Copying my reply to this same point from elsewhere:
Those phones were presumably glued together and not as repairable as the Fairphone is. Which is very useful, but does lower your waterproof rating, hence the need to compensate elsewhere.
I really feel like people are too quick to assume malice, generally. Often, there are just trade-offs with no clearly-right answer, and it’s not obvious to folks like us on the outside what those trade-offs are.
What I’m assuming happens is that no way is fool-proof, so they managed to limit the amount going into the USB port, and they’d be able to limit the amount going into the jack, but not by enough to tip it over the edge of the rating.
Ok, Fairphone lied I guess. You obviously no better than the manufacturers. It’s not like other phones with those jacks likely cost more to water proof those jacks or anything. Everything is always exactly the same and doesn’t cost extra to do anything differently.
Judging by how much phones cost I expect them to be water resistant and have headphone jack. And besides, Fairphone said they removed it because it was a “point of failure” while conveniently releasing their own wireless headphones.
No one doesn’t know that you can use an adapter. No one wants to carry that around. They cost money and you have to keep track of them. And you can’t charge the phone and listen simultaneously.
They did not do it to improve waterproofing. We have had several phones over the course of decades that were both very water resistant and included headphone jacks, so you can just stop with that capitalist non-sense.
Those phones were presumably glued together and not as repairable as the Fairphone is. Which is very useful, but does lower your waterproof rating, hence the need to compensate elsewhere.
I really feel like people are too quick to assume malice, generally. Often, there are just trade-offs with no clearly-right answer, and it’s not obvious to folks like us on the outside what those trade-offs are.
You can also buy a cheap USB C-to-headphone-jack adapter.
The main reason they did it is to get a higher water-proof rating, making it easier to last longer.
Please stop with water resistance nonsense. There were phones with headphone jacks that were waterproof.
Copying my reply to this same point from elsewhere:
Galaxy S5 not only had a headphone jack and was water resistant but it had a removable battery as well.
Could you also replace the screen, camera’s, USB port, loudspeaker and earpiece with nothing but a screwdriver?
I don’t see how is exclusion of headphone jack going to help with water resistance if everything is held with screws anyway.
My guess would be that it’s one less hole that water/dust can get in?
If they figured out a way to keep it out of usb c hole then it isn’t a rocket science to keep the water from going in through headphone jack.
What I’m assuming happens is that no way is fool-proof, so they managed to limit the amount going into the USB port, and they’d be able to limit the amount going into the jack, but not by enough to tip it over the edge of the rating.
Ok, Fairphone lied I guess. You obviously no better than the manufacturers. It’s not like other phones with those jacks likely cost more to water proof those jacks or anything. Everything is always exactly the same and doesn’t cost extra to do anything differently.
Judging by how much phones cost I expect them to be water resistant and have headphone jack. And besides, Fairphone said they removed it because it was a “point of failure” while conveniently releasing their own wireless headphones.
No one doesn’t know that you can use an adapter. No one wants to carry that around. They cost money and you have to keep track of them. And you can’t charge the phone and listen simultaneously.
They did not do it to improve waterproofing. We have had several phones over the course of decades that were both very water resistant and included headphone jacks, so you can just stop with that capitalist non-sense.
Those phones were presumably glued together and not as repairable as the Fairphone is. Which is very useful, but does lower your waterproof rating, hence the need to compensate elsewhere.
I really feel like people are too quick to assume malice, generally. Often, there are just trade-offs with no clearly-right answer, and it’s not obvious to folks like us on the outside what those trade-offs are.
Louis Rossman was very against this idea, and gotta say I side with him on this.