5 ms·
If I'm not mistaken, removing the 1/8" audio jacks was significant in enabling the IP67+ water resistance ratings iPhones have these days. That rating comes in
by TimTheTinker 4y ago
If I'm not mistaken, removing the 1/8" audio jacks was significant in enabling the IP67+ water resistance ratings iPhones have these days.
That rating comes in handy for those who have butter fingers like me and drop their phones in water once in a while.
- mackrevinack 4y agono sony had waterproof headphone jacks a really long time ago. a lot of their phones still have headphone jacks as far as i know. seems like they are the only decent company left in that regard
- ozfive 4y agoCouldn't a rubber gasket on the 1/8" jack help with water resistance?
- tablespoon 4y ago> Couldn't a rubber gasket on the 1/8" jack help with water resistance? Couldn't the jack itself be made to be water resistant? Seal it up and use relatively inert metals for the contacts.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- throwaway821909 4y agoYes, there are plenty of phones that have IP68 & 3.5mm without any rubber flaps etc., not to start a flamewar but it's strange to me that a lot of people seem to think they would be a necessary tradeoff... Apple had other reasons to get rid of it. https://www.gsmarena.com/sony_xperia_1_iii-10712.php https://www.gsmarena.com/sony_xperia_1_iii-10712.php https://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_galaxy_s10-9536.php https://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_galaxy_s10-9536.php
- boolemancer 4y agoI have a phone from 3 years ago with both an IP68 rating and a headphone jack. There's zero reason that Apple couldn't do the same, they just wanted to convince a lot of people to buy $150 headphones.
- BenjiWiebe 4y agoMy Galaxy S5 is IP67, has headphone jack and user replaceable battery. 8 years old. If it was possible then it's possible now.
- nomel 4y agoIP67 is "up to" 1m. IP68, on the iPhone12, is 6m. That's a very significant difference.
- eptcyka 4y agoS10 had a jack and an IP68 rating.
- nomel 4y agoSure, but not a battery cover.
- CRConrad 4y agoSo why did you reply to that specific post, and not its parent?
- nomel 4y agoThe first comment was comparable in performance (IP68), but the one I replied to, with the battery cover, was not (IP67). The point of my comment was to point out that they are not comparable. The purpose of my comment was to hint that the features from the IP67 may contribute to them being IP67 (battery cover in this case).
- the_third_wave 4y agoI'm still using a number of Motorola Defy phones from 2010-2011 which are IP67+ rated (30 minutes at 1.5m water depth). Needless to say they have 3.5mm headphone as well as micro-USB connectors. The solution to this problem lies in a simple rubber plug which closes the hole when the connector is not in use. Does it work? Well, one of the phones used to be my daughter's. She forgot to take it out of her pocket when she put her trousers in the washing machine so it ended up going through a full wash and spin cycle. It still worked, there was no water ingress in the phone itself. The earpiece did seem to have gotten damaged so I replaced it (5 new earpieces for $2.50 incl. shipping, I still have 4 left...). This phone is now used as a media player, running mpd which can be remotely controlled from other phones in the network. It connects to my jobsite radio (an oversized and overweight boombox I made around an old car MP3/CD/Radio with 2x40W speakers with bass reflex and a SLA starting helper/power pack) using that 3.5mm jack.
- daurnimator 4y agoMy Sony Z3 Compact back in 2014 had IP68 and a headphone jack.