I feel like I'm taking crazy pills when I see all these Android phones with notches on the top, but no screen going all the way to the bottom. Apple explained they wanted an edge to edge screen, and that the notch was a compromise to achieve that goal. Now all the android devices are copying the compromise without trying to copy the goal.
For Pixel in particular it really feels like they've started copying the iPhone's hardware choices in some ways, for no real reason that I can discern. The notch, eliminating the headphone jack, etc. Then they even matched it on price (heck, isn't the Pixel actually more expensive than an iPhone if you match them on flash size?). I was a Google phone fan back in the days of the Nexus 4, but these latest attempts feel like Google trying to force their market position up rather than embracing their niche.
Yeah, Apple killed headphone jacks on the iPhone. But they also:
1) Gave you lightning headphones that work on all iPhones
2) Have 3rd party lightning headphones that all work on all iPhones
3) Gave you a lightning to 3.5mm headphone adapter that worked on all iPhones with whatever regular 3.5mm headphones you previously used with your phones
4) Made better bluetooth earbuds for moving away from wired headphones entirely
Android manufacturers have not matched that with USB-C audio. They just copied "Step 0) Remove the headphone jack."
The Pixel 3 will include USB C headphones and a dongle [1]. They have worked with Bose and other manufacturers on new bluetooth headphones that have additional functionality (switching between apps, talking with the assistant app). [2]
Yeah, they'll include a dongle that will break in less than a year with very casual use. Ask me how I know.
And there are _very_ few third-party options that work with the Pixel lineup -- not necessarily Google's fault, but early adopters of the no-3.5mm trend are being punished while the market catches up.
Also, I already have headphones. I don't want Google's USB C headphones. They wouldn't need to include any of this junk with the phone if they didn't remove the jack in the first place.
Yeah, they'll include a dongle that will break in less than a year with very casual use. Ask me how I know.
FWIW, this isn't true in my experience. I've kept mine in my pocket jangling around with my keys and use it frequently, and never had any issues.
Also, I already have headphones. I don't want Google's USB C headphones. They wouldn't need to include any of this junk with the phone if they didn't remove the jack in the first place.
If you already have headphones you like, it seems like this is no different between Pixel/iPhones.
I'm not a fan by any means of axing the 9mm jack, but to get around jackless electronics, I've been using a tiny (and cheap) bluetooth receiver so I can keep using my old headphones... it's been great, and no more annoying that charging wireless headphones.
EDIT: Sidenote, I don't know how much I'd trust cheap bluetooth adapters re: security... there is a non-zero chance it's spewing my conversations out, ripe for anyone w/ the proper equipment to listen in. <Tin Hat />
Funny - at least that one doesn't lie about apt-x support. Bluetooth audio sounds like crap to me, I'll be using wired headphones until the patents on non-crap Bluetooth audio expire, I guess.
Supply chain issues notwithstanding, I think you're pretty safe with a CSR bluetooth chip - they're in everything. Whether it's a clone or an original though, no idea.
What confuses me about Bluetooth audio is that I did the math a while ago and unless I got it wrong, reasonably modern Bluetooth should have the bandwidth to stream uncompressed digital audio... So why are we still stuck with this awful lossy compression?
I don't think you read the comment you responded to. Wlesieutre correctly points out that the Android marketplace has multiple incompatible standards of USB-C headphone dongle and USB-C earbuds, so they won't necessarily work with another USB-C Android device in your household.
You can say that's not Google's fault, and that it doesn't apply to Pixel devices specifically. But like it or not, Google chose to vomit their platform across dozens of manufacturers and thousands of devices. If they didn't want the kind of chaotic inconsistency exampled above, they should have gone with the iPhone/Pixel approach from the beginning.
I’m not just talking about one manufacturer on the Android side though, I’m talking about compatibility in the whole ecosystem. Google is including headphones that work with their phone, great, it would be embarrassing it they didn’t.
If the headphone cable breaks and you buy replacement USB-C earbuds from another manufacturer, will it work with Google’s phones? Or will Google’s earbuds work with your partner’s non-Pixel phone?
The point I want to make is that’s not a question you need to ask with Lightning or 3.5mm headphones. With USB-C you do.
Since the Pixel Phones implement an open standard for USB-C audio actually yes it should just work cross device. Interesting this isn't something that's actually true of lighting headphones. There's no way to use those on any other brand of phone.
I think what you're really saying here is that you like the fact that the IPhone has huge market share. That's a fair position to hold, but I personally vastly prefer open standards that can be implemented by anyone to closed ones.
Though reading the specifics there, it looks like Google's adapters in particular should work with any other phone because they can handle analog or digital signals. So they're doing well.
