• foggenbooty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    22 hours ago

    I can’t even follow your arguments anymore.

    As a user, I want as many options as possible, but if I can get a phone that’s $100 cheaper because it doesn’t have a headphone port, I’ll definitely choose that option.

    You’re the one that implied headphone jacks add cost to phones. I’m saying that they don’t, and whatever cost they do add is minuscule. The implication that any cost savings is being passed to you is laughable.

    Look, they killed the jack because they could save a couple bucks of design time and get a few cubic millimeters of space, but most importantly they could softly force their users to buy wireless headphones (maybe even the ones they sell and bundle?!). The former outcomes being happy accidents in order push the latter. It’s win win for them, and lose for the customer.

    They know that their price concious customers are still using wired headphone and unlikely to take them up on their bundle, so they keep including it there. The affluent ones are the ones with cash to burn and little care for this issue. I get you like BT headphones, so do I, but there’s simply no good defense for the 3.5mm removal other than shilling.

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      16 hours ago

      You’re the one that implied headphone jacks add cost to phones.

      They do.

      I’m saying that they don’t, and whatever cost they do add is minuscule.

      Ok.

      The implication that any cost savings is being passed to you is laughable.

      It is, but it isn’t a major savings. But, it’s hard to know because the pricing of phones isn’t very transparent.

      Look, they killed the jack because they could save a couple bucks of design time and get a few cubic millimeters of space

      Yes…

      most importantly they could softly force their users to buy wireless headphones

      Why would they care?