The only valid reason is waterproofing. If the phone isn’t waterproof, it’s only to limit repairability… Also one factor in that was, I believe, the thinness war, but that’s pretty much over now as they all got to the practical limit I guess.
Unfortunately we still see too many people push the “but my IP rating” narrative without realising that engineers are perfectly able to design gaskets for all kinds of applications.
Some phones with removable batteries even had them and were (to a certain degree) waterproof.
The ONLY reason phones are no longer servicable is profits. Why extend a product’s lifespan if you can just frustrate the consumer to the point where they will just buy another one?
Nuclear powered- or nuclear capable submarines?
Though I guess in nuclear powered submarines the “batteries” are actively unglueing themselves, which is what powers them in the first place.
I want to know what all these people are doing with their phones… I’ve needed a phone to be waterproof exactly one time. 20 years ago when I got chucked into a pool with my flip phone in my pocket. I’ve had about a dozen batteries stop charging properly and needed replacement since then.
I have this habit where I try to squeeze every bit of use out of a device until something forces me to get a new one.
My latest two phones have both lasted for 7 years, and I’m still not planning on upgrading until someting breaks.
In all those years I have never encountered a situation where I would have benefited from my phone being more waterproof than just basic ingress protection. Higher IP ratings are only helpful for those who don’t want to be conscious of their possessions and want insurance in case of accidents instead of preventing the situations outright.
If we truly want to reduce our impact on the use of natural resources, we should start with eradicating the mindset that things being disposable is somehow fine.
I’m not even sure thinness was something consumers ever would have demanded (at the sacrifice of battery life) if the mfrs hadn’t pushed it as a selling point.
In the flipphone days I didn’t know many people who didn’t have at least one spare battery, so they could swap to a fresh one on the go without having to charge, or bought extra thick batteries with higher capacity, extending the back of the phone.
Then when smartphones had removable batteries, lots of people still did those things. And all during that time I remember many reviewers and consumers reacting to many of the “thinness” claims with “I’d really like a bigger battery instead.”
I also remember it being proven that apple’s removal of the headphone jack impacted neither waterproofing nor thinness, despite their claims. (But then of course one by one others started following suit.)
I think it’s better for mfrs and that’s the only reason. It saves them money on mfr, or gets phones tossed in the bin faster. Possibly both.
I’d still take 2 or 3 more mm of thickness for an amazing battery.
About thinness:
I also like my phones bendy and snappy (iPhone 6), as well as exploding batteries (Galaxy Note 7 or 10, I don’t remember the exact model tbh).
Or you have to ‘hold it right’ (OG iPhone).
These were all huge issues that could be fixed without sacrificing the thinness.
Thinness shouldn’t be used as an excuse for otherwise shitty phones, since it’s clearly a non-sequitur.
I’m not even sure thinness was something consumers ever would have demanded
I am entirely convinced that most “features” on modern devices are not “something consumers would have demanded”. Sure, different lenses is nice if you’re a hobbyist photographer, but do most people really need more than a single back-facing camera? Do most people want to have wireless earbuds at the cost of not having a headphone jack? Do most people want glass backs and other such gimmicks that make their device more fragile? I’ve been told for decades that the modern economic system is great because competition forces manufacturers to prioritize what is best for the consumers. But in the context of smartphones, it feels like the roles are completely reversed. Manufacturers come up with some bullshit and then mount psy-ops (ad campaigns, online astroturfing) to convince the population that it’s worth their money
I’m not even sure thinness was something consumers ever would have demanded
Something popular back in the removable battery days was to replace them with thicker extended capacity batteries. So no, battery life was more important to a lot of comsumers.
My casio watch is waterproof. [100M Water Resistant]
And it has a user replacable battery.
With a gasket inside and cool looking screws. (yes, I consider screws to be cool)
Also, it costs less than $20
The only valid reason is waterproofing. If the phone isn’t waterproof, it’s only to limit repairability… Also one factor in that was, I believe, the thinness war, but that’s pretty much over now as they all got to the practical limit I guess.
Unfortunately we still see too many people push the “but my IP rating” narrative without realising that engineers are perfectly able to design gaskets for all kinds of applications.