It's unfortunate because it's the "USB-C standard" not to do analog through the pins, but I think this a case where it's ok to break the standards. I'm not sure if there are any IEEE fines for that though.
As described in the above PCWorld link, the problem is that the standard is open ended and the ecosystem didn't all agree on how to deal with analog vs digital audio signals and devices. Some USB-C headphones or adapters will be happy with whatever. Others will not.
Since some phones can output an analog audio signal over the USB-C connector (and ship dongles without a DAC), while others output digital only and rely on the dongle including its own DAC, the argument absolutely does not go the other way. Any lightning headphones or lighting to 3.5mm dongle will work on any phone with a lightning port.
EDIT: Here's a separate complaint - if you want to charge an iPhone while you have headphones plugged in, there are at least splitter/dongle accessories for that. USB-C Android phone? Good luck.
>Android Police reported that Google quietly pulled the listing for the one adapter it had in its online store without ever selling it. The product is also unavailable on the manufacturer’s website. According to Android Police, a few units did ship from Amazon, but the reviews were so bad that the product was quickly pulled.
> Here's a separate complaint - if you want to charge an iPhone while you have headphones plugged in, there are at least splitter/dongle accessories for that. USB-C Android phone? Good luck.
I've got a USB-C Note 8 (and the same would be true of the newer S9/Note 9 generation) and it's got no problem charging while using headphones, since Samsung—the leading Android handset maker—hasn’t dropped the 3.5mm jack and, indeed, doubled down on it by including premium AKG wired earbuds after other smartphone manufacturers started axing the jack.
The more I hear about issues with USB-C the sadder I get. It feels like we had an opportunity for 'one connector to rule them all' but the standards are so loose that what we got was something that looks like one connector but could be one of many, and it may or may not work for a particular use.
the standard is pretty clear and give options to make a cheap or expensive product.
the shock is that apple and samsung both decide to make very expensive products, that implements the "cheap" options as a way to lock consumers. ...and there is a fool born every second, as the saying goes.
did samsung had to omit the ADC in their dongle? no. did apple had to omit the other bus protocols in theirs? no. their price and volume could have literally made the dongles cheaper with all the features. but doing so lock all the fools in for upgrades and prevent brand move.
All true. I would like to tack on, that Apple recently stopped providing the included 3.5mm headphone adapter with newly purchased iPhones (include iPhone 7 and 8 purchases)[0].
That is not true. You can enable Bluetooth whilst in flight safe mode. KLM even an ounce this on their flights. I own airpods and Bose QC35s and use both wirelessly on flights all the time.
Interesting, thanks for the info on that. I was on an international Air Canada flight last week and they specifically announced that nothing wireless at all was to be used during the flight, including all headphones.
EDIT to add the official policy: "Air Canada is happy to announce that, beginning on April 1, 2018, passengers on our flights will be able to use their personal headphones (of any kind) on our in-flight entertainment system or their personal mobile devices. This service is available from gate to gate at any time, except, of course, while the safety video is being played. Please note that wireless or Bluetooth headphones may be used only on flights with WiFi, because of their technology."
Confusingly I think this means that you can only use wireless headphones with the 'provided entertainment' when the flight has Wifi because that's how they get their entertainment to your device. If the flight doesn't have wifi you have to use the in seat entertainment system and therefore can't use wireless headphones (because the entertainment system doesn't support them) not because you're not allowed to have them enabled.
Just not true. I fly all the time for work (4 flights a week), KLM eve announce that you can enable Bluetooth once flight safe mode is enabled and use Bluetooth headphones.
2013 FAA allowed Bluetooth and wifi on flights[0]. Here's a recent article on the subject of what the major airlines will allow [1]. And a screenshot for doubters of me activating Bluetooth while in airplane-safe mode, which has been a feature of every modern phone me and my friends have [2].
That's KLM-specific. There are no messages like that on many other airlines and the whole idea of airplane mode is RF protection. I'm happy that they basically say: it's bullshit, just ignore it, but officially most airlines still request no Bluetooth.
I have not been asked to switch Bluetooth off specifically on any flight. They ask that you enter flight safe mode. After that provided flight safe mode is on they don’t give any further instruction. On an iPhone at least you can enable Wi-Fi and Bluetooth and remain in flight safe mode. Many flight have Wi-Fi now, considerably more powerful than Bluetooth....how do they work safely?
My cynical answer would be: it never really mattered, so this is a way to allow new tech without scraping the whole idea. Especially given the number of possible radio bands and nobody publishing what the protested ranges were supposed to be.
Regardless of it mattering or not it is simply not true that that you cannot use them on flights, airlines actually announce that you can use them during safety announcements.
Some airlines make announcements, they are allowed on all airlines I have travelled on in the last 2yrs (when I started travelling a lot..)
I mean I don’t think I can prove that literally every airline does allow Bluetooth headphones, but see previous comments where the FAA approved Bluetooth headphones for use in 2013, maybe you could provide a specific airline which does not allow Bluetooth headphones?
"that work on all iPhones", "that work on all iPhones", "that work on all iPhones".
Versus "uses a standard that more than one vendor will license".
Yet you seem to think the first is better.
I have a iPhone XS. I had really nice headphones. I despise the headphone adapter, it's horrible in my pockets and I am waiting for the cord to fray just like my Macbook power cables do.
"Go all in on Apple" or "sucks to be you" are very polarizing options.
The operative difference that the person (and your quotes) highlight is they shipped a solution “that works” on all the devices you care about. Using a standard technology is a good idea on paper, but I’d rather get something that “just works”.
Explain to me how an analog 1/4 inch jack doesn't "just work." After all, that's what's on the end of my good headphones. I never heard anyone complaining about dongles when it was 1/4 inch to 1/8th inch.
"that works" for varying degrees of "works". I happen to think that the lightning-to-3.5 adapter doesn't "just work" in the Apple sense, but is rather "minimally functional", not aesthetic, not graceful.
It's a difference between "I know it works on my device" and "I don't know if it will play sound, answer calls, not work at all, or only work if I turn on usb storage every time"
I might have agreed with you... except the adapter is very cheap and can be easily replaced if it fails.
(And complaining that it's horrible in your pocket is just stupid. If you hate wires in your pocket, you should be first in line to get wireless headphones. I bought QC35s and they've been the best, most used headphones I've ever owned—and I've got some very fancy "high end" cans.)
LG flagships have a notch, but are great otherwise. I'd argue their notch came first with the LG V10 and V20, but they were bigger and allowed you to use the rest of the screen as a 'second screen' which is what it is marketed as.
The V20 second screen seemed a much better idea though. No need for the main screen to be on, but have a tiny second screen that can remain on for notifications, music player and such.
Even placing it at top right seemed more sensible than splitting in 2. Can't comment on the reality or in day to day use as I never encountered a v20. They were never released here.
Not to mention they're much easier to get than USB-C ones. Google's official dongle is rarely in stock while Apple's is available in stores all over. I went in for one this week to see if I could live with no headphone jack and the guy just gave me one and told me I didn't have to pay. Yeah you could go to Best Buy if you need a dongle ASAP, but then you get to play the "is this analog or digital" game.
> Android manufacturers have not matched that with USB-C audio. They just copied "Step 0) Remove the headphone jack."
Well, except Samsung. Who, IIRC, is has by far the highest flagship sales of any Android handset vendor; they not only kept the headset jack but for the last couple generations have started tearing the premium wired earbuds they are not including as a selling feature.
See linked article above, you have an adapter that works with your phone, but it might not work with your friend’s phone, or your friends’ adapter/headphones may not work with your phone, and if your adapter breaks and you replace it you’ll need to be careful with finding a compatible replacement. With lightning headphones and adapters they’re all just compatible.
I don’t know anyone with Pixel earbuds, but their reviews online aren’t stellar.
Ok, they're compatible with phones that have a lightning port. Unlike the USB-C "one port shape, a million devices and cables implementing various optional subsets of the specification" compatibility mess.
As long as you use the cables that came with each device, you're great. If you're buying aftermarket accessories, research carefully, and best-case find a review from someone with the exact same set of devices and cables.
I say this as a USB-C laptop owner. The either-orientation plugs are great, the charging from whichever side of the computer is more convenient is great. But just because a cable says it supports DisplayPort alternate mode with multi-stream transport at 4K/60Hz doesn't mean it's going to work.
EDIT - actually more to the point, just because it has USB-C at one end and DisplayPort at the other, doesn't mean it supports multi-stream transport at 4K/60Hz. Right port shapes? Check. Does what you expect it to when you plug it into your gadgets? Flip a coin. And then put your screen into DisplayPort 1.2 30Hz compatibility mode and pretend the low refresh rate doesn't bother you. It's a standards compliant cable, just not the right part of the standard.
The bluetooth earbuds are starting to get better. The Bragi Pro is much better than the Dash. I don't have experience with Apple's earbuds but I'm going to guess users are facing similar issues with bluetooth connectivity and interference issues.
I think of bluetooth earbuds as this generations skipping CD's. It's totally unnecessary though. They could have waited.
Bluetooth has been great for the past few years (maybe since BT4?) My airpods and qc35 and car integration work FLAWLESSLY. The same can certainly not be said of older generation devices. I returned some Outdoor Tech Chips 2.0 something something helmet speakers that went static-y every time you turned your head the wrong way.
The new stuff can work 50+ feet away, through walls, etc.
Airpods are insanely good. Virtually no issues with quality or interference and I got them the day they were released. Bose QC35s are also great, just not as reliable as airpods... one thing with airpods is that I think all headphones know when I take them off and to pause music...
The only complaint I've heard about AirPods is the audio quality, in that that they're typical of Apple's earbuds. Better than the $10 generic ones on Amazon, worse than $150 wired earbuds from Sennheiser etc.
Bluetooth reliability is better than any other headphones, battery life is impressive for how tiny they are, pairing (with iOS/macOS) works better than other bluetooth devices, the charging case is better thought out than other "true wireless" earbuds. Customer satisfaction surveys are ridiculously positive (IIRC 98% or 99%).
I haven't bought them yet myself (just because they cost money), but maybe when the 2nd gen comes out I'll take another look.
I love the fact that the AirPods don't have touch controls. I live in a place where some kind of headwear is required for over 6 months of the year.
I can just tap the side of my wool cap with thick-ass winter gloves and it works. If it was touch sensitive, I'd need to take off my gloves, pull the cap over my ear and fiddle with the earpiece. No thanks.
I think these are fairly minor improvements, most of what makes the airpods great is already there. I’d rule out anything that makes them more complicated (that is their best feature imo) just putting in them and work is amazing, and it’s even better that they pause whatever’s playing when you take them out.
AirPod battery life isn't great when you're using the mic too (think a Skype call) but the fact that you can use one at a time while other charges makes it pretty manageable.
I tend to make quick phone calls, but Skype/Zoom/etc on my computer calls tend to be of the 30 min - 2 hour variety, so that's where I see the most battery use :-)
> Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say face-to-face. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
> Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.
> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
It's pretty pathetic too after they release a whole slew of ads making fun of Apple's design choices... Only to unashamedly copy them in the next iteration.
Yeah, I honestly appreciate Samsung for not jumping on those trends just for the trends sake. Samsung really lead on the thin bezels, and hasn't adopted another of the more ridiculous fads.
I'm looking forward to Samsung's NotchPhone coming out some day. I have an iPhone X and think the notch is a non-issue, but I didn't realize Android phone makers had started coping it until the past few weeks when I noticed lots of billboards for Android phones while traveling, all of which had the notch.
Well Android does have a "face-id" kind of system built in that works with the camera alone. It's not as advanced, but Google's thing is using software to really make it a nice product, and the face unlock works really well for me on my pixel 1 XL.
Isn't the point of the infrared mapping that Apple does on the iPhone that it is significantly more difficult to fool than camera-based solutions? Android has had face unlock for years but you can fool it pretty easily. Anything Apple introduces to replace Touch ID must be more secure than that.
Yes, but it's not as bad as you think (i can't fool my pixel with a picture for instance), and it's never unlocked for anyone else. It also disables it if there are any failed login attempts, and requires a "something you know" method every so often anyway.
>Anything Apple introduces to replace Touch ID must be more secure than that.
And that's the key, on android face-unlock doesn't replace fingerprint, it adds and additional option if you want it.
It only doesn’t replace a finger print sensor because it is not as secure as faceid. Fairly sure if you could remove the finger print sensor entirely you would. I don’t buy the convienience arguement at all, look at Picard on the enterprise, he doesn’t use a finger print sensor, the computer just knows it is him, faceid is much closer to this future than touchid..
>Fairly sure if you could remove the fingerprint sensor entirely you would.
I personally would absolutely not unless face-id style things became MUCH more powerful.
The only reason I have face-unlock enabled on my android device is for the occasions where the phone is face-up on the table, in it's dock on my desk, or when I lived in a colder climate and I would sometimes be wearing gloves.
I don't want to have to look directly at my screen in most cases, I don't want to have to wait any time at all while I bring the phone toward my eyes to have it unlock, I don't want to have to "focus" on it before it lets me in.
When I use a fingerprint scanner on a mobile device, it is normally unlocked a fraction of a second after it's out of my pocket, and I'm probably not going to buy a phone if it removes a fingerprint scanner as it's just so perfect for me right now.
