Bull. If you can get current in through the waterproof Type-C port, you can have a battery with a waterproof housing send current through some terminals.
I just don’t get this. I’ve had to get new phones twice now because the battery life got bad enough that my phone wouldn’t last even a single day on a charge, but I’ve never even gotten close to dropping my phone in water. Are people that clumsy that they loosely hold their phone when they’re in the bathroom or on a boat? It’s the same with dropping it in general - I’ve dropped a phone twice since getting my first smartphone in 2010, and both times it was luckily onto carpet. Yeah, survivability is nice, but it’s trumped by everyday usability.
I remember when my mom had a phone with a removable battery, she would drop it a lot and it would separate into a gazillion components but it wouldn’t break. I miss the days
I feel like the parts separating had a lot to do with saving the phone as a whole. It must be absorbing and dissipating some of that energy from the fall rather than all that energy being directed into the phone when it stays together.
I remember my old phones would fly apart from a fall but they’d never suffer any meaningful damage.
Yeah, I think that combined with the explodey factor really saved a lot of my mom’s phones back in the day. In the absolute worst case scenario, there’d maybe be a bit of the corner gouged out if she dropped it on the road or something, but that kind of damage doesn’t spread and you don’t end up with glass shards in your finger if you try to use the phone anyway. Now I’ve gotta practically wrap the thing in bubble wrap to keep it working if it drops
Also so that phones require more frequent replacement. Usually the battery goes first. It doesn’t hold a charge or undervolts and slows down the phone. They want you to buy a new phone every two years.
Take away user choice, use really bad excuses like water proofing and space saving, and you can be sure consumers will iteratively buy more frequently and spend more for cloud services.
Bye battery Bye bye headphone jack Bye bye user expandable storage.
Capitalism has steered us to this as the preferable product.
I ended up buying a Motorola razr because at least the fucking thing fits in my pocket for once. That’s honestly the biggest tangible benefit I’ve gotten out of a phone purchase in a while.
Each iteration of phone seems more like something I don’t want to even be involved with. Maybe I’ll just buy a light phone next time.
I remember when I could do everything with my phone using a single hand. I never grabbed my phone with two hands. Now I need two hands much more than before.
I don’t know why phablets are a thing. Phones are too big imo.
I had a Motorola g power from 2020? I think? That’s about the right size. I actually wish they could make a usable phone that’s about the size of the bottom half of this one I’m using right now, but it would take some UI innovation which nobody is interested in. It’s funny too because the bigger flagship phones are more expensive, but I’d never pay for that.
They’ve got some really tiny ones and some with physical keyboards even. I like the designs but dunno about their update commitment or hardware specs much.
It really sucks that they charge so much money for the storage difference. Why are the pricing tiers based on the storage? It’s so strange.
Anyways, I recall having a lot of issues with external storage in the past. Like Android just didn’t integrate that shit properly. It was kinda painful having the phone data and photos in separate places. Don’t remember specifics, I just know I constantly wished they were a single location.
So you’re telling me that capitalism works, and that it’s working as intended.
I agree that this is a result of capitalism. But I would surmise that this is exactly the standard by which capitalism is based. Reduce complexity, reduce operating costs. That generally means that whatever you’re making is going to be generic with no customizability and no ability to be repaired or changed by the end user. Complete vertical integration with optimizations in productivity, materials cost, and other operating expenses, all while charging “as much as the market will bear”
Some still do. I just started working at Walmart, and they give you a Samsung phone to do your job. You use the camera for scanning tags, shelving, check item status, and a bunch of other shit. It’s a modern phone, with USB c, fingerprint sensor in the power button, android 13, stupid hole-punch camera, etc. And when I pulled off the otterbox case they gave me with it, I found that the back pