remon @ remon @ani.social

Posts

2

Comments

779

Joined

10 mo. ago

Dubstep.

Great song!

For me not at all, they have totally differnet use cases.

At home the only purpose is of the phone is to be an alarm clock, 2FA machine and maybe for a bit of media consumption while on the toilet. Asides from it's main purpose is urgent mobile communication and being a music player.

But I really don't see why anyone would want to use a phone when there is a computer with a big screen and proper mouse/keyboard inputs available.

All good, I laughed!

It is!

God damnit, North Korea, we said no spending the space cash yet!

Males nipples are, for reasons I don't understand, totally fine.

Probably Americans upset about see-through nippels.

I don't think I'm an audiophile, but I stream my own flacs with 800-3000 kbps and there is a very noticeable difference in quality between the bluetooth- and the wired connection on my Bose QC Ultras.

I think razors, thoothbrushes, etc are exempt from the standard because their connectors have to be water resistant, which USB-C isn't. So probably not happening for now.

Yeah, I'm open for having a USB-C port replace the AUX port if the other industries play along and no use-cases/features are lost in the process.

But until that happens, AUX belongs on smartphones.

The jump from Aux to USB-C is a even bigger improvement than Tape to CD.

The use case of the AUX port is to listen something via a wire. USB-C doesn't offer any improvements here (othen than having to carry one less cable in the longrun, maybe).

I think one is enough, but if you MUST have two ports, than USB-C offers so much more that Aux can’t

Sure, it might enable totally new features. But those are not really relevant when we're discussing the removal of the aux port. That's like trying to make an argument for CDs over tape by pointing out that you can use CDs as a mirror. Sure you can ... but not really the "imrpovment" I was looking for.

CD were an actual improvment. They could store more data with less space, didn't need to be rewound or move physical tape to "scroll" to a song you want to hear, etc. They were actually better in pretty much every way.

Bluetooth isn't. It's offering one improvment in one area by trading off others.

Moving to USB-C could be very minor improvment, as you're really just preserving the functionality while standardising the connector. Now, I am not against that. But that would require all headphone manufacturers to move to audio-via-USB and all the phone manufacturerers to add a 2nd port.

Seems like a lot of work and money for very little benefit.

So what you're me offering is limited use cases and additional equipment to achieve something that I can currently do with an AUX port.

This is not an upgrade or improvment ... that's just enshitification.

If this isn’t acceptable, then I’d argue that phones should have two USB-C ports, instead of one Aux and one USB-C

That is slighlty better, but a lot of headphones don't actually support sound via USB-C and I'm also not aware of cheap, wired earbuts that use USB-C.

So how do I charge my phone while also having it connected to my wired headphones?

Should I get a docking station for my phone now? Add multiple USB-C ports to phones?

Bluetooth has replaced the aux port

No. It's an alternative that trades sound quality and delay for being wireless. Not a replacement.

Ok, so what should replace the aux port? Becuase right now it seems to be just an adapter .. for an aux port. That's not moving forward, that's just adding extra steps.

He's going on a SpaceX Falcon 9 launching from the US.

Cheese fondue.