Re: What's the actual *advantage* of not having an sd slot?

Your Name,

Having done statistics at university, surveys / polls / studies are not
accurate.

I know.  They are statistics, not tallying counts.

But statistics is the the /only/ financially viable way to do it.

Besides the problem that calling-and-asking /everyone/ might cause a new
product to be delayed for several years. :-)

The cost of any hardware features on a device are passed on to the
customer, usually at an inflated price. Removing the feature rarely
results in a lower price, so that "extra" money goes straight into the
company's pockets.

True, and I've already agreed to that - multiple times.

But you are forgetting one rather important thing : such change *doesn't
come on its own*.

In the case of that audio jack it got removed because the new phone got to
thin to keep it.   Its also one of several reasons that could have caused
both of the sd-cards slots to disappear.

I also mentioned the positive side of having less openings thru which dust
and water can enter the phone, lengthening their lifespan.

I also mentioned of how using wireless a headset or earplugs saves you from
having to deal with knotting, fraying and breaking wires.

... And than I mentioned a downside of using a wireless headset or earplugs.
:-)

In other words, you should not look at the disappearance of audio jacks and
sd-cards as isolated events.

Nor as having *only* negative or positive effects.   You would need to do is
to make a pro and con list of them and try to figure out if the *overal
score* is than positive or negative.  And than realizing that that score is
quite subjective, as what is determined to be a pro or con is *your*
consideration, and do not that of your neighbour.

The extra cost of the slightly improved camera may replace the cost of the
removed headphone jack, but such a tweak in the new model's features
doesn't cover the cost of the removed charger.

And you know that ... How ?    Mind you, you are making a "this is a fact"
claim,  Without providing supporting evidence.

Besides, the last "slightly improved camera" hI eard of was mostly software,
not the physical camera itself.  Do you have *any* idea how much software
research costs ?

They don't use "safe" colours" They use the colours that their over-paid
fashion experts tell them will be "in vogue" when the car is released.

Thats pretty-much exactly what I tried to explain.

And thank you for agreeing that companies do not just pick which colors the
buyers will get from ontop of an ivory tower.  :-)

and you can't just throw another component into it.

>
Technically you can,

Fill a bucket with water upto the top.  Now try to put another liter of
water into it.  What happens ?   So no, you can't.

but not with Apple's design ethos of having no visible screws

My Pixel 6 doesn't show any visible screws either.

and soldering everything down.

*What else* should they have done ?   And if you think you have the answer,
do you think their phones would stay as thin as they now do ?

IOW, try to consider *both* sides of an/that equation please.

There are one or two makers that specifically have modular cellphones
where the user can plug toegether the features they want.

Can you imagine /any/ reason to why those are not the most-sold phones in
the world ?

I can, and I'm sure you can too.

Also, for the people who just *have* to have some feature on/in their phone
there such phones would be the answer (are you listening, Arlen?).

But than somehow they actually put up a pro/con list and decide that the
phone that *doesn't* have their "must have" feature is the one they are
going to buy, but at the same time keep complaining about *their own choice*
not having everything they want.

Humans are a quaint bunch...

The main cause of so-called "inflation" is the ever-increasing pay packet
given to the morons in management.

Do you think that the cost of the components and stuff related to actual
manufacturing and the wages of all the people related to manufacturers stays
static ?  I hope you don't.

And yes, I can see the gigantic ammounts of money (compared to my own
income) the upper echelons get (stipulated by contracts* agreed to by the
people who *actually* own the company (by way of shares) ), but I also know
that producing a *lot* of something also means that they earn a *lot* of
money.

* You reach a certain (sales?) goal, you get rewarded.   It pushes the
"morons in management" to actually work. :-)

Most people are willing to pay a sensible price, but the reality is most
companies (especially tech companies) gough the customer for as mush as
they can thanks to the greedy stupidity of "supply and demand". :-(

The "reality" is that people still keep paying the asked price, and do not
just say No.

You might think of companies as "greedy" (which, as mentioned, its in their
charter) but buyers are absolutily stupid.   The "bling" factor reigns
supreme. :-(

And age doesn't seem to be a factor.   Kids who will "literally die" when
they don't get the latest nike sneakers and/or footbal cap to the "la coste"
shirts (with the crocodile on it) to adults who buy *very* expensive houses,
cars, boats that they do not actually need.

What the morons in management rarely understand is that if the product was
cheaper, more people would likely buy it ... rather than selling less
product at a higher price.

:-)  The larger companies have rooms full of bean-counters who's only job it
is to figure stuff out like that.  If the second one would actually result
in more money *with a comparable risk* than they would do it in a heartbeat.

Than again, the whole company culture of the higher management getting
rewarded for reaching certain sales (read: money) goals it could throw a
wrench into the "comparable risk" part.  And ofcourse the already existing
contracts.  Don't forget about them.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser