• Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    Good thing.

    Even more so if you intend to take the ‘waterproof’ aspect for serious: IP68 means that you can actually take a few close-up pictures of your goldfish.

    • ji59@hilariouschaos.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      There is no reason to not have both Jack and waterproofing. And as Samsung had shown recently, no reason to not have waterproofing and replaceable battery. If there is a place for headphone jack, just put it there.

      • Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        Waterproofing a 3.5mm jack is not that difficult

        Hm. If you say so. But I would never trust it further than a few minutes in the rain.

        • balsoft@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          Do you think it’s more difficult to waterproof than a USB-C port? And if so, how did 148 phones from the list above get their IP68/IP69 ratings?

          • Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            No, but I think most “waterproof” phones can fulfil only something like IP44, that is, withstand some light rain.

            Even if they appear in other search lists, and especially (!!) when they “invent” other standards than the strict IPxx numbers that have existed alteady before this phone.