Talk about simplistic and flawed arguments! Headphone jacks didn't simultaneously dissappear from all phones in the market. Consumers who didn't like phones without headphone jacks could have put off upgrading or could have switched to competing phones that still had jacks.
Like the other users, you seem to completely gloss over some very obvious facts that have very conclusively answered this claim. But looks like I yet again have to copy/paste my arguments, as I'm apparenty discussing with a wall:
1. There's more in a phone than just the headphone jack. Just because you buy a smartphone without a headphone jack, doesn't mean you agree with its disappearance. I, for example, bought the Pixel 2 back in 2017 over any other flagship, due to the importance of a good and reliable software experience, as well as the best camera on the market. Doesn't mean I don't vehemently oppose the removal of the jacks. Same is true of virtually every family member and friend I have, with iPhones, Pixels, HTCs and Huaweis; they all are disappointed at the loss of the jack.
2. To buy newer models of various phones, you were forced to go without a headphone jack. If you're an iOS user, for example, YOU HAVE TO BUY AN IPHONE WITHOUT A HEADPHONE JACK. Or do you expect users who need new phones, to buy 2-3 year old iPhones? Nexus owners to upgrade to the Pixel OG, rather than the newer Pixel 3, or 2? You talk about switching to competing brands, but competing brands don't necessarily provide these the same experiences and qualities. For an iOS user, that answer is pretty self-evident, and we are talking about switching an entire platform. For a Pixel user, it means competing OSes that have inferior software experience (like considerably more frame drops, jitter, jank stutter and inconsistencies, bad upgrade times).
If you want a more accurate demonstration of consumer choice, look at the years when all smartphones had headphone jacks, when Bluetooth was an option. Back then, the people had the choice to buy both wired and wireless headphones. What did they go for? Well, up until the headphone jacks disappeared, the overwhelming majority of headphones were wired. That's enough proof of where the consumer demands were.
m pretty sure you didn't get a briefing from any of those companies before, during, or after the decision making process. They didn't show you their internal market research and analysis or share with you how they made the decisions. All you're going on is the marketing spin put out to the public.
You're shooting yourself in the foot here. You were the one who originally made claims about Google and Apple's intentions being down to demand/supply and costs. If we accept your argument that we don't know what's going on internally within these companies, then your original statement regarding the economic motives of these companies is completely and utterly invalid.
What was the cost for warranty service for headphone jacks that failed within the warranty period? How much did they spend on warranty repairs even though the damage was caused by the consumer running the protruding body of the headphone plug into something? What would the additional cost be to to seal against water intrusion at a headphone jack?
What were the costs of the constant resupply of 3.5mm adapters to users from Google, as defective 3.5mm dongle was one of the most common widespread quality control problems? What is the cost benefit of removing a 3.5mm jack, but having to include a similar dongle, with its own additional/separate DAC/Amp, in every box? What is the cost benefit of including Pixel buds on top of that, with the Pixel 3, as a result of the outcry from the Pixel 2? Sealing a 3.5mm jack from water intrusion commands the same rubber materials as other areas of the device, does, and many companies, like Samsung, LG and Sony, have for years demonstrated that it can be done without big issues/compromises.
What you fail to understand is that the inclusion of those has been a transitional thing, just as external USB floppy drives were sometimes bundled with laptops when built-infloppy drives were first eliminated. Now we see that the dongles are not being included by Apple:
And what you fail to understand is that we're already 2 years in, the second of which Google has added earphones in the box as well. So whatever "cost benefit" Google would have had, can be thrown out the window by those facts. Additionally, a 3.5mm jack is one of the most inexpensive components to have in a phone. Even in mid-range and low-end devices, where it is still a standard. So even assuming there would be an extra cost on the phone over longer periods of time, the extra cost is so insignificant it's not worth taking seriously as a relevant factor.
t has everything to do with a free market; I bring it up because I have a very good understanding of capitalism and economics.
If you reliably had "a very good understanding of capitalism and economics", then you would have recognized that state intervention runs wholly contradictory to the idea of a free market. Non-intervention from authorities in the economy, is in fact at the very core of a free market economic theory and philosophy, as put forth by Enlightenment and Classical philosophers like Adam Smith. If you had read such basic books as Wealth of Nations, you would know that the economies of the West today, including the US, are as remote from a free market system as you can get. They are highly protectionist. While Keynesian economics has very much regressed in much parts of Europe and the US, since the late 1970's in terms of public welfare spending, it's thriving in the private sector. Government intervention there is very much alive, and in fact quintessential for their survival. "The principal architects of policy" are the "merchants and manufacturers", as Adam Smith put it.
Both Apple and Google rely on government subsidies to expand and to develop. When they receive hundreds of millions in tax cuts to, say, build a new data center, that's no different than a government welfare program paying for your trip to the doctor when you are sick. But it's not just in the cost of running a business these companies are subsidized, but also in the very innovations and technologies that has laid the basis of their profit. Lasers, data storage , transistors, the internet, GUIs, AI, etc. are all technologies developed through government-funded projects, firms (IBM, XEROX Parc, Bell Labs) or research institutions like MIT, through Pentagon. Most of the research at that time was funneled through DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency).
It's a free market because all of the competitors have access to the fruits of the publicly funded research.
The contradiction in this sentence is hilarious, and is a very clear demonstration of the lack of understanding of what a free market is or means, or even the fundamental understanding of economy. The "access to the fruits of publicly funded research", or rather the government going directly in and funding the various firms enormous sums of money for specialized research (in other words, eating up their costs), as well as providing subsidies for other costs (such as my data center example above), is a textbook illustration of protectionism. In this case, protectionism of the private sector.
It's pretty well-understood by economists, in particular those with influence on the political system, that proper free market theory is a recipe for disaster. That's a truism in economic history. But the difference with the system today is that the private sector has been socialized (whereby you have a nanny state that goes in and protects corporations from going bankrupt, and covers their costs), whereas the public sector has been privatized. So free market for normal people, as your arguments are a clear example of, but a kind of socialism for the rich (corporations).
Naturally, business is delighted with all of this: the public pays the costs, assumes the risks, and profit and power are privatised -- that’s how existing market theory works.
Yes, it is, just as it's a free market when they enjoy greater discounts on components than do manufacturers who buy in smaller quantities.
Start by reading
"Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith and
"Economics: The User's Guide" by Ha-Joon Chang, so that you can establish an understanding of the underlying aspects of economies and how they work. Come back to me when you've finished doing that.
