No one is asking you to be not unhappy about it
You are arguing that your unhappiness outweighs the millions of people who are buying the latest and greatest smartphones even though they don't have headphone jacks - are you suggesting that Evil-Corp forced them to go out and buy the newer phones? How?
What's up with your constant need to produce straw-mans (put words in my mouth), as well as repetition of arguments that have already been answered for? First off, I'm not arguing anything about my position relative to others; my argument has always been that people in general are unhappy. As for "the millions of people who are buying the latest and greatest", it's as I told you in my previous response; people are buying the latest and greatest", because that's how technology works. If you have an older iPhone that is getting obsolete in terms of battery life, camera, in speed, etc., and you need to buy a newer iPhone, what options do you with 3.5mm jack? None. If you want to buy a newer phone with the "latest and greatest" specs, you are forced to make do without a headphone jack. Same is true with Pixels, HTC phones, Huawei phones, etc. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Some are still complaining that they want a physical keyboard. Some are complaining that they stopped making film cameras. Why did they force this digital thing down people's throats! Bloody corporate villains!
1. New technologies for those two cases were better in three ways, as they were: 1. cheaper, 2. more practical and 3. technically superior. These factors can in fact be used as explanations/justifications for a newer solution becoming dominant.
For example digital cameras eventually overtake analogue film cameras in dynamic range, exposure, sharpness, motion, frame rates, etc. You could also store them in a small flash disk, and run them all the time (whereas with film cameras you had to exchange the roll all the itme), had smaller and much more portable cameras, and were cheaper to go around with. The last parts are very important, as they completely democratized the industry, by making it easier for amateur filmmakers to move up and make a career of it.
So let's look the 3.5mm jack vs. BT. 1. Are BT solutions cheaper than wired ones? No. 2. Are BT solutions more practical? Yes and no. Yes, in that you have no wire, no in that they run on very limited battery life, and need constant charging. 3. Are BT solutions technically superior? No. SQ is inferior, there's interference, there's connection loss, etc.
So BT is not even comparable to the examples you gave above. They're not even comparable to the floppy disc example that έχω δίκιο gave.
2. The introduction and success of digital cameras still didn't cancel out film cameras. Film directors are still very much free to use 35mm/70mm if they want to; and they do! Tarantino and Christopher Nolan use film in all of their movies. All the newer Star Wars and Mission Impossible movies were shot on film. So
the option to decide is still very much there -- unlike with 3.5mm jack for consumers. B
T was very much still there, alongside 3.5mm jack, yet people still went with wired earphones. This very clearly demonstrates what option people in general preferred.
A smartphone is a jack of many trades - its not an audiophile gadget or a device meant to make movie watching as good that at a cinema.
The fact that you can't even see the hypocrisy of this statement is hilarious. If a smartphone is "a jack of many trades", then it ought to have a 3.5mm jack.
Also, your attempt at associating a 3.5mm jack with "audiophiles" who want "movie watching as good at a cinema" is laughable. I guess my mother, my wife, my friends and the rest of the population, who all have/had more wired earpieces than wireless ones, are audiophiles as well? The headphone jack is more universal than BT audio.
I will be unhappy when they do but I will also understand that supporting a small user segment has its costs and profit-making businesses generally don't find good ROI in it. Its simple economics.
By what account do you claim that people using wired earpieces are "a small user segment" -- or rather, smaller than those with wireless ones? All the numbers show the opposite; in fact, wireless earphone purchases first shot up when phones stopped coming with headphone jacks. Proving my point about forcing people.
Also, the argument of ROI is simply not worth taking seriously, as a 3.5mm jacks hardly costs anything to put in phones, especially when compared to other components. And whatever you may argue it costs, it's still less than the 3.5mm adapter that they provide you in the box; certainly way less than the USB Type-C earphone Google now provides in the box (which is not just an earphone, but also has a separate DAC/Amp with it). How does that fit into your ROI "simple economics"? Oh wait, it doesn't. But I don't expect you to be aware of the logical fallacies in your arguments, which even a child can observe, as you seem completely uninterested in doing independent critique of this topic. You seem more motivated by your infallible, totalitarian loyalty to these corporations and their actions. In your belief that everything they do must be reasonable, you try to rationalize their action however way possible. No matter how nonsensical.
