Samsung Kills Headphone Jack After Mocking Apple (macrumors.com) 353
Last week, Samsung introduced its latest smartphone, the Galaxy A8s. Not only is it the first phone of theirs with a laser-drilled hole in the display for the front-facing camera sensor, but it is also their first phone to ditch the headphone jack. Slashdot reader TheFakeTimCook shares a report from Mac Rumors that takes a closer look at the move and the hypocrisy behind it: [The A8s] is also Samsung's first smartphone without a headphone jack, much to the amusement of iPhone users, as Samsung has mocked Apple for over two years over its decision to remove the headphone jack from the iPhone 7 in 2016, a trend that has continued through to the iPhone XS, iPhone XS Max, and iPhone XR. While on stage unveiling the new Galaxy Note 7 in 2016, for example, Samsung executive Justin Denison made sure to point out that the device came with a headphone jack. "Want to know what else it comes with?" he asked. "An audio jack. I'm just saying," he answered, smirking as the audience laughed. And earlier this year, Samsung mocked the iPhone X's lack of a headphone jack in one of its "Ingenius" ads promoting the Galaxy S9. Samsung isn't the first tech giant to mock Apple's decision to remove the headphone jack, only to follow suit. Google poked fun at the iPhone 7's lack of headphone jack while unveiling its original Pixel smartphone in 2016, and then the Pixel 2 launched without one just a year later.
Jack? Jack who? (Score:3, Funny)
Who is this "Headphone Jack" and why has this multinational corporation murdered him?
And why do they mock an innocent piece of fruit?
And don't tell me to RTFA or even the FS.
Killed is a bit of a strong word (Score:5, Informative)
Samsung is simply cutting costs on their budget line up by removing the headphone jack. Multiple accounts indicate the jack is still present on their upcoming flagship S10.
Re:Killed is a bit of a strong word (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Killed is a bit of a strong word (Score:5, Insightful)
They mocked Apple because they wanted people to buy their product instead of Apple's, and that was something different about them.
They also would like to sell the more expensive accessories, so they subsequently did the same thing Apple did.
And they are no longer mocking Apple, because they now have a similar product, and that is the only reason.
This makes absolute sense if you don't assume that the leaders of large corporations care about things like consistency and good-faith. They care about making money, and doing/saying whatever seems like the best way of doing that at the time. And nothing else.
Re: (Score:2)
Bluetooth ear buds aren't exactly expensive. Got mine for $10 a few years ago. I've actually saved money compared to wired, because I always ended up damaging wired headphones by accidentally yanking the cord within the first year.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think any company or organization can be trusted?
When any any group gets larger their morals gets simpler as it will need to accommodate the diversity of all the people and their needs within it.
A company will want to make money. A religion will want more followers. A Lobby group will just want listeners.
Leaving us individuals having to fend for our self in terms of making sure we keep our moral standards in place.
There is nothing wrong likening a company, following a religion, or being part of a
Re: (Score:3)
>"Samsung is simply cutting costs on their budget line up by removing the headphone jack."
Seriously? As if a headphone jack costs more than $0.50?
Re: Killed is a bit of a strong word (Score:3)
Designing phones that are thin and waterproof is difficult and expensive when you have ports to the outside.
The headphone jack is a prime candidate to cut. Not that I approve of the measure.
Re: (Score:2)
Designing phones that are thin and waterproof is difficult and expensive when you have ports to the outside.
The headphone jack is a prime candidate to cut. Not that I approve of the measure.
I'd argue that the 'thin' part is the real place to object--the goal should be to have it the right size and thickness to be easily and securely held. (If the expectation is that it'll be in a case, keep the case in mind...and possibly even design it so some of the ports could be contained within an inexpensive case that can be sacrificed to protect the phone.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
>"I'd argue that the 'thin' part is the real place to object--the goal should be to have it the right size and thickness to be easily and securely held."
Couldn't agree more. And none of us CARE about being stupidly thin. We want to fill some of that thinness WITH MORE BATTERY CAPACITY! But somehow the phone manufacturers still haven't figured that out yet. And an extra 1 or 2mm of Lithium doesn't weigh much, either.
Re: Killed is a bit of a strong word (Score:5, Informative)
Designing phones that are thin and waterproof is difficult and expensive when you have ports to the outside.
The headphone jack is a prime candidate to cut. Not that I approve of the measure.
