You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
118 points

So let’s keep making phones thinner and thinner while simultaneously growing the camera bump instead of making a flat profile with, say, 2 days of life!

permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points

So on one hand, I agree with you. On the other hand, I think lightness is a thing people care about. I recently needed to get some photos backed up off an old phone of mine, and I didn’t realize how heavy my current one is until I picked up my old one. Thinness is irrelevant, but a 50% weight difference is not. Other than that, I don’t think most people get much utility out of more than a day of battery life, so 1.5 days new degrading down to 1 seems reasonable and in line with what most people want.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Well, cheap or not, but in terms of fitting into my pocket a fat rubber-covered dumbphone is better than a modern thin and light one. That plate is just inconvenient. It’s too big. I don’t care how thin it is. A newspaper is thin too.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I agree for first impressions that heavier is perceived as more premium, but after months of actually using a device I can’t fathom that a reasonable person would actually prefer a heavier phone given an equivalent, lighter phone. Even Apple, king of making devices with mass appeal, decided last year that shedding weight was a priority when moving some iPhones from aluminum to titanium.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Ask them about the lack of a headphone jack 😉.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Totally agree! I picked up an old iPhone 6s yesterday and I just couldn’t believe how much lighter and thinner it is than the latest models.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

On the other hand, I think lightness is a thing people care about.

Yeah, my Galaxy S3 is half as heavy as my current phone. It couldn’t do less but had superior battery life. Smartphones and their OS all have grown bloated.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

I have a Samsung A71. It permanently lives in its protective case which gives it good bumpers around the easily-breakable edge-to-edge screen. It’s now 4 years old and has survived numerous tumbles and drops over the years.

Occasionally I have to swap the SD card in it and I am always astonished at how thin and light and fragile it is when not in the case.

I would quite happily have an actual similar size phone to what “I have now” if the battery size was bumped up another 50 percent.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-6 points

You’re blaming the wrong thing again. Newer phones have higher capacity batteries than the old bricks by far. The issue is the screen, SoC, and modem power consumption has gone up too.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-6 points

You’re missing something though: phone cell or battery capacity has been getting bigger, not smaller. The issue isn’t the batteries, it’s the other hardware and software needing more and more energy. Modern phones are much faster, have better screens at higher resolution, brightness, even refresh rate. All of this uses energy, even with modern technology being as awesome as it is. Qualcomm, TSMC, ARM, and Apple put quite a bit of work into making these things as efficient as they can be, but we keep demanding more and more from these devices. For many they replaced laptops after all.

It’s a bit like complaining that your new ultra high performance sports car is getting bad range, and complaining about the fuel tank or battery instead of the engine. The tank has only gotten bigger or at least stayed the same, but the engine has gotten hungrier and hungrier with each generation.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

That’s a contributing factor to battery life remaining stagnant. Manufacturers use those advances while continuing to slim phones rather than making an actually flat brick that uses those advances to drastically increase battery life. Regardless of the energy needs of the phone manufacturers can use the difference in height between the back of a phone and the camera bump to include more battery capacity and it will increase both the daily and usable life of the phone.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Exactly. I really liked my old phone, the Moto G Power, which:

  • had no camera bump
  • had 2+ days battery life
  • was pretty affordable (I think it was $250 new?)

I still have it for stuff around the house (gets like 3-4 days w/o the SIM), and I would totally still be using it as my main phone if it still got security updates. The screen is a little larger than I want, but it has been a solid phone for me.

I got a Pixel 8 mostly because of the longer software support and GrapheneOS support, and I honestly don’t care about the camera, and the big bump is pretty annoying. I really wish I could just have my Moto G Power w/ a small screen and longer software support. In fact, I’d totally use a Pinephone if it had reliable calls and texts, better battery life, and better audio quality. I really don’t need much, I just need a phone that will keep working for years and not need to be recharged throughout the day…

permalink
report
parent
reply

Technology

!technology@lemmy.world

Create post

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 6.7K

    Posts

  • 154K

    Comments