• smeg@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    I don’t think it’s about the cost of the 3.5mm jack itself, it’s about the space it takes up. “Thinner and lighter” as a goal means removing chunky things they don’t think are necessary. Also waterproofing maybe?

    • orangeboats@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      I am not so sure about the waterproofability of headphone jacks, but does it benefit to make phones even “thinner and lighter”?

      • smeg@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        I’ve got no idea of the legitimacy of the claim, it’s just what the manufacturers claim. Likewise, they assume people want “thinner and lighter”, presumably because that’s what Steve Jobs said. It’s all just trying to make the devices appeal to the mass market.

        • Chee_Koala@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          They don’t even assume that anymore. If you look at the mean dimensions of sold phones in NL over the last 7 years, you’ll see that the ‘thinnest’ year is already behind us. Less then 6/7mm just becomes unwieldy for a lot of hands, and the sold phones dimensions reflect that.

      • T156@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Completely fine. There are multiple phones that have been out with waterproofing and headphone jacks.

        It’s not that much more difficult to waterproof than the charge port.