• TrackinDaKraken@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    I think what people want is longer-life, user replaceable batteries. They didn’t need to be thinner. Apple says, “Look! It’s thinner! Thinner is better!”, so the fanbois say “Look mine is better because it’s thinner, Apple said so!”

  • aesthelete@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Why do phones have to be as slimmed down as a coke addicted supermodel from the 90s anyway?

    I’d much prefer they shrink the fucking things enough that they fit in your pocket.

  • Bosht@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    I for one would love a cheaper option without a ridiculous camera. Or even no camera!

  • brem@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    This is why you spend much money for name brand phone protector!

    Not to make phone tough…

    …but so…

    … it can sit level on flat surface!

      • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        you need mechanical stability a bit too, so if it’s too thin, it just breaks too easily.

        IMO the perfect size for a smartphone should be the weight of an apple (fruit) or some other snack like croissant, something that you can comfortably hold in one hand.

      • brem@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Yeah, but if it’s an iPhone… you probably have to pay Apple a proprietary fee; due to becoming injured by their patented technology.

    • pyre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      I’d rather have that. it’ll actually stay stable when you put it down, plus the screen would be slightly tilted upwards so you can see it better when it’s just there on the table.

  • Evotech@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Next version isn’t even going to have a camera. You’ll just generate the image

      • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Uhm IIRC typical battery is 2000 mAh/day, so one week battery is 14 Ah/day, which is 50 Wh assuming 3.7 V.

        A typical sodium ion battery (which i very much like btw) typically holds 0.2 kWh/kg, so 200 Wh/kg, so to store 50 Wh, you’d need around 250g of battery.

        For reference, i think smartphones should be about as heavy as an apple (fruit) which is 100g average. And the battery makes most of that weight (like, 80%). So the battery could be about 80g, which would store 16 Wh of energy. That would make about 4000 mAh. Which is what many phones today already have. Which lasts for 1-2 days.

    • shalafi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      I had an Oukitel that I ran for almost 4 weeks. Had to charge it for a trip off grid. Talk about chunky!

      Might buy another model, but had to drop Verizon to get it working and T-Mobile took a week to figure out how to activate it. PITA, but it was solid once working. Great BT speaker, couldn’t kill the battery, everything worked great. Carrying the thing was a pain, even with a pack. Not sure I want all that mass again.

      If you want a phone you can beat a man to death with, Oukitel it is!

  • ☂️-@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    just give me a battery i don’t have to tend to every fucking day or two. everyone just slaps a fat case in these flimsy ass phones anyway.

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Well, you cannot cheat physics. You get two of resolution, depth, and thin-ness. If they want resolution and depth, they need the optics to do this.

  • tatann@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    I can understand people wanting “smaller" screens cause they don’t have huge hands/pockets

    But slimmer phones when the cheapest ones (< 200€) already are like 8mm, I don’t really get it, at this point it’s just a structural weakness, like the geth would say

    The only advantage would be to have a bulky phone case while still maintaining a 6 or 8 mm width, but still it wouldn’t prevent your phone from bending

    • randomuser38529@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      You clearly have not watched Zack’s YT on this. The big ones bend and break way sooner. It’s not even close.

      My guess, what we are witnessing here with the Air is just a stepping stone to a foldable. As a standalone I’m with you, it’s the inferior phone. Just not because of the structural weaknesses - it’s not weak at all - but due to smaller battery, less cameras and less speakers.

      Oh, and case less gang checking in.

    • BurntWits@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      I was recently messing around with an iPod touch 5th gen, with dimensions 4.86 inches (123.4 mm) in height, 2.31 inches (58.6 mm) in width, and 0.24 inches (6.1 mm) in depth. It weighs approximately 3.10 ounces (88 grams). It felt fantastic in the hand and I want a phone that size now.

      I was near an Apple store a few days ago and tried out the iPhone air, it was honestly really nice in the hand. I wouldn’t buy one, but seeing in person, I kinda get it.