I use a Bluetooth dongle (Taotronics TT-BA08) with my normal Etymotic headphones for my iPhone 7. Works fine. The TT has ~20hr battery which is a week of usage for me.
(Also doubles as a 3.5mm-to-Bluetooth transmitter but I've not used that yet. I think it also has a microphone for hands-free calling.)
My $3 headphones are guaranteed to last as long as the phone I'm using, can be toggled between my phone and laptop with one touch, have never had driver issues, are far greener and less power hungry, do not induce noticable EM interference, have perfectly fine range and fidelity, and can be used as a defensive garotte if I'm attacked. I'm sticking with jacks.
It's also a widely adopted zero configuration standard. Go figure, a real problem that needs solving. Glad we're chasing this one down, smart phone manufacturers.
I finally gave Bluetooth headphones a go recently with a pair that cost about £30 and I've found that I really like them - I was always finding that cables got in the way and although audio quality isn't brilliant I mostly listen to audiobooks where I don't mind it.
I'll probably stick with wireless headphones in future.
But are they 10x better, for the price? I listen to music. You mentioned the quality was poor. I won't compromise quality for cables, and cordless is a bit of a non-benefit to me.
You seem to forget you can still have wired headphones connected through the USB c port. It's just the standard jack that's gone. It's not wireless or jack as the only options.
Personally I've loathed wired for almost 8years now. I was happy when they removed the jack, and kept, in my mind, still an alternative if you really want to stay wired sometimes.
> You seem to forget you can still have wired headphones connected through the USB c port.
I already went through the adapter shit with my Sony Ericsson Walkman dumbphones 10 years ago. We have moved on. I refuse to technologically regress to that point because Apple wants to milk people with a new fashion accessory and the other manufacturers want to "look cool" imitating that idiocy.
Well, cordless is a benefit for me and they have a richer set of remote controls (pause/play, forward/reverse, volume up down) than the cabled headphones I've used.
They sound worse than the £300 noise cancelling cabled headphones I've also got - in absolute terms I think they are pretty decent.
I wasn't expecting to be a convert - but now that I've used the wireless headphones for a few months with my iPhone 7 I'm a convert!
I have several wired headphones, and when the wires become intolerable for some use case, I have a bluetooth adapter that offers a 3.5mm jack out. When the wires lose the constraint that one end has to fit into the device generating the sound they lose most of their issues. I mean, yes, obviously now I've got headphones with about 2 feet of wire that don't need it, but it's not doing anything bad with that 2 feet anymore.
So I get headphones that don't need to be charged most of the time and the vast, vast selection of headphones for 3.5mm form factor, and if I do need bluetooth I can get it.
I wouldn't touch $3 headphones with anyone's bargepole. My TaoTronics has no driver issues; I can have two sources connected at once (ie iPhone and Macbook)[1]; I've had no problems with interference or fidelity; and I can still use my headphones as a garotte because they're wired headphones just like your $3 abominations. :)
[1] However, in the interests of transparency, I should point out that the TT firmware has a disgracefully stupid bug whereby if you have two things connected and then move away from one of them, it'll start doing a "lost a device" beep - even if it wasn't active. It's astonishingly braindead as UX.
I'm getting a kick out of this comment since I remember when Apple introduced the volume + play/pause control on their earbuds and people breathlessly rushed to claim they were adding secret DRM to make only Apple-approved headphones work with Apple devices.
Well, they did purposely make a different standard. But where does the (sometimes still required by studios) DRM go now? Its not a direct comparison it that sense.
If they wanted to add audio DRM, could they not have done so with a regular 3.5mm jack? Just because the physical interface is a "standard" doesn't mean they have to send standard data over it.
Because this is a cheaper and easier way of introducing it? Sure his idea is unlikely, and unfounded, but its not stupid. Putting the quality of experince to a lower standard (audio conversion and quality), even more in the hands of 3rd party, and eliminating their market position as 'the audiophiles phone' all together is odd, just to make the phone thinner, when ther camera is protruding already, and most people seem not to care. Its the kinda tinfoil hat thats worth donning once in a while. Even if they never pull the trigget, I don't belive for a minute they have not tabled the idea, and considered its possibilitu during implementation.
jack uses analog input, standard headphones are "dumb" device that reproduces any signal it receives. with digital interfaces on the other hand the devices are no longer "dumb" and extra "features" can be implemented, like HDCP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-bandwidth_Digital_Content...
Replying in the very real case you are vindicated. Sure it IS unsubstantiated. But it is terrifyingly logical from a digital distribution standpoint. Think not what Apple, but companies like Sony would have to gain here.
I do - especially with all the BT problems that Oreo has introduced into the mix. Lots of people reporting that the connectivity between their handset and their headphones is now dropping out frequently. (Somewhere on google groups in the pixel support forum, where there's a massive thread on this - can't access google groups from work, or I'd find the link).
Oh Google BT issues have been going on for far longer than Oreo. BT support on Android is garbage. Put your phone in your back pocket, lose BT. Stuck paired with your car? Restart your phone. I've had nothing but bad luck with BT as far as reliability goes. It works fine for my runs but drops out so easily it just proves how not ready for primetime it is.
I had a few issues with Nougat when I first got it. At some point an update fixed all issues. I just upgraded to Oreo and other than being blinded by the UI nothing much seems to have changed.
Essential broke my heart when they launched without the headphone jack (okay, not really, but you they did eliminate me as a customer for this version -- maybe I won't need the headphone jack for their next release).
It is a survey...so who knows how real it is, but 55.86% were negatively impacted Apple removing the headphone jack. While Apple customers don't have a choice, Android users do and we will vote with our wallets.
Dongles are never the best answer. Either bulky and akward, or tiny and lost/broken. It would take a bit less than 3cm to just add the extra chip and jack.
>It isn’t a forward-thinking move like Apple’s decision to kill off the floppy disk, because no one’s playing along.
In an article about how too many phone manufacturers are removing the headphone jack? A lot of people are playing along. The market for bluetooth headphones has blown up, covering a range of prices and form factors - it's absurd and perhaps wishful thinking to say this isn't a real trend. I also don't believe there are no benefits to the manufacturing process.
I predict this article will feel very outdated in a couple years. I was very skeptical of the removal of the headphone jack, but six months ago I tried out a bluetooth headset, and I would never go back. It's easier and doesn't snag, and is easier to put away. This isn't to say everyone should get rid of the headphone jack, but I don't see why manufacturers shouldn't be able to.
Bluetooth is not able to offer the fidelity of a standard 3.5mm jack. Until it is capable of doing so, I will not even consider using bluetooth headphones.
Plus, industry standard high-fidelity and studio quality headphones don't come with bluetooth due to the fidelity issue. I already have a several hundred dollar pair of awesome headphones. Why would I purchase a phone that I can't connect them to?
Let's call the removal of the headphone jack what it is: a cash grab. The only reason manufacturers are doing this is to increase profits. By removing the 3.5mm jack companies no longer have to pay for the part or attaching the part to the board. On top of this, manufacturers can now charge for special dongles and proprietary wireless headphones.
Some devices can send AAC at up to 96KHz over Bluetooth, and its compression is considered transparent by the ITU at 128kbit/s.
I think the manufacturers didn't want to add cruft to their headphones, as the batteries and decoding circuitry would probably begin to crowd out the actual sound reproduction hardware.
Of all the complaints I've heard (and agreed with) on removing the 3.5mm jack, inability to send high-fidelity audio over BT is the one I think I disagree with the most.
I don't know... quality is one of my primary concerns too.
To be clear, I'm not someone who romanticizes audio quality. I'm really about hard facts. But bluetooth audio quality is a known issue, and although there have been attempts to address it, it seems like nothing is really quite there yet.
Yes, there are higher-quality audio bluetooth standards, but not everything works with them, and there's interference, and general glitchiness, etc. Bluetooth audio quality is one of these things where there's a huge difference between what's on paper and what reality is.
To be fair, I think there's issues with wireless and wifi audio in general (not necessarily with quality, but the whole package: quality, reliability, open standardization, adoption, etc.). I also think bluetooth audio is fine for some basic level of audio quality.
But bluetooth audio as a general standard is just not up to snuff. It's certainly not comparable to other AV jack/port/interface standards, like 3.5mm jacks or HDMI or whatever.
I definitely do not consider myself an audiophile, but I can only listen through bluetooth audio for so long before it drives me crazy. The closest thing I can think of is mono AM radio or something.
This was a random page about bluetooth audio--I just picked it because it was the near the top of a Google search. It sums up the situation with bluetooth well, though, and being random from my perspective kinda underscores it's not a niche perspective:
Personally, I'm pissed about getting rid of headphone jacks, and for the general trend of manufacturers to think eliminating things in the name of minimalism is a good idea. It's ok to a point, but 3.5 mm elimination is past that point IMHO.
I fully suspect someday 3.5mm jacks will be outdated, but we're not there yet.
"Interference" and "glitchiness" are kind of hand-wavy, and so is the "known issue" of BT audio quality. If you could link some "hard facts" about those, I'd love to read on.
Yes, you can experience wireless issues with poorly designed devices. But I know people that use BT audio as their primary ways to listen to music, and I'm personally building such a device for my car. I can send audio to it from further than I am willing to test, and I haven't yet had my audio interrupted.
As far as I can tell, as long as you're making sure you're using the highest quality standard possible, you'll receive a decent experience.
Where the experience breaks down, as I mentioned earlier, is the lack of high-fidelity sound reproduction options due to the size of the decoding circuitry and battery pack. BT audio headphones, though usable, are generally not great. If you have something externally powered (e.g. my car) it is fine... but that use case occurs less often.
Perhaps your devices only support the SBC codec, mandatory for inclusion in the standard. Or perhaps your devices have chosen to communicate over the hands-free profile instead of A2DP, which is another issue I've had.
I don't claim that 3.5mm jacks will be outdated, and I certainly don't think so either. I just think that BT audio is "good enough" strictly in terms of fidelity, and that other factors confound its inclusion in high-fidelity headphones.
For bidirectional audio, 64kbit/s is not good enough.
On sound quality, the current bluetooth headsets are 2-3x priced over the same brand's top wired headphones, for fraction of the quality. Not just because the aptX HD is not “good enough”, but because the poor DACs. Good enough DACs are power-hungry bugs, it is unlikely to see them built into wireless headsets in 2-3 years time.
Fair enough in some respects, but the facts you're looking for are really about product quality ratings, which gets into a quagmire.
My point isn't that decent quality audio with BT isn't possible, it's that I don't think BT standards are at the same point as 3.5mm. As you yourself said, if you're saying that BT is fine "as long as you're making sure you're using the highest quality standard possible" then there's a problem.
It sounds like you've run into some of the same issues ("choosing to communicate over the hands-free profile"); I think my broader point is that with BT, it seems like there's a lot of those sorts of things.
Something like car audio or home stereo, with a nice, well-configured set up, is fine, but for a lot of things it doesn't have the same plug and play kind of simplicity of 3.5 mm.
Maybe we agree more than we disagree, although come to different opinions about jacks in phones. To me, BT is a promising thing that's not quite foolproof enough to compare to 3.5mm.
In general I feel like mobile device design has this tail-wagging-the-dog problem the last few years.
How much do I have to pay extra for the same audio quality (I'm using an ATH M50 I bought for 100 bucks) and how often do I have to recharge it? Are the batteries replaceable?
The cable problem almost went away when I switched to a coiled cable, I really would gain little to nothing with going wireless, specially when accounting for the extreme nuisance that is having to worry about the battery of yet another device.
Apple's AirPods, in their tiny package, are capable of 5h of battery life. The case recharges the buds about 5 times, giving you almost 24h or battery. If headphone makers can't bundle at least a comparable battery life in their extremely larger package, that's not bluetooth's fault.
AirPods are impressive in that sense, but they have the disadvantage that their integrated batteries are un-replaceable. iFixit recently dismantled them... no, that's too kind a word... they destroyed the earbuds trying to figure out their design, and concluded that it's totally impossible to replace the batteries, which are glued in place within a plastic housing that is also glued together. When your AirPod batteries no longer hold charge, you'll end up buying a new pair, and there is no option to switch to a cabled connection.
