Features that could be trimmed in next version

[ByteMyAscii]

Haha, thanks for that man. You proved my point REALLY well!

Definitions of flagship DO differ, but I can tell you right now that J1 you mention fits NONE of them.

Mine (the correct one) is that it is a companies main top tier device that it wants to push to consumers... The only ones from this year in the list are maybe one of the Xiaomei and one of the Huawei... I don't know their lines well enough to pick out their flagships.

The G5 is... But that's from last year. Where's the G6 on the list? Where's the S8, the Moto Z2, the U11, the Xperia XZ? Is there one on the iPhone? You can't say it's not niche because it's included on a host of niche devices!

Given the amount of Huawei and Xiaomei phones, you could claim it's not niche within China... But that seems tenuous.

Again, thanks. You did a far better job of proving my point than I could have!

As for your last paragraph... What? Really, what are you talking about?

I didn't prove your point in any way.
There are several there flagships for their respective brands, and because they are chinese is irrelevant.
You said that no flagships made room, something that list proves wrong.

If we use something, and it gets removed we find a way as much as possible to work around it, because we have to.
Does Not mean the apparent lack of IR blaster appeal is simply a lack of appeal, but can mean that it simply isn't something a user expects any more.
When the 3.5mm headphone jack becomes rare on phones, will we consider that a niche or unwanted product, or will we simply adjust because we have to.
It will be the latter.

Only those convenient for your argument, a trend in certain markets does not make a product "niche".
It just means that they have a certain belief as to what users do or don't need.
Which if you look at headphone jacks makes that very clear, as that absolutely is something used and wanted by a lot still.
But they are still being removed anyway, in favour of what we are being told is simply "better" in all respects.
Which isn't even close to the truth.
Adapters are available, and even provided in some cases.
Can't use wired headphones and charge at the same time, without an adapter if that is even supported on the phone.

You can't make an argument dismissing inclusion by flagships, and then changing the rules to then exclude those from certain markets, which are overlapping ours a lot more now than ever before.

And my last paragraph was about you bringing up the harmony remotes, which like any other is still physical buttons.
A smart phone has a lot going for it in terms of flexibility, that a physical remote cannot offer.
Look at how many things are expected of a smartphone nowadays, what is is intended to replace.

 

[fuzzylumpkin]

I didn't prove your point in any way.
There are several there flagships for their respective brands, and because they are chinese is irrelevant.
You said that no flagships made room, something that list proves wrong.

If we use something, and it gets removed we find a way as much as possible to work around it, because we have to.
Does Not mean the apparent lack of IR blaster appeal is simply a lack of appeal, but can mean that it simply isn't something a user expects any more.
When the 3.5mm headphone jack becomes rare on phones, will we consider that a niche or unwanted product, or will we simply adjust because we have to.
It will be the latter.

Only those convenient for your argument, a trend in certain markets does not make a product "niche".
It just means that they have a certain belief as to what users do or don't need.
Which if you look at headphone jacks makes that very clear, as that absolutely is something used and wanted by a lot still.
But they are still being removed anyway, in favour of what we are being told is simply "better" in all respects.
Which isn't even close to the truth.
Adapters are available, and even provided in some cases.
Can't use wired headphones and charge at the same time, without an adapter if that is even supported on the phone.

You can't make an argument dismissing inclusion by flagships, and then changing the rules to then exclude those from certain markets, which are overlapping ours a lot more now than ever before.

And my last paragraph was about you bringing up the harmony remotes, which like any other is still physical buttons.
A smart phone has a lot going for it in terms of flexibility, that a physical remote cannot offer.
Look at how many things are expected of a smartphone nowadays, what is is intended to replace.

First off, I didn't say no flagship made room for them, I ASKED if any did.

Now, I still maintain that those phones are barely relevant... And the list doesn't show the IR blaster as a widespread feature, but as something basically unique to Huawei and Xiaomei phones. A while ago many South Korean phones had TV tuners, doesn't mean it wasn't a niche feature. My argument was never that no one uses an IR blaster but that it was so niche as to border on irrelevant.

Putting aside the fact that that TV remotes and smartphones are different, I know that's strange but bear with me ( GRRR!), and that it is that difference that makes phones bad TV remotes... There are several harmony remotes with touch screens... I always thought they were a bit pointless, but now I see they were created for this argument, thanks Logitech!

