What In The World Is Google Doing? (Headphone Jack, Pixel 2, Again)

[Googlepixelxl2]

I understand about going wireless but I was pointing out that so much of a fuss was made when Apple took away the headphone port and now Google does and all you hear is crickets...

I was telling my friend this morning and he thought I was joking. At the end of the day mobile phone manufacturers will follow whatever trend is popular even if techies like us hate it because the average consumer probably doesn’t care either way...

The people complaining aren't the ones who know anything about audio. My bluetooth, JayBird X2s sounds just as good as the HTC ear buds provided for the M7, M8, and HTC 10. I actually think Sol Republic makes a great pair of wired ear buds.

I must give Google credit for their Google Pixel Buds. The wiring looks braided. Means they will last a lifetime.

 

[Googlepixelxl2]

How could Google really know how many people are using the in box headphones? I don’t recall hearing them ever doing a survey about it to consumers that purchased pervious Pixel or Nexus devices?

I heard the AKG headphones that come with the Samsung Galaxy Note 8 are really nice but I haven’t used them myself. Also what if a consumer is coming from an iPhone and can’t use their wired iPhone headphones? It would be nice to have a pair of wired headphones in the box of a phone that cost this much.

I’m just saying that providing a pair of wired headphones is pretty much standard with any high-end phone. Maybe not everyone uses them for calls or audio but taking them away all together just seems weird

They are giving out free Google Home minis with a trade in of your device. I'm definitely not going to cry about it.

 

[modifier]

I want to see what in your mind justifies paying the Google Tax for this phone?

Genuine question from myself since you asked. How do you see the Google Tax compared to other phones? What phones are tax-free or low-tax?

Ok, that second question is rhetorical but I'm curious no less about the first.

 

[firebirder]

People seem to forget Google is a business and some seem like they are owed something by Google for using Android and being loyal. Every decision Google made was based on cost vs return. Build the phone as cheap as possible (for the specs wanted) and sell it for as much as you think the market is willing to pay.

Sure everyone complained about Apple doing anyway with the 3.5 jack last year, but the complaints are quieter now because we've gotten used to it. Like pseudoware brought up, remember the outcry when we lost removable batteries and upgradable storage? I know some still have all these, but the masses have accepted it more.

Back to the money, Google did not include headphones because, however they determined it, they decide the cost was more than the benefit. I'm fairly confident that within the past year, all these topics have been brought up inside Google which means there was a reason they didn't make it. Does anyone know someone not buying this phone ONLY because there are no headphones included? I'm betting that's a very small number. I agree that Google prolly determined most don't use included headphones. I remember my wife got 2 phones with included headphones in the early days of smartphones and they were instantly thrown in the junk drawer.

 

[dejanh]

Google's ecosystem, it's all About the experience not the hardware.

I hate to do this right after I asked the question to answer "what", but I do have to point out the obvious fact here. Everything, and I mean, everything that Google presented today is available on Android in general as long as your device is officially Google Certified. No feature that Google puts out stays exclusive to Google Pixel devices. So I ask again, what in particular amazes anyone to justify paying the premium for Google?

Genuine question from myself since you asked. How do you see the Google Tax compared to other phones? What phones are tax-free or low-tax?

Ok, that second question is rhetorical but I'm curious no less about the first.

I hope you know I'm drawing a comparison here to the famed "Apple Tax" that everyone for eons has been complaining about. Google just matched and in some ways exceeded the "Apple Tax" by proportionally making their devices more expensive than even Apple while proportionally offering less. It's a pure profit play. Google thinks that in the sea of Android devices they can be the premier player, but I am not sure that this will materialize.

The sales for Pixel 2/XL are likely to be lower than the original Pixel as Android buyers, save Samsung, are generally budget buyers (not everyone, but large majority). Even Samsung buyers are "budget" compared to Apple, simply because Samsung generally offers additional perks to get customers to buy into their premium devices, and very aggressively offers incentives to attract buyers, none of which Apple does. Based on their recent moves, Google wants to be exactly like Apple, all premium, no incentives, and wants to be able to charge a "Google Tax" - an unnecessary premium not tied to any particular benefit for the consumer (FWIW, at least Apple has unreal customer service).

