4 ms·

In a perfect world, sure. But people also want phones these days that are physically durable, have some degree of waterproofing/water resistance, maximum batter

by brk 6mo ago

In a perfect world, sure. But people also want phones these days that are physically durable, have some degree of waterproofing/water resistance, maximum battery life, etc. Many of the demands and expectations of a modern phone aren't easily compatible with a replaceable battery design that can withstand the incompetence of the average end user.

lolftw 6mo ago
A GoPro fits all of those requirements and has easily replaceable batteries. Now, I understand that the shape and sizes are different. But I wouldn't mind some extra mm of thickness (I already get a pretty big camera bump anyway) if that means I can replace a battery faster.
- dmitrygr 6mo ago
  YOU would not mind, many others would.
  - spaqin 6mo ago
    We don't have a choice in the first place, minding or not. People who would mind missing a 3.5mm jack or replaceable battery have no say anyway, as none of the flagship devices on the market have either.
    - solenoid0937 6mo ago
      Have you ever wondered why none of the flagship devices have one? If the demand existed the devices would as well.
      - dvdkon 6mo ago
        That only holds if you believe the market has a high level of efficiency. Maybe if we wait long enough, the distribution of devices being manufactured will match consumer preferences, but I don't believe that to be the case today. The iPhone Mini sold ~millions of units. That may not be enough for Apple, but it's certainly enough to make a profit, yet nobody's building small phones now.
  - pbasista 6mo ago
    That statement looks like an assumption. Do you care to back it up with some factual sources?
skywhopper 6mo ago
You severely underestimate the capabilities of modern electronics manufacturers. Sure, it’s harder to produce something that fits all those capabilities. But it’s totally possible. This is exactly the scenario where government regulation is critical to a well-functioning market.
sillyfluke 6mo ago
>people also want phones these days that are physically durable, Anecdotally on this front, I have had to replace the screens of my iphones at least three times in the past (different models). Incidentally, I have never needed to replace the screen of a phone that had a replaceable battery. YMMV, but this seems needlessly defeatist. >maximum battery life One could also claim that bespoke charging cables allow for faster charging or longer battery life, but I don't know any iPhone users that are a crying a river for their deprecated non-standard chargers. But again, YMMV I guess.
Aachen 6mo ago
> some degree of waterproofing/water resistance Can we have this discussion once? In this thread alone, there's like 50 instances of people making this claim and each time it takes about 20 minutes before at least one person replies that it's not the case, after which no refutals are posted. I'm happy to learn it is false if it is (I never had a phone that I trusted to be waterproof to any degree so I don't have first-hand knowledge), but it gets really tiring to read the same information level over and over as a reason for why we can't have nice things Taking this comment as an example of someone who actually used a battery-swappable phone in rain on a motorcycle: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47835184 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47835184 (I'm not only taking the person's word for it: the device is also IP certified as waterproof 30 mins at 1m depth)
- dwaite 6mo ago
  > (I'm not only taking the person's word for it: the device is also IP certified as waterproof 30 mins at 1m depth) Many expect phones these days to be the more stringent IP 68, this would correspond to a device with the lesser water resistance of IP X7. That phone only needs to be restored to IP X5 to handle usage in rain. So it is great they got it (somewhat? completely?) restored, but it was a device with less water resistance than many flagships phone today, tested with a lower level of water resistance than it was originally rated for.
  - Aachen 6mo ago
    Fwiw, I also use devices with no IP certification or claims whatsoever in mild rain. It's not because there's a drop on the plastic case that it'll seize up, so the 5th ingress protection level being minimum for rain... I mean, technically yes, practically... depends if you really mean exposure to proper rain for more than the distance between bus stop and door step, say Edit: wait, > this would correspond to a device with the lesser water resistance of IP X7. If 7 is already considered lesser... > That phone only needs to be restored to IP X5 to handle usage in rain. I looked it up and level 3 is rain actually ("spraying water"). How is 7 not sufficient for anything but perhaps full-on diving sessions
jandrewrogers 6mo ago
The missing part is "at a specific price point". There is a lot you can do with advanced materials science but as you get close to the high end of capability the cost goes up very rapidly and the ability to scale production is reduced.
oblio 6mo ago
We can make waterproof things that are attached with screws.

