Nokia. Please. Whatever happen please dont remove the headphone jack. Please.
I respectfully disagree with this. On lower-end phones, it may be better to keep the 3.5 mm port. But for flagships, there are other goals that should rank higher in priority, such as thinness, edge designs, battery size, Bluetooth performance, efficient internal layouts, etc. A lot of people buying high-end phones will probably also either own or be more than willing to invest in Bluetooth or USB-C headphones, and USB-PD charging ensures you shouldn't need to charge while listening to wired music.
I always think arguing over internet is stupid, and I agree I am beingstupid. But I haven't seen comment as bad as this for a while.
Remove headphone jack is definitely a wrong move. I am sorry but whatBeijendorf said is completely nonsense. Phone is a tool, and a tool should befunctional. A headphone jack doesn't seem to be doing much, but you think ofit, a pair of decent wireless headphone starts from 3/400 bucks, but a pair ofwired headphone can start from low 100 or even below 100. Thinness, edgedesign? How thin do you want the phone to be, do you really think anythingsmaller than a headphone jack its usable? A headphone jack does not take upthat much spaces, any claim for space saving is a lie that they want you tobelieve. Bluetooth performance, so having Jack is going to affect the BTperformance?
Don’t even get me start on the "BT/ USB-C" headphone is the futurepart, since when using a charging/data plug for music is BETTER than having a standaloneheadphone jack? And just because some wealthier people is willing invest extraon these fancy headphone, it does not mean the majority of people will do that,and more importantly companies should not force the customer spend extra on accessories,especially when it could be 2 or 3 times extra. And for me, charging a headphoneis stupid, I don’t listen to music every day, and when I do I just want to pickthe headphone up and put it into my ears. And USB-C headphone is stupid becauseI don’t want to use different pairs of headphone for different devices. So,unless USB-C is replacing 3.5mm in all other device like car audio system,computer, home hifi (especially home hifi), and everything else that has it, itis just a joke.
Call me stubborn but I was really happy how smartphone has evolved sinceiPhone came out. But if removing headphone jack is the future, then I think ourfuture is a disgrace and it is definitely going downhill.
It's not nonsense, it's basic rational thinking. If you want a 3.5 mm port in a phone, that's perfectly fine. But by removing the 3.5 mm port you can improve the internal design and layouts, improve external design choices, free up a large chunk of volume (~900-1000 mm³ for waterproofed 3.5 mm ports) that can be used on e.g. battery or making the device sleeker, and you make waterproofing cheaper, easier and more reliable. The time and cost savings can then be spent on other things, such as a stellar camera or imaging software development.
In addition, the advantages of moving the DAC/amp to the headphones in Bluetooth/USB-C alternatives is the manufacturers being able to hand-pick and tune the DAC/amp to fit the drivers of the headphone. Not to mention the benefits of including built-in equalizers or using powered functions like active noise cancellation.
If you don't want to invest in USB-C headphones or Bluetooth alternatives, there's still the external DAC's, which are very small and portable and seem to always come included. So you see, the phone is still functional. It just doesn't waste any space on doubling up on ports a single port can fulfil. It's in the same sense that we don't see TOSLINK and full-sized USB-A ports in phones.
Lastly I'd like to point out that Bluetooth and USB-C headphones of good quality aren't as overpriced as you fear. You can get good USB-C headphones for $100-150 and Bluetooth headphones for as low as $50.
I want to add my voice to this debate, and yes I'm a stupid guy as well.
The capacity of a battery is determined by a great extent on the physical size it occupies. If you are trying to get higher capacity batteries and a thinner phone, you will end up with a larger phone.
A Bluetooth headset may cost as low as $50 US dollars. Where I live that would amount to about $150, for a pair of low end (as you said) Bluetooth headphones. A pair of cheap wired headphones can be had for about $30 here. The United States is not the World. I don't know why I have to keep saying that on nearly every forum I join; for all sorts of reasons.
The iPhone 8 does not have a 3.5mm headphone jack, the iPhone 7 does. Guess what the iPhone 7 has a bigger battery and is thinner than the iPhone 8.
So I'm sorry, but I'm firmly in Nasri96's camp. Taking out the 3.5mm jack now would be absolutely dumb. Maybe in a few years when other devices as mentioned previously are also converting. Similar to the way USB has replaced nearly all other peripherals within a relatively short timeframe, because there was agreement and everyone was switching.
USB-A would never have been used on a phone. That's a silly statement to make.
