Well, the reason not to have both options if you’re a phone manufacturer is that pesky port. Every port is a headache for them. There structural weak points, they’re places that can get dust and dirt in them, etc. As a user, I want as many options as possible, but if I can get a phone that’s $100 cheaper because it doesn’t have a headphone port, I’ll definitely choose that option.
foggenbooty@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
And yet headphone ports are on all the cheap phones and lacking from the high end phones. Your argument just doesn’t hold water.
merc@sh.itjust.works 8 hours ago
The cheap phones are cheap because they lack other features, not because a headphone jack makes them cheaper.
foggenbooty@lemmy.world 4 hours ago
I can’t even follow your arguments anymore.
You’re the one that implied headphone jacks add cost to phones. I’m saying that they don’t, and whatever cost they do add is minuscule. The implication that any cost savings is being passed to you is laughable.
Look, they killed the jack because they could save a couple bucks of design time and get a few cubic millimeters of space, but most importantly they could softly force their users to buy wireless headphones (maybe even the ones they sell and bundle?!). The former outcomes being happy accidents in order push the latter. It’s win win for them, and lose for the customer.
They know that their price concious customers are still using wired headphone and unlikely to take them up on their bundle, so they keep including it there. The affluent ones are the ones with cash to burn and little care for this issue. I get you like BT headphones, so do I, but there’s simply no good defense for the 3.5mm removal other than shilling.