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

On 2025-06-26 08:51, Marion wrote:

On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 10:51:46 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
 

Writing again the quoting you removed:
>
]
]> So a phone w/o an aux jack is *always* an inferior phone to one with it.
]>                       (all else being equal)

 Carlos,
 I am trying to be nice when I say you can't say logic is wrong.

You're a narcissist who's trying to pretend to be nice, so you can go back to your insulting ways while claiming you've been persecuted.

 There are X number of things a phone with the aux jack can do.
There are fewer than X number of things a phone without it can do.

And if none of those things matter to the individuals who purchase such a phone, an aux jack is just something they need to pay for that they won't use.

 That's just pure unassailable logic, Carlos.
For you to disagree with that logic means you don't understand logic.

It's "unassailable"...
...but utterly irrelevant.

 

It explains a lot when you claim that facts are opinions, as I've heard
that a lot - but usually they're not confused on an Android newsgroup.

>
And opinions are not fact. You claim that what are in fact your opinions
we accept as universal facts. We don't, they are just your opinions.

 Carlos,
It's not an opinion when I say there are X number of things a phone with
the aux jack can do, while there are fewer than X number of things a phone
without it can do.

You said that before.

 If you claim that logically sensible statement is merely an opinion, open
to debate, then it simply means you don't understand what we're discussing.
 I hope I'm being nice - but I can't figure out a nicer way to say that
either you understand that if you have two phones which are exactly the
same except one lacks the ability of portable storage, then the phone
without the portable storage can't do everything the phone with it can.
 It's absurd that I have to even state something that obvious, Carlos.
Nobody in the world would disagree with that logically sensible point.

Arlen, what is this fetish, Arlen, you have for mentioning people's names over and over again, Arlen?

 Except you.
And the Apple trolls.
 The fact I have to *repeat* this is already at the point of absurdity.
 

I understand that for some people, these features might not be a priority,
and they might even prefer a phone without them for design reasons.
However, from a purely hardware-capability standpoint, the presence of
these features means the phone can do things that the other phone simply
cannot do without external accessories or cloud services."

>
Yes; the phone can do something or can not. However, it has a price, it
uses space, dirt or water can get it.

 OK. Carlos. For the first time in this message, you've been sensible.

So nice!

 Of course there are drawbacks to the aux jack, where one of them is
potential waterproofing - but - and this is what matters - nobody can find
any evidence that phones without the aux jack have any higher IP ratings
than phones with the aux jack. So it's a red herring.

And you won't accept that phones without an aux jack are perfectly capable of doing what most people want of an aux jack:
To plug in earbuds/earphones.

 Likewise, of course a phone without the aux jack has more room for other
stuff, such as, oh, say, a bigger battery. But again, there is no evidence
that shows that is the case in the real world. Another red herring.

It's completely obvious.

 Similarly, of course a phone without the aux jack should be less expensive
than a phyone with the aux jack, but again and again, there is no evidence
that the OEM is passing that cost savings back on to you.
 So, sure, theoretically, removing the aux jack has benefits; but nobody can
find these benefits in the real world, which is the world I happen to live
in.

Funny how you want everyone else to provide evidence...
...but you never do.

 

It is the user who decides if that
characteristic is important to him or not. If the user doesn't care,
then it is irrelevant.
>
Me, I prefer to have the jack. To me it is important.

 This is the second time you've said something sensible in this post.
 Nobody sensible would agree that if you don't need or want something, than
not having it is no loss - but - and this is big - there's a catch.
 Remember when Arno said he didn't need portable storage because he paid an
arm and a leg for a phone that had enough internal storage to last him the
lifetime of the phone? Remember that?
 So there *is* a penalty.
 Likewise, remember someone said that they don't use wired headphones so
they don't need the aux jack? Of course, that's fine - but - and this is
important - can you charge the phone and use the USB port for headphones
simultaneously? What if your bluetooth battery dies in your headphones?
What if you're on a long international trip on a plane where you must use
headphones the entire time?
 The fact is unassailable that if you take two phones, where the only
difference is one lacks the headphone jack, that the phone with the
headphone jack has X amount of capabilities, while the phone without it has
less than X amount of capabilities. That's just an unassailable fact.
 It's not an opinion.
It's a fact.
 It's distasteful that I have to repeat something so obvious.
 

Think of it like a car. A car with a tow hitch has the capability to tow a
trailer. A car without one doesn't. Even if someone never tows a trailer,
the car with the hitch still possesses that extra capability that the other
one lacks. It's not about whether they use it, but whether the inherent
functionality is present.

>
A tow hitch has the capability to damage greatly another car when
reversing in a parking, and you have to pay expensive damages. So, it
makes parking more difficult and dangerous.

 When you resort to attacking the analogy, it means you have no defense to
the logical argument that the phone with the headphone jack has X amount of
capabilities, while the phone without it has less than X amount of
capabilities. That's just an unassailable fact you happen to not like.
 You don't appear to like that fact.
But not liking facts doesn't change that they're facts nonetheless.
 It's distasteful that I have to explain something so obvious.
Let's just give up. OK. You don't like facts. I do.
 We're different that way.

Indeed you are "different", Arlen!
Most of us are not the kind of pricks that would get slapped in the face if they spoke to others as you do.