Or I could buy a phone that doesn't require an audio adapter, which is easily lost and prevents you from charging the phone and listening to music at the same time.
Removing the headphone jack is a rediculous and unnecessary regression. We have plenty of choice among phones, and I won't compromise on something that could have so easily been included -- and is included by almost every competitor.
I flat out will not buy a phone without a headphone jack, and I cannot see this changing in the forseeable future.
Anything that could be added to a new phone model—a better screen, a faster processor, a better camera, etc—will not be enough to offset the inconvenience of being unable to listen to an audiobook on the subway because I inevitably forgot the damn adapter.
As long as there is one phone with a headphone jack, that is the one I will buy. If the only options are older devices, I will buy the least-old one.
> some people don't need the headphone jack, but still want a reasonably priced phone. A simple fix is to just sell a plug that matches the phone.
Well, no, the simple fix is to ignore the headphone jack. If your needs are "reasonably priced phone", there's no reason to plug the jack. You'd have to have some other need, like "and it can't have a headphone jack".
I don't understand this sentiment, instead of pleading with a phone manufacturer to implement certain features why not put your money where your mouth is and, you know, buy any of the pleothra of phones out there that do have a headphone jack.
Then buy a budget phone that is cheap and still has the jack. Don't turn a comment about picking up new headphones into your manifesto on Bay Area elitism.
The phone will work for as long as I don't break it, and I can find it any time. Adapters break, get lost, and are extra clutter to carry around.
The point is not that I can't pay for it. It's that there's no good reason I should have to except some marketing goon thinking people want thin phones, and some execs wanting to sell expensive headphones.
If I'm paying $700 for a phone, it had better damn well be the phone I want to have. A phone without a headphone jack is not a phone I want to have.
The fact of the matter is that phones that still have headphone jacks don't sell that well. There's always something else that demanders of that feature find wrong with them.
You can list things as much as you want, but the market shows that almost noone puts their money where their mouth is once a phone with a jack is launched.
I recently needed a new phone and ended up buying a Nokia 8. The fact that it had a headphone jack was one of my main reasons for selecting it. I'm not going to ditch my collection of high quality functioning headphones just to spend more money buying new ones and getting worse audio quality.
I will not buy a phone without a 3.5" jack period. I'm not buying ridiculously expensive wireless headphones that are objectively worse (worse quality than wired alternatives, added hassle of charging them plus much more expensive).
Not having a headphone jack isn't enough reason for someone to stop using their preferred device, but it seems overwhelmingly the userbase would prefer it.
Trying to argue about demand when we're boiling frogs is pointless.
I'd argue the headphone jack is staying around because most people including myself don't want to be forced to use bluetooth ones which are more expensive and require recharging.
I don’t need the irritation of managing extra jacks for an obvious attempt to force me to give up a standard configuration.
No thanks.
reply