Sony seemed to have no issues making phones for years that were IP68 rated but had headphone jacks (and didn't have a special plug or anything else on them to keep the water out).
Are these new phones we're getting now that headphone jacks have been removed a higher water-resistance rating? I haven't heard of any that are.
Re: (Score:2)
>Designing phones that are thin and waterproof is difficult and expensive when you have ports to the outside.
Yeah, that's just some fanboy bullshit.
Waterproofing has been a "done" science since like, the 80's. There are entire laptops that are waterproof and you think a piece of crap little phone with an audio jack is somehow Achilles Heel? What about the goddamn USB port? What about the BUTTONS?
Conjecturing. Bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously? As if a headphone jack costs more than $0.50?
You are probably correct, but when they sell cellphones by many many millions of units, these costs savings will add put to a nice seven figure pile of cash which the chief executives will pay to themselves as an end of year "bonus" while the suckers they're calling their customers be asked to swallow this new "feature" as if it was an improvement.
Re:Killed is a bit of a strong word (Score:5, Insightful)
By removing the headphone jack on their lower-end models, they may intend to make the iPhone look cheap.
Re: (Score:2)
So we now need to buy a 700 dollar smartphone to have a headphone jack? And the A8 still costs hundreds of dollars. For the last few years, my go-to cheap android phones were Huawei Honor and Moto G series. I never paid more than 200 bucks, and they always came with a headphone jack.
It's preposterous to defend Samsung by saying they did this to save the costs of making this "budget" device.
Re: (Score:2)
indeed, it's perhaps even a good strategy.
have phones with and without headphone jacks, people can decide for themselves if they want it or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that they didn't kill the headphone jack from Mac computers they, so you cannot yet say Apple "killed" headphone jacks.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Killed is a bit of a strong word (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Killed is a bit of a strong word (Score:5, Insightful)
Samsung is afraid of building an honest to god good 200-300 dollar smartphone that could compete with say the popular Moto G series because then the bubble of the 800-1000 dollar Galaxies and Notes will pop as people will realize that a cheap phone still can have a big screen, a quality build, and for most purposes it runs the same apps you need to use just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm really at a loss as to why people pay $800-1000 for a smartphone in today's market.
My most expensive smartphone was my first one, an HTC Legend, I think I paid around $600 for that one. I used it for 5 years (it still works, although the power button is screwed up so turning on/off is annoying and you can't run any up-to-date software on it - the phone is now 8.5 years old).
My next phone, a huge upgrade in every way, was an Asus ZenPhone (ZE500) and that cost me around $280. It lasted me a good 3 years,
Re: (Score:3)
I'm really at a loss as to why people pay $800-1000 for a smartphone in today's market.
If you want a high-end iPhone, that's the price to pay. Unlike Samsung in the Android world, the iPhone has no competitors. iPhones and Android based phones are still very different, mainly in terms of security, and ergonomics.
Re:Killed is a bit of a strong word (Score:5, Informative)
Well, for one thing, my old iPhone 6 still gets security updates.
Re: (Score:2)
I would agree with you. I bought a OnePlus One years ago when it came out and it's more than sufficient with custom Android updates to do pretty much anything except AR and fingerprint reading. I did however just buy a new Pixel 3XL for $1000 but it was for the promotion with Google Fi where I should be getting that $1000 back in travel gift cards... I couldn't justify spending over $500 on a new OnePlus 6 (or T) considering the capability differences. I only pulled the trigger on the Pixel because of the d
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Mmmmmm, steak.
This article is terribly misrepresentative (Score:5, Insightful)
Your post is pure spin (Score:2, Insightful)
Samsung has removed the jack from it's LATEST phone. You seriously do not think it likely the rest of the models will follow?
Do the mocking ads they produced apply to this phone or not? If they are making fun of no headphone jack, ANY phone that fits that description applies - including their own.
No matter how you look at it this is a self-own. And a great reason not to run mocking ads, for someday that could be yourself you are mocking.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but MagSafe *was* the greatest (Score:2, Interesting)
Apple went through a whole marketing song and dance about how great and necessary magsafe was and now admitted actually you don't need it
Are you kidding? Magsafe WAS the greatest, and a laptop owner DOES need it. USB-C is sadly more all-around functional, but there's not getting around it absolutely is inferior to MagSafe for charging... the only reason why it's tolerable is that modern laptop batteries last longer so you can go for. quite a while without attaching the trippin' cord.