And IR blasters aren't comparable with headphone jacks... It's a false equivalency.

 

[JeBe4]

any phone I buy has to have at least 6gb of RAM - this phone is blazing - plus their skin is amazing

 

[ByteMyAscii]

First off, I didn't say no flagship made room for them, I ASKED if any did.

Now, I still maintain that those phones are barely relevant... And the list doesn't show the IR blaster as a widespread feature, but as something basically unique to Huawei and Xiaomei phones. A while ago many South Korean phones had TV tuners, doesn't mean it wasn't a niche feature. My argument was never that no one uses an IR blaster but that it was so niche as to border on irrelevant.

Putting aside the fact that that TV remotes and smartphones are different, I know that's strange but bear with me (������ GRRR!), and that it is that difference that makes phones bad TV remotes... There are several harmony remotes with touch screens... I always thought they were a bit pointless, but now I see they were created for this argument, thanks Logitech!

And IR blasters aren't comparable with headphone jacks... It's a false equivalency.

Barely relevant because you dont want them to be relevant.
Some of those were still flagships, which you didn't actually disporve.
You dismissed them because of their original market instead.

It isn't false equivalency.
Lack of a feature or reduction in usage of a feature isn't indicative of what you think it is, as headphone jacks prove.
They are seeing reduced use for the same, reason lack of space.
I am not saying IR blasters are on the same level of popularity, but to dismiss them because you don't want them was wrong.
You simply say smartphones are bad as a remote, but refuse to give a reason why.
Just because you say so.
In fact even contradicting yourself with listing a common feature.

Simply because another product exists offering some of that functionality, which by that argument you should be dismissing smartphones for a lot of uses, because there are other better dedicated products.
Cameras for instance.

 

[fuzzylumpkin]

Barely relevant because you dont want them to be relevant.
Some of those were still flagships, which you didn't actually disporve.
You dismissed them because of their original market instead.

It isn't false equivalency.
Lack of a feature or reduction in usage of a feature isn't indicative of what you think it is, as headphone jacks prove.
They are seeing reduced use for the same, reason lack of space.
I am not saying IR blasters are on the same level of popularity, but to dismiss them because you don't want them was wrong.
You simply say smartphones are bad as a remote, but refuse to give a reason why.
Just because you say so.
In fact even contradicting yourself with listing a common feature.

Simply because another product exists offering some of that functionality, which by that argument you should be dismissing smartphones for a lot of uses, because there are other better dedicated products.
Cameras for instance.

It's a false equivalency, IR blaster were removed because of lack of use, while the headphone jack has been replaced, and there's usually an adapter in the box. The fact that you don't think the replacement is as good is irrelevant, it's still a false equivalency.

The main reason smartphones suck as TV remotes comes down to where your eyes are... If you're controlling a TV you should be looking at the TV, not at a control. That's why your argument about physical keyboards was specious, when you're using a phone you're looking at the phone.

 

[anon(661246)]

I never found an IR blaster useful. I used it a couple times but was like nope a remote is easier.

 

[ByteMyAscii]

It's a false equivalency, IR blaster were removed because of lack of use, while the headphone jack has been replaced, and there's usually an adapter in the box. The fact that you don't think the replacement is as good is irrelevant, it's still a false equivalency.

The main reason smartphones suck as TV remotes comes down to where your eyes are... If you're controlling a TV you should be looking at the TV, not at a control. That's why your argument about physical keyboards was specious, when you're using a phone you're looking at the phone.

It isnt a false equivalency.
Arguing as you did earlier that not a single flagship had one, which were it even true actually has a lot in common with the current trend on headphone sockets.
Plus they are still like headphone sockets widely used outside of the smartphone form factor.
Neither are niche or uncommon outside of phones, in fact being near ubiquitous, by far the most common means of performing their task.

There is a lot more in common with headphone sockets than you like.
The equivalency is not false, but is instead far similar than you like.

By your description that makes headphone sockets a "niche" feature, given the trend to remove them in flagship devices.

Niche does not equal being unappealing to you personally.

 

[fuzzylumpkin]

It isnt a false equivalency.
Arguing as you did earlier that not a single flagship had one, which were it even true actually has a lot in common with the current trend on headphone sockets.
Plus they are still like headphone sockets widely used outside of the smartphone form factor.
Neither are niche or uncommon outside of phones, in fact being near ubiquitous, by far the most common means of performing their task.

