zlacker

[parent] [thread] 7 comments
1. hollan+(OP)[view] [source] 2023-10-04 16:32:50
You can't have it all
replies(2): >>elabaj+ja >>JohnBo+3m
2. elabaj+ja[view] [source] 2023-10-04 17:08:58
>>hollan+(OP)
Galaxy S5 had a removable battery and IP67 rating 9 years ago.
replies(1): >>usrusr+nq1
3. JohnBo+3m[view] [source] 2023-10-04 17:51:40
>>hollan+(OP)
Right.

You can't have the thinnest/sleekest possible phone and an easily removable battery. Have to choose.

Frustrating thing is, mainstream phone manufacturers don't give you a choice. There's no option to buy e.g. an a slightly more ruggedized iPhone that is 15% bulkier but gives you easy battery access. That's a thing I'd buy, even if it cost a bit more.

The quest for "sleekness at all costs" made more sense 15-20 years ago, when full-spec smartphones and laptops were clunkier.

Hopefully the tide is turning. Apple is offering beefier and thicker laptops (M1/M2 Macbook Pros) and likewise now gives buyers an option for a beefier "Explorer Edition" watch. No battery access sadly. But hopefully the pendulum might swing the other way a little now.

replies(3): >>sho_hn+Gm >>alamor+Bt >>tshadd+g61
◧◩
4. sho_hn+Gm[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-10-04 17:54:15
>>JohnBo+3m
> Frustrating thing is, mainstream phone manufacturers don't give you a choice.

https://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/phones/galaxy-xcover/galax...

Edit: This is getting downvoted, but it's a regularly-updated phone line from a mainstream manufacturer with decent specs. You can absolutely vote with your wallet here as OP laid out.

◧◩
5. alamor+Bt[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-10-04 18:24:32
>>JohnBo+3m
> You can't have the thinnest/sleekest possible phone and an easily removable battery.

Is this true? Plastic covers seemed thinner than the glass/metal shells that have replaced them. Also, from my limited experience, the batteries in the glued-together phones have adhesive strips that secure them inside the case, which again add a little extra thickness.

I could be wrong about those things, but I stand by my assertion that the plastic snap-fit phones were more durable. Durable enough that they didn't need cases for protection, which above all else rob a phone of its thinness/sleekness.

The first time I dropped a glued-together phone, I cracked the screen. I thought it must have been a fluke, since I'd dropped plastic phones tons and they'd always been fine. I was so sure it was a weird one-off I refused to get a case after having the screen replaced. My girlfriend called me an idiot. Two months later, I dropped the phone again. Now I have a case.

◧◩
6. tshadd+g61[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-10-04 21:11:47
>>JohnBo+3m
> There's no option to buy e.g. an a slightly more ruggedized iPhone that is 15% bulkier but gives you easy battery access. That's a thing I'd buy, even if it cost a bit more.

Why not buy a $100 rugged waterproof case and an external battery?

replies(1): >>JohnBo+le3
◧◩
7. usrusr+nq1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-10-04 23:29:51
>>elabaj+ja
Motorola Defy did the same 13 years ago. Loved the size and the white frame design, would buy a remake with modern chips and camera without hesitation.
◧◩◪
8. JohnBo+le3[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-10-05 15:42:05
>>tshadd+g61
Surely you understand why a person might want to carry and charge one thing instead of two?

A 25% bulkier "rugged" iPhone 15 Pro would still fit nicely in most people's pockets. Unlike an encased iPhone plus external battery pack.

Like a lot of men, I carry a phone and wallet in one pocket and my keys in another. I don't typically carry a bag. Not gonna carry a battery pack too.

Also, an external battery pack achieves one thing (extended battery life) but not the other -- still wouldn't be able to easily replace the internal battery once it has aged out.

[go to top]