>We’ve tested a wide range of phones over the past year, and found that a number of premium handsets like the the iPhone 7, the Essential Phone and Xiaomi’s Mi 6 have nixed the jack.
I giggled a little at the idea that testing was required to find out that the iphone 7 had ditched the headphone jack.
I take this phrase as meaning something like this: "Since we're in the business of testing phones, we see a lot of different phones, and we noticed that more and more have nixed the jack."
Call me oldschool, but my headphones that work with everything else, should work fine for my phone. I will continue to vote with my dollar and only buy phones with 1. Removable battery 2. Removable storage 3. Headphone plug.
Don't think me some luddite, I love my wireless buds when working out, or riding a bike. But when I want it to 'just work', no drivers, no batteries, no formats, just a plug and good sound. It seems steange to me, as apple used to be known for its quality D/A converters, and they are cheaper than ever now.
Replacing simple, robust and inexpensive technology with complex, fragile, and relatively more expensive electronics seems to be the "modern" trend these days, and I am also opposed to it.
Wireless certainly has its advantages but I am unconvinced that it should be the only way to connect headphones or other things "going forward".
But given the economic incentives, it's not surprising why things are moving in that direction.
First of all, LeEco’s president of R&D Liang Jun said that it is more complicated to include USB 3.1 type C than 3.5mm jack AND USB 2.0. It certainly frees up space and makes it easier to make the phone water-resistant, IP68 certified.
Secondly, I personally own a pre-USB-type-C phone and a Sony bluetooth headset with a 3.5mm jack option. I'm looking at buying a new laptop, with as many USB type C 3.1 ports, as possible. Why? Because I buy one for about 5 years, and its the future, and I'm happy that we are converging to a single laptop charger and data port. Don't get me wrong, I don't say that it hurts to have a jack as an option, but I do say that it hurts not having an USB type C port. If I got the latter, but not the first, I don't mind. Anyone can buy an adapter, the USB 3.1 supports analog audio in and out and has an audio controll interface (http://www.anandtech.com/show/10719/usbif-publishes-audio-ov...), so no functionality is lost. Of course, it is a change, and people tend to take changes quite badly. If someone is afraid of losing the adapter, just tape it to the headphones, if they are using a 12 dollar one, I'm sure it won't make worse the experience. As for quality, I'm sure audiophiles will welcome that now they have more power over the DAC. And yes, it can help a lot.
So stop whining, if you want a phone with a 3.5mm jack, buy one, there is plenty, and there will be quite a few for many years. Postpone the change, but keep it in mind when you buy your new pair of headphones.
I frankly don't get the obsession with wireless: it's consistently a worse experience than wired. Wireless networking is slower & less predictable than wired. Wireless keyboards enable attackers to sniff one's password. Wireless mice need charging (remarkably, Apple's wireless mouse is unusable whilst charging — notably poor UX). Wireless headphones cost more, have worse quality, introduce lag & last a shorter time — and they (at least potentially) enable an attacker to listen to what one's hearing.
Wireless is convenient, yes. But I'd rather have a living room keyboard with a 24-foot cable than a wireless keyboard from which my neighbour's kid can steal my passwords. I'd rather have a pair of wired, electric earbuds for a decade or more than a pair of wireless, electronic earbuds which last a year or two.
Getting rid of the headphone jack isn't courage: it's folly.
I'd rather have a pair of wired, electric earbuds for a decade or more than a pair of wireless, electronic earbuds which last a year or two.
Another advantage: wired earbuds are easy to retrieve if they fall out of your ear. Depending on when and where they fall out, you might not be able to retrieve wireless ones.
I have an iPhone SE right now. I was going to upgrade to a Pixel at the next opportunity, but knowing now that the Pixel 2 has no jack, I won't. I will not buy a phone that does not have a headphone jack.
Here's the thing: I don't want to listen to music from my phone most of the time (except in my car, which already has Bluetooth). When I do, though, I want a high quality experience, so I use the same (relatively nice) headphones I use with my desktop most of the time. I cannot not justify buying a pair of expensive Bluetooth headphones just for the less-common case of wanting music from my phones; Bluetooth monitors are generally worse than non-Bluetooth counterparts in the same price range.
Now, I could certainly get one of the adapters others have mentioned here - but I don't want to do that, because I don't want to send the message that I'm OK with paying for more redundant dongles so that phones can be 4% thinner. I won't buy any phone that has lacks a jack.
USB-C will actually be better for audio quality since you can have a DAC in your headphones, rather than the phone, so I would expect high end phones to get on this trend first.
I do wonder if Apple will stick to the Lightning standard while the rest of the industry (and even Apple's laptops) move to USB-C.
Even if they do, the device will still likely only have one USB-C port - so I would only be able to both listen to music and charge wirelessly, and we're back to square one, unless I get yet another overpriced dongle. It's still a non-starter. (Though if wireless charging becomes a big thing, maybe that'll change things.)
I don't see why Charging cables won't just start coming with an adapter that lets you plug in headphones. It's either stationary, so the extra bit doesn't really matter, or you're already carrying the cable + battery, and you probably don't care about the extra piece too much.
Until I lose it, or it breaks. Or I need a different adapter to support something else (which I will). Or I need more than one so I don't have to carry it with me everywhere.
Or, most likely, until Apple decides they don't need to include it and start charging for it.
Why should I pay more, or even the same, for something less convenient?
The phone will work for as long as I don't break it, and I can find it any time. Adapters break, get lost, and are extra clutter to carry around.
The point is not that I can't pay for it. It's that there's no good reason I should have to except some marketing goon thinking people want thin phones, and some execs wanting to sell expensive headphones.
If I'm paying $700 for a phone, it had better damn well be the phone I want to have. A phone without a headphone jack is not a phone I want to have.
How does removing the headphone jack help Apple sell more headphones? The iPhone can work with any Bluetooth headset, any wired headset with the included adapter or third party headset with a lightning end. Do you really think that people are going to run out and buy $150 AirPods just because of the lack of a headset?
How is losing the adapter any different than losing or breaking the lightning cable? How is buying extra adapters any different than buying extra lightning cables.
