• pjhenry1216@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    It allowed them to increase the IP rating, allows for simplified manufacturing, and easier maintainability and repairability.

    How is not including it considered greenwashing (I notice you didn’t ask about that, so I assume you know the answer)?

    • Dynamo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The way i understand it, they ditch the jack so they can sell ppl their earbuds while claiming it’s about the environment. No idea if that’s true, but i don’t really care about this angle. Also, regarding the IP rating, you could add a rubber flap over it, pretty sure some CAT phones had that. Still, my biggest gripe is the jack situation, though a secondary sim slot and a smaller screen would be nice.

      Personally, the best phone for me, that i know of, would be a Galaxy XCover 5 - small, durable, removable battery, jack, dedicated microsd slot and dualsim. Shame it doesn’t support any variant of degoogled android.

    • TonyOstrich@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t agree with the OP that removing the jack is a mortal sin. However having worked in related induatries, I don’t think removing it really saves much if any money and it is entirely possible to make a phone or any other electronic device water resistant even with a headphone jack. Hell you can get wired ear buds that can be submerged in water.

      I know it wasn’t mentioned specifically, but even fairly cheap watches will be water proof to like 30 meters and still have a user replacable battery.

      I just wish companies would be honest about it.