3 ms·
i think it was more like convenience. there was another article where schiller talks about having to remove the jack so that they could get the components to f
by ookblah 10y ago
i think it was more like convenience. there was another article where schiller talks about having to remove the jack so that they could get the components to fit or something, specifically the haptic engine and also maintain water resistance.
i don't want to be making comparisons to steve jobs (okay, i actually am haha), but i feel like he would never let this fly and just tell them to figure out how to get all the components to fit or don't do it at all.
i feel like it was a lazy engineering decision to do it this way. one where the solution is based on convenience of design rather than what is best for the users.
- weaksauce 10y agoAbsolutely. This is lazy work lead by a man that knows manufacturing logistics well but doesn't have the balls to stand up against jony. Besides... how thin of a phone do people really want? I think most people would be excited with more battery life and a 3.5mm jack to sacrifice a bit of thinness.
- lucozade 10y agoYou may be right but I think it's very unlikely. Firstly, they already fit a jack into the same form factor and this wouldn't have been the first water resistant device with an audio jack i.e. these were solved problems. I don't believe they would go through all this effort because they couldn't be bothered to work out how to fit an audio jack back in. If I were to guess it's either because they just like the idea of one connector that does everything (I get the impression that's what Thunderbolt was for). Either that or this a step towards a fully wireless strategy. As I quite like the idea of the latter, I'm going to assume it's that until evidence refutes it.