I've not talked to one
Re: (Score:2)
Are you kidding? Magsafe WAS the greatest, and a laptop owner DOES need it.
Apple obviously does not agree because they have gotten rid of it.
USB-C is sadly more all-around functional
You realize that even Apple's own laptops (prior to their current lineup) did indeed have more than one kind of port, the fact that they have USB-C never precluded Apple from having the magsafe charging port.
Re: (Score:2)
EXACTLY!!!!! (Score:2)
Apple used to mock Intel CPUs before switching to them shortly after.
Yes I had those "Switch" ads in mind as well when I wrote my post. They were amusing at the time for sure, but they too were a self-own for Apple as Apple had to go down the Intel path as well... probably other aspects apply these days if you went back and watched them.
A little less direct a self-own, in that more time had passed before they applied - but still.
However you want to rationalize the hypocrisy (Score:2)
Was Samsung mocking Apple after they took the headphone jack off of their latest phone (7 at the time) whilst leaving it on all their other devices? Why yes they did! You are hand waiving, pure and simple.
hifi snobs ? (Score:4, Insightful)
MY PHONE HAS ONE, a headphone jack. But for years I've preferred my Bluetooth headphones. I have a nice stereo for those times I want high quality sound, but why bother with the lower quality stuff in my phone?
My brother, a hifi snob, has electrostatic headphones for his musical journeys. But he doesn't listen on his phone either (which also has a headphone jack).
So where are the hifi snobs who get their music on a cell phone while they're out and about, and can't tolerate Bluetooth? Are they doing FLAC on their tiny phones? Ridiculous!
Re: (Score:3)
It's not a weird quality thing. It's that corded headphones are dirt cheap, ubiquitous and never need charging.
Re: (Score:2)
all that is true but the wired sound quality really is better also.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not an audiophile. My music is already in highly compressed mp3 format. But I prefer wired headphones because
* I like my Etymotics brand canalphones that stick far into my ear canal. They block out background noise really well, better than my wife's Bose noise-cancelling headphones. They passed the "sit next to a screaming baby on an airplane and not even realize that it's screaming because you can't hear it" test perfectly. I've not yet seen such "canally" canalphones in Bluetooth.
* The same headphones
Re: (Score:2)
It's absolutely possible to have portable hi-fi. LG's line of high-end phones comes with a stellar audio stack that measures better than most desktop audiophile gear.
And you don't need FLAC. 256kbps MP3, 196kbps AAC, 160kbps OPUS are audibly transparent for basically any music.
Re: (Score:2)
FLAC is nice, but it can't fix problems with the original source material being poorly produced. The loudness wars have resulted in really poor recordings nowadays. The dynamic range has been compressed and normalized to make everything sound as a loud as possible, because hey, louder will help the music sell better, right? And once you've got everything uniformly loud, why bother making sure musical nuances and details are kept intact since nobody is going to be able to hear them anyway? It doesn't matter
I have no problem with killing the jack (Score:2)
But if you're going to do it, there need to be some actual USB-C headphones available, besides the low quality earbuds that manufacturers include with their phones. I get that they'd like us to use Bluetooth, but it's yet another device that needs to be charged, and I hate that.
Beware (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not even sure the problem is due to a shared antenna. The 2.4 GHz band is so crowded (a lot of wireless mice and keyboards use it too, and microwave ovens blast spread spectrum noise all over it when operating) that I see interference problems more often than I don't.
When will Android manufacturers stop copying Apple (Score:2)
This is one idiot Apple feature, not worth copying.
Just picked up my new Huawei phone 3 weeks ago, after 7 years of Android loyalty.
Detest their insistence that only the weak phones get flat display. Even more glad now with this headphone change.
Fan since the S2. No more, they don't want me as a customer.
Bluetooth batteries dont last long. (Score:4, Insightful)
It took COURAGE (Score:2)
Samsung is just being brave. It takes courage to copy Apple even after getting your ass sued off for using rounded corners.
Thickness (Score:2)
It is all about thickness. The headphone jack limited making the phone thinner. Samsung hopped on the Android fan bandwagon and made fun of Apple to boost their own sales. Now they want to make the phone thinner and need to do the same
Re: (Score:2)
It is a bunch of balooney. If size was the issue they could have used a thinner headphone jack. There are such things.
This is just a throwback to the old days when mobile phone companies used to charge you $100 extra for a $1 headphone jack. Sony Ericsson loved doing that...
Re: (Score:3)
Which would require an adapter to connect to your 3.5mm headphones. So if you're going to make your users get an adapter anyway....might as well be USB-C. Tomato, toe-mah-toe.
Re: (Score:2)
And how much thinner the Android phones should go? The Galaxy S8 is already about perfect size. It's only 8mm thin and it STILL HAS 3.5mm jack. Why would anyone need a thinner device?
Re: Thickness (Score:2)
Ease of bending. Itâ(TM)s a feature thick phones lack.
Um... (Score:2)
...why does 'how the hole is made' ("laser drilled!") have anything to do with, well, anything?
1st and last (Score:2)
Headphone jack vs. waterproof (Score:2)
I like headphone jacks and every phone I have ever owned has had one. But there is a modern trend to getting rid of them, and also a modern trend to making phones waterproof. I don't think it's unrelated.
It is possible to make a waterproof phone with a headphone jack. But to my knowledge all such phones were top of the line, expensive phones.
All else being equal, I'd prefer a headphone jack. But I want my next phone to be waterproof, and my guess is that to get that I will need to accept the loss of the
Re: (Score:2)
P.S. My wife's phone has no headphone jack, but there's a little cable that plugs into the USB C port and then gives an analog headphone jack. Spare cables are something like $9. I would have no problem buying one of those cables for each of my telephone-capable headphones or ear buds.
Question is though how long is the port going to last? I can put my phone in my pocket with the headphones in and not worry about a small tweak wrecking the headphone port.
USB-micro was a heap of junk and auto-wrecked almost
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I also think that solves a lot of the "no headphone jack" issues - you could then have your wireless ones, but also there would be USB C ones from many manufacturers and sold without adapters. Whether it solves the issue in a manner that Apple would actually l
Re: (Score:3)
That's because in those instances something better came along.
I don;t see 3.5mm jacks are obsolete tech. Bluetooth is a step backwards. More reliant on batteries, less secure, lower sound quality. Where's the upside?
This would be Ok if there was a decent replacement (Score:2)
Bluetooth headphones run out of battery and don't work in a family with X devices, Y earbuds and expectation of using headphones interchangably without complex/flaky pairing. USB-C headphones would work if they were inexpensive and had an an extra jack to charge the cellphone while playing audio. You have created a problem without solving one of a comparible importance.
Surveillance (Score:2)
It's weird how Apple champions privacy, yet decided everyone should send out a wireless signal if they want to listen to music.
And yes, Apple's implementation rotates the bluetooth mac to different mac-addresses. Still, that doesn't make me feel comfortable. Perhaps Apple realised that after the GDPR went into effect they might
I changed my mind.. (Score:3)
I thought "eh big deal, it will come with a dongle" when I got a phone without a headphone jack.
After actually having to live with it for a year, it has been far more annoying than I realized it would be.
I still think the 3.5mm is useful (Score:2)
However, at some point I agree it might become obsolete. Just not in 2016. So there is nothing wrong mocking Apple for doing so.
Apple also killed the floppy drive too early. I remember my college had a computer lab full of iMacs, each with an expensive USB floppy drive adapter. Just because everybody followed (since floppy became obsolete) doesn't mean Apple was right to do it so early.
To paraphrase an Apple ad... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Dont care about app UI (Score:5, Insightful)
How many users of phones without notches or holes drilled though the screen are going to have to suffer with unusable screen space on their phones due to app developers and content developers having to develop for the lowest common denominator. Were pretty much getting to the point you have to assume the edges of 5-10% of a phone's screen are unusable because you dont know what kind of notch, hole, curved corner or other bullshit might be in the screen.
So much for a bezel free phone, when now that 5-10% of the screen itself is now the bezel and has to be assumed to be unusable, lest some part of your content gets cut off.
Re: (Score:2)
Most phones with notches let you "disable" the cut out by shrinking the screen a little so that it's just the rectangular area under it. Works with every app, at least on Android (have not looked at iOS). So at the very worst you end up with a screen just like it would have been had they not bothered with a notch and simply reserved the top area for sensors.
Re:Dont care about app UI (Score:4, Funny)
Android has a new DisplayCutout API for this. It's usually in the notification area, so it only affects apps that block that.
Re:Samesung (Score:4, Funny)
Wouldn't it be better as "Samesong"?
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, talk about a coincidence. I haven't had a TV in over two decades!
Re: (Score:2)
Area man constantly mentioning he doesn't own a television [theonion.com].
Re:Not really a big deal anymore (Score:5, Insightful)
Audiophiles? A cheap pair of corded headphones is around $5 and I don't need to charge them or worry about power at all. I don't like having extra things that need charging.
I say this as someone who jumped hard onto bluetooth, but then realized the damn cord was more convenient.
Re:Not really a big deal anymore (Score:4, Interesting)
Same here. Not to mention the possible security implications of using Bluetooth.
Re:Not really a big deal anymore (Score:4, Insightful)
A coworker lamented his dead headphones on his way to babysit a late meeting.
"I should have charged" "Oh do you want to borrow mine?" "I don't even have a jack"
It was an unusual sensation. It gave me pause the way that someone might have experienced when they first heard of a watch that needs no winding or batteries. "That's a thing? That's different than how I've always done it."
We have created entire new and exciting problems for the man of tomorrow. Except my phone does the same things as his. I'm pretty sure this is the opposite of progress.
Re:Not really a big deal anymore (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, the lack of a headphone jack probably annoys audiophiles, but if you're really that picky about your audio quality, you're probably using a standalone media player.
No need for that. USB-OTG to a DAC/headphone amp. And wired headphones retrofitted with a balanced plug.
Wireless is useful for when working out, and you don't want to risk snagging any wires. But it sounds like shit, unless your phone and receiver both support AptX-HD (ok) or LDAC (better). Especially AAC, which Apple uses, is max 250 kbps, which is less than most MP3s these days, and unless your file was AAC encoded to start with, full of recompression artifacts. Just don't bother for anything more complex than audio books or third millennium noise. There are AM radio broadcasts with better quality...
Re:Not really a big deal anymore (Score:4, Insightful)
The battery lasts for at least 8 hours which is good for 4 days workout. Charging them is easy, just plug into any micro-USB cable. It's a trivial inconvenience.
I also don't understand the 'poor quality' sound comments - I had my annual physical a few months ago which includes a hearing test. Absolutely no issues with my hearing whatsoever. However, I cannot detect any decrease in sound quality of wireless vs. wired, and I've tried really hard. I mean, maybe if you're an audiophile and are listening to very specific notes or music, maybe you can tell the difference. But for the other 95% who listen to music when working out, on the train, or working around the house, I don't know if it's really a problem
Re: (Score:3)
Bluetooth things you have to keep charged. So if you use a headset once or twice a week you just want to leave in your jacket pocket because you use it only when you receive a call while outside, you're out of luck. Dongles add weight, break down and require replecement (my kids go through 1-2 Apple headphone adapters per year as they just stop working) or simply don't work well (I work with a person who's never been able to get his Pixel to work well with a small wire only non-chargeable headset to work, e
Re: (Score:2)
I care about audio quality and comfort but you don't need to have a dedicated audio player for that. Case in point the well known Koss Porta Pro and Sennheiser PX100ii ranges of headphones. They are both affordable and designed to work well connected to a mobile device.
Re:Not really a big deal anymore (Score:5, Insightful)
I've personally been using a phone without a headphone jack for several months now and haven't missed it. I never used it on my previous phone - I went Bluetooth "everything" quite awhile ago.
Why are the people in the "Bluetooth" camp always making this out as though we have to choose one or the other? There's no reason you can't continue to ignore the headphone jack for the Bluetooth you find more convenient. Removing the headphone jack has no impact on your use, so why can't they just leave it and give the consumer more choice.
The cost of the jack is a non-issue in a device costing as much as a major appliance. We don't need to remove the jack because it is "hampering the thinness of the phone's design" -- because they don't need to be thinner. People are already complaining about phones being too thin to be structurally resilient depending on the material. The waterproofing argument is bogus, too. Handset makers are not making the phones more water-resistant after removing the jack than they were before they removed it.
What is an actual legitimate reason that it is necessary the jack be removed?
Re:Not really a big deal anymore (Score:5, Insightful)
A car stereo with Bluetooth [walmart.com] costs $15. Walmart also sells Bluetooth adapters in the impulse bins at the check-out counters.