There is a lot more in common with headphone sockets than you like.
The equivalency is not false, but is instead far similar than you like.

By your description that makes headphone sockets a "niche" feature, given the trend to remove them in flagship devices.

Niche does not equal being unappealing to you personally.

...

What works well outside of the smartphone market isn't really relevant... By that "logic" smartphones should be powered by petroleum distillates because there use is ubiquitous.

And what I like ls also irrelevant, I like 3.5mm jacks on phones, I'm just capable of seeing beyond my own preferences, and try not to bring feelings to facts fights.

You're putting words in my mouth again, the same ones in fact... I'm getting the feeling you'd rather argue against a strawlumpkin than a fuzzy one... If that's the case, I don't see the point.

 

[ByteMyAscii]

...

What works well outside of the smartphone market isn't really relevant... By that "logic" smartphones should be powered by petroleum distillates because there use is ubiquitous.

And what I like ls also irrelevant, I like 3.5mm jacks on phones, I'm just capable of seeing beyond my own preferences, and try not to bring feelings to facts fights.

You're putting words in my mouth again, the same ones in fact... I'm getting the feeling you'd rather argue against a strawlumpkin than a fuzzy one... If that's the case, I don't see the point.

What works outside is entirely relevant when describing it as niche.
You are entirely projecting your own preferences upon it, when you can't see the very clear similarity in the trend between that and headphone jacks.
You call it niche because you don't want it, and for no other reason.
You have called out a phone as a remote as being bad, but can't give any reason for it.
Phones are used for a lot of things that there are "better" options for, which according to you is reason to remove them from phones.
But you aren't arguing that for anything else, just singling out this making it clear there is a bias.
Why not remove cameras from phones while we are at it, because dedicated cameras do it better.

If you are going to start deciding that something done arguably better elsewhere shouldn't be on a phone, be prepared to back your argument all the way.

 

[fuzzylumpkin]

What works outside is entirely relevant when describing it as niche.
You are entirely projecting your own preferences upon it, when you can't see the very clear similarity in the trend between that and headphone jacks.
You call it niche because you don't want it, and for no other reason.
You have called out a phone as a remote as being bad, but can't give any reason for it.
Phones are used for a lot of things that there are "better" options for, which according to you is reason to remove them from phones.
But you aren't arguing that for anything else, just singling out this making it clear there is a bias.
Why not remove cameras from phones while we are at it, because dedicated cameras do it better.

If you are going to start deciding that something done arguably better elsewhere shouldn't be on a phone, be prepared to back your argument all the way.

I call it niche, because it's niche. My preference has no bearing.

I gave reasons for why I think that a phone makes a bad TV remote compared to a TV remote.

Most of the things that a phone can do that are better elsewhere do not require specialized hardware, and nothing was removed. There was never an IR blaster on it to begin with. The thing with cameras is, people use them.

You seem to have woven yourself a narrative where I have a personal vendetta against the IR blaster lol. That's very silly, because I'm the type of person who wants all the hardware features. I'm just saying there isn't one and why there isn't one... Because the experience kinda sucks and very few people used them. I.e. They're niche hahaha.

 

[dannyar11]

I agree with this. I have had numerous phones with IR blasters and never used them. The time it takes to unlock the phone, navigate to the app and launch it, then wait for it to open, you are better off reaching for the remote.

 

[ByteMyAscii]

I call it niche, because it's niche. My preference has no bearing.

I gave reasons for why I think that a phone makes a bad TV remote compared to a TV remote.

Most of the things that a phone can do that are better elsewhere do not require specialized hardware, and nothing was removed. There was never an IR blaster on it to begin with. The thing with cameras is, people use them.

You seem to have woven yourself a narrative where I have a personal vendetta against the IR blaster lol. That's very silly, because I'm the type of person who wants all the hardware features. I'm just saying there isn't one and why there isn't one... Because the experience kinda sucks and very few people used them. I.e. They're niche hahaha.

You called it niche due to lack of implementation, which is the same route being taken by headphone jacks.
You described it as bad on mobile, twice.
But both times refused to actually say why, just that it was.
The very trend you described to justify that view matches what is happening with headphone jacks, despite repeated claims from yourself there is little in common.
Your personal preferences were projected onto this argument as those you made equally applied elsewhere, but you refused to acknowledge that.