Some phones with removable batteries even had them and were (to a certain degree) waterproof.
The ONLY reason phones are no longer servicable is profits. Why extend a product’s lifespan if you can just frustrate the consumer to the point where they will just buy another one?
Nuclear submarines don’t glue their batteries
Nuclear powered- or nuclear capable submarines? Though I guess in nuclear powered submarines the “batteries” are actively unglueing themselves, which is what powers them in the first place.
Fission power in phones when?
Both?..
Fair enough. But I was thinking about other batteries in case something happems to “batteries”.
I want to know what all these people are doing with their phones… I’ve needed a phone to be waterproof exactly one time. 20 years ago when I got chucked into a pool with my flip phone in my pocket. I’ve had about a dozen batteries stop charging properly and needed replacement since then.
I have this habit where I try to squeeze every bit of use out of a device until something forces me to get a new one.
My latest two phones have both lasted for 7 years, and I’m still not planning on upgrading until someting breaks.
In all those years I have never encountered a situation where I would have benefited from my phone being more waterproof than just basic ingress protection. Higher IP ratings are only helpful for those who don’t want to be conscious of their possessions and want insurance in case of accidents instead of preventing the situations outright.
If we truly want to reduce our impact on the use of natural resources, we should start with eradicating the mindset that things being disposable is somehow fine.
I’m not even sure thinness was something consumers ever would have demanded (at the sacrifice of battery life) if the mfrs hadn’t pushed it as a selling point.
In the flipphone days I didn’t know many people who didn’t have at least one spare battery, so they could swap to a fresh one on the go without having to charge, or bought extra thick batteries with higher capacity, extending the back of the phone.
Then when smartphones had removable batteries, lots of people still did those things. And all during that time I remember many reviewers and consumers reacting to many of the “thinness” claims with “I’d really like a bigger battery instead.”
I also remember it being proven that apple’s removal of the headphone jack impacted neither waterproofing nor thinness, despite their claims. (But then of course one by one others started following suit.)
I think it’s better for mfrs and that’s the only reason. It saves them money on mfr, or gets phones tossed in the bin faster. Possibly both.
I’d still take 2 or 3 more mm of thickness for an amazing battery.
About thinness: I also like my phones bendy and snappy (iPhone 6), as well as exploding batteries (Galaxy Note 7 or 10, I don’t remember the exact model tbh).
Or you have to ‘hold it right’ (OG iPhone).
These were all huge issues that could be fixed without sacrificing the thinness.
Thinness shouldn’t be used as an excuse for otherwise shitty phones, since it’s clearly a non-sequitur.
I am entirely convinced that most “features” on modern devices are not “something consumers would have demanded”. Sure, different lenses is nice if you’re a hobbyist photographer, but do most people really need more than a single back-facing camera? Do most people want to have wireless earbuds at the cost of not having a headphone jack? Do most people want glass backs and other such gimmicks that make their device more fragile? I’ve been told for decades that the modern economic system is great because competition forces manufacturers to prioritize what is best for the consumers. But in the context of smartphones, it feels like the roles are completely reversed. Manufacturers come up with some bullshit and then mount psy-ops (ad campaigns, online astroturfing) to convince the population that it’s worth their money
lol I first thought that “mfrs” meant “motherf***ers”
Well if the shoe fits…
I just reread that entire sentence substituting that word both times, and made myself lol.
I feel like I have done my good deed for the day.
Something popular back in the removable battery days was to replace them with thicker extended capacity batteries. So no, battery life was more important to a lot of comsumers.
The Galaxy S5 was IP67 waterproof and had a removable battery and a headphone jack.
Did they have a stipulation that if the consumer opened the phone the IP rating would be nullified?
Genuinely asking, sounds like something a corpo would do.
deleted by creator
When it was new. The more you opened the back plate, the more that hair thin gasket eroded and eventually just broke.
How often are you planning to open it? It’s not like you have to replace the battery every year…
Everyday, when it dies so you swap in your backup pack?
My casio watch is waterproof. [100M Water Resistant] And it has a user replacable battery. With a gasket inside and cool looking screws. (yes, I consider screws to be cool) Also, it costs less than $20