It’s really a small inconvenience, but using an adapter would mean I’d be prone to misplace it when I use my headphones on anything else, so it hardly makes anything better
It’s really a small inconvenience, but using an adapter would mean I’d be prone to misplace it when I use my headphones on anything else, so it hardly makes anything better
Laser@feddit.org 10 hours ago
The reason for not using a headphone jack is making it simpler for the manufacturer, one less connector to handle which also limits how slim a phone can be.
I’m not saying this is good for the consumer, but there are reasons for integrating the functionality into the USB-C port.
Ulrich@feddit.org 9 minutes ago
The headphone jack is 3.5mm. iPhones are ~7.5mm thick, more than double. The smallest phone available on the market is 4.2mm.
shaggyb@lemmy.world 9 hours ago
For $700 I’m not interested in compromising my own convenience for theirs.
Laser@feddit.org 9 hours ago
Fair, though the fact doesn’t exist in a vacuum.
If you want easily replaceable parts and a system that can unlock the bootloader for example, your argument can be made for 99% of phones on the market. The more requirements you add, the smaller the scope gets until there are no devices left to choose from.
hexonxonx@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 hours ago
These points were all disproved long ago. The jack is a the same thickness as the display.
The reason is because BT headphones have a much higher margin, and need to be replaced every few years because of the battery (if not already replaced because they were lost or damaged).
It’s just a dumb cash grab.
Ulrich@feddit.org 8 hours ago
It’s not hard to manufacture a headphone jack. We’ve been doing it since the 80s. Probably costs them a penny BOM.
ProjectPatatoe@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
I don’t think his point was the jack itself but the device around the jack. Physically and electronically.
Ulrich@feddit.org 6 hours ago
That’s what I’m also talking about.