6 ms·
Why? It seems that phones are space constrained, not weight, and this proposed battery is 3x better by space but 2.5x worse by weight. That would allow a 1 day
by Cerium 10y ago
Why? It seems that phones are space constrained, not weight, and this proposed battery is 3x better by space but 2.5x worse by weight. That would allow a 1 day phone to go 3 days right?
- cmdrfred 10y agoIf I know anything about cellphone manufactures they will simply use this tech to make the phone razor thin rather than increasing battery life.
- thecrazyone 10y agoI'd like to wager there'll be all kinds of phones trying to discover what the customer wants. I'm guessing, for the majority, it'll be neither of the extremes - heavy with max battery, or light weight with min battery - but somewhere in between those extremes
- PhasmaFelis 10y agoEven "space constrained" is arguable, depending on the context. We've had powerful, feature-packed phones no taller/wider than the screen and thin enough to fit in a tight pocket for years, and that's all anyone reasonably needs. But developers and gadgetphiles fetishize thinness to the point that devs are now actually removing important features, like headphone jacks and (on Android) removable batteries, to squeeze out a few more useless millimeters. As long as those priorities remain, any power-per-volume improvements will be twisted around to serve pointless shrinkage rather than actually improving anything.
- Retric 10y agoSome of this relates to the size of the phone in a case which add a lot of bulk and seem overly popular. But, another factor is larger phones need to be very thin to be comfortable in many pockets.
- nine_k 10y agoTo the contrary, a long and very thin phone is hard to put into a tight pocket without the fear of bending and breaking it.
- Altay- 10y agoDo you really think the audio jack was removed because of thinness? Have you seen the inside of a smartphone? Its not just about thinness. There is very little space for anything besides the battery. Also, removable batteries and the audio jack get in the way of dust/water proofing. You may think shrinkage is pointless, but that's clearly not what the market or the top designers think. Why do you want a giant, useless, 100+ year old analog port on your 2017 device? I don't. Its ugly.
- waivej 10y agoI think the audio jack was removed as a step toward not requiring cables at all.
- ComputerGuru 10y agoYou need to revisit your comment. A 3.5mm port with Bluetooth does not require cables any more than a Bluetooth-only device.
- spacemanmatt 10y agoExcept BlueTooth audio quality is terrible. No one is wrong to want something better, wireless or 3.5mm.
- ComputerGuru 10y agoThat's fine, but that has nothing to do with whether or not the presence of a 3.5mm jack makes wires mandatory. Whether or not the quality of the bluetooth stack improves with the removal of the 3.5mm jack is highly debatable.
- _jal 10y agoAgree on the battery part. But... > Why do you want a giant, useless, 100+ year old analog port on your 2017 device? I don't. Its ugly. Arguing about aesthetics is futile, but I want the port because I find it useful, and don't measure utility by invention-age. Seems similar to judging a beer by the bartender's height.