4 ms·

Cool product. Nextel back in the day showed that there's a market for rugged phones like this. I'm curious why the low resolution though, seems like the cpu sho

by blt 11y ago

Cool product. Nextel back in the day showed that there's a market for rugged phones like this. I'm curious why the low resolution though, seems like the cpu should be fast enough to handle 1080p.

spiderfarmer 11y ago
Here in the Netherlands the CAT branded phones are very popular among construction workers, even though they have low resolution screens, Android versions that are a couple of generations behind and (surprisingly) batteries that can't be replaced. Raw specs are not that important in this market.
- vlehto 11y ago
  I've worked in construction and I use a Nokia dumbphone. The reason for it is that I need to answer calls quickly while at work. So the phone has to be in a pocket close by. And it's likely that most pockets "close by" also have some sand in them. Nobody has money to buy new iPhone every two months. But it's manageable to buy new dumbphone once a year.
  - creshal 11y ago
    Similarly I've been scrambling to keep finding new feature phones with rubber-sealed keypads for my dad (car mechanic). Every seam is an invitation for steel dust, and touch screens are useless when you're wearing thick work gloves.
    - exDM69 11y ago
      How about the Cat B100? http://www.catphones.com/en-gb/phones/b100 http://www.catphones.com/en-gb/phones/b100 I've been considering getting myself one, not because of a dirty work but I'd like to have a phone that's usable with gloves on. And a battery life that is measured in weeks, not hours.
      - creshal 11y ago
        $100? Oof. It used to be that you could get $20 Nokias like that.
        exDM69 11y ago
        Yeah, it's a bit pricey but certainly a more rugged phone than a $20 dumbphone. I guess the question is: "will it last five times longer or be significantly better?" I haven't tried it. They have a few models that are quite a lot cheaper than this, but with less battery life and other specs.
- PhasmaFelis 11y ago
  The non-replaceable battery is disappointing, but understandable: a removable battery cover is a seam that has to be water/dirt-proofed, and a point of failure when dropped.
robin_reala 11y ago
Battery life. When you’re already above 300ppi (312ppi for this phone) it becomes progressively less noticeable to go up in resolution for a measurable hit to the battery life.
- creshal 11y ago
  Apart from the obvious problems (more pixels = more GPU/CPU power needed), the more dense the screen, the less effective is the backlight: With a denser matrix, less light passes through the tinier cells, and you have to crank up raw backlight strength to compensate. And that is absolutely murderous for an outdoor phone that has to have a backlight as bright as possible, so you can read it in the sun.
wtallis 11y ago
This phone absolutely needs to last all day without recharging. Lower resolution displays draw less power and require less power to render to. 1280x720 is reasonable for 4.7": it's 316 ppi. Higher density only offers steeply diminishing returns in image quality, for sharply increased power consumption and a noticeable increase in cost.

by blt 11y ago

Cool product. Nextel back in the day showed that there's a market for rugged phones like this. I'm curious why the low resolution though, seems like the cpu should be fast enough to handle 1080p.

spiderfarmer 11y ago

Here in the Netherlands the CAT branded phones are very popular among construction workers, even though they have low resolution screens, Android versions that are a couple of generations behind and (surprisingly) batteries that can't be replaced. Raw specs are not that important in this market.

vlehto 11y ago
I've worked in construction and I use a Nokia dumbphone. The reason for it is that I need to answer calls quickly while at work. So the phone has to be in a pocket close by. And it's likely that most pockets "close by" also have some sand in them. Nobody has money to buy new iPhone every two months. But it's manageable to buy new dumbphone once a year.
- creshal 11y ago
  Similarly I've been scrambling to keep finding new feature phones with rubber-sealed keypads for my dad (car mechanic). Every seam is an invitation for steel dust, and touch screens are useless when you're wearing thick work gloves.
  - exDM69 11y ago
    How about the Cat B100? http://www.catphones.com/en-gb/phones/b100 http://www.catphones.com/en-gb/phones/b100 I've been considering getting myself one, not because of a dirty work but I'd like to have a phone that's usable with gloves on. And a battery life that is measured in weeks, not hours.
    - creshal 11y ago
      $100? Oof. It used to be that you could get $20 Nokias like that.
      - exDM69 11y ago
        Yeah, it's a bit pricey but certainly a more rugged phone than a $20 dumbphone. I guess the question is: "will it last five times longer or be significantly better?" I haven't tried it. They have a few models that are quite a lot cheaper than this, but with less battery life and other specs.
PhasmaFelis 11y ago
The non-replaceable battery is disappointing, but understandable: a removable battery cover is a seam that has to be water/dirt-proofed, and a point of failure when dropped.

robin_reala 11y ago

Battery life. When you’re already above 300ppi (312ppi for this phone) it becomes progressively less noticeable to go up in resolution for a measurable hit to the battery life.

creshal 11y ago
Apart from the obvious problems (more pixels = more GPU/CPU power needed), the more dense the screen, the less effective is the backlight: With a denser matrix, less light passes through the tinier cells, and you have to crank up raw backlight strength to compensate. And that is absolutely murderous for an outdoor phone that has to have a backlight as bright as possible, so you can read it in the sun.

wtallis 11y ago

This phone absolutely needs to last all day without recharging. Lower resolution displays draw less power and require less power to render to. 1280x720 is reasonable for 4.7": it's 316 ppi. Higher density only offers steeply diminishing returns in image quality, for sharply increased power consumption and a noticeable increase in cost.