Thin is in

[JSWolf]

Using the Kindle Oasis for an example. The weight can be dropped without making it any thinner. Change from the aluminum to plastic and you've dropped the weight without making it any thinner.

If a device is made thinner and the battery has to be worse because of the size, then it's too thin. The audio jack going also means it's too thin.

I like the size of the original H2O because it's not too thin. That's one reason for a case is if the device is too thin, the case ads some bulk.

[John F]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

...
If a device is made thinner and the battery has to be worse because of the size, then it's too thin. The audio jack going also means it's too thin. ...

That would depend on the current battery life. Most of the ereaders I've had could easily sacrifice some battery life.

I don't believe that "the audio jack going" means it is too thin. Didn't the original Kindles have audio Jack's and now they don't; I don't recall many complaints about Kindles being too thin when the audio jack went away.

I like the size of the original H2O because it's not too thin. That's one reason for a case is if the device is too thin, the case ads some bulk.

Sounds like your H2O is too thick with a case?

As has been mentioned before, you can always make a "too thin" ereader thicker by adding stuff, but you can't make a too thick e-reader thinner by taking stuff away (the exception being maybe some later Sonys?).

[theducks]

Originally Posted by John F

And making device too thick means giving up something. TVs were extremely bulky and heavy, readers were too bulky to care conveniently, they were too heavy for extended periods of reading while holding.

The thing is, for many, too thick means not easy to hold be it a reader, phone, tablet, laptop, ...

Let them make things thinner until they are too thin. For many things, we aren't there yet.

You never used a paperback
in the 50's and 60's, they were mainly ~1/2inch.
Finding one under 1in in this century is rare (it is probably an advertisement ). Heck, 1-1/2" is more common than not. Those weigh more than my oldest device did (with Cover)

[theducks]

Reasons the Audio jack went:
not waterproof
costs money, prone to fails
Audio is a 'performance' and the union objected
Audio codecs need liceneses

[binaryhermit]

But implementing bluetooth audio requires implementing $deity-knows how many patented technologies licensed under non-gratis licensing,

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by theducks

Reasons the Audio jack went:
not waterproof
costs money, prone to fails
Audio is a 'performance' and the union objected
Audio codecs need liceneses

No, purely marketing is why audio jack went on BT enabled devices. Also in Apple's case to make much more profit.

BT inherently costs more and is poorer quality than a decent onboard DAC and a 20c 3.5mm socket. An extra thing to charge and an extra battery (often now not replaceable) to wear out.

I'll only ever buy a phone or tablet or laptop without a real jack socket if none with jack sockets exist.

The Kobo H2O original was waterproofed with a bung. The Kobo Libra micro USB is totally exposed but PCB is coated.

Lack of an audio socket is nothing to do with waterproofing. I've two-way radios that are waterproof, but have power and headset sockets.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by John F

That would depend on the current battery life. Most of the ereaders I've had could easily sacrifice some battery life.

I don't believe that "the audio jack going" means it is too thin. Didn't the original Kindles have audio Jack's and now they don't; I don't recall many complaints about Kindles being too thin when the audio jack went away.


Sounds like your H2O is too thick with a case?

As has been mentioned before, you can always make a "too thin" ereader thicker by adding stuff, but you can't make a too thick e-reader thinner by taking stuff away (the exception being maybe some later Sonys?).

I'm not talking just Readers. Thin applies to phones and other devices. The audio jack going was an Apple idea that I think is a terrible idea.

As for my H2O, it's not too thick. The case that's on it is a slim fit case.

[John F]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I'm not talking just Readers. Thin applies to phones and other devices. The audio jack going was an Apple idea that I think is a terrible idea.

...

Sure, thin applies to a lot of stuff. Phones aren't too thin and other devices aren't too thin. And I don't think Apple getting rid of the audio jack was a terrible idea.

[John F]

Originally Posted by Quoth

No, purely marketing is why audio jack went on BT enabled devices. Also in Apple's case to make much more profit.

BT inherently costs more and is poorer quality than a decent onboard DAC and a 20c 3.5mm socket. An extra thing to charge and an extra battery (often now not replaceable) to wear out.

I'll only ever buy a phone or tablet or laptop without a real jack socket if none with jack sockets exist.

The Kobo H2O original was waterproofed with a bung. The Kobo Libra micro USB is totally exposed but PCB is coated.

Lack of an audio socket is nothing to do with waterproofing. I've two-way radios that are waterproof, but have power and headset sockets.

But the phones already have BT, so there is no extra cost for the hardware? And are we sure that licensing is more? Doing a quick Google for BT licensing, it cost Apple $4000 for each model (although I would guess that there may be more licensing costs for some of the codecs.). Let's say they sell 500,000 of a model, so that comes out to $100,000 for the audio jack.

[PeterT]

The other issue with the removal of the headphone jack is the removal of the antenna for FM radio. Many phones used to use the wire on the external headphones as the antenna

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by PeterT

The other issue with the removal of the headphone jack is the removal of the antenna for FM radio. Many phones used to use the wire on the external headphones as the antenna

Also tablets, yet they could fit an aerial wire.

I don't know ANY phone or tablet that works the radio without the earphone cable as an aerial.

Many phones with no earphone socket actually have a disabled FM Radio as the function is often part of the WiFi + Bluetooth chip.
Also ironically many work better than any portable set easily bought in a local shop and are easier to use than DAB/FM sets as well as working better. DAB sets often only have 10 presets and no manual tuning for FM.

Coverage for FM is not as good as for LW in Europe, or MW, but it's far better than DAB or Mobile. Also can be better quality. DAB and streaming on Mobile often has horrendous artefacts that are worse for people with impared hearing due to too low a bit rate. DAB+ is often used to have twice as many channels at slightly lower quality.

We have only LW now on AM and only 43% DAB coverage (and most Muxes have only the State broadcaster), so FM is important.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by John F

But the phones already have BT, so there is no extra cost for the hardware? And are we sure that licensing is more? Doing a quick Google for BT licensing, it cost Apple $4000 for each model (although I would guess that there may be more licensing costs for some of the codecs.). Let's say they sell 500,000 of a model, so that comes out to $100,000 for the audio jack.

It's the earphone part that costs more for BT. It's free basically as it's in all the WiFi chips used in phones. It's also poor compared to €10 headphones.

[Dr. Drib]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Thin can be ridiculous. We need thicker to be able to hold better and for a ticker batter that hold more of a charge.

Thinner is better,
but ticker is batter.

[Winkelschraube]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

We really need to go back to less thin.

No, more! and less weight.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Winkelschraube

No, more! and less weight.

The thinner you get with a Reader that has a glass substrate, the easier it is to break the screen.