by brk 6mo ago

lolftw 6mo ago

A GoPro fits all of those requirements and has easily replaceable batteries. Now, I understand that the shape and sizes are different. But I wouldn't mind some extra mm of thickness (I already get a pretty big camera bump anyway) if that means I can replace a battery faster.

dmitrygr 6mo ago
YOU would not mind, many others would.
- spaqin 6mo ago
  We don't have a choice in the first place, minding or not. People who would mind missing a 3.5mm jack or replaceable battery have no say anyway, as none of the flagship devices on the market have either.
  - solenoid0937 6mo ago
    Have you ever wondered why none of the flagship devices have one? If the demand existed the devices would as well.
    - dvdkon 6mo ago
      That only holds if you believe the market has a high level of efficiency. Maybe if we wait long enough, the distribution of devices being manufactured will match consumer preferences, but I don't believe that to be the case today. The iPhone Mini sold ~millions of units. That may not be enough for Apple, but it's certainly enough to make a profit, yet nobody's building small phones now.
- pbasista 6mo ago
  That statement looks like an assumption. Do you care to back it up with some factual sources?

skywhopper 6mo ago

You severely underestimate the capabilities of modern electronics manufacturers. Sure, it’s harder to produce something that fits all those capabilities. But it’s totally possible. This is exactly the scenario where government regulation is critical to a well-functioning market.

sillyfluke 6mo ago

>people also want phones these days that are physically durable, Anecdotally on this front, I have had to replace the screens of my iphones at least three times in the past (different models). Incidentally, I have never needed to replace the screen of a phone that had a replaceable battery. YMMV, but this seems needlessly defeatist. >maximum battery life One could also claim that bespoke charging cables allow for faster charging or longer battery life, but I don't know any iPhone users that are a crying a river for their deprecated non-standard chargers. But again, YMMV I guess.

Aachen 6mo ago

> some degree of waterproofing/water resistance Can we have this discussion once? In this thread alone, there's like 50 instances of people making this claim and each time it takes about 20 minutes before at least one person replies that it's not the case, after which no refutals are posted. I'm happy to learn it is false if it is (I never had a phone that I trusted to be waterproof to any degree so I don't have first-hand knowledge), but it gets really tiring to read the same information level over and over as a reason for why we can't have nice things Taking this comment as an example of someone who actually used a battery-swappable phone in rain on a motorcycle: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47835184 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47835184 (I'm not only taking the person's word for it: the device is also IP certified as waterproof 30 mins at 1m depth)

dwaite 6mo ago
> (I'm not only taking the person's word for it: the device is also IP certified as waterproof 30 mins at 1m depth) Many expect phones these days to be the more stringent IP 68, this would correspond to a device with the lesser water resistance of IP X7. That phone only needs to be restored to IP X5 to handle usage in rain. So it is great they got it (somewhat? completely?) restored, but it was a device with less water resistance than many flagships phone today, tested with a lower level of water resistance than it was originally rated for.
- Aachen 6mo ago
  Fwiw, I also use devices with no IP certification or claims whatsoever in mild rain. It's not because there's a drop on the plastic case that it'll seize up, so the 5th ingress protection level being minimum for rain... I mean, technically yes, practically... depends if you really mean exposure to proper rain for more than the distance between bus stop and door step, say Edit: wait, > this would correspond to a device with the lesser water resistance of IP X7. If 7 is already considered lesser... > That phone only needs to be restored to IP X5 to handle usage in rain. I looked it up and level 3 is rain actually ("spraying water"). How is 7 not sufficient for anything but perhaps full-on diving sessions

jandrewrogers 6mo ago

The missing part is "at a specific price point". There is a lot you can do with advanced materials science but as you get close to the high end of capability the cost goes up very rapidly and the ability to scale production is reduced.

oblio 6mo ago

We can make waterproof things that are attached with screws.