I remember when the iMac came out and people were complaining that Apple got rid of the floppy drive and the big uproar when Apple got rid of the optical drive years later.
> How does removing the headphone jack help Apple sell more headphones? The iPhone can work with any Bluetooth headset, any wired headset with the included adapter or third party headset with a lightning end. Do you really think that people are going to run out and buy $150 AirPods just because of the lack of a headset?
Apple also owns Beats, a major headphones manufacturer. I think the connection is obvious; people want an Apple-branded thing to go with their Apple-branded phone, they're gonna pay for it.
> Do you really think that people are going to run out and buy $150 AirPods just because of the lack of a headset?
Have, will, and are, yes.
> How is losing the adapter any different than losing or breaking the lightning cable? How is buying extra adapters any different than buying extra lightning cables.
You're really not engaging with the core of my argument. There's no good reason for me to have to worry about it at ALL except that Apple has decided they don't want headphone jacks. CDs are a clear upgrade over floppies in every way; Bluetooth is not an upgrade over an analog jack for me. It might be for some people, but I'm not one of them.
I'm not sure what it is you think I should do - cop to whatever Apple wants 'cause they're Apple and they must know better? I don't like a change they made. I'm going to complain about it because I want them to undo it, and I'm not going to buy their products if they don't have what I want. No, it's not the end of the world. Yes, other companies are doing it too - I won't buy their phones either. But this is how, as a consumer, one makes a corporation listen to them.
If you care about audio quality, why would you want to use the headphone jack that has to go through the DAC? Even back in my iPod days I had a 30 pin adapter that would give me line out support to the stereo system. Now I use a USB cable to connect to the car audio. I have three ways to connect my iPhone to my cheap car - a 1/8 inch analog audio port, Bluetooth and USB. Two out of three of those don't involve going through the relatively poor amp in the headphone jack.
5 years from now, I doubt high end phones will have an analog headphone jack.
You're still not responding to the core of my issue here, so I don't see a point in continuing this discussion. I can respond to each and every point about audio quality, convenience, etc, etc, etc, but the real point - I'm not supporting Apple doing something I didn't ask for in order to achieve something I don't want for money I don't care to spend, and that should be an acceptable thing - gets lost if I do.
You're still not responding to the core of my issue here, so I don't see a point in continuing this discussion. I can respond to each and every point about audio quality, convenience, etc, etc, etc, but the real point - I'm not supporting Apple doing something I didn't ask for in order to achieve something I don't want for money I don't care to spend, and that should be an acceptable thing - gets lost if I do.
If you expect Apple to keep legacy interfaces when there are technically better alternatives, you haven't been following Apple for long. Apple dropped 32 bit support for Macs back in 2008. Windows still has 32 bit support. They are dropping 32 bit support for iOS this year. If Apple sees that there is a better technical solution, they are the first to drop an outdated one. The headphone jack is inferior in every way to the alternatives.
If you argued that Apple should drop lightning and support USB-C as the one port solution for iPhones, I wouldn't argue with you. But holding on to headphone jacks is like people holding on to the floppy disk and Mac users complaining about dropping ADB ports and before that they"Apple II forever" crowd.
I'm pretty sure the motivating factor is waterproofing. The more places where the insides of the phone need to connect to the outside, the harder it is to protect from water damage.
If they add inductive charging and capacitative-only buttons, they could have a solid chunk of glass with no ports or seams. The first phone to that milestone would be an historic achievement.
On that note, wtf is up with inductive charging? It's been around since the 90s at least, with the first phone maybe the Palm Pre around 2009. It's super convenient and you'd think Apple would have leaped on that feature, to drop a connector.
Reasons I hate removal of the headphone jack on the iPhone:
1. Bluetooth headphones require extra charging. I'm always looking around for somewhere to plug in my phone AND
my bluetooth headphones. And no, I don't want to buy Apple's easily-losable ear bud things. Since the batteries
may die on my bluetooth headphones, I always still have to carry around the original headphones that came with my
iPhone, leading to extra cord/dongle #1.
2. Bluetooth headphones require a charging cord that isn't the same as the one on my iPhone. Extra cord/dongle #2 to
take with me everywhere for the old-style 8mm adapter.
3. My traveling Bose noise-canceling wired headphones require the carrying of extra cord/dongle #3 to take with me
everywhere.
4. Bluetooth headphones don't interface in situations like that healthclub exercise bike I want to plug into. Neither
do the standard iPhone headphones that come with the iPhone 7. So I need to carry extra cord/dongle #1 with me
everywhere, the old style 8mm ones off a previous phone.
5. Bluetooth headphone batteries eventually stop working. I was making due with going mostly wireless for about 2
months and then the headphones I bought stopped working. Judging from Amazon reviews, people don't get a lot of life
out of these little rechargeable devices - whereas normally the wired headphones I get with an iPhone last me
for the life of the phone.
6. On the iPhone 7, at least, the headphones go into the combination charging/headphone jack. That means that I need
extra cord/dongle #4 with me because of items #1 and #3 above, if I want to charge my phone and use headphones at
the same time.
So that's 4 extra cords/dongles on top of the iphone charging cord and the need to have my Bose traveling headsets.
It's a shit show.
[edit: tried to make formatting less hideous and to make a couple of items clearer... and because I miscounted]
If we switch to a universal charging port like usb-c and then every audio device starts supporting Bluetooth, things will get better. Yeah, you'll still need 2 places to charge devices instead of one though, which is a pain
1. Bluetooth headphones require extra charging. I'm always looking
around for somewhere to plug in my phone AND my bluetooth headphones.
And no, I don't want to buy Apple's easily-losable ear bud things.
Since the batteries may die on my bluetooth headphones, I always still
have to carry around the original headphones that came with my iPhone,
leading to extra cord/dongle #1.
2. Bluetooth headphones require a cord that isn't the same as the
one on my iPhone. Extra cord/dongle #2 to take with me everywhere.
3. My traveling Bose noise-canceling wired headphones require the
carrying of extra cord/dongle #3 to take with me everywhere.
4. Bluetooth headphones don't interface in situations like that
healthclub exercise bike I want to plug into. Neither do the
standard iPhone headphones that come with the iPhone 7. So I need
to carry extra cord/dongle #4 with me everywhere.
