4 ms·

I'd rather get over it and still have the device in my pocket without needing the extra hardware to keep it in one piece.

by Nursie 6y ago

hombre_fatal 6y ago
I tried to go caseless but realized I was constantly thinking about what surface I was putting it on. Is the surface wet at this restaurant? Is it dirty? Is it slippery? Can metal slide on it? If it does inevitably fall, what will happen? A case solved all this. And frankly I can't even recall seeing someone use their phone without a case, so it seems to be a prevailing issue. I'm not sure what the alternative is that you seem to be pitching though, if you were.
- Nursie 6y ago
  > I can't even recall seeing someone use their phone without a case Exactly, they're too fragile to use without some sort of case. Which really makes the "look how thin and pretty the new device is!" something of a lie. And pointless, who cares if the phone is the thinnest ever, when it's going to live its life in a thick jacket? I don't want to use a case. I want a phone I can buy for the way it looks and feels and use as-is.
  - hombre_fatal 6y ago
    I tried to sneak in this final question to my comment, but what other option is there for a luxury consumer gadget? You could argue that phones should just be uglier and thicker and more rugged such that they don't need a case, but I don't think it's very palatable for a $1000 handheld to be taking damage directly for most people when the ruggedness can be outsourced to a $20 case. Nor do I think a luxury consumer gadget can see much success by sacrificing on aesthetics. Building the case into the phone is exactly what my girlfriend's $120 Android does, and it certainly looks like it cost no more than $120 with its rubber bumpers that already look like they've been used as pencil erasers. If you're arguing that people shouldn't care so much about the shiny marketing, it's not clear how much people do care nor what the appropriate amount of care should be. A good looking product does help you spend $1000 though.
    - Nursie 6y ago
      > but what other option is there for a luxury consumer gadget? To make something that won't fall apart the moment someone looks at it wrong? To expect if someone sells something on its aesthetics and how compact it is, that those factors won't then both have to be compromised by the aforementioned $20 case? Clearly you have different expectations of a $1000 device than I do.
    - setr 6y ago
      I would imagine for a $1000 item, it wouldn't be unreasonable to have a designer try to find a way to be more rugged and still not ugly -- see for example, IBM thinkpads, though they are perhaps the other extreme
- searchableguy 6y ago
  I use mine without a case. It has minor cosmetic damage in 3 years with heavy usage.

I'd rather get over it and still have the device in my pocket without needing the extra hardware to keep it in one piece.

by Nursie 6y ago

I'd rather get over it and still have the device in my pocket without needing the extra hardware to keep it in one piece.

hombre_fatal 6y ago

I tried to go caseless but realized I was constantly thinking about what surface I was putting it on. Is the surface wet at this restaurant? Is it dirty? Is it slippery? Can metal slide on it? If it does inevitably fall, what will happen? A case solved all this. And frankly I can't even recall seeing someone use their phone without a case, so it seems to be a prevailing issue. I'm not sure what the alternative is that you seem to be pitching though, if you were.

Nursie 6y ago
> I can't even recall seeing someone use their phone without a case Exactly, they're too fragile to use without some sort of case. Which really makes the "look how thin and pretty the new device is!" something of a lie. And pointless, who cares if the phone is the thinnest ever, when it's going to live its life in a thick jacket? I don't want to use a case. I want a phone I can buy for the way it looks and feels and use as-is.
- hombre_fatal 6y ago
  I tried to sneak in this final question to my comment, but what other option is there for a luxury consumer gadget? You could argue that phones should just be uglier and thicker and more rugged such that they don't need a case, but I don't think it's very palatable for a $1000 handheld to be taking damage directly for most people when the ruggedness can be outsourced to a $20 case. Nor do I think a luxury consumer gadget can see much success by sacrificing on aesthetics. Building the case into the phone is exactly what my girlfriend's $120 Android does, and it certainly looks like it cost no more than $120 with its rubber bumpers that already look like they've been used as pencil erasers. If you're arguing that people shouldn't care so much about the shiny marketing, it's not clear how much people do care nor what the appropriate amount of care should be. A good looking product does help you spend $1000 though.
  - Nursie 6y ago
    > but what other option is there for a luxury consumer gadget? To make something that won't fall apart the moment someone looks at it wrong? To expect if someone sells something on its aesthetics and how compact it is, that those factors won't then both have to be compromised by the aforementioned $20 case? Clearly you have different expectations of a $1000 device than I do.
  - setr 6y ago
    I would imagine for a $1000 item, it wouldn't be unreasonable to have a designer try to find a way to be more rugged and still not ugly -- see for example, IBM thinkpads, though they are perhaps the other extreme
searchableguy 6y ago
I use mine without a case. It has minor cosmetic damage in 3 years with heavy usage.