3 ms·

But who wants a fat smartphone with lower battery life? Smartphones are where people want as much energy density as possible. Smartphones are also expensive dev

by GuB-42 3y ago

But who wants a fat smartphone with lower battery life? Smartphones are where people want as much energy density as possible. Smartphones are also expensive devices with a relatively small battery, so it makes sense to add a few dollars for more energy density. Also most smartphone manufacturers are very much into planned obsolescence, so much that countries are starting to legislate, they don't really want long lasting batteries, especially not if it compromises the user experience. There could be a market for power tools, where having more batteries of lower capacity for the same price can be desirable. Also maybe for hybrid vehicles.

MrDrMcCoy 3y ago
Personally, I wouldn't mind a fatter phone. It actually might be easier for me to hold. I've never seen the appeal of phones so thin I could shave with them.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > never seen the appeal of phones so thin I could shave with them For people who wear slimmer-fitting clothing, this matters. Also, it’s more about the weight: you want a phone light enough that holding it up isn’t tedious.
  - MrDrMcCoy 3y ago
    I suppose. Then again, so long as it's not so heavy as to cause pain, I think there would be a least some market for such devices. I thought the Steam Deck would be prohibitively heavy to use for it's weight, but the ergonomics made up for much of that.
    - craftkiller 3y ago
      If I use the steam deck for more than a couple of hours then I feel it in my wrists the next day. I still love the steam deck but it could go on a diet. (There are lighter alternatives, but I bought the steam deck specifically to financially support Valve's Linux gaming efforts)
      - baq 3y ago
        This should be nicely solved with something like the xreal glasses. Lie the deck down and have the display right in front of your eyes regardless of how you hold the input device.
        MrDrMcCoy 3y ago
        Sadly, there's no way to use those glasses while also charging. I'd buy one instantly if there were a readily available solution for that.
  - fallingsquirrel 3y ago
    This isn't playing out in reality though. 10 years ago we already had the tech for smaller phones (and yes the battery life was fine, 1-2 days typical). Just check out any flagship from the 2010-2015 era, e.g. https://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_i9500_galaxy_s4-5125.php https://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_i9500_galaxy_s4-5125.php If people actually care about slim, light phones... why has almost every company stopped making them?
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > If people actually care about slim, light phones... why has almost every company stopped making them? It’s not the sole factor. But ceteris paribus, most consumer prefer a thinner, lighter phone.
- crazygringo 3y ago
  The appeal is about being able to slide easily into pants pockets (esp. front pockets) without creating big uncomfortable tight bulges. Not as much of an issue with loose men's chinos, but definitely an issue with standard slim men's jeans, as well as with a slimmer-cut chino. And if you want to see if a fatter phone is easier to hold, that's what cases are for. You don't need them to make the phone fatter. In reality, most thin phones aren't all that thin anyways once people put a protective case on them, as many (most?) people do.
  - genewitch 3y ago
    this is why purses were invented. If you go out in public pay attention to visible phones sticking out of pockets and what sort of person that belongs to. I just commented on this last night, in fact. Wife's phone half out of her pocket, and it's a smaller iphone than my brick of a 1+, but my phone sits midway down my thigh in my pocket. I make no judgement on the pants people wear (or don't).
hilbert42 3y ago
"…smartphone manufacturers are very much into planned obsolescence,…" E-waste laws at some point will become inevitable, so planned obsolescence will be under scrutiny. Devices will have to have a minimum design life etc. Moreover, user-replaceable batteries—whether long life or high capacity—are likely to be mandatory as a result of such legislation. My old Nokia used to have a replaceable battery which also served as the back of the phone, a quick release button meant the battery could be replaced within seconds. Manufacturers can't use the argument that it can't be done because it was common practice with Nokia 20 years ago. Nowadays more modern design practices will make that even easier to implement.
- mschuster91 3y ago
  > Manufacturers can't use the argument that it can't be done because it was common practice with Nokia 20 years ago. Nowadays more modern design practices will make that even easier to implement. The problem is water resistance. Your old Nokia (except the indestructible 3310) was dead if you managed to let it fall into water, most phones up until the end of the headphone jack had the same problem - and secure-boot stuff has made it virtually impossible to recover data if the phone doesn't boot up any more. Water resistance and non-sealed phones don't really mix, unless you're going for really bulky things like the CAT lineup or Samsung's Active Tab series.
  - GuB-42 3y ago
    I don't know where this myth came from but there are many smartphones that are water resistant and with a user replaceable battery. One of the first in the mainstream was the Motorola Defy, there is also the Samsung Galaxy S5. Neither were particularly bulky. Interestingly the Galaxy S6, which followed the S5 was neither waterproof nor has a removable battery. I currently have one of the very few remaining smartphones with a removable battery (Galaxy XCover 7) and it is water resistant. It is a bit bulky (because it is rugged) but no more than the average phone when you add a case. Sealing a battery compartment in a way that doesn't hinder replacement is a solved problem, they do it to diving watches that are actually waterproof at depth, not merely water resistant. And phones cannot be completely sealed. That's why none are really waterproof (and warranty doesn't cover water damage). The biggest issues are speakers and microphones, getting the sound through and keeping the water out requires some compromises. Then there is the port(s), SIM tray, buttons, barometer,... By comparison, a battery cover is easy.