5. Bluetooth headphone batteries eventually stop working. I was
making due with going mostly wireless for about 2 months and then
the headphones I bought stopped working. Judging from Amazon
reviews, people don't get a lot of life out of these little
rechargeable devices - whereas normally the wired headphones I get
with an iPhone last me for the life of the phone.
6. On the iPhone 7, at least, the headphones go into the combination
charging/headphone jack. That means that I need extra cord/dongle
#5 with me because of items #1 and #3 above.
(Please don't reply to this comment so that I can delete it if the parent comment is edited. Thanks!)
You don't have to use Bluetooth for the iPhone. You can either use Apple's included headphones that connect to the lightning port or your own headphones with the included lightning adapter.
And then you still need to have a combo charging adapter so you can talk/listen while charging, plus the 8mm headphones for exercise equipment, plus the adapter for my wired Bose headphones.
So it's still a pain, although the main thrust of my post was that if you try going Bluetooth like vendors seem to want us to do, you still need lots of cords.
1. I have to carry around a mass of wire that it always getting tangled with its self and other items in bags and pockets.
2. I have to fiddle around to plug a port into my phone, that often scratches the surrounding material.
3. I have a port that gets full of lint and I have to pick it out.
4. The headphone cord gets caught on things and rips the headphones out of my ears.
5. When ever I knock the cable it amplifies the noise into my ears (isolating earbuds).
6. The little remote dongle gets caught on my collar or buttons and rips the headphones out of my ears.
7. When I jog I get a cable bounding up and down, often tugging on my ears.
8. If I just want to use one bud, I have to have the other dangling around.
9. If I want to switch between devices I have to manually plug in and out, often scrabbling around on the floor for a desktop computer.
10. Cable connections ware, and can result in audio only coming out of one ear.
I have a set of wireless headphones that use the same cable to charge as my phone. I charge my phone once a day when I sleep, and my headphones about once a week. If I want to use wired headphone I have them permanently plugged into a free dongle that came with my phone, but I haven't in months... they are in my bag... tangling stuff...
You understand that having a jack doesn't mean you can't use wireless, right? Glad you like wireless, but (obviously), not everyone feels the way you do.
1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 are not even valid complaints. Nothing prevents you from using wireless headsets if you want to. 2 and 3 both exist with USB c and lightning connectors, for charging if nothing else and are both remedied with an inexpensive but still decent quality case.
I use BT headsets in my phone when I run for the same reason you do, but my phone certainly doesn't last a full day running BT, nor does anyone I know tbh. Sounds like your phone is magic, or you're not using your BT often as it's a power hog on every phone I've used. I believe you're not being disingenuous, but it's not a standard experience for most people.
iPhone 7+ with AirPods, perhaps it's the BT LE or something?
I also forgot the worst point, when the headphone cord gets caught and rips the 3.5mm jack out of my device resulting in it blurting out (my secret love of the Moana soundtrack) at full volume to a train carriage of commuters...
There's nothing wrong with the Moana soundtrack, you're welcome. Also, the headphones getting ripped out of the ear is unpleasant I agree with you there.
HN: where commenters gleefully battle with Javascript standards daily, but find keeping track of a 3cm long adapter that came with their phone literally impossible.
HN: where commenters gleefully carry water for companies doing their best to spin naked profit motive as a customer benefit, most often by mocking the legitimate complaints of their peers.
For a highly mobile device like a phone a wireless solution like Bluetooth makes a lot more sense.
Meanwhile, for audiophile scenarios, a powered digital connection offers better options.
Phones are space constrained so you really have to consider whether a large single-purpose port is worth it when there are better options avaialable.
Here's another way to put it: if the 3.5mm jack didn't already exist it is nothing like what you'd propose for an optimal audio interface. The only thing it has going for it is the historical ecosystem. That's certainly not nothing, but given it's drawbacks and the availability of better options, it seems worth the cost to move on.
There aren't any better versions available though. Bluetooth audio quality is trash, even if you buy super high end headphones, the protocol is just not good enough. But even then - it's not like you can't use bluetooth with your headphone jack-equipped phone. To me the cost doesn't seem worth the move, not even a little bit.
The main problem is the digital to analog conversion has to happen in the phone. DACs involve trade offs and they aren't all equivalent. With the 3.5mm jack you get whatever your phone has.
The early conversion to analog has other implications. Distortions in the signal can more easily affect what you hear than digital, which can do error correction.
Also, you might want your headphones to do signal processing. That probably needs to be done digitally, so if your signal is analog you'll have to digitize, process, then convert back to analog.
And the 3.5mm jack doesn't deliver the power. So if you want to do any processing or amplification you'll need a battery that you have to charge or some other power supply.
I thought I would hate it but I am also fine with it, I prefer not getting my wires tangled on other commuters (which happened more that I would have liked!)
Apple did away with the headphone jack, Essential too, now the Pixel 2, the trend will continue. At least in the context of the smart phone there is no more "trying", it's done, we're really just waiting for the victim to bleed out at this point.
I would think a true audiophile wouldn't mind that much about this, because they would prefer to run their own DAC and amp off the digital signal instead of using the internal sound card anyways.
Attaching a DAC to a lightning port is always a pain (last time I tried, it require a lightning to USB host, then USB to DAC), not to mention it's not a great portable solution.
No, it's not a great portable solution, but honestly I thought most audiophiles looked down at portable music listening anyways. They prefer their big hifiman headphones and hifi speaker setups, no? I could be wrong.
The second (somewhat ironically my setup, minus the "big" adjective) setup does not negate the first use case. I simply enjoy listening to high quality music wherever I happen to be. And I can with good headphones, which pretty much universally use a 2.5mm jack.
to listen to music in future we'll have to get mp3 players again, but that'll be a good thing (independent battery, storage and a dac), mp3 players might also be able to double up as battery banks (you can keep it in you pocket at all times, less need to look at it than a phone)
As long as there are wired-only devices that people might want to use, having wireless-only devices as well forces lots of people to have either two headsets or one with a dongle. Somebody else mentioned treadmills at a health club. I'll add airline seats. Also, some environments just aren't that conducive to interference-free wireless listening. Hell, I've had multiple computers that created their own interference between wifi and Bluetooth.
