5 ms·

So, pretty much every time I get in someone else's car for a trip longer than "tot he store" and want to listen to something on my phone.

nl 4y ago
Either their car has a 3.5mm input jack, in which case they probably already have a 3.5mm male to male cable (unless you carry that too?) with an adapter or 3.5mm to adapter cable or they don't have the jack and you just pair with their car bluetooth.
- psyc 4y ago
  It's kind of amazing that you're clever enough to generate a complete decision tree for all the problems and solutions, and yet still have a blind spot for what the problem is, despite six people trying to explain it.
  - nl 4y ago
    My point is that these "no I need a headphone jack" issues all take a complex decision tree to get to. They are all things like "oh I have to ride in my friends car who has a 3.5mm input jack but doesn't have bluetooth input and also only has the cable without an adapter". There's another comment about how the latency on bluetooth is bad, and this is a problem because they are a music producer who presumably produces on their mobile phone. Again, it's such a small subset and the fact it is solved perfectly with a $10 adapter makes me think the complaints are way overblown.
- RHSeeger 4y ago
  I have the male to male cable; though I keep one in my wife's car, too. As for pairing with the bluetooth 1. In the cases I'm talking about, I want to use headphones + a USB-C charger. 2. I don't like bluetooth for sound; it's inferior in every single case I've tried. 3. I have yet to be able to configure things so bluetooth is used for media/music, but not for phone calls. And I don't want to use the car/speakerphone for phone calls when I'm in someone else's car. Look, I get it.. with _enough_ adapters and random other things, I can jump through a dozen different hoops in order to get music out of phone. But life would be a lot simpler and easier if I just had a headphone jack. Only they removed it, and now I'm stuck with an objectively [1] worse experience. [1] Yes, objectively; because prior to that I had both bluetooth AND a headphone jack. So there's no positive aspect of removing the jack. It is objectively worse to not have it.
  - nl 4y ago
    So you are prepared to carry a male-to-male cable around for this one particular case but not prepared to carry a much smaller USB-C to headphone adapter which literally solves every single problem you have listed in this entire thread? I just don't understand the reasoning. > So there's no positive aspect of removing the jack. It is objectively worse to not have it The benefits of removing the jack form the phone are clear: less connectors mean simpler and cheaper manufacture (so cheaper devices) and larger batteries/smaller phones.
    - whatarethembits 4y ago
      Any cost saving from reducing connectors haven’t reached consumers at all it seems, but that’s a different conversation I suppose.
  - fomine3 4y ago
    For who don't satisfied with Bluetooth audio quality, I wonder is it fine to use internal DAC on a Phone rather than good quality external DAC via USB-C.

nl 4y ago

Either their car has a 3.5mm input jack, in which case they probably already have a 3.5mm male to male cable (unless you carry that too?) with an adapter or 3.5mm to adapter cable or they don't have the jack and you just pair with their car bluetooth.

psyc 4y ago
It's kind of amazing that you're clever enough to generate a complete decision tree for all the problems and solutions, and yet still have a blind spot for what the problem is, despite six people trying to explain it.
- nl 4y ago
  My point is that these "no I need a headphone jack" issues all take a complex decision tree to get to. They are all things like "oh I have to ride in my friends car who has a 3.5mm input jack but doesn't have bluetooth input and also only has the cable without an adapter". There's another comment about how the latency on bluetooth is bad, and this is a problem because they are a music producer who presumably produces on their mobile phone. Again, it's such a small subset and the fact it is solved perfectly with a $10 adapter makes me think the complaints are way overblown.
RHSeeger 4y ago
I have the male to male cable; though I keep one in my wife's car, too. As for pairing with the bluetooth 1. In the cases I'm talking about, I want to use headphones + a USB-C charger. 2. I don't like bluetooth for sound; it's inferior in every single case I've tried. 3. I have yet to be able to configure things so bluetooth is used for media/music, but not for phone calls. And I don't want to use the car/speakerphone for phone calls when I'm in someone else's car. Look, I get it.. with _enough_ adapters and random other things, I can jump through a dozen different hoops in order to get music out of phone. But life would be a lot simpler and easier if I just had a headphone jack. Only they removed it, and now I'm stuck with an objectively [1] worse experience. [1] Yes, objectively; because prior to that I had both bluetooth AND a headphone jack. So there's no positive aspect of removing the jack. It is objectively worse to not have it.
- nl 4y ago
  So you are prepared to carry a male-to-male cable around for this one particular case but not prepared to carry a much smaller USB-C to headphone adapter which literally solves every single problem you have listed in this entire thread? I just don't understand the reasoning. > So there's no positive aspect of removing the jack. It is objectively worse to not have it The benefits of removing the jack form the phone are clear: less connectors mean simpler and cheaper manufacture (so cheaper devices) and larger batteries/smaller phones.
  - whatarethembits 4y ago
    Any cost saving from reducing connectors haven’t reached consumers at all it seems, but that’s a different conversation I suppose.
- fomine3 4y ago
  For who don't satisfied with Bluetooth audio quality, I wonder is it fine to use internal DAC on a Phone rather than good quality external DAC via USB-C.