Yes, the battery is indeed determined by the physical size it occupies. So by freeing up internal space for the battery you can get a bigger battery in without affecting the thickness.
I'd also like to point out that contrary to what you stated, the iPhone 7 did not have a 3.5 mm port. The iPhone 6S was the last iPhone with the 3.5 mm port. The iPhone 6S and 7, funnily enough, had the exact same external dimensions, but the iPhone 7 came with IP67 waterproofing (normally adds thickness) and a +245 mAh boost to the battery.
I'm not sure why you're pointing out that the US isn't the world to me, as I'm a European. I could gladly use € instead when talking about costs if you'd prefer it. Either is fine by me. But you can get Bluetooth headphones for as cheap as €15. It's just if you want some really good audio quality that you'll have to spend a bit more, with prices starting at roughly €50 for the better Bluetooth headphones, and the incredibly good ones being around €150. Same prices with USB-C headphones really, which isn't surprising given they have roughly the same internal components.
Removing the 3.5 mm port now isn't dumb, it's reasonable. Over a year ago already, more money was spent on Bluetooth than wired headphones, and that number keeps rising. On top of that, you can either buy or use included USB-C headphones with your device. Or if you prefer your 3.5 mm headphones, you'll almost certainly get an included 3.5 mm DAC. In other words, the 3.5 mm port is superfluous on our space-constrained phones, and serves as much purpose as a USB-A port would do, hence the comparison. This comparison is especially apt since USB-A is a far more widely adopted standard than USB-C currently. Removing the port would also drive the market forward and lead to the introduction of far cheaper and better USB-C and Bluetooth alternatives, as that market segment would then have grown.
"But by removing the 3.5 mm port you can improve the internal design and layouts, improve external design choices"
This is one of the most non sense urban mith ever.. Whenever someone asking "Why did you removed 3.5mm jack" they always has been told that tall story.
I'm sorry but it's totally not true, there are THOUSANDS of example on the nowadays market that denies that statement.
Only to stay in Nokia's home, go and look to the Nokia 2 and tell me if 5"inches screen, 4100mAh (FOURTHOUSANDSONEHUNDRED) battery in 143.5 x 71.3mm has been effected by the 3.5mm jack.. yes Nokia 2 it's a little thick (9mm) but the reason is the huge battery that makes of Nokia 2 a power bank with an OS and a screen on, not for sure because of a jack.
Moreover, many points out that is a matter of costs, a matter of make difficult for IP certifications and so on.. well these are others non sense points in my opinion, for many reasons.
Mainly, as far as we are CONSUMERS and not SHAREHOLDERS/OWNERS we should ask the better for us not for the company: what is the point to tell "without 3.5mm jack is costless to obtain a good IP declaration" if you're going to pay the same phone the same? Does anyone think in this world that if a company are going to save 3€ we consumers are going to pay the phone 3€ less?
Of course not, we're going to pay the same amount for something that is cheaper FOR THE COMPANY.
We simply must want, as consumer, the best device for tha price we're going to pay. STOP.
I want to be free to go on with my beloved B&O 3i, or to buy a B&O BT such as H6 for example but still i can connect them to the phone via cable if I'm running out of battery! We want to be free to go around without other connectors and adaptors and double adaptors if you want listening to music AND charge the phone meanwhile. If someone else wants to goes for BT earplugs they still can, it's very very simple to understad.
The only reasons why they're removing that jack is SAVE MONEY (for the company not for us) and push you to go to buy adaptors BT earplugs and so on (hoping increasing their invoices selling official accessories), really nothing to do with those fairy tales about saving space, simpler layout designe and so on.
Because, and I want to stress it out again and again, WE ARE PAYING for all that.. it's OFFENSIVE asking for 800€ or 900€ (nowadays 1000€ and even more!) for a device about people tells "oh, they removed the jack because costs money, because IP is cheapier to achieve without jack.. because pcb designers saved 2 days of work because they have little more space..."
C'mon please, it's only OFFENSIVE nothing else.
3.5mm jack deliver a very good quality sound if you use a very good quality earplugs or headphones and this is ENOUGH so there is no technical reason at all to remove it
Except it's not an urban myth, or even something odd.
Consider an analogy where you have to decorate a living room. You have a set number of furnitures you need to fit, a TV, speakers, lights, etc. Imagine if you were to remove (for example) a chair. Suddenly you'd have more room to fit a larger coffee table, right? Or you could have a smaller living room and save on rent. In a similar fashion, you could remove the 3.5 mm port and fit a larger battery, or something else. Or you could slim the phone down a bit, making the device more appealing and more pocketable.
The problem with waterproofing (other than having another hole to plug) is that waterproofed components are subject to wear and tear, and tend to be significantly larger than non-waterproofed components. Not to mention that waterproofing in general increases the cost of production, which any wise manufacturer would try to keep as low as possible. The ideal smartphone in terms of waterproofing would obviously be the one without any holes at all, but we're not quite there yet for many years to come.
Only if the company in question has a market monopoly wouldn't the savings be passed onto the consumers. This is certainly not the case for the Android ecosystem however, where any minute advantage in specifications may mean a significant market gain. As such, if a manufacturer wants to win market share, they'll have to utilise the savings from the 3.5 mm port on other things in their bill of materials, or simply make the device cheaper.
I understand that you obviously feel strongly for the 3.5 mm port. I, myself, however haven't used that port in a year or two. And if I would want to use 3.5 mm peripherals on a newer device, I could simply connect the included dongle to my 3.5 mm headphones. There are solutions to everything during the migration period.
The removal is not to save manufacturers money, but to enable manufacturing of devices that has an even higher market appeal to consumers. And while there certainly are a couple that can't imagine living without a built-in dedicated 3.5 mm audio port on the device, there are many who either care very little for the port, or are fine using a dongle or USB-C solution instead.
"Except it's not an urban myth, or even something odd."
as I told you before i totally disagree for two main reasons: first I'm a pcb designer since 25 years ago so I guess I have some "vague idea" about how this matter works (advantages/disvantages), second there are thousands examples on nowaday phone market that debunking that legend leaving out to talk about that smartphones are becoming bigger ang bigger (especially longer and longer) every dau more and it's not really a problem to find room for a little 3.5mm plug in phones long 18 or 19cm. Not at all.
Being a PCB designer, albeit nice, isn't anywhere near comparable to the expertise of the big engineering departments among smartphone manufacturers. While smartphones are getting bigger, so are the power-hungry components like the screens. With larger screens, larger batteries are needed, and they don't scale 1:1 due to the minimisation of the bezels. Something has got to give, unless we want really thick smartphones again.
Essential cited they'd lose 10 % battery capacity and increase bezels if they added a 3.5 mm port, alternatively create a bump where the port was. They prioritised a thinner phone with a bigger screen-to-body ratio and more solid battery life over the port.
Razer recently went on record to state that the removal of the port allowed them to add about 500 mAh of battery life while improving the thermals, which in turn improves the performance of the phone. All thanks to the new options in the internal layout.
The downside to ditching the 3.5 mm port is of course that you can't use the legacy 3.5 mm port without an adapter. But that adapter comes included, and portable audio solutions are often Bluetooth based or alternatives with active noise cancellation (which USB-C can offer without batteries) anyway.
Can we have FM radio reception without a 3.5mm jack?
It shouldn't be a problem in theory, but that all assumes the manufacturer has included and activated the FM radio chip in their devices, which is pretty rare as it is.
Thanks. What I meant was, does USB-C provide the connections / support to have FM radio reception?
I think the answer is yes, but since the USB-C pins used for headphones are not standardised (http://pocketnow.com/2016/09/08/the-impending-horror-of-usb-type-c-audio-adapters) this means we need the phone to have the FM antenna connected to the audio-out pin AND headphones that are compatible with the phone manufacturers' choice of USB-C pins to use for headphones.
Seems easier from a customer perspective just to request a separate 3.5mm socket with FM radio enabled. Hence all the requests for a 3.5mm headphone socket and FM radio support.
The USB-C pins are entirely standardised (though only USB 3.1+ certified USB-C ports have all of them implemented).
Are you perhaps thinking of how the USB-C audio wasn't standardised until last year? I believe it was with the USB Audio Class 3.0 specifications that the USB-IF decided the analogue audio pass-through was an optional functionality, while digital audio was the standard. But all the pins are still there in the USB-C connector regardless.
In other words, it shouldn't be a problem for the headphone cable to function as an antenna and transmit the signal via the SBU pins, I guess? Anyone with better insight than me in how the FM radio chip is implemented could probably clarify the feasibility of it all.
Thanks for the clarification and explanation, good to know that it's been standardised now. Somehow, I know you'd have the detailed answer
Oh, you charmer, madbilly!
USB type-C actually is not a solution for earphones/headphone with wire, because the manufacturers has not a standard.
Remember, the earphones/headphones USB type-c are not compatible with all smartphones with USB type-c.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!