Must be so nice to be so privileged as to be spoiled for choice on which fascist to support.

Spotify is the only streaming service available worldwide other than YouTube Music and Apple.

So for a lot of people it is either piracy or supporting a US tech megacorporation. Tidal, Qobuz, deezer. Cool, nice that they exist options. But most people in the planet would have to also pay a VPN and hope to not get their account banned if they want to use some of those alternatives.

It’s funny really, to see how the “fascist option” for some is actually the most ethical for others.

There’s always piracy of course, I suppose that is the only morally correct option always.

I’m back to statistical significant data, and why it is important to have good data scientists in the loop. The idea is precisely to ask the questions you are asking. Would have been different if…? Then try to control for other variables in order to avoid the induction error. How do you know they didn’t do this with their data?

That’s why I mention other phone models. There are Sony phones with and without jacks. There are Asus phones with and without jacks. How did they perform compared to each other? How far away is that difference from what could be expected from randomness? How does that difference compare when the other factors are compensated for? How do they compare with other phones?

I assume they did their homework, and also want to sell more earbuds. They wouldn’t push for earbuds and wireless if headphone jacks were market drivers. It would be cheaper to install a headphone jack rather than updating the BT board? Maybe, I don’t know. But if other factors have a significant impact on sales while the jack doesn’t. Then they have their decision made for them. Market research is not about being right all the time, it is not magic, it is about reducing uncertainty and risk in making decisions. Precisely because there are other phone makers with a headphone jack that do worse than the Fairphone is base enough to understand why they feel safe keeping that feature out. It doesn’t add sales and its absence doesn’t reduce them significantly either. So they know they are free to keep going even if some vocal critics will be pissed, the actual buyers couldn’t care any less.

Phone thickness is far from the only consideration. But Ok, you are right. There was space on the iPhone 7. That was also the first water resistant phone. Does this guy phone’s is still IP67 compliant after all the surgery he made. And that was in 2016, when IP67 headphone jacks didn’t exist. Now the phone standard is IP68. There were no IP68 compliant headphone jacks until recently, I think the ASUS Zenfone 12 is the first one.

I think companies won’t bring the headphone jack (a shame, really). But the writing is in the wall, it went away, and phones still sold like hotcakes. While those with headphone jacks aren’t being bought anywhere near the same volume. So the signal is very clear, the effort to add a headphone jack — however little it may be — is not financially worth it. It is a feature that doesn’t drive sales. Period.

If you ask people what they want, they will tell you they want a phone that has 15 inch screen that looks perfect under the sunlight. But also fits into their pocket. And it has to have a battery that lasts a week, but it must not weight anything at all. But also has to play all the highly graphical games, and also have a professional level camera. It must do so and also last forever and be indestructible.

That phone obviously can’t exist, and a lot of what people want are things that oppose each other from the engineering pov. That’s the point of surveys and market analysis. You don’t just look at what people say, you look at what they do, what they actually buy.

It is true that the other side of marketing is convincing people that what the company is offering is what they would also want to buy. But it is never a guarantee. I mean, look at the Samsung Edge flop. Marketing is not magic, you can’t brainwash 100 million people to buy something they don’t want. Marketing is marrying what the company wants to do in terms of cost cutting and profit maxing, with what the market is actually willing to buy. If people keep buying slop, they will keep selling slop, and they will keep marketing slop to people to convince them they want the slop. To break the circle someone has to stop, and it won’t be the corporations.

“It’s not in front of my face, so it doesn’t exists!”

That’s literally the thinking abilities of a toddler. Wireless chargers sell like hotcakes. MagSafe charger is Apple’s most popular accessory in their entire history.

I mean, yes. It is about marketing. I just think there are more people who think wires are annoying than people losing their earbuds. For every person who loses BT earbuds every 3 months, there’s a person with the same pair for 3+ years who is perfectly happy with wireless quality. Companies don’t care about that. They care about decisions that will reduce costs and increase their profits, and Fairphone desperately need profits. Making phones is idiotically expensive.

No, we aren’t forgetting. Precisely because they are a corporation driven by profits like any other, they will do what sells units. It actually goes against the argument for headphone jacks. It is an admission that the people who vocally want phones with headphone jacks don’t buy phones (even if they have headphone jacks) and are an statistically insignificant amount of people. My original point. You are vocal, but disingenuous (perhaps not on purpose).

Fairphone catered to the mass market with the Fairphone 4 (and removed the headphone jack) and broke their own sales records. Sorry, that’s just the truth. What you want is against the grain of the rest of the market. Yes, even the market who want repairable modular phones.

Because when push comes to shove, you might want the headphone jack but it doesn’t drive your purchase decision. And that’s the important part. As an example, another person on this very thread asked what phone with a headphone jack is good, someone else gave a suggestion and immediately got the reply.

I considered that phone, but it didn’t have an OLED screen, so I didn’t buy it.

Admitting that — despite being very vocal about wanting the headphone jack — that feature is actually low in their own list of decision making priorities. At the very least it is below screen quality. Raising the question, where should a profit driven company choose to invest money in when presented with that customer?

In marketing, people are usually very vocal about things that actually don’t influence their own purchase decisions. That’s just a fact, people are very bad at knowing what they want. That’s why you should always observe their behavior, not just ask their opinion. Because a lot of people express opinions they don’t uphold with actions.

Exactly, they want the most amount of customers. But they won’t sacrifice AxB customers to satisfy B customers. They’d be effectively losing customers or breaking even at a higher cost to them.

