• Orygin@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Your first paragraph is wrong imo. A minority of users are using 3.5mm jack, including a port on the phone for all users results in more waste than having that minority buy an adapter that can be re used on any phone in the future.

    Also please don’t argue that jack users aren’t a minority now. Most users don’t care about having the port on their phone, and most are happy with wireless.

    • Dave.
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’ll argue what I want, it’s my opinion, just like it’s your opinion to state that my first paragraph is wrong, and to follow on I would like to counter-assert that most people just deal with what they get when they buy a phone and don’t get to have much say in the matter, whether they like it or not. :⁠-⁠)

      If you agree that, in general , all users have headphones of some sort, and that both types of users can take said headphones along to their next phone, then:

      I will argue that we still end up in the same position. That is, a single port (and internal chips) + cabled headphones needs less resources compared to using an existing multi purpose Bluetooth chip in the phone and now having two extra battery devices with electronics to provide reception and amplification in each bud (effectively duplicating that which was originally contained in the phone). I resist the idea that removing the headphone socket is somehow a “better” choice sustainability-wise, and I will continue to do so.