When Bluetooth is truly universal, and it's more resistant to interference, and pairing is less of a pain than it is now, then it will be time to get rid of the jack. Until then, this trend is an annoyance. Maybe it's small in the grand scheme of life, but it's enough that any such vendors are automatically on my boycott list.
I wouldn't mind seeing phones with 2 USB-C connectors instead of USB + headphone jack. If I'm using 3.5mm headphones it takes a dongle anyway, or there are starting to be cheap USB-C headphones, or if I want high sound quality I'd be buying an external DAC anyway so having the USB port open would help. The problem with having only one port on the phone is trying to charge and use the headphones at the same time, which the vast majority of adapters / phones don't support.
Most BS reason I heard Apple give for ditching the jack was for waterproofing. Yes, waterproofing is quite desirable in a smartphone, but Samsung managed to IP44-rate their Galaxy S5 (of which I have one) without dropping the 3.5mm jack. They didn't even put a cover over it, which they did for the USB3.0 connector.
Any manufacturer who gives this as a reason for ditching this ever-useful connector, please explain how other companies have managed.
I do prefer the convenience of bluetooth, but I also like that I can use a cheap 3.5mm cable to connect my phone to the stereo in my car, which does not benefit from a bluetooth adapter. It also means that when my bluetooth headphones run flat, I can switch to cabled while they charge.
119 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 192 ms ] thread(Also doubles as a 3.5mm-to-Bluetooth transmitter but I've not used that yet. I think it also has a microphone for hands-free calling.)
I'll probably stick with wireless headphones in future.
Personally I've loathed wired for almost 8years now. I was happy when they removed the jack, and kept, in my mind, still an alternative if you really want to stay wired sometimes.
I already went through the adapter shit with my Sony Ericsson Walkman dumbphones 10 years ago. We have moved on. I refuse to technologically regress to that point because Apple wants to milk people with a new fashion accessory and the other manufacturers want to "look cool" imitating that idiocy.
They sound worse than the £300 noise cancelling cabled headphones I've also got - in absolute terms I think they are pretty decent.
I wasn't expecting to be a convert - but now that I've used the wireless headphones for a few months with my iPhone 7 I'm a convert!
So I get headphones that don't need to be charged most of the time and the vast, vast selection of headphones for 3.5mm form factor, and if I do need bluetooth I can get it.
[1] However, in the interests of transparency, I should point out that the TT firmware has a disgracefully stupid bug whereby if you have two things connected and then move away from one of them, it'll start doing a "lost a device" beep - even if it wasn't active. It's astonishingly braindead as UX.
Did I miss something? What DRM are they planning in relation to headphones?
See https://boingboing.net/2016/08/12/how-a-digital-only-smartph...
Might as well whine about the lack of a real keyboard and replacable battery too!
Essential broke my heart when they launched without the headphone jack (okay, not really, but you they did eliminate me as a customer for this version -- maybe I won't need the headphone jack for their next release).
Survey from Nov last year: https://9to5mac.com/2016/11/01/life-without-the-headphone-ja...
It is a survey...so who knows how real it is, but 55.86% were negatively impacted Apple removing the headphone jack. While Apple customers don't have a choice, Android users do and we will vote with our wallets.
Some of us have old cars that we see no need to upgrade.
Analog line level audio is a ubiquitous standard.
In an article about how too many phone manufacturers are removing the headphone jack? A lot of people are playing along. The market for bluetooth headphones has blown up, covering a range of prices and form factors - it's absurd and perhaps wishful thinking to say this isn't a real trend. I also don't believe there are no benefits to the manufacturing process.
I predict this article will feel very outdated in a couple years. I was very skeptical of the removal of the headphone jack, but six months ago I tried out a bluetooth headset, and I would never go back. It's easier and doesn't snag, and is easier to put away. This isn't to say everyone should get rid of the headphone jack, but I don't see why manufacturers shouldn't be able to.
Sound quality.
Bluetooth is not able to offer the fidelity of a standard 3.5mm jack. Until it is capable of doing so, I will not even consider using bluetooth headphones.
Plus, industry standard high-fidelity and studio quality headphones don't come with bluetooth due to the fidelity issue. I already have a several hundred dollar pair of awesome headphones. Why would I purchase a phone that I can't connect them to?
Let's call the removal of the headphone jack what it is: a cash grab. The only reason manufacturers are doing this is to increase profits. By removing the 3.5mm jack companies no longer have to pay for the part or attaching the part to the board. On top of this, manufacturers can now charge for special dongles and proprietary wireless headphones.
I think the manufacturers didn't want to add cruft to their headphones, as the batteries and decoding circuitry would probably begin to crowd out the actual sound reproduction hardware.
Of all the complaints I've heard (and agreed with) on removing the 3.5mm jack, inability to send high-fidelity audio over BT is the one I think I disagree with the most.
(I agree with the rest of your comment, though.)
To be clear, I'm not someone who romanticizes audio quality. I'm really about hard facts. But bluetooth audio quality is a known issue, and although there have been attempts to address it, it seems like nothing is really quite there yet.
Yes, there are higher-quality audio bluetooth standards, but not everything works with them, and there's interference, and general glitchiness, etc. Bluetooth audio quality is one of these things where there's a huge difference between what's on paper and what reality is.
To be fair, I think there's issues with wireless and wifi audio in general (not necessarily with quality, but the whole package: quality, reliability, open standardization, adoption, etc.). I also think bluetooth audio is fine for some basic level of audio quality.
But bluetooth audio as a general standard is just not up to snuff. It's certainly not comparable to other AV jack/port/interface standards, like 3.5mm jacks or HDMI or whatever.
I definitely do not consider myself an audiophile, but I can only listen through bluetooth audio for so long before it drives me crazy. The closest thing I can think of is mono AM radio or something.
This was a random page about bluetooth audio--I just picked it because it was the near the top of a Google search. It sums up the situation with bluetooth well, though, and being random from my perspective kinda underscores it's not a niche perspective:
https://www.lifewire.com/what-to-know-about-bluetooth-313459...
