• rainynight65@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    I believe it was for waterproofing. One less port means less sealing, making it easier to improve the waterproofing of the phone.

    • toastal
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      8 months ago

      Water ingress isn’t the issue & there’s been waterproofed ports for decades. They wanted to make devices thinner—but what value is it when its too thin to support a jack & made of materials that now require a case?

      • SqueakyBeaver@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        8 months ago

        That’s probably just the marketing reason. The realistic reason is probably that they want to sell you their brand of wireless earbuds that need to be replaced in a few years tops

        • toastal
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          That conspiracy is one I believe too. Seems too odd that all OEMs dropped their jacks at the same time they started selling buds.

        • Draconic NEO@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          That’s it, right there. Artificial exclusivity, that’s what it always was anything else is an excuse to look or seem better or less scummy.

    • Kindness
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      8 months ago

      Which is only likely to last one year anyways. After which, you can pay an exorbitant amount to replace the degrading glue. I’d just like my wired headphones back, the jack will last longer than a year at the very least.