Now on a PC or tablet, face-id is the way to go! Microsoft's "Hello" system works amazingly well on my surface book, and that is a device where I don't want a fingerprint scanner, because there isn't a single spot on the device that I normally "touch" to wake it. I LOVE how if I wake the device by any means, it unlocks pretty much instantly if I'm looking at the screen, and in the vast majority of cases the screen is pointed right at me. It also works in the dark because it uses similar IR tech as face-id does (I believe).
If you ask me, Apple needs to get face-id on the macbooks and get rid of the horrible fingerprint scanner on there which is never convenient to me.
Don't confuse "security" with "convenience". If I were going for most secure, I wouldn't be using a fingerprint scanner OR face-id, i'd stick solely with "something I know" to get into the device. But I'm personally willing to trade some of that security for convenience, and for me at least, it doesn't get any more convenient than a fingerprint scanner on the back of the device (as far as I know! If someone designs something better, i'd love to see it! But the current iterations of face-id are far from it for me).
Picard uses voice print identification and very bad passwords. And a lot of magic, like the plot sensitive doors that open just as you’re done talking.
Off topic : the launch webpage [1] is hell annoying.
Image loops, scroll-jacking, poorly thought out.
By the time I scrolled to the bottom, Chrome made 470 requests and downloaded 42.8 Megabytes (10 additional requests blocked by AdBlock plus extension) and thats just the 'Overview' tab.
I think the idea for the pricing is giving the consumer that it is not a cheap knockoff alternative to Samsung or Huawei. And Google allows heavy discount to Carriers, so consumers "saves" a few hundred dollars when they sign it with a mobile contracts. Compared to Apple you get less than 10% discount from Wholesale.
> For Pixel in particular it really feels like they've started copying the iPhone's hardware choices in some ways, for no real reason that I can discern.
Completely a conspiracy theory, but what if Google & others theorize that actively making devices worse causes an unexpected psychological response? Apple customers are devoted and willing to spend large amounts of money to upgrade flashy looking devices regularly, that's why Apple is so profitable. Making a sacrifice (the notch, high cost, lack of a headphone jack) to own an "elite" device effectively commits one to continue defending that decision, both to others (potential customers!) and through additional buying decisions later. A kind of self-induced Stockholm syndrome.
I think Apple's pricing only works because the resale is so strong. I've never lost as much money on phones as when I was buying Android flagships. When I can go sell my two year old iPhone 7 Plus for $400, it's a lot easier to stomach the purchase price of an iPhone XS. Not that I'm going to do that this year, mind you, but still.
Apple has really curated their position as the premium choice, and I commend them for that. They learned relatively quickly (though not without missteps) that people would rather buy last year's (or the year before!) flagship at a discount than a brand new budget model. Saves R&D by milking the older model for another couple years, makes a bunch more customers happy, it's really a brilliant strategy.
I think the issue here is that flagship != top of the line anymore. For the iPhone pre-2017, the device targeted at their average customer was also always the latest and greatest. But with the release of the X, Apple introduced a new high-end line meant for enthusiasts, while most people would still be pushed towards the 8 (and now the XR). So the XR isn't really a budget model in the sense that the 5c and SE were, but rather the next entry in the mainstream iPhone continuity, while the XS is the second addition to the "pro" line.
Hedging their bets? Since iPhone XS devices are are a rather large risk and they need something to fall back on in case they don’t do well. If they do, we may not see a successor.
iPhone SE was probably a similar bet since a lot of people were complaining about the large iPhone 6/6S — not to mention the Plus variants.
Or, without making ridiculous unsupported pop-psych claims, people buy iPhones because they like them better. But I think Apple managing to induce Stockholm syndrome to millions of people worldwide is much more plausible.
Or faceid, and true edge to edge screen (no chin) combined with a processor 2-3x as quick as the next best thing and an operating system designed from the ground up for speed and privacy are actually worth paying for. So tired of this Apple are scamming us story. Google are charging more for less...
It's actually an interesting idea. Of course the negative points should be at least debatable, so that you can say you actually chose to spend more, or to have a notch. Every time someone makes fun of you because you spent a thousand bucks on a phone, you're forced to go into self-defense mode, and that reinforces your identification with the object. Pure speculation, of course :)
the CEO one of the chinese phone companies (i can't remember which one) just came straight out and told theverge what we all assumed: the notch isn't necessary, but consumers see a notch as "premium". So they notch the display, because that tests better in their market research.
I heard Alan Kay sum it up well in a podcast this morning where he was talking about how evolution doesn't have to evolve to be the best anything. Paraphrasing- "If you live in a stupid environment, stupid is the most fit."
A notch is necessary for the faceid sensor array. If you don’t need a foreword facing sensor array you should get rid of the notch.
If you have a finnger print sensor on the rear why not make a no-notch phone with an edge to edge display and no notch?
Do you think Apple came to the same conclusion? That a notch was a necessity to appear premium? No they didn’t because they were not copying anyone else’s phone design, they included a notch so faceid worked.
It appears you've misunderstood the comment you're replying to. The notch is considered premium because Apple did it and imitator are only doing it because Apple did, not because they need to for the same reasons that Apple did.
Yes! It's a mad world where a design compromise suddenly becomes something to be emulated all by itself.
"It's not a bug, it's a feature".
I hate the look of the notch, but at least the rest of the iPhone looks super slick. The Pixel Notch instead just made an unattractive design far far worse. Bravo!
Someone else pointed out the screen doesn't even go all the way to the bottom, making the notch look entirely superfluous. At least the iPhone actually uses all the space on the front, even if the notch looks absurd.
Yes, but the Pixel screen doesn't go to the edges. There's a sizeable bezel at the bottom. Could have left one at the top as well, and avoided the notch.
Why though? Why get rid of screen space that could be used for something?
If you really hate that space being used, there are several apps out there that "disable" it by pushing the whole screen to treat that space as if it were bezel.
Doesn't that give everyone the best of both worlds? I prefer the notch in that it gives me more space at the top around it for things like notifications or status icons, and if you hate the look you can black it out and have it look like it's just a big bezel.
Apple made it premium, but phones had notches before them. Sharp and Essential phone come to mind.
Sharp in particular has had fully bezel-less phones for years, I honestly though their camera on the bottom design would be copied way before the weird notch.
I fondly remember the "2nd screen" of the LG V10 and V20. When I first saw the notch I figured it would be an awesome implementation of LG's 2nd (and 3rd) screen.
I was wrong thought. It's the full screen and part of it is cut out as you can see when watching videos and playing games.
I'm currently still using the V20 and like it, but do think that as the notch gets smaller, you lose the available space for functionality like the LG's second screen.
Of course ideally, the notch gets smaller, not like the Pixel.
> A notch is necessary for the faceid sensor array. If you don’t need a foreword facing sensor array you should get rid of the notch.
Pretty much every smartphone for years has had a forward facing, top-mounted sensor array (and a similarly positioned output device), either in a bezel or, if avoiding a full-width bezel, a notch.
(The “sensor array” may just be a camera and light-level sensor, but it's there, for sure.)
Well, there are some devices that try to inrease the screensize to the max, for example the Oneplus 6 (which has sadly a very high SAR value) or the newly "leaks" of de Mate 20.
The notch is now a status symbol. Sure, the notch is a clear usability sacrifice, but for 12 months the presence of a notch was synonymous with having [arguably] the best phone. Google's pixel offering captures this perfectly: the pixel 3 is notchless, you need to pay the money for the XL to get your notch.
I think that's ascribing Apple a little too much. This design trend would have happened with or without Apple, and their design goals aren't everybody's. Phones such as Essential had this notch before Apple was even rumoured to have one.
One of the factors is that Apple forces shifts before the mainstream is ready. But they can get away with it because they’re Apple. This was the case before the iPhone BTW with floppy drive factors and the like. Once Apple blesses, others feel authorized to tag along.
Not saying the notch is the same thing but 3.5mm jack certainly is.
It's almost as if they can spot an emerging trend quite well (the move away from floppy disks, the ubiquity of USB and downloading software, music and video rather than buying physical media)
It’s not so much spotting trends. I’d argue all of those were obvious by the time Apple took definitive action. The difference is that most other vendors tend to leave in legacy connectors and media for the time period when pulling them out will lead to outrage in forums such as this one.
Apple doesn't invent anything. They let someone else invent it, then they just borrow the design and iterate. It's been their MO for more than a decade.
Getting close to two decades, at a minimum. It depends on whether you want to go farther back than the iPod (2001).
Obviously, it works for them. An important, if sometimes overlooked, factor of their strategy is that it's not just borrow and iterate, it's a) identify device that will blow up, b) borrow well before it blows up, c) use that lead time to iterate and leap-frog the competition in polish, and d) release right as the market is poised to accept the new device as mainstream.
They can also misjudge any one of those items a bit and still power their way through, especially now that they have such credibility.
If I go back to the mid-90's, Amiga and Atari were much more relevant to my region than Apple, which was mostly visible on American computer magazines.
Had they not been bought by NeXT (which is what actually happened) and we wouldn't be talking about Apple setting industry designs.
Release time from concept is probably ~4 years. Factories might start to be able to build notched screens earlier. There is a chance that other vendors just got an access to early version of notched screens technology.
Comes down to two reasons..