Personally, I'm pissed about getting rid of headphone jacks, and for the general trend of manufacturers to think eliminating things in the name of minimalism is a good idea. It's ok to a point, but 3.5 mm elimination is past that point IMHO.
I fully suspect someday 3.5mm jacks will be outdated, but we're not there yet.
Yes, you can experience wireless issues with poorly designed devices. But I know people that use BT audio as their primary ways to listen to music, and I'm personally building such a device for my car. I can send audio to it from further than I am willing to test, and I haven't yet had my audio interrupted.
As far as I can tell, as long as you're making sure you're using the highest quality standard possible, you'll receive a decent experience.
Where the experience breaks down, as I mentioned earlier, is the lack of high-fidelity sound reproduction options due to the size of the decoding circuitry and battery pack. BT audio headphones, though usable, are generally not great. If you have something externally powered (e.g. my car) it is fine... but that use case occurs less often.
Perhaps your devices only support the SBC codec, mandatory for inclusion in the standard. Or perhaps your devices have chosen to communicate over the hands-free profile instead of A2DP, which is another issue I've had.
I don't claim that 3.5mm jacks will be outdated, and I certainly don't think so either. I just think that BT audio is "good enough" strictly in terms of fidelity, and that other factors confound its inclusion in high-fidelity headphones.
On sound quality, the current bluetooth headsets are 2-3x priced over the same brand's top wired headphones, for fraction of the quality. Not just because the aptX HD is not “good enough”, but because the poor DACs. Good enough DACs are power-hungry bugs, it is unlikely to see them built into wireless headsets in 2-3 years time.
My point isn't that decent quality audio with BT isn't possible, it's that I don't think BT standards are at the same point as 3.5mm. As you yourself said, if you're saying that BT is fine "as long as you're making sure you're using the highest quality standard possible" then there's a problem.
It sounds like you've run into some of the same issues ("choosing to communicate over the hands-free profile"); I think my broader point is that with BT, it seems like there's a lot of those sorts of things.
Something like car audio or home stereo, with a nice, well-configured set up, is fine, but for a lot of things it doesn't have the same plug and play kind of simplicity of 3.5 mm.
Maybe we agree more than we disagree, although come to different opinions about jacks in phones. To me, BT is a promising thing that's not quite foolproof enough to compare to 3.5mm.
In general I feel like mobile device design has this tail-wagging-the-dog problem the last few years.
The cable problem almost went away when I switched to a coiled cable, I really would gain little to nothing with going wireless, specially when accounting for the extreme nuisance that is having to worry about the battery of yet another device.
You get what you pay Apple prices for.
I giggled a little at the idea that testing was required to find out that the iphone 7 had ditched the headphone jack.
Don't think me some luddite, I love my wireless buds when working out, or riding a bike. But when I want it to 'just work', no drivers, no batteries, no formats, just a plug and good sound. It seems steange to me, as apple used to be known for its quality D/A converters, and they are cheaper than ever now.
Wireless certainly has its advantages but I am unconvinced that it should be the only way to connect headphones or other things "going forward".
But given the economic incentives, it's not surprising why things are moving in that direction.
Secondly, I personally own a pre-USB-type-C phone and a Sony bluetooth headset with a 3.5mm jack option. I'm looking at buying a new laptop, with as many USB type C 3.1 ports, as possible. Why? Because I buy one for about 5 years, and its the future, and I'm happy that we are converging to a single laptop charger and data port. Don't get me wrong, I don't say that it hurts to have a jack as an option, but I do say that it hurts not having an USB type C port. If I got the latter, but not the first, I don't mind. Anyone can buy an adapter, the USB 3.1 supports analog audio in and out and has an audio controll interface (http://www.anandtech.com/show/10719/usbif-publishes-audio-ov...), so no functionality is lost. Of course, it is a change, and people tend to take changes quite badly. If someone is afraid of losing the adapter, just tape it to the headphones, if they are using a 12 dollar one, I'm sure it won't make worse the experience. As for quality, I'm sure audiophiles will welcome that now they have more power over the DAC. And yes, it can help a lot.
So stop whining, if you want a phone with a 3.5mm jack, buy one, there is plenty, and there will be quite a few for many years. Postpone the change, but keep it in mind when you buy your new pair of headphones.
Wireless is convenient, yes. But I'd rather have a living room keyboard with a 24-foot cable than a wireless keyboard from which my neighbour's kid can steal my passwords. I'd rather have a pair of wired, electric earbuds for a decade or more than a pair of wireless, electronic earbuds which last a year or two.
Getting rid of the headphone jack isn't courage: it's folly.
Another advantage: wired earbuds are easy to retrieve if they fall out of your ear. Depending on when and where they fall out, you might not be able to retrieve wireless ones.
Here's the thing: I don't want to listen to music from my phone most of the time (except in my car, which already has Bluetooth). When I do, though, I want a high quality experience, so I use the same (relatively nice) headphones I use with my desktop most of the time. I cannot not justify buying a pair of expensive Bluetooth headphones just for the less-common case of wanting music from my phones; Bluetooth monitors are generally worse than non-Bluetooth counterparts in the same price range.
Now, I could certainly get one of the adapters others have mentioned here - but I don't want to do that, because I don't want to send the message that I'm OK with paying for more redundant dongles so that phones can be 4% thinner. I won't buy any phone that has lacks a jack.
I do wonder if Apple will stick to the Lightning standard while the rest of the industry (and even Apple's laptops) move to USB-C.
Or, most likely, until Apple decides they don't need to include it and start charging for it.
Why should I pay more, or even the same, for something less convenient?
The point is not that I can't pay for it. It's that there's no good reason I should have to except some marketing goon thinking people want thin phones, and some execs wanting to sell expensive headphones.
If I'm paying $700 for a phone, it had better damn well be the phone I want to have. A phone without a headphone jack is not a phone I want to have.
How is losing the adapter any different than losing or breaking the lightning cable? How is buying extra adapters any different than buying extra lightning cables.
I remember when the iMac came out and people were complaining that Apple got rid of the floppy drive and the big uproar when Apple got rid of the optical drive years later.
Apple also owns Beats, a major headphones manufacturer. I think the connection is obvious; people want an Apple-branded thing to go with their Apple-branded phone, they're gonna pay for it.
> Do you really think that people are going to run out and buy $150 AirPods just because of the lack of a headset?
Have, will, and are, yes.
> How is losing the adapter any different than losing or breaking the lightning cable? How is buying extra adapters any different than buying extra lightning cables.
You're really not engaging with the core of my argument. There's no good reason for me to have to worry about it at ALL except that Apple has decided they don't want headphone jacks. CDs are a clear upgrade over floppies in every way; Bluetooth is not an upgrade over an analog jack for me. It might be for some people, but I'm not one of them.
I'm not sure what it is you think I should do - cop to whatever Apple wants 'cause they're Apple and they must know better? I don't like a change they made. I'm going to complain about it because I want them to undo it, and I'm not going to buy their products if they don't have what I want. No, it's not the end of the world. Yes, other companies are doing it too - I won't buy their phones either. But this is how, as a consumer, one makes a corporation listen to them.
5 years from now, I doubt high end phones will have an analog headphone jack.
On that note, wtf is up with inductive charging? It's been around since the 90s at least, with the first phone maybe the Palm Pre around 2009. It's super convenient and you'd think Apple would have leaped on that feature, to drop a connector.
http://appleplugs.com/
The looping gif at the end is a masterpiece.
https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2016/09/17/airpod-accessory...
It's a shit show.
[edit: tried to make formatting less hideous and to make a couple of items clearer... and because I miscounted]
1. Bluetooth headphones require extra charging. I'm always looking around for somewhere to plug in my phone AND my bluetooth headphones. And no, I don't want to buy Apple's easily-losable ear bud things. Since the batteries may die on my bluetooth headphones, I always still have to carry around the original headphones that came with my iPhone, leading to extra cord/dongle #1.
2. Bluetooth headphones require a cord that isn't the same as the one on my iPhone. Extra cord/dongle #2 to take with me everywhere.
3. My traveling Bose noise-canceling wired headphones require the carrying of extra cord/dongle #3 to take with me everywhere.
4. Bluetooth headphones don't interface in situations like that healthclub exercise bike I want to plug into. Neither do the standard iPhone headphones that come with the iPhone 7. So I need to carry extra cord/dongle #4 with me everywhere.
5. Bluetooth headphone batteries eventually stop working. I was making due with going mostly wireless for about 2 months and then the headphones I bought stopped working. Judging from Amazon reviews, people don't get a lot of life out of these little rechargeable devices - whereas normally the wired headphones I get with an iPhone last me for the life of the phone.
6. On the iPhone 7, at least, the headphones go into the combination charging/headphone jack. That means that I need extra cord/dongle #5 with me because of items #1 and #3 above.
(Please don't reply to this comment so that I can delete it if the parent comment is edited. Thanks!)
So it's still a pain, although the main thrust of my post was that if you try going Bluetooth like vendors seem to want us to do, you still need lots of cords.
1. I have to carry around a mass of wire that it always getting tangled with its self and other items in bags and pockets.
2. I have to fiddle around to plug a port into my phone, that often scratches the surrounding material.
3. I have a port that gets full of lint and I have to pick it out.
4. The headphone cord gets caught on things and rips the headphones out of my ears.
5. When ever I knock the cable it amplifies the noise into my ears (isolating earbuds).
6. The little remote dongle gets caught on my collar or buttons and rips the headphones out of my ears.
7. When I jog I get a cable bounding up and down, often tugging on my ears.
8. If I just want to use one bud, I have to have the other dangling around.
9. If I want to switch between devices I have to manually plug in and out, often scrabbling around on the floor for a desktop computer.
10. Cable connections ware, and can result in audio only coming out of one ear.
I have a set of wireless headphones that use the same cable to charge as my phone. I charge my phone once a day when I sleep, and my headphones about once a week. If I want to use wired headphone I have them permanently plugged into a free dongle that came with my phone, but I haven't in months... they are in my bag... tangling stuff...
[Edit, as above, formatting etc]
People loved and still miss Micro SD slots on phones too.
I use BT headsets in my phone when I run for the same reason you do, but my phone certainly doesn't last a full day running BT, nor does anyone I know tbh. Sounds like your phone is magic, or you're not using your BT often as it's a power hog on every phone I've used. I believe you're not being disingenuous, but it's not a standard experience for most people.
I also forgot the worst point, when the headphone cord gets caught and rips the 3.5mm jack out of my device resulting in it blurting out (my secret love of the Moana soundtrack) at full volume to a train carriage of commuters...
For a highly mobile device like a phone a wireless solution like Bluetooth makes a lot more sense.
Meanwhile, for audiophile scenarios, a powered digital connection offers better options.
Phones are space constrained so you really have to consider whether a large single-purpose port is worth it when there are better options avaialable.
Here's another way to put it: if the 3.5mm jack didn't already exist it is nothing like what you'd propose for an optimal audio interface. The only thing it has going for it is the historical ecosystem. That's certainly not nothing, but given it's drawbacks and the availability of better options, it seems worth the cost to move on.
I think it's close to optimal --- and for a while, the slightly smaller 2.5mm size was also extremely common in dumbphones and media players.
The early conversion to analog has other implications. Distortions in the signal can more easily affect what you hear than digital, which can do error correction.
Also, you might want your headphones to do signal processing. That probably needs to be done digitally, so if your signal is analog you'll have to digitize, process, then convert back to analog.
And the 3.5mm jack doesn't deliver the power. So if you want to do any processing or amplification you'll need a battery that you have to charge or some other power supply.
3.5mm also allows for only very basic controls.
When Bluetooth is truly universal, and it's more resistant to interference, and pairing is less of a pain than it is now, then it will be time to get rid of the jack. Until then, this trend is an annoyance. Maybe it's small in the grand scheme of life, but it's enough that any such vendors are automatically on my boycott list.
Any manufacturer who gives this as a reason for ditching this ever-useful connector, please explain how other companies have managed.
I do prefer the convenience of bluetooth, but I also like that I can use a cheap 3.5mm cable to connect my phone to the stereo in my car, which does not benefit from a bluetooth adapter. It also means that when my bluetooth headphones run flat, I can switch to cabled while they charge.