Hacker News Reader

Comment by TazeTSchnitzel | Hacker News Reader

Why do you assume that's why phone manufacturers would want to switch to Type-C for audio?

Phones are getting slimmer, and the 3.5mm jack is the single thickest component in the phone. Removing it makes sense from this perspective.

Now, sure, you theoretically could use USB-C for DRM, but until someone actually implements this, I'll apply Occam's razor.

Consider that iTunes and the like have been selling DRM-free music for years now. And that, even though Blu-ray players require HDCP DRM in order to play back video, they don't require it for audio.

View on HN

The 3.5mm jack is typically the only remaining unmediated "analog gap" on a phone.

Since there's no way of doing authentication signaling on it in a way that can be enforced without mutual cooperation, there's no way to limit access and/or monetize the audio experience any further than it is right now.

USB-C removes those obstacles. This only lives in the land of potentiality right now, but the path is pretty clear. Once you have accessories that can mutually authenticate, you can limit access in exchange for money. This is technically a "slippery slope" argument, but I think capitalism gives us ample evidence to show that it's neither an illogical nor improbable step.

> "the 3.5mm jack is the single thickest component in the phone. Removing it makes sense from this perspective."

Here's the problem with that perspective...

1. The 3.5mm jack isn't the thickest part of modern smartphones. To give one example, the camera module tends to be thicker.

2. As far as I've seen pretty much nobody is looking for phones to get any slimmer, especially as slimmer phones = smaller batteries.

If you can find me any comments online from other people stating that the current top of the line smartphones are too thick, I'll be very surprised.

The first iPhone wasn't too thick either, but it doesn't stop phone manufacturers from aiming for ever-slimmer phones.

That does not address my points. Find examples of people that are unsatisfied with the thickness of current phones and you'll have a much stronger argument.

Why do we need thinner phones? They aren't bricks right now.

Some people prefer thinner and lighter devices. Do we need them? No, but product decisions are not made based on needs alone.

I realize this is anecdotal, but I never hear[0] anyone say the iPhone needs to be thinner.

I hear it needs to lose the bezels.

I hear it needs a larger battery.

I never hear it needs to be thinner.

[0] Nor do I read about many people wanting it thinner.

I don't get it either. Thinner means lower structural integrity (remember "bendgate"), smaller batteries, and in this case lower functionality.

Phones are thin enough. Plus people buy these thin phones then slap thick $5 rubber covers on them, what is even the point anymore? If people really want a thin phone then ditch the accessories, they're thin already.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com