3 ms·
I don't want a thinner phone. Cellphone thinness reached the "good enough" stage a very long time ago. Then all making them thinner did was start to make compr
by UnoriginalGuy 10y ago
I don't want a thinner phone.
Cellphone thinness reached the "good enough" stage a very long time ago. Then all making them thinner did was start to make compromises for that thinness. For one example, while components and software continue to get more and more power efficient, they're removing more raw battery capacity within the phone so they can shave 1mm.
No 3.5mm is a deal breaker for me. I don't want to have to remember to charge my headphones, or add extra weight to my IEMs, plus now I cannot charge and listen at the same time (or use the port for anything else).
All this move will result in is more people sitting on public transport blasting audio through the front speakers because their headphones died or they cannot afford $100 IEMs or $150 headphones. I think it will be extremely telling if the iPhone continues to ship with free IEMs, if not then that is proof enough that even Apple cannot make the economics work.
Overall this is a horrible step backwards.
- kalleboo 10y ago> Cellphone thinness reached the "good enough" stage a very long time ago. Then all making them thinner did was start to make compromises for that thinness 100% agree. Instead of my phone being 1.5mm thicker, I'm carrying around a huge silicon case with a battery and a bunch of circuitry included. Although I'm sure that's all based on studies that 85% of users don't need more battery life on 90% of the days out of the year, and 96% of users when confronted with a prototype phone that was 0.5mm thicker replied "oooh I would buy this". The tyranny of the market. That said... > No 3.5mm is a deal breaker for me I switched to using bluetooth headphones in 2006 (was that really a decade ago?), so the disappearance of the 3.5mm jack in particular doesn't affect me at all.