So? Lack of a headphone jack has nothing to do with annoying audiophiles...in fact it's more annoying to just us regular folk.
I have bluetooth headphones. The sound is great for my needs and they're pretty cool. But...
So yeah, I have Bluetooth headphones, but more or less I always carry a pair of ordinary earbuds as backup. Don't remove my 3.5mm jack, thanks.
Re: (Score:3)
Also, the FAA permits Bluetooth: https://www.faa.gov/news/press... [faa.gov] Excerpt: "Devices must be used in airplane mode or with the cellular connection disabled. You may use the WiFi connection on your device if the plane has an installed WiFi system and the airline allows its use. You can also continue to use short-range Bluetooth accessories, lik
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Really curious. Why won't my bluetooth headphones work on a plane? They did on my flights on Friday so I'm wondering what changed?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny. Evil. But Funny.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It probably has USB-C to 3.5mm audio adapter and you can keep using your existing headphones, knowing that the new phone is slightly more water resistant than the old one and that you don't need any more batteries.
Re: (Score:3)
>"It probably has USB-C to 3.5mm audio adapter and you can keep using your existing headphones"
Which you inevitably never have with you when you need it.
Which doesn't allow charging and using it for music at the same time.
Which uses more battery.
Which almost never comes with the device, meaning more $.
Which is more weight and complexity when using ultra-light/thin wired earphones.
Just give me a headphone jack! Which, typically also work with wired headsets and microphones (3 stripe).
Re:Not really a big deal anymore (Score:4, Interesting)
Serious question: do you know about the "Live Listen" capability of Airpods?
Here's a good article on it: https://www.imore.com/how-make... [imore.com]
It essentially turns AirPods into hearing boosters.
Check it out and see if it fits your needs. Yeah, you'll have to charge them, but that's pretty painless and the case keeps them charged pretty well.
Re: Not really a big deal anymore (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately, "fandroids" have their choice of phones, and don't have to buy crippled junk from Samsung.
Take the Moto G4 Play and G5. Removable battery? CHECK! SD card slot? CHECK! Headphone jack? CHECK once more!
Dude have you seeen the specs on this thing?!> [google.com]. 100 DPI? My non smart phone from 2009 had a better screen! It is IPS?! The CPU is 5 years old and 2 generations behind the budget grade snapdragons which powered my old Windows Phone. Tiny battery life and no mention of ram which makes me suspicious.
Can it even boot anything after 6 marshmallow or run apps? 3 gigs of ram is the minimum requirement for any phone these days.
Re:The road to Hell... (Score:4, Informative)
>"Dude have you seeen the specs on this thing?!> [google.com]. 100 DPI? My non smart phone from 2009 had a better screen!"
Ones he was quoting went off sale years ago. Let's look at the now 2-year-old Moto G5Plus which I bought a year ago from Costco for $189.
1080P screen on a 5.2" screen = 424ppi
> It is IPS?!
Yes
>The CPU is 5 years old and 2 generations behind the budget grade snapdragons which powered my old Windows Phone.
It is an 8 core Cortex A53 @ 2Ghz and seems very speedy to me. Much faster than the Nexus 5. And the Snapdragon 625 is only 2 years old.
>"Tiny battery life"
3000mAh is not tiny. Again, much longer battery life than the Nexus 5.
>"and no mention of ram which makes me suspicious."
5plus 2GB. 5plusS 3GB LPDDR4
>"Can it even boot anything after 6 marshmallow"
Android 8.1 Oreo
>"or run apps?"
Yep. And GPS, decent cameras, fingerprint sensor, headphone jack, and SD card.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
You are correct. None of the non-Play models have removable batteries.
Re: (Score:2)
Use it as a mobile PC.
I take my Note 9 and Samsung DEX phone cradle with me, with a TKL wireless keyboard and a wireless mouse and an HDMI cable. I am yet to encounter a decent hotel room without a HDMI-enabled TV.
The line between smartphones and laptops is now close to indistinguishable.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Wow, I must be living in the future.
I'm using full Office Suite (for Android) and Office365 Online, as well as Google office suite (Docs, Sheets). I'm using browser-based enterprise apps, attend audio/video meetings, play multimedia files, including high definition movies, all on Android. Amazing, isn't it?