it must also work as expected. USB-C is not that.

USB C already works...

It's literally USB A with a different shaped port and some additional features like displayport, more power, faster speeds, etc.

I use it literally every day to charge my phone or transfer data.

Some crappy adapters made by manufacturers that want to cheap out does not mean that USB C is bad. That is not the fault of USB C.

If you stick a fork into your wall outlet that does not mean that NEMA 15 is bad.

[D13H4RD]

1 minute ago, Enderman said:

Good, so we agree USB C is a better port.

Now if you want a device to have only one port, which would you choose? 3.5mm? or USB C?

I would personally like my device to charge and have a data connection, as well as audio, so USB C.

I'd rather have both

 

Or Lightning

 

My stance will change if companies pull their heads out of their asses and actually make USB-C work the way it is supposed to.

[Curufinwe_wins]

2 minutes ago, Enderman said:

"The engineering specification states that an analog headset shall not use a USB-C plug instead of a 3.5 mm plug. In other words, headsets with a USB-C plug should always support digital audio"

 

Congratz on completely missing the point. The point is that if everyone was actually supporting the spec properly, what adapter is used wouldn't matter because all passive adapters would work, all the time.

[Nowak]

1 minute ago, Enderman said:

USB C already works...

That it does, nobody disagrees that it's (in theory) a fine port, but...

 

1 minute ago, Enderman said:

 It's literally USB A with a different shaped port and some additional features like displayport, more power, faster speeds, etc.

There's no guarantee it'll even have DisplayPort or faster transfer speeds. USB-C 2.0 exists too. My keyboards use that. So, I had to look for a USB-C 2.0 cable when looking for an aftermarket cable for them, because USB-C 3.0 cables won't work with them.

 

3 minutes ago, Enderman said:

Some crappy adapters made by manufacturers that want to cheap out does not mean that USB C is bad. That is not the fault of USB C.

It's the fault of USB-IF for not enforcing USB-C as an open standard. The controversy surrounding the port wouldn't exist if USB-C was the way it's meant to be. But, it's not, because the USB-IF isn't enforcing it.

[Enderman]

9 minutes ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

I'd rather have both

 

Or Lightning

Ok, well the direction we're moving towards (whether you like it or not) is a single port (and then eventually no port).

That means keep USB C and remove the headphone jack, not the other way around.

So yeah, there is no "NEED" to remove the headphone jack, it's just that engineers and companies who want progress want to.

 

7 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

Congratz on completely missing the point. The point is that if everyone was actually supporting the spec properly, what adapter is used wouldn't matter because all passive adapters would work, all the time.

Pretty sure this is an optional additional analogue circuit that people using USB C can implement if they want, not a requirement like power and data.

Which is why they specifically state to use digital audio.

A USB port can be used for much more than just phones, it can be implemented on industrial products or other custom circuits, so it's good to have a specified pinout for cases like those.

 

5 minutes ago, NowakVulpix said:

There's no guarantee it'll even have DisplayPort or faster transfer speeds. USB-C 2.0 exists too. My keyboards use that. So, I had to look for a USB-C 2.0 cable when looking for an aftermarket cable for them, because USB-C 3.0 cables won't work with them.

 

It's the fault of USB-IF for not enforcing USB-C as an open standard. The controversy surrounding the port wouldn't exist if USB-C was the way it's meant to be. But, it's not, because the USB-IF isn't enforcing it.

"open" and "enforcing" seem to be contradicting each other in your sentence...

And even if it doesn't have displayport or faster transfer speeds, it's still better than 3.5mm which can't even charge your phone or connect it to your PC to move files.

So again, my point stands, 3.5mm is an inferior port that can do less, and its task is redundant when USB can already carry digital audio.

[D13H4RD]

Thing is though, if USB-C worked the way it was supposed to, then my only pain point for this just comes down to the inability to charge while using wired headphones.

 

Basically, a small inconvenience.

[D13H4RD]

3 minutes ago, Enderman said:

Ok, well the direction we're moving towards (whether you like it or not) is a single port (and then eventually no port).

That means keep USB C and remove the headphone jack, not the other way around.

So yeah, there is no "NEED" to remove the headphone jack, it's just that engineers and companies who want progress want to.

Well, I'd hope they unscrew the screwed situation the USB-C standard is in before we head towards a "one-port-for-all" future.

 

I want a single port that just works. Not a single port that requires me to think about whether it'll work or not even if it fits.

 

In fact, this is exactly what's going on right now, just with one port with a dizzying array of implementations.