However, personally, I'll live with a thicker phone if it means I can have a larger capacity battery, let alone a 3.5mm jack
We already have a standardized 2.5mm jack to replace the 3.5mm one in space-constrained environments (just like 6.35mm is still around for hifi setups).
Why is everyone pretending we need to ditch analog audio completely for smaller phones when we can just start using 2.5mm (again!)?
Eh. Apple's done this before, as Gruber points out, and they basically won. Nobody at this point (at least, that I hear) complains about Lightning cables. Ditching the 3.5mm jack might be a bad idea, but Apple does have a track record of doing this, which is probably why they think they can get away with it now.
Lightning was a proprietary Apple connector that replaced the older proprietary 30-pin Apple connector. Not at all comparable to removing the 3.5mm jack.
I'm all for keeping the jack output, but using a 2.5 one doesn't solve the problem.
You mean a lightning to 3.5 and an usb-c to 3.5 one. With mandatory Apple/USB tax, DRM may or may not be included, and questionable DAC quality.
A fully passive 2.5→3.5 adapter is much easier, would work with all vendors, and has no potential DRM backdoor capability.
And we'd probably quickly see headphones with native 2.5mm plug and an included 3.5mm adapter, just like we currently have for "high-end" (read: $100) headsets and 6.35mm.
I'd pay for more battery life, but the bonus was just not worth it. It was easily twice as expensive as the phone I brought, with similar specs. Batteries last for a couple of days already, some more days are just not that big a differential.
No it's not.
> As an aside, whatever the merits of this decision, it’s not about device thinness. The iPhone 6 is the thinnest iPhone to date at 6.9mm. The iPod Touch has a headphone jack and is just 6.1mm thick. The iPod Nano: 5.4mm. The analog headphone jack is more costly in terms of depth than thickness.
> According to Kilburn, HTC’s consumer research shows people prefer thin smartphones — between 8 mm and 10 mm thick — as opposed to thicker devices with longer battery life.
One data point, but that's what HTC's claiming their customer research shows, and Apple's trends suggest their internal data points the same way.
There's clearly more than the one option going into the choice here.
That's not particularly thin, both Vivo and Oppo have models under 5mm. The former even managed to keep the 3.5 jack in the 4.75mm X5.
I think it'd be interesting to have an experiment where some flagship phone (like the Galaxy S*) is sold in two versions, one with double the battery life but a little thicker (and cases for both sizes are available), at the exact same price, to see which one people really prefer. Personally, I'd certainly go for the double-capacity version, but considering how popular iPhones are, I'm under no illusion that my tastes represent the mainstream.
Along those lines, I've had several waterproof phones with headphone jacks (and no rubber covers, either).
Palm tried to remove the jack with their ultrasmall Veer phone which had audio routed over a magnetic connector. You had to use an adapter to plug in headphones and it blocked off the power connector. The Veer was barely launched before HP pulled the "plug" on the product line, alas.