1657
Earbuds (reddthat.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/microblogmemes@lemmy.world
498 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 16 points 2 years ago (2 children)

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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent