this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2024
937 points (97.9% liked)
Technology
59693 readers
2814 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The same reason you needed a new charging cable every time the USB standard changes: because technology standards change over time.
If anything, audio adapters have been a thing for decades longer than cell phones have existed. This is not a new development at all.
My phone has an completely excessive 512GB of storage, and I can use USB drives (including micro SD adapters) if I really want to save something to external storage.
Headphone jacks are still ubiquitous, work well, and aren't overly large. There's also not really a significant downside vs other ports. USB-C beats previous ports because it's better:
Moving to USB-C gives you:
Basically, the only downside is having to buy more cables (and the annoying difference between cable capabilities), and a little higher cost to include it in a product.
With the headphone jack, there's really no objectively superior alternative. USB-C requires a dongle or USB-C specific headphones, and there's not really a change to audio quality. If you want to charge at the same time (like you showed), you need an awkward dongle with half that'll go unused most of the time. Yeah, it works, but it's a solution to an artificial problem. They could just include an audio jack instead...
Ok, and how much did that built-in storage cost you? Would you have preferred a smaller amount of storage if it meant lower cost, and have the option to expand with a micro-SD card? With Apple, you'd pay $100 to bump to 256GB and $200 more to bump to 512GB. So you're paying $300 to go from 128GB to 512GB. I could buy a fast, 512GB microsd card for $55 (or slower drives for $35).
And what happens if you switch devices? Let's say you decide to go Android, now you need to figure out how to get your stuff from one phone to the other. With a micro-SD card, you just move the card. Or if someone wants to get a copy of photos you took, just copy to a micro-SD card and give it to them.
If you don't want to use it, you don't need to, but micro-SD ports are small (often paired with the SIM slot) and inexpensive.
Having those convenience ports doesn't cost you anything and you can ignore them if you want. So I really don't see a downside to manufacturers keeping them, and it just gives users flexibility. I actually never used the SD slot on my old phone, but I was glad it was there. I would've used it if my phone lasted longer than 3-ish years before running out of software updates.
If someone comes up with a better alternative to SD cards or headphone jacks, sure, replace them. But current phones merely lost functionality. Maybe they could have a version w/o the port that has a bit more battery, that would be a good compromise for losing a port you may not want. But just eliminating it while it's still popular is stupid.