1. Its costly to manufacture a screen that bends to avoid the bezel.
2. Apple has a patent for bended screen. So, competitors have to come up with a slightly different way to achieve this.
Personally, I'd rather have a bit of bezel... nothing sucks more than using my Pixel 2 XL without a case, invariably the edge of my finger is touching part of the screen, which messes with input more often than not.
Trying to get rid of it, while looking cool actually makes using the thing worse.
Either that or really good palm detection, the iPhone X/Xs have really good detection when I try and reach over to null palm-touches. My Essential PH-1 on the other hand does not, and that makes it really frustrating to use with one hand.
Edge to edge on sides is easy enough. The reason why all Android phones have a noticeable bottom chin is because you have to house the display driver (essentially, connections to OLED) somewhere. Apple's idea is to sacrifice part of display and bend it, so the display driver could be underneath the display. It's expensive, requires complicated engineering and manufacturing, and is also patented.
It's way cheaper to just house the driver below the display, as all the other phones are doing.
Well they still have to attach to the edge of the display. Probably there is a lot of stuff going on at the top of a phone (cameras etc) already. I expect it would also be harder to attach the display connector along a notch cutout.
Xiaomi got rid of the forehead entirely by moving everything to the (relatively small) chin on Mi Mix 2. While that is not great for the front facing camera usage since many (most?) apps don’t support 180 degree rotation, I don’t see why the design can’t be flipped. Just build a phone with a reasonable sized forehead. Although I don’t particularly mind the design choice for Galaxy Note 9 or Nokia 7 Plus — a narrow forehead and chin.
You claimed that nobody else was able to get so close to the edges due to Apple's patents. I was pointing out that Samsung already gets as close or closer to the left/right hand edges before the X was even announced.
While they didn't go fully to the top or bottom, that doesn't alter how the technology itself would work. If they can get close to the horizontal edges, they can get close to the vertical edges.
You might want to check the reason for the limitation before making such comments. A display can be stretched to the three edges of the phone —- it is the fourth edge that is the problem — as Xiaomi demonstrated with Mi Mix 2. At least some space is needed to house the display driver, camera, sensors etc.
No particular need for the bandwagoning. You're the third person to point this out, one three hours ago, one an hour ago, and now you in the last two minutes. Hard to believe you didn't see the other two comments before replying.
The issue, specifically, is that the display ribbon to connect it to the board needs to go somewhere [0]. For years, it was the bottom. So when it comes to removing a chin, you need to find a place for that ribbon. Apple achieved this by folding the screen at the bottom, so the screen isn't technically ending at the bottom. This is why it's easier to stretch out screens to the sides and the top.
The iPhone does not have front facing speakers. Now that was their choice I understand, but to think that Google couldn't do it if they didn't want to is just not true. And there's plenty of Android phones with screen edge-to-edge. Heck, the old Essential Phone has it.
I bet they're trying all kinds of crazy stuff to make their phones look newer than 5 years old while not copying the notch they have been mocking in their own commercials.
The only thing I can think of is a pop-up camera (done already) or a through-pixel camera (not done yet). If Samsung pulls off the latter the whole smartphone evolution is just done, over, finished.
I agree the notch looks really bad. But if you have the option of not having screen there vs having screen there, I am okay with the notch. You anyway have an option to turn that part of the screen off on Android? I don't know why everyone is up in their arms about this.
I guess Google really wants to stick with two speakers. And not sure about the Apple's patent about folded OLED and/or others having the expertise to do it.
Disc: Googler but don't work on the related teams.
I really don't mind small notches. My current phone has one about the same height as the notification bar. This Pixel 3 notch is absolutely hideous compared.
But Android manufacturers weren’t seeing it as “essential” until Apple did it. Same with ditching the headphone jack. The industry makes fun of Apple for doing something, then the next year, copies it
Here we are much later. Not having a headphone jack is still really stupid. Having to use a dongle for headphones is still an inconvenience that detracts from the experience. Every set of truly wireless bluetooth earbuds on the market is mediocre at best. The sound quality is substandard for listening to music (even compared to other earbuds) and the audio frequently lags, making them utterly worthless for everything else.
Even when someone does design a set of truly wireless earbuds that matches the quality of $20 wired earbuds today, its still going to be a total joke as long as those wireless earbuds cost 150-300.
Here: Airpods are very good headphones. But not for everybody.
All through this thread you're jumping on anyone who dares criticize any aspect of the Airpods. Speaking in absolutes. "Nobody who has ever used them would say that", "nobody misses the wires", "nobody misses their previous headphones".
I don't like them. I can't wear them. My ears are too small, they slide out. This doesn't distract from their quality.