You have a completely personal definition of flagship phone, one which suddenly got amended to exclude chinese devices when it suited you to do so.
Despite commonly being used to describe those devices in reviews.
And you described a trend completely applicable to another feature, but say it is somehow different without any reason, simply because you said it was.

Repeatedly lying about that is not going to change it.
You dont like them, fair enough.
Some people who arent you could find them useful.

But pretending that your belief is anything else but you disliking them isn't honest in any way.

You can't even back up your own argument consistently.
If something is done "better" elsewhere, you should be rightly advocating removal of other features.
But you specifically do so only for IR blasters.
Which shows a bias in your argument.
Be consistent and stop lying.

If you keep arguing that them being inferior on mobile is true, then that is absolutely true of a lot of features, which at present you simply refuse to bring up as well.
Don't cherry pick when that argument applies, it either does or it doesn't
Not only when it suits you.

 

[fuzzylumpkin]

You called it niche due to lack of implementation, which is the same route being taken by headphone jacks.
You described it as bad on mobile, twice.
But both times refused to actually say why, just that it was.
The very trend you described to justify that view matches what is happening with headphone jacks, despite repeated claims from yourself there is little in common.
Your personal preferences were projected onto this argument as those you made equally applied elsewhere, but you refused to acknowledge that.

You have a completely personal definition of flagship phone, one which suddenly got amended to exclude chinese devices when it suited you to do so.
Despite commonly being used to describe those devices in reviews.
And you described a trend completely applicable to another feature, but say it is somehow different without any reason, simply because you said it was.

Repeatedly lying about that is not going to change it.
You dont like them, fair enough.
Some people who arent you could find them useful.

But pretending that your belief is anything else but you disliking them isn't honest in any way.

You can't even back up your own argument consistently.
If something is done "better" elsewhere, you should be rightly advocating removal of other features.
But you specifically do so only for IR blasters.
Which shows a bias in your argument.
Be consistent and stop lying.

If you keep arguing that them being inferior on mobile is true, then that is absolutely true of a lot of features, which at present you simply refuse to bring up as well.
Don't cherry pick when that argument applies, it either does or it doesn't
Not only when it suits you.

The main reason smartphones suck as TV remotes comes down to where your eyes are... If you're controlling a TV you should be looking at the TV, not at a control. That's why your argument about physical keyboards was specious, when you're using a phone you're looking at the phone.

Please don't call me a liar when you either haven't bothered to read or simply disregarded my comment.

The lack of implementation is because it's a niche feature, not vice versa. I have no problems admitting that you showed 2 flagship phones from this year that have IR blasters, but I maintain that their presence in the western market makes them barely relevant here.

You're still banging on about that false equivalence... Can you even name a flagship that doesn't have a headphone socket? And I bet you can't name one that doesn't support Bluetooth... That's why it's a false equivalence YOU CAN STILL USE HEADPHONES WITH A SMARTPHONE.

You talk about other features that are inferior, but conveniently ignore my comments about requirements of specialised hardware and actual use by users. Seems you're doing some cherry picking of your own...

Serious question, answer honestly, do you even actually use your phone to control your TV yourself?

Now, go ahead with ignoring my actual comment and continue to just ad hominem attack.

 

[anon(661246)]

they should get rid of the camera altogether. spend that money towards screen and software development

 

[bembol]

I'm okay with what OnePlus is doing I just wished they would stop increasing the price.

Then again our dollar sucks. LOL

 

[ByteMyAscii]

Please don't call me a liar when you either haven't bothered to read or simply disregarded my comment.

The lack of implementation is because it's a niche feature, not vice versa. I have no problems admitting that you showed 2 flagship phones from this year that have IR blasters, but I maintain that their presence in the western market makes them barely relevant here.

You're still banging on about that false equivalence... Can you even name a flagship that doesn't have a headphone socket? And I bet you can't name one that doesn't support Bluetooth... That's why it's a false equivalence YOU CAN STILL USE HEADPHONES WITH A SMARTPHONE.

You talk about other features that are inferior, but conveniently ignore my comments about requirements of specialised hardware and actual use by users. Seems you're doing some cherry picking of your own...

Serious question, answer honestly, do you even actually use your phone to control your TV yourself?

Now, go ahead with ignoring my actual comment and continue to just ad hominem attack.

No, stated what I saw.
You dismissed similarities because they actually contradicted your argument.
You cant actually provide any argument, instead only lies.

