[melq]

You don't seem to understand the difference between a design choice you don't like, versus an objectively bad design.

When Apple removed the headphone jack from iPhones, (supposedly) in favor of making them waterproof, that was a design choice that many people rightfully disliked. However, we can imagine there was also a population of people who preferred such a tradeoff. For instance: lifeguards, sea-world trainers, deaf people. It's not a 'flaw' simply because you don't prefer it.

If you are someone who buys a diving watch, but isn't a deep sea diver, you aren't justified in complaining that the watch isn't solar powered. There are people who require (or at least prefer) such a watch, and if you aren't among them, don't buy it.

You don't get to decide what is and isn't a flaw based on your arbitrary use cases. An actual flaw is an implementation detail that is not consistent with the design specs. If Apple set out to make a phone with a working headphone jack, and the resulting product didn't have one, thats a flaw. If they set out to make a phone without a headphone jack, then it isn't a design flaw if the resulting phone doesn't have one.

[wayneftw]

You don't seem to understand that there is no arbiter of objectivity that we can rely on and that deciding what is a flawed design and what is not is completely subjective.

Removing the headphone jack "for waterproofing" is obviously defective for me because other phones that are waterproof didn't have to remove the jack and I had to buy new headphones. It wasn't for Apple though - they designed it that way so they could sell more headphones. That's how subjectivity works.

Who complained about deep sea watches not being solar powered? I don't have to make up situations to prove my point like a weasel. I just point them out as I see them and the examples I've referenced have been widely held as flaws in Apple's designs.

I do get to decide what is a flaw based on intended use cases as stated by Apple. Nobody made up any arbitrary use cases here.