Comment by ricardobeat
11 hours ago
The jacks are a physical impediment for slim phones. An adapter costs $3 if you still want it. It’s not a bad trade.
11 hours ago
The jacks are a physical impediment for slim phones. An adapter costs $3 if you still want it. It’s not a bad trade.
I see the point for ultra slim phones. Except the only phones that are slim enough to have their thickest point thinner than that have only started to come up recently.
Imagine the same argument for USB-C: at some point phones will be too slim to allow for that port, should every maker start dropping it right now ? That would be nonsense.
On adapters, it's no panacea: you still want the USB port available. Split adapters exist, but most of them only allow for charging, and the charging rate is also usually miserable.
You could say people who appreciated that should just eat it and feel in their bones how much the world doesn't care about them, that would be fair. Now staying sour about it is also one's prerogative.
PS: The biggest part for me is every other devices I own still having a pretty good jack. Laptops still have it, game consoles, VR headsets, TVs, high fidelity portable players, cars etc. So keeping around a very good headphone pair is still an enjoyable thing, except for the damn phones. Even in XL sizes. They're the only one needing a dongle, and regardless of the price that sucks.
On slimness: wouldn't an alternative implementation be to "do the Magic Mouse" and put the USB C port on the back of the phone instead of the edge? Alternatively I could imagine MagSafe alignment / charging magnets plus an NFC like inductive communication (or contact pads) to allow for a range of "snap on" peripherals for phone backs that could be implemented on devices thinner than a USB C port.
If we really engineer around the same connector with extra thinness the best bet could be on partly open ports: if the phone covered 75% of the barrel circumference by left out the other 25% exposed I assume it would still work.
I see it through the same lens as the cassette players like the Toshiba KT-AS10 that left part of the cassette outside for the absolute minimal footprint:
https://qth.tzpfsokx.cloud/index.php?main_page=product_info&...
PS: there is a mini headphone jack standard, but I'm not sure it's any good. At least it would clear the DAC problem, just still need a dongle.
No, the connector is longer than it is tall.
Phones are already way slimmer than they should be. Now we have top-heavy "slim" phones with huge bulges for cameras*, 50% less battery life, reduced performance because of thermal issues, glued together in favor of screws and rubber seals, wasting weight and space on additional strengthening and internal routing.
Just because people think it looks neater than the more practical alternative.
The S2 had an amazing form factor - also with a small bulge, but at the bottom. It's a thousand times nicer to hold and carry than pretty much anything that came after. The S5 was fine too (waterproof AND you could pop open the back to swap the battery, if you can believe it!)
It's silly how much more ergonomic phones feel that don't have to compensate for an extra half millimeter.
* Many phones had this, but it's getting really bad now. Older phones typically also had the lens recessed to protect it, with a slim border around it. No more space for that now.
I'm not even sure people think that. Apple's marketing department thinks that, and other company marketing departments seem to be implementing some kind of master-slave architecture, where they are slave instances to Apple's master server. Does anybody really check specs and deliberately choose the thinner phone? Or do people just buy new iPhone regardless of whatever decisions they make just because having the last iPhone is cooler? Of course, I don't know, but I somehow really doubt it's the former.
Maybe, but Apple doesn’t make them thinner anyway so the argument is invalid. iPhone 6S with headphone jack: 7.1mm thick. iPhone 17 is 7.95mm thick.
3$ adapter will have low quality DAC
DACs are very cheap. The BOM gap between "This DAC barely works" and "It won't sound any better if we spend more" for a headphone DAC is probably a dollar or so. This isn't some 1980s analogue technology where we need to spring for the best materials to get good results, and the components needed are all readily available from many suppliers today.
The DAC in Apple's $10 adapter is higher quality than most "audiophile" DACs because Apple has a larger R&D budget and is better at manufacturing than the entire audiophile industry combined.
Same for Google's, though it's slightly less good iirc.
They aren't perfect - the maximum volume and impedance are pretty low so you do need an amp to electrically drive insensitive headphones.
There’s a difference between the European version of the Apple dongle and other regions. The European version maxes out at 0.5 Vrms instead of 1 Vrms.
But the $9 Apple one is very high quality: https://www.audioreviews.org/apple-audio-adapter-review/