We used to have earbuds that don’t need to be charged because they had a headphone jack, didn’t get lost so easily because they had a cord attached to a headphone jack, never lost the bluetooth connection because they had a headphone jack, and they cost less because they had a headphone jack. https://bsky.app/profile/daisyfm.bsky.social/post/3l3mfjc6sn62k

  • UnityDevice@startrek.websiteEnglish
    183·
    2 months ago

    Well the most annoying issue is that BT headphones work perfectly well with a phone or laptop that has the jack, it’s not an either/or situation. So they were only removed to make you have to spend $200. The arguments about cost, durability or waterproofing are all nonsense.

    • octopus_ink@lemmy.mlEnglish
      4·
      2 months ago

      100% true, I agree with you! They proved this when apple pulled the jack - someone took that model apart and found there was still plenty of room. And Samsung (Galaxy S7 comes to mind but likely there are others) did waterproofing with the jack anyhow.

    • xor@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      34·
      2 months ago

      But all of those arguments are still valid, even if you make the assumption that it was all an evil scheme to make you buy some headphones

      • UnityDevice@startrek.websiteEnglish
        63·
        2 months ago

        They’re not valid, they’re excuses which are provably wrong. Samsung will currently sell you a phone with a jack which is ip68 waterproof, has a milspec durability rating and it costs a whopping €250. So clearly the jack is not a design limitation in any of those ways.