5 ms·

Why do you assume that's why phone manufacturers would want to switch to Type-C for audio? Phones are getting slimmer, and the 3.5mm jack is the single thickes

Why do you assume that's why phone manufacturers would want to switch to Type-C for audio? Phones are getting slimmer, and the 3.5mm jack is the single thickest component in the phone. Removing it makes sense from this perspective. Now, sure, you theoretically could use USB-C for DRM, but until someone actually implements this, I'll apply Occam's razor. Consider that iTunes and the like have been selling DRM-free music for years now. And that, even though Blu-ray players require HDCP DRM in order to play back video, they don't require it for audio.

JustSomeNobody 10y ago
Why do we need thinner phones? They aren't bricks right now.
- TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
  Some people prefer thinner and lighter devices. Do we need them? No, but product decisions are not made based on needs alone.
  - JustSomeNobody 10y ago
    I realize this is anecdotal, but I never hear[0] anyone say the iPhone needs to be thinner. I hear it needs to lose the bezels. I hear it needs a larger battery. I never hear it needs to be thinner. [0] Nor do I read about many people wanting it thinner.
- Someone1234 10y ago
  I don't get it either. Thinner means lower structural integrity (remember "bendgate"), smaller batteries, and in this case lower functionality. Phones are thin enough. Plus people buy these thin phones then slap thick $5 rubber covers on them, what is even the point anymore? If people really want a thin phone then ditch the accessories, they're thin already.
ZenoArrow 10y ago
> "the 3.5mm jack is the single thickest component in the phone. Removing it makes sense from this perspective." Here's the problem with that perspective... 1. The 3.5mm jack isn't the thickest part of modern smartphones. To give one example, the camera module tends to be thicker. 2. As far as I've seen pretty much nobody is looking for phones to get any slimmer, especially as slimmer phones = smaller batteries. If you can find me any comments online from other people stating that the current top of the line smartphones are too thick, I'll be very surprised.
- TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
  The first iPhone wasn't too thick either, but it doesn't stop phone manufacturers from aiming for ever-slimmer phones.
  - ZenoArrow 10y ago
    That does not address my points. Find examples of people that are unsatisfied with the thickness of current phones and you'll have a much stronger argument.
mfringel 10y ago
The 3.5mm jack is typically the only remaining unmediated "analog gap" on a phone. Since there's no way of doing authentication signaling on it in a way that can be enforced without mutual cooperation, there's no way to limit access and/or monetize the audio experience any further than it is right now. USB-C removes those obstacles. This only lives in the land of potentiality right now, but the path is pretty clear. Once you have accessories that can mutually authenticate, you can limit access in exchange for money. This is technically a "slippery slope" argument, but I think capitalism gives us ample evidence to show that it's neither an illogical nor improbable step.

JustSomeNobody 10y ago

Why do we need thinner phones? They aren't bricks right now.

TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
Some people prefer thinner and lighter devices. Do we need them? No, but product decisions are not made based on needs alone.
- JustSomeNobody 10y ago
  I realize this is anecdotal, but I never hear[0] anyone say the iPhone needs to be thinner. I hear it needs to lose the bezels. I hear it needs a larger battery. I never hear it needs to be thinner. [0] Nor do I read about many people wanting it thinner.
Someone1234 10y ago
I don't get it either. Thinner means lower structural integrity (remember "bendgate"), smaller batteries, and in this case lower functionality. Phones are thin enough. Plus people buy these thin phones then slap thick $5 rubber covers on them, what is even the point anymore? If people really want a thin phone then ditch the accessories, they're thin already.

ZenoArrow 10y ago

> "the 3.5mm jack is the single thickest component in the phone. Removing it makes sense from this perspective." Here's the problem with that perspective... 1. The 3.5mm jack isn't the thickest part of modern smartphones. To give one example, the camera module tends to be thicker. 2. As far as I've seen pretty much nobody is looking for phones to get any slimmer, especially as slimmer phones = smaller batteries. If you can find me any comments online from other people stating that the current top of the line smartphones are too thick, I'll be very surprised.

TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
The first iPhone wasn't too thick either, but it doesn't stop phone manufacturers from aiming for ever-slimmer phones.
- ZenoArrow 10y ago
  That does not address my points. Find examples of people that are unsatisfied with the thickness of current phones and you'll have a much stronger argument.

mfringel 10y ago

The 3.5mm jack is typically the only remaining unmediated "analog gap" on a phone. Since there's no way of doing authentication signaling on it in a way that can be enforced without mutual cooperation, there's no way to limit access and/or monetize the audio experience any further than it is right now. USB-C removes those obstacles. This only lives in the land of potentiality right now, but the path is pretty clear. Once you have accessories that can mutually authenticate, you can limit access in exchange for money. This is technically a "slippery slope" argument, but I think capitalism gives us ample evidence to show that it's neither an illogical nor improbable step.