• kcweller@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      2 days ago

      Because Bluetooth headphones just add to the endless pile of non-repairable e-waste once the batteries die in an average of 2-3 years, while my headphones from 2006 still work.

        • amorpheus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          2 days ago

          So that’s why they removed the jack.

          It was never about the technology when others did it, I was wondering why Fairphone went that way.

      • tomi000@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        Ive had my 20€ BT headphones for 8 years now and theyre still working. On the other hand, I ran through around 10 cable headphones in the years before that. The cables broke really fast because I used them daily, even though I stored them in small cases. Seems everyone judges based on their personal experience.

        Overears where you can switch the cable might be more sustainable, thats right. Also there are 3.5mm to USB-C adapters for like 1€ so you can still use them without the actual jack, just not while charging.

        • Hansae@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          Buy decent cabled headphones, audio quality is much better than most Bluetooth headphones and they’re built like a tank.

          • brb@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            2 days ago

            Many years ago I went through multiple wired headphones with price ranging from 20€ to 100€ and they all broke within months. Then I bought nice pair of bluetooth headphones and have been using them for about 7 years now. Never going back.

    • TonyOstrich@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      To give users a choice. It doesn’t cost much and it doesn’t take up any room. I have a FP5 and have taken it apart. There is plenty of space where one could be integrated.

      • tomi000@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        2 days ago
        1. You do have a choice, you can get a USB-C adapter for like 1€ if you really need the jack. A phone really doesnt need more than one port imo.
        2. It costs materials, which the Fairphone is trying to save. Only a fraction of users would even use it, so why produce the waste.
        3. Theres not “plenty of space”, you still need the connection to the sound board etc. If there was plenty of space in the FPs case they would have made it thinner, the chunkiness is a major reason for people to not buy it.
        4. If they include a jack, they need to make it repairable and offer the parts, and it also costs time for designing and stuff. Id rather have them focus on the main features personally.
        • TonyOstrich@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          None of those arguments are very good. Why should they have three sperate cameras? Why should they have a USB-C charging port? Wireless can work as well. Why have a 90Hz display? A 60Hz one would work just as well.

          Not only that, there is plenty of space. My BlackBerry Z10 running the BB10 OS (that I could side load Android apps on) had a headphone jack. It was physically smaller, running an SoC built on a much larger manufacturing node with a similar style of swappable battery and enclosure had a headphone jack. I even had to replace it and it cost me less than five dollars at the time.

          It costs me less to integrate a headphone jack on a circuit board design than a fingerprint reader.

          Also if we are talking about sustainability, Bluetooth earphones have batteries. Most of which can’t be replaced. Weird headphones are literally cheaper and can last longer.

          Having worked in this industry, I can’t see any good reason to leave the jack out.

          • Stzyxh@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            most of this arguments make sense to me, but as the other guy said

            If there was plenty of space in the FPs case they would have made it thinner

            Also the Argument with wireless charging: Fairphone decided to **not ** support wireless charging because it’s not very energy effective. Furthermore, I think a Phone with no USB-C Charging port would not work because it would violate EU laws.

          • TheFrirish@jlai.lu
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            I agree I really don’t like all these different cameras just one or two at most is perfectly fine. Even though I am not interested in a Headphone jack, they could save space by removing one of the cameras and putting a headphone jack instead.

            One good camera is enough.

          • tomi000@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            2 days ago
            1. Not having competitive cameras gets you off the market immediately
            2. Fairphone specifically does NOT want wireless charging because it is inefficient and terrible for the battery
            3. If its so easy for you to design a much thinner phone with completely replacable parts and a jack, you should apply for a job at Fairphone because I think they would pay you a lot for that knowledge
            4. Fairphone themselves offer sustainable bluetooth headphones
            5. Like I said, its just extra material and research cost for a feature most users dont need and those that need it can get an adapter with minimal effort and cost. I dont see a reason to include it.