by GuB-42 3y ago

MrDrMcCoy 3y ago

Personally, I wouldn't mind a fatter phone. It actually might be easier for me to hold. I've never seen the appeal of phones so thin I could shave with them.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> never seen the appeal of phones so thin I could shave with them For people who wear slimmer-fitting clothing, this matters. Also, it’s more about the weight: you want a phone light enough that holding it up isn’t tedious.
- MrDrMcCoy 3y ago
  I suppose. Then again, so long as it's not so heavy as to cause pain, I think there would be a least some market for such devices. I thought the Steam Deck would be prohibitively heavy to use for it's weight, but the ergonomics made up for much of that.
  - craftkiller 3y ago
    If I use the steam deck for more than a couple of hours then I feel it in my wrists the next day. I still love the steam deck but it could go on a diet. (There are lighter alternatives, but I bought the steam deck specifically to financially support Valve's Linux gaming efforts)
    - baq 3y ago
      This should be nicely solved with something like the xreal glasses. Lie the deck down and have the display right in front of your eyes regardless of how you hold the input device.
      - MrDrMcCoy 3y ago
        Sadly, there's no way to use those glasses while also charging. I'd buy one instantly if there were a readily available solution for that.
- fallingsquirrel 3y ago
  This isn't playing out in reality though. 10 years ago we already had the tech for smaller phones (and yes the battery life was fine, 1-2 days typical). Just check out any flagship from the 2010-2015 era, e.g. https://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_i9500_galaxy_s4-5125.php https://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_i9500_galaxy_s4-5125.php If people actually care about slim, light phones... why has almost every company stopped making them?
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > If people actually care about slim, light phones... why has almost every company stopped making them? It’s not the sole factor. But ceteris paribus, most consumer prefer a thinner, lighter phone.
crazygringo 3y ago
The appeal is about being able to slide easily into pants pockets (esp. front pockets) without creating big uncomfortable tight bulges. Not as much of an issue with loose men's chinos, but definitely an issue with standard slim men's jeans, as well as with a slimmer-cut chino. And if you want to see if a fatter phone is easier to hold, that's what cases are for. You don't need them to make the phone fatter. In reality, most thin phones aren't all that thin anyways once people put a protective case on them, as many (most?) people do.
- genewitch 3y ago
  this is why purses were invented. If you go out in public pay attention to visible phones sticking out of pockets and what sort of person that belongs to. I just commented on this last night, in fact. Wife's phone half out of her pocket, and it's a smaller iphone than my brick of a 1+, but my phone sits midway down my thigh in my pocket. I make no judgement on the pants people wear (or don't).

hilbert42 3y ago

"…smartphone manufacturers are very much into planned obsolescence,…" E-waste laws at some point will become inevitable, so planned obsolescence will be under scrutiny. Devices will have to have a minimum design life etc. Moreover, user-replaceable batteries—whether long life or high capacity—are likely to be mandatory as a result of such legislation. My old Nokia used to have a replaceable battery which also served as the back of the phone, a quick release button meant the battery could be replaced within seconds. Manufacturers can't use the argument that it can't be done because it was common practice with Nokia 20 years ago. Nowadays more modern design practices will make that even easier to implement.

mschuster91 3y ago
> Manufacturers can't use the argument that it can't be done because it was common practice with Nokia 20 years ago. Nowadays more modern design practices will make that even easier to implement. The problem is water resistance. Your old Nokia (except the indestructible 3310) was dead if you managed to let it fall into water, most phones up until the end of the headphone jack had the same problem - and secure-boot stuff has made it virtually impossible to recover data if the phone doesn't boot up any more. Water resistance and non-sealed phones don't really mix, unless you're going for really bulky things like the CAT lineup or Samsung's Active Tab series.
- GuB-42 3y ago
  I don't know where this myth came from but there are many smartphones that are water resistant and with a user replaceable battery. One of the first in the mainstream was the Motorola Defy, there is also the Samsung Galaxy S5. Neither were particularly bulky. Interestingly the Galaxy S6, which followed the S5 was neither waterproof nor has a removable battery. I currently have one of the very few remaining smartphones with a removable battery (Galaxy XCover 7) and it is water resistant. It is a bit bulky (because it is rugged) but no more than the average phone when you add a case. Sealing a battery compartment in a way that doesn't hinder replacement is a solved problem, they do it to diving watches that are actually waterproof at depth, not merely water resistant. And phones cannot be completely sealed. That's why none are really waterproof (and warranty doesn't cover water damage). The biggest issues are speakers and microphones, getting the sound through and keeping the water out requires some compromises. Then there is the port(s), SIM tray, buttons, barometer,... By comparison, a battery cover is easy.