You used a trend in decreasing usage as "evidence", something which is equally applicable to headphone jacks but is apparently so different just because you said so.
You even changed your definition of flagship to exclude certain regions, because after using flagships as your argument I pointed out that a phone commonly described as a flagship on sites such as this still had one.
And if you want to now make the argument that we can still use headphones via an adapter or dongle or Bluetooth then I will mentioned Bond, a device which will connect over WiFI to control an IR device.

I did actually want to use a device with an IR blaster, but due a failed update the tablet is bricked.

You not wanting to use a phone as a remote is fair enough.
But to simply dismiss it as unwanted or even a poor experience is quite simply a lie.
YOUR experience with something does not simply make it bad.
But that is what you are saying.

A decreasing trend in smartphones despite common usage to the point of being by far the most commonly used interface for that purpose in other devices.
Calling a similar trend false because you dont like it is a lie, simple as that.

If the 3.5mm jack is "inferior", why isn't there, or hasn't there been some rush to replace them yet, even actively supporting their continued use by providing adapters or dongles in some cases, and certainly supporting their use when bought separately.
Plenty of devices, including those actually dedicated to audio are still using a so-called inferior interface over USB-C, where due to less constraints on size it would be even easier to use both or switch.
But they aren't, using both OR switching.

 

[Devhux]

I found IR blasters on phones required a lot more precision than other remotes. Very limited angle for actually triggering a command.

My Harmony remote operates on RF and communicates with a hub that handles the IR blasting duties to my devices. You can also use a smartphone app to send commands to the hub, so I get the best of both worlds; a remote with physical buttons, and a customizable touchscreen interface - where both work incredibly well.

As for the comment about physical keyboards being better, ask BlackBerry how well that's gone. Even with the Priv and KEYone, sales are nowhere near that of flagship devices. I also found I was nowhere near as fast on my KEYone's keyboard compared to my OnePlus 5.

Finally, OnePlus could easily sell this phone cheaper - but they're slowly increasing the prices to see what the market will bear; at least that's my guess. With one or two phones a year, their shareholders would prefer to see increasing profits.

 

[fuzzylumpkin]

No, stated what I saw.
You dismissed similarities because they actually contradicted your argument.
You cant actually provide any argument, instead only lies.

You used a trend in decreasing usage as "evidence", something which is equally applicable to headphone jacks but is apparently so different just because you said so.
You even changed your definition of flagship to exclude certain regions, because after using flagships as your argument I pointed out that a phone commonly described as a flagship on sites such as this still had one.
And if you want to now make the argument that we can still use headphones via an adapter or dongle or Bluetooth then I will mentioned Bond, a device which will connect over WiFI to control an IR device.

I did actually want to use a device with an IR blaster, but due a failed update the tablet is bricked.

You not wanting to use a phone as a remote is fair enough.
But to simply dismiss it as unwanted or even a poor experience is quite simply a lie.
YOUR experience with something does not simply make it bad.
But that is what you are saying.

A decreasing trend in smartphones despite common usage to the point of being by far the most commonly used interface for that purpose in other devices.
Calling a similar trend false because you dont like it is a lie, simple as that.

If the 3.5mm jack is "inferior", why isn't there, or hasn't there been some rush to replace them yet, even actively supporting their continued use by providing adapters or dongles in some cases, and certainly supporting their use when bought separately.
Plenty of devices, including those actually dedicated to audio are still using a so-called inferior interface over USB-C, where due to less constraints on size it would be even easier to use both or switch.
But they aren't, using both OR switching.

Resurrecting a thread to post a response it took two full weeks to formulate?

Dude, seriously...

https://youtu.be/L0MK7qz13bU

 

[ByteMyAscii]

Resurrecting a thread to post a response it took two full weeks to formulate?

Dude, seriously...

Replying with a video instead of an actual argument.
Speaks volumes.

If you want to let it go, sure.
I will do that.
Still won't agree with your weak arguments though.

Summary of my points.
Only in mobile smart devices is that a trend, where everywhere else that isn't the case.
Still common usage outside of that form factor in dedicated devices which would benefit more from supposedly superior technology where it is easier and cheaper to implement due to lack of the size constraints.
And a new device being released to support both this "outdated" method using the very interface that has been described as "bad", but to enhance it in many ways.

That is some weird way of being a "false equivalence."