But I sure as shit miss the 3.5" jack when I have to plug a silly, fragile, unwieldy dongle into my phone to listen to my Earset 3i's. (Sadly, too, their Amazon rating seems to be 2.7/5, and reading the critical reviews, that seems to be almost exclusively because people got counterfeits on Amazon).
Please stop speaking like people are _factually wrong_ for disliking the Airpods or aspects of them.
Or will it be the more typical thing with Android accessories, where you have to buy a Google knockoff and never lose it, and then when you do lose it, you have to buy a seriously off-brand thing from China because Google has lost interest in products they sold a year ago?
Nope. Airpods are admittedly a great product and very impressive, but the functionality and stability is going to be an Apple exclusive. They work on Android devices, but not nearly as seamlessly.
My in-ears tend to die due to wax, not broken cables. The $150 AirPods would be just as susceptible to that as a $2 pair of wired Huaweis. And that's ignoring the superior UX of just following the cable rather than having to guess which device they're connected to when.
It's also pretty nice being able to just connect the phone to a speaker system, rather than having to mess around with per-phone dongles, idiotic "dock" designs, or pairing to random bluetooth receivers.
I've got a $20 pair of Anker wireless earbuds that I can't distinguish in sound quality from a standard pair of Apple Lightning earbuds. The battery lasts about 5 hours on a charge, which is enough for my commute on the bus and chores around the house. And since I charge up all my devices at night anyway, draining the battery really isn't that much of an issue.
Sure they've got a wire between each earbud, so it could be argued that they're not 'truly wireless.' I can see how, from the perspective of someone for whom a dongle detracts from the purity of the $20 earbud experience, this could be a sticking point. But I haven't found it to be.
I'm a happy Pixel 2 XL user, and I definitely agree here. It almost seems like they thought the notch itself was the feature rather than just an enabler for the bezeless screen, which is the real feature.
Just as crazy, glass backs. They’re there mostly to facilitate wireless charging yet 50%+ of the phones that have them don’t support wireless charging...
Notches are hideous, and so are rounded screens (and excessively rounded designs in general -- just look at Chrome). It would be fine, though: more choice for those who prefer it, if were not for the fact that this is how "fads" and "marketing-imposed trends" work: I have no choice to buy a non-notched, square screen phone in 2018.
I pray my current phone holds for another couple years, until this fad goes away.
I find rounded corners on screens to be quite nice. I think they will be one of the big design changes over the next few years. They make screens appear more natural / organic imo.
Nah, it's all fine. The only thing better than a notch would if if/when they can go completely edge-to-edge, but short of having a protruding earpiece and not having light/prox sensors, it won't happen.
Not all of them, check out the Xiaomi Mix 2. Pictures are ok but otherwise great phone and no notch. To use the front camera you need to turn the phone around though, but for me that's a better compromise than the notch.
While I don't like the look of it myself, I'll hazard a guess as to the design thinking behind it: notifications/menu bar can now live either side of the notch without taking up 'content' space. So the screen either side of the notch is for the notifications bar/menu bar/I-can't-remember-the-android-term-for-it and the total space matches the space on the bottom of the phone, leaving a centered amount of screen space for 'content'. Because it's not most full-screen experiences are ever going to use the notch area.
In this case it's a simple reason: there are stereo speakers, which means there has to be a speaker at the bottom. That stops the screen from going all the way to the bottom edge.
Except the Apple phones don't have edge to edge screens. Currently there has to be electronics located on the edge of screens.
Apple has chosen to distribute these around their screens. Most Android phone makers have instead chosen to place them at the bottom.of the screen.
This means that in general Apple has larger edges than Android notch phones on 3 sides but no bottom chin. Android notch phones in general have a smaller distance between the edge of the screen and the edge of the phone but a larger lower chin.
The Pixel Notch is the worst looking, most disappointing phone design I've seen for a long time - from someone where I actually had certain expectations.
I can't stand the notch design band aid (the S8/9/Note just looks far far cleaner, has much greater usable screen size), and this has all but guaranteed my next phone will be another flagship Samsung.
I absolutely hate edge to edge screens. It makes for a terrible user experience when you accidentally hit something with your palm. I also hate the super thin fad. Now I just have to buy a think bumper case so I can actually hold the phone.
I don't like the notch but I don't really see the bottom bezel as any worse of a design. If you want two front facing speakers you'd need two notches and that's even more of a developer burden.
Google could have copied Vivo Apex to beat Apple in bezel-less game once for all. Instead we get an ugly notch and a bezel at the bottom. Feels premium, I really fall for it, really! :-/
