Late, but I ran into "posting too fast", which can be frustrating at times when a discussion is good enough to warrant more participation, but I digress.

I said it in my comment(s) above.

Video, for example, works differently than audio does. Digital video brings advantages that generally outweigh costs in the majority of use cases. Analog video, like audio, does take fewer resources and can still be indicated for projects, depending.

For ordinary consumers, DV is a general win. They will move willingly and their older gear will age out and become not so useful.

DA is not a general win. Their gear will not age out, will not become less useful, etc... Unless that is artificial!

And that is exactly why "no headphone jack" is so contentious right now! Most forced migrations make sense. This one really doesn't, and it's due to the nature of audio, existing gear investments, and the fact that going digital really doesn't get a person anything new.

Above that we've got some real spiffy bits. No wires is probably the best of the lot. That's a win, but the cost of it, when one is forced to adopt only a digital path is much higher than it needs to be and everyone knows it.

Should the entire electronics industry abandon analog audio, there will be startups who embrace it. 70's era gear remains entirely relevant. And it will, again, unless forced artificially.

70's era video is marginally relevant. NTSC / PAL at SD resolutions, and on analog gear, have a few sweet spots left, but for almost everyone, using that gear does not make too much sense today.

This is absolutely HUGE.

Put another way, the winners from "no headphone jack" are largely the people not wanting to include a headphone jack. Ordinary people can get all the spiffy stuff and abandon analog as they see fit without ever being required to do or spend on things having basically no value.

I don't get anything new, and my personal cost and risk exposure related to audio goes up! And this is true for very large numbers of people.

That's a losing proposition.

I just happened to think of a great parallel: HD Radio. It's got some nice advantages, but basically does nothing new, and it does so at a very significant cost to everyone.

Said that one would fail, and it basically has. Nobody needs digital radio, and what they failed to understand was that (due to commercials and other annoyances already impacting radio), and how people use radios, and the value of the installed base of radios out there now.

Right now, if you get one of those expensive radios, there are literally give away stations, no commercials! That's how poorly the dynamics surrounding radio are understood by the bigger players. They can't give it away!

I know I would not take a free phone, sans the jack. It's way too much of a hassle to be outside a production proven, time tested, high value, audio ecosystem.

These are all reasons why people who don't really get how their customers do things are going to lose in the marketplace.

Heck, I have not even read a single reason why it has to be done!

Big content wants it, because piracy. (laughable at this point, and that's no joke)

Apple wants it, Google probably wants it, because friendly to big content, also up selling, accessory replacement selling.

Samsung shows us it's entirely possible to make an awesome phone with the jack in it. I own one, and it is actually an awesome phone. Apple has nothing on my Note 8. (But I do love Apple's approach to user data security / privacy.)

There just isn't any value added here. Worse, the cost "savings" from removing the jack is what? $50 bucks tops?

How much do adapters, new earbuds, and related bits cost over the life of the phone? What about a person's time, existing knowledge, investments in gear?

Losing proposition across the board. Again, that's why I do not see a win on this.