> They wouldn't do that if they were trying to force people to buy Bluetooth. Apple removed a headphone jack and provided a stopgap solution in the form of a d

> They wouldn't do that if they were trying to force people to buy Bluetooth. Apple removed a headphone jack and provided a stopgap solution in the form of a dongle that was easy to lose and that provided a noticeably worse experience than a normal jack (the inability to charge and listen at the same time). Once consumers started to come into the Bluetooth ecosystem, Apple raised the gates behind them and stopped providing that stopgap solution. This is pretty normal. For example, if you want to change your privacy policy, make an optional change at first, and then shift it to be opt-out, and then finally make it mandatory. When you introduce a new policy or change to your products, use the optional nature of that change to shut down complaints. Even though they're not strictly required to, at least some people will migrate (after all, some people were buying Bluetooth headphones before the removal of the jack), and you can use that as evidence to support introducing further changes that make it harder and more annoying not to migrate. Eventually, the numbers will look good enough that you can stop pretending it's a choice at all. And how does that work out in practice? Well, Apple now controls ~70% of the totally wireless headphone market, and AirPods are arguably one of their most important product categories. > they're not needed and would be wasteful to include This is a level of charity towards business press releases that I just don't really know how to connect with. I don't mean this as a gotcha question or anything, but do you believe Apple when they say the reason new iPhones are shipping without chargers is to help the environment? I thought we all took it as a given that all of the companies saying stuff like this were full of crap.