Google selling pixel phones

[Mike Dee]

This is rich: https://www.droid-life.com/2019/05/...-having-a-headphone-jack-wont-make-you-happy/

Google’s Reasoning for the Pixel 3a Having a Headphone Jack Won’t Make You Happy

I'm happy and healthy and in control of my emotions. Life without headphone jacks, removable batteries, SD cards, LED notification lights and I.R. blasters is still great.

 

[onthecouchagain]

I'm happy and healthy and in control of my emotions.

Okay...?

 

[onthecouchagain]

We already knew this though. Google supports MicroSD cards, in budget devices. They support headphone jacks, in budget devices. Dual sim, same thing. Removable battery? Same thing. Some places have far less access to places to charge than other places. Google views these things that some of the ultra-nerds think of as the definition of premium as things that are popular in emerging markets and other markets where people aren't going to be as willing to pay $1000 for a 128GB device, so they want OEM's to have the flexibility to release a 16GB device with a MicroSD slot.

Uhm, let's stick to the point about headphone jacks.

Help me understand because you kind of lost me (genuinely), are you saying the premium Pixel models are for people who can afford bluetooth headphones? Therefore that makes it okay to exclude the headphone jack feature? If that's what you mean, how do you account for expensive wired headphones? Being expensive is not exclusive to bluetooth. There are a plethora of cheap and expensive wired and bluetooth accessories. The argument "if you can afford a Pixel 3, you can afford bluetooth accessories" is a weak argument, as is the argument that "if you can only afford the Pixel 3a, you shouldn't spend money on bluetooth. Use your old jacks." As the article points out: "why should that principle only apply to those on a budget?"

I also don't follow what you mean about "some places having far less access" either. Isn't the Pixel 3a being sold in the US market along with the Pixel 3? Don't we all have the same access to bluetooth accessories?

Even if I've understood your post correctly, I'm still not hearing any good reason why Google decided to put the jack in the cheaper model, but not in the more expensive model. It's not about space and it's certainly not about waterproofing (the Pixel 3 itself has the USB C port with full waterproofing). At the very least, it's inconsistent decision making by Google. At worst, it's Google being greedy, which is my leading theory as to why they've done this.

Everything I've heard -- from what you've posted to others saying "I'm living fine without the jack" -- sound like excuses; poor ones at that.

Look, I'm living fine without the jack, too. If I want clean Android software with Google support and the superior camera, I have to live with the Pixel 3. But let's not pretend it's not a mistake for Google to remove the jack -- for no good reason -- from the more expensive models, but include it in the cheaper models. There's no reason to not include the jack in both their affordable phones and their premium phones. In fact, it makes far less sense to me that the premium models don't have it.

 

[anon(10092459)]

Headphone jack ... again.

I personally think they just threw one in the 3a for the people that want that type of thing. I certainly don't see the removal of the port in any Pixel needing any justification outside of their own design choice. At the end of it all, what difference does it make why it's not included?

 

[Mike Dee]

Uhm, let's stick to the point about headphone jacks.

Help me understand because you kind of lost me (genuinely), are you saying the premium Pixel models are for people who can afford bluetooth headphones? Therefore that makes it okay to exclude the headphone jack feature? If that's what you mean, how do you account for expensive wired headphones? Being expensive is not exclusive to bluetooth. There are a plethora of cheap and expensive wired and bluetooth accessories. The argument "if you can afford a Pixel 3, you can afford bluetooth accessories" is a weak argument, as is the argument that "if you can only afford the Pixel 3a, you shouldn't spend money on bluetooth. Use your old jacks." As the article points out: "why should that principle only apply to those on a budget?"

I also don't follow what you mean about "some places having far less access" either. Isn't the Pixel 3a being sold in the US market along with the Pixel 3? Don't we all have the same access to bluetooth accessories?

Even if I've understood your post correctly, I'm still not hearing any good reason why Google decided to put the jack in the cheaper model, but not in the more expensive model. It's not about space and it's certainly not about waterproofing (the Pixel 3 itself has the USB C port with full waterproofing). At the very least, it's inconsistent decision making by Google. At worst, it's Google being greedy, which is my leading theory as to why they've done this.

Everything I've heard -- from what you've posted to others saying "I'm living fine without the jack" -- sound like excuses; poor ones at that.

Look, I'm living fine without the jack, too. If I want clean Android software with Google support and the superior camera, I have to live with the Pixel 3. But let's not pretend it's not a mistake for Google to remove the jack -- for no good reason -- from the more expensive models, but include it in the cheaper models. There's no reason to not include the jack in both their affordable phones and their premium phones. In fact, it makes far less sense to me that the premium models don't have it.

It was a PR response....a poor one at that since she doesn't acknowledge that people can still use their headphones without the 3.5 jack. Anyone who had to have a jack and bought a Pixel shouldn't get upset because they had other options. The fact that Google went back to the jack for the 3a was just another business decision. Maybe this is their way of easing back into the jack for the 4. If they include it on the 4 fine and if not I'm good with it....but I'll use the dongle because it has better output regardless. When I use my Samsung S10 that has a jack instead of my 3XL I still use a dongle.

 

[Mike Dee]

Headphone jack ... again.

I personally think they just threw one in the 3a for the people that want that type of thing. I certainly don't see the removal of the port in any Pixel needing any justification outside of their own design choice. At the end of it all, what difference does it make why it's not included?

This debate will never change. I've learned to adapt over time and not get too emotional about changes I don't like. For example, I hate glass backed phones and there was no good reason for Pixel to go in that direction when they could have used plastic or ceramic, but I didn't let that stop me from getting a Pixel 3XL. Should I be upset that the 3a has plastic?
Hell no!

 

[Itsa_Me_Mario]

Uhm, let's stick to the point about headphone jacks.

Help me understand because you kind of lost me (genuinely), are you saying the premium Pixel models are for people who can afford bluetooth headphones? Therefore that makes it okay to exclude the headphone jack feature? If that's what you mean, how do you account for expensive wired headphones? Being expensive is not exclusive to bluetooth. There are a plethora of cheap and expensive wired and bluetooth accessories. The argument "if you can afford a Pixel 3, you can afford bluetooth accessories" is a weak argument, as is the argument that "if you can only afford the Pixel 3a, you shouldn't spend money on bluetooth. Use your old jacks." As the article points out: "why should that principle only apply to those on a budget?"

I also don't follow what you mean about "some places having far less access" either. Isn't the Pixel 3a being sold in the US market along with the Pixel 3? Don't we all have the same access to bluetooth accessories?

Even if I've understood your post correctly, I'm still not hearing any good reason why Google decided to put the jack in the cheaper model, but not in the more expensive model. It's not about space and it's certainly not about waterproofing (the Pixel 3 itself has the USB C port with full waterproofing). At the very least, it's inconsistent decision making by Google. At worst, it's Google being greedy, which is my leading theory as to why they've done this.

Everything I've heard -- from what you've posted to others saying "I'm living fine without the jack" -- sound like excuses; poor ones at that.

Look, I'm living fine without the jack, too. If I want clean Android software with Google support and the superior camera, I have to live with the Pixel 3. But let's not pretend it's not a mistake for Google to remove the jack -- for no good reason -- from the more expensive models, but include it in the cheaper models. There's no reason to not include the jack in both their affordable phones and their premium phones. In fact, it makes far less sense to me that the premium models don't have it.

I think you might have mixed me with someone else

 

[onthecouchagain]

I think you might have mixed me with someone else

I quoted your post. This one:

We already knew this though. Google supports MicroSD cards, in budget devices. They support headphone jacks, in budget devices. Dual sim, same thing. Removable battery? Same thing. Some places have far less access to places to charge than other places. Google views these things that some of the ultra-nerds think of as the definition of premium as things that are popular in emerging markets and other markets where people aren't going to be as willing to pay $1000 for a 128GB device, so they want OEM's to have the flexibility to release a 16GB device with a MicroSD slot.

I didn't follow how any of this makes sense for Google to put the jack in the cheaper model but not the more expensive model.

 

[onthecouchagain]

The fact that Google went back to the jack for the 3a was just another business decision. Maybe this is their way of easing back into the jack for the 4.

If they did this, then the inclusion in the 3a would make some sense -- a sort of backtracking on the mistake of leaving it out of the Pixel 3. Samsung has proven you can bring things back (the microSD that was lost in the S6). I'm not holding my breath, but would be great if Google did the same thing.

 

[Mike Dee]

If they did this, then the inclusion in the 3a would make some sense -- a sort of backtracking on the mistake of leaving it out of the Pixel 3. Samsung has proven you can bring things back (the microSD that was lost in the S6). I'm not holding my breath, but would be great if Google did the same thing.

Agreed except I don't see removing the jack as a mistake. It was a deliberate business decision. Things change and sometimes we go full circle.

 

[onthecouchagain]

Agreed except I don't see removing the jack as a mistake. It was a deliberate business decision. Things change and sometimes we go full circle.

I mean, isn't every decision they make a business decision? Well, hopefully they make better business decisions then.

 

[Mike Dee]

I mean, isn't every decision they make a business decision? Well, hopefully they make better business decisions then.

Sometimes decisions are design based so it's not always a business or marketing decision or strategy.

 

[Vega007]

Yeah I mean for example, there's a person that wants a cheaper pixel, buy pixel 2XL for cheap... it's definitely awesome too have a phone with speakers on the phone. Considering the fact that every other flash of phone doesn't even come close. Yes the bottom firing speaker is on an iPhone or a Galaxy phone are loud, but they're not full or rich.

The iPhone X has fuller, more rich sound than the Pixel 3 imo. I personally think the only benefit for front facing speakers is not accidentally covering one up with a finger. Other than that, give me the S10/iPhone way of handling stereo over Pixel's anyday.

 

[mustang7757]

The iPhone X has fuller, more rich sound than the Pixel 3 imo. I personally think the only benefit for front facing speakers is not accidentally covering one up with a finger. Other than that, give me the S10/iPhone way of handling stereo over Pixel's anyday.

Pixel stero speakers is pretty loud , I have no complaints in that department

 

[Vega007]

Pixel stero speakers is pretty loud , I have no complaints in that department

Agreed, they are plenty loud. But that isn’t the same as rich or full.

 

[mustang7757]

Agreed, they are plenty loud. But that isn’t the same as rich or full.

True , agree

 

[eric002]

The iPhone X has fuller, more rich sound than the Pixel 3 imo. I personally think the only benefit for front facing speakers is not accidentally covering one up with a finger. Other than that, give me the S10/iPhone way of handling stereo over Pixel's anyday.

well, to be honest with you, both the iPhone 10 and Pixel 3 have equally awesome sounding speakers. When I had my Galaxy s8, my fingers always covered up the bottom firing speaker and when I watch YouTube or listen to music, drove me nuts! The iPhone speakers from whatever sound pretty good, but there's where being a pixel Google fanboy comes in to play but in an unbiased manner, I'll say that both phones have pretty damn good sounding stereo speakers! In a smartphone industry where no other smartphones actually have front firing stereo speakers, yeah it's one of the highlights of the Pixel 3!

 

[Mike Dee]

The iPhone X has fuller, more rich sound than the Pixel 3 imo. I personally think the only benefit for front facing speakers is not accidentally covering one up with a finger. Other than that, give me the S10/iPhone way of handling stereo over Pixel's anyday.

I think it depends on what you like. For the most part phone speakers don't do anything for me as far as listening to music. Some are better than others but I don't think we need front firing. They just take up screen space.

 

[TraderGary]

I think it depends on what you like. For the most part phone speakers don't do anything for me as far as listening to music. Some are better than others but I don't think we need front firing. They just take up screen space.

I very much agree! When I listen to music, I use Bluetooth connectivity with my Phonak Marvels. I currently have a subscription to IDAGIO and pay extra to have CD quality. It makes a significant difference.

 

[Vega007]

I think it depends on what you like. For the most part phone speakers don't do anything for me as far as listening to music. Some are better than others but I don't think we need front firing. They just take up screen space.

And that is my point. I would rather have the screen space than front firing speakers, when they really don't sound any better than the way Samsung and Apple does it.