Finally, to provide a bit of input on the last, partly rhetorical question that you asked, there are no "tax free" phones. Every company plays for profit. However, there are reasonable margins and there is outright gouging. What Apple, Samsung, and Google are doing with their new products is basically price gouging. I don't think it will work for Apple, Samsung, or Google. A couple of decent, true high-end entrants from China into the NA market and you will see how fast sales can slump.

 

[Joe920]

Another one: I was pretty excited about the Pixel 2 XL, but the pricing and the lack of a headphone jack are disappointing.

I'm kind of stuck. I want a great camera experience, either pure Android with fast updates or iOS, and I want a 3.5mm headphone jack.

So that leaves.. Nokia? But the camera on the Pixel appears quite a bit better. I guess for now I'll focus on being happy with what I have: an iPhone 6S Plus. Pretty bad low-light camera performance but it'll have to do.

 

[modifier]

I hope you know I'm drawing a comparison here to the famed "Apple Tax" that everyone for eons has been complaining about.

I do know that, but I'm also one of the few here who have never owned a single iPhone. To me it's difficult to define this as a tax since every device has a cost/benefit ratio justifiable only to the individual buyer. If someone wants a particular ecosystem and everything it provides, that person can buy a new or used phone and either pay outright or finance. The options aren't only black or white. The only way this becomes a hard choice (as in immovable, not difficult) is if someone is determined to pay the premium associated with having the latest device right at the release date. Otherwise, plenty of options exist to get an iPhone or Android device on the cheap. And, just because a price is high to one person doesn't make it high to all.

Where I have a problem is seeing those who truly can't afford an expensive device buy one anyway. Social influence makes people think think they need a $700-$1300 phone when they could get by just fine with a $200-$500 phone, a bit of humility and hopefully some savings in the bank. That influence might be the faults of Apple, Samsung, Google, et al. but consumers still have a conscious choice in what they buy.

As the saying goes, the market will decide. If Google overpriced the Pixel 2 and 2 XL then they'll either go on sale or we'll see a price drop in next year's model. Conversely, if they meet or exceed their sales numbers then next year's model might be the same or higher. It's too soon to know either way.

But, I do agree that these devices are too expensive for what they are.

 

[dsignori]

Everything, and I mean, everything that Google presented today is available on Android in general as long as your device is officially Google Certified. No feature that Google puts out stays exclusive to Google Pixel devices. So I ask again, what in particular amazes anyone to justify paying the premium for Google?

Premium is somewhat qualitative. If I feel the price is in line with the features, then it has value. There are things you can do with Pixels only. Can you get unlimited FULL RES Google Photos and Videos storage on another device? No. Can you use "squeeze to bring up Assistant" anywhere else? Not really. Do other devices have "the best camera"? Buyers of Pixels think no.

Lastly, while MOST of the features will eventually come to other phones, almost NONE of the other phones will have the latest OS with the new features until sometime down the line. How soon will Google Lens features be on LG phones, who knows? It's coming as a preview "to Pixel devices" shortly is all we know. Hardware is also part of what is paid for and the AOD, OIS, great new camera features, COMBINED WITH great software with quick OS updates and other goodies might be considered premium to users, or it might not. Value is an individual assessment. Obviously the buyers find value in this phone, even if you feel the need to quantify or qualify the "premium" price..

 

[Scottie15]

I hate to do this right after I asked the question to answer "what", but I do have to point out the obvious fact here. Everything, and I mean, everything that Google presented today is available on Android in general as long as your device is officially Google Certified. No feature that Google puts out stays exclusive to Google Pixel devices. So I ask again, what in particular amazes anyone to justify paying the premium for Google?


I hope you know I'm drawing a comparison here to the famed "Apple Tax" that everyone for eons has been complaining about. Google just matched and in some ways exceeded the "Apple Tax" by proportionally making their devices more expensive than even Apple while proportionally offering less. It's a pure profit play. Google thinks that in the sea of Android devices they can be the premier player, but I am not sure that this will materialize.

The sales for Pixel 2/XL are likely to be lower than the original Pixel as Android buyers, save Samsung, are generally budget buyers (not everyone, but large majority). Even Samsung buyers are "budget" compared to Apple, simply because Samsung generally offers additional perks to get customers to buy into their premium devices, and very aggressively offers incentives to attract buyers, none of which Apple does. Based on their recent moves, Google wants to be exactly like Apple, all premium, no incentives, and wants to be able to charge a "Google Tax" - an unnecessary premium not tied to any particular benefit for the consumer (FWIW, at least Apple has unreal customer service).

Finally, to provide a bit of input on the last, partly rhetorical question that you asked, there are no "tax free" phones. Every company plays for profit. However, there are reasonable margins and there is outright gouging. What Apple, Samsung, and Google are doing with their new products is basically price gouging. I don't think it will work for Apple, Samsung, or Google. A couple of decent, true high-end entrants from China into the NA market and you will see how fast sales can slump.

Just curious, what device are you currently using?

 

[libra89]

I'm disappointed in this choice by them. It's silly to me.

 

[Scottie15]

Another question as far as the headphone jack adapters. Apple released an adapter but apparently it doesn't work with inline microphones. Can anyone confirm this is the case with the Pixel 2?

 

[hallux]

For those complaining about the lack of headphones in the box - how many of you already have a set of headphones and like them?

Personally - I already have headphones I like (both wired and wireless), I couldn't care less if a phone includes them in the box as whatever I have is likely better than what would be bundled with a phone.

The headphone JACK on the other hand - as someone with a vehicle that does not have bluetooth in the head unit, I do occasionally use the headphone jack to run to the AUX-in on my car to listen to a podcast. If the phone speakers are good enough I could use those instead though...

 

[N4Newbie]

... and you can expect any leading smartphone manufacturer to adopt FaceID until next year. ...

My Pixel XL with Oreo already does "Face ID" (actually, "Trusted Face") and it does work quite well based on my limited testing. Nevertheless, I think I will stick with fingerprint for the foreseeable future.

 

[chanchan05]

you can expect any leading smartphone manufacturer to adopt FaceID until next year.

Dude, Apple is like 5 years late to Face ID. My S3 has Face ID. Apple's implementation is just different with the available technology of depth perception, but if we're talking FaceID, it's been around for a while. Nobody just uses it.

 

[Bertolus]

My Pixel XL with Oreo already does "Face ID" (actually, "Trusted Face") and it does work quite well based on my limited testing. Nevertheless, I think I will stick with fingerprint for the foreseeable future.

You can’t compare the basic face recognition implementation, Android had for years, with the advanced 3Dscanning-based FaceID. According to analysts Apple is at least 2 years ahead of the competition.

 

[jbjtkbw007]

I'm going to sound like the odd man out here, but I haven't used a pair of wired headphones since my Lumina 1020. I've suffered a bit in sound quality by using BT headphones, but I'm not missing having a wire that gets snagged on my arm chair as I stand up. Or gets caught in my jacket when I'm taking it off, or gets wrapped around my backpack where my phone is located as I'm walking.

And my cars have all had BT connectivity for the past several years, so no loss there. I know it's a big deal for a lot of people as change doesn't come easy, but change is coming all around. And I've never EVER used the free headphones that came with a phone as they all are usually pretty crappy quality. Oh I learned the easy way on one trip to Vegas. I was planning on using some cheapo headphones that came with my device back in 2009, but while in the airport, I went to the electronics stand and listened to some headphones in the $200+ price range. No contest. I can't stand the cheap headphones and their terrible quality. Maybe it's the dj in me that has me being such a headphone snob, but I just can't do those free headphones any more.

Headphone jack shall not be missed.

 

[GrooveRite]

For me....If they have AptX-HD codec for their BT then I'd forgive them but if they don't I'd say thats inexcusable. Someone here yesterday said that Android Oreo will have LDAC codec (Sony's BT codec) baked in so if that is true that would be great!

 

[PhiPsi32]

BT codecs can be found in Developer Options (in Oreo not sure about Nougat)

 

[N4Newbie]

You can’t compare the basic face recognition implementation, Android had for years, with the advanced 3Dscanning-based FaceID. According to analysts Apple is at least 2 years ahead of the competition.

Why not compare? It works. It works quickly. I couldn't trick it by aiming it at a recent photo or my wife or our son. It is probably safer than a pin or pattern code, given that recent studies have shown just how easy it is for an average person to duplicate a pin/pattern having seen it only obliquely (watching you from across a room or over the shoulder) as little as once or twice.

But, again, I am just not interested. The (IMO) perfectly-located fingerprint sensor on the Pixel XL never fails to instantly unlock my phone.

 

[anon(2523636)]

At least Google is doing with a standard port. Apple did it with a proprietary connector that isn't used on any other device, not even their own (Macbooks and iMacs don't have Lightning).