We know this numbers must have a population of around 180 thousand customers. The known number of fairphones sold across all models so far. Now let’s make assumptions. Let’s suppose that there are 100 people who want headphone jacks and would absolutely buy a fairphone if they came with it, for each user that has advocated for headphone jacks in this thread. You wouldn’t even break 1% of the total number of fairphone sales, just this year (130k).

Again, there’s a difference between wanting something a lot. And actually making decisions based on what we say we want. Fairphone removed the headphone jack on a model that broke sales records for them. Fairphone 5 was heavily criticized for not having a headphone jack. And it is selling comfortably well within their expectations. So obviously the people who stopped buying Fairphones because of the headphone jack weren’t that many actually.

And if it did have it you wouldn’t have bought it either because the company is hypocritical. So why do you care? Why should they care?

The point is, the people who did buy it didn’t care, and the people who care don’t buy. It’s a conundrum. Pair it with performance data of other phones that do have a headphone jack, plus the engineering compromises over other very important features. Then the decision makes sense. You lot aren’t buying phones with headphone jacks either, so it isn’t economically worth it. It’s not like the motor g or the Asus rog phone are breaking sales records just on the headphone jack.

It’s the same story as with small phones. People who aren’t buying phones like to complain about phone size. But then when a small phone is made, no one buys it. Then the people who didn’t buy the phone complain again, because the phone wasn’t perfect for them.

It happens all the time, people are usually very vocal about things that actually don’t drive their decision making.

This is thing with not understanding how statistics work. The point is that your personal experience is biased.

These people are not passionate about phone thickness. They won’t start or even have conversations about it. Specially since, for the most part, the companies are already catering to their tastes. But, if placed in front of a survey and asked to rank phone features by their importance for their purchase decisions, the overwhelming majority will rank other phones features way above a headphone jack. Most people on the planet are not audiophiles, and the majority of people perceive wires as an annoyance and an inconvenience.

That is the point of surveying and market research. To check with the actual potential buyers what is worth making. Of course it isn’t a guarantee, looking here at the recent flop of the Samsung Edge. But otherwise, a single person’s perception of the market will never be complete or accurate.

Let me expand, as I usually deal with surveys and population feedback. There’s loud feedback, and there’s statistically significant feedback.

People who want a headphone jack are very loud. They will interject this issue into every feedback opportunity given. They will mention it on the comment sections, forums, q&a sessions, answer their surveys accordingly, etc. That’s all fine and their prerogative.

However, when you look at the statistics. They are unfortunately a very tiny minority of the entire population. They are not statistically significant for decision making. They don’t have the volume to move sales significantly. This sucks, of course, and I personally wouldn’t mind the return of headphone jacks, smaller phones and bigger batteries as a fair trade for thicker phones.

But unfortunately, the vast majority of the market is pre-occupied with other things. The phone screen is too small, the phone weights too much, the phone is too thick, I want to bring my phone to the pool without fear of it breaking, etc. They are not as passionate about it, not like the headphone people are, but they far outnumber them in several orders of magnitude. In the end, if the product doesn’t sell, it won’t matter how much it was worth to a single passionate person. It will sink the company if it doesn’t have mass appeal. Making phones is already an extremely expensive endeavor.

The sad truth is that the majority of people are treating WhatsApp exactly as a social network. It is there to send memes and stickers. See what others are up to without having to interact. Then mindlessly scroll through reels. Ocassionally purchase something via chat with a corporate bot.

Millions.

Perfected

Press X to doubt

Making something popular via a lot of lying and false marketing is not something I would’ve thought to read as perfected.

Size is only a proof of logistics. Not tech. Physics don’t change fundamentally between 6 meters and 120 meters. You learn a lot from scale modeling without the added costs. Starship’s real challenge is actually the logistics necessary to fulfill the desired specifications and experimenting with engineering to reach the scale. The most innovative aspect of Starship would be orbital refueling, and they aren’t there since the thing hasn’t reached orbit yet. SpaceX problem right now is insisting on high turnover engineering, which doesn’t work at scale without heavy costs, because it is a logistic problem, not a engineering problem.

The kobo colour goes for less than $160 regularly. It is water proof, has front ligths, usb-c, and it can display color. I’m considering it for an upgrade from my, bought used 8 years ago, kindle. With Kobo, and ereaders track record in general, it will probably last twice that and still work. I consider that extremely cheap, specially in a market that usually expects people to dump a thousand dollars every two or three years for a phone. E readers have some of the best cost to utility ratios of electronics.

“High quality music” is nothing but a placebo. Unless you have the hardware to punch through the quality, then the bitrate and format of the file doesn’t matter. Most people would complain about HQ availability and then listen to the music through bluetooth headphones, completely nullifying any advantage. Or use average headphones that sound bad no matter how much bitrate you try to send through them. But the kicker is, a high quality headphone will sound better even with regular lossy compression and typical bitrates. The HQ files will then sound barely slightly better, almost imperceptibly. Compression tech has come a really long way since the days of bad MP3s, advancement of OGG and AAC made MP3 irrelevant a decade ago.

That’s because the first one was inspired by a Baldur’s gate game (they were working in localization). But it got canceled because interplay was on the brink of bankruptcy. So CDPR repurposed all the work done thus far, including most of the script, with a new license they had just bought.

Funnily enough, the mild success of the writing convinced CDPR to port the game to consoles and that also almost bankrupted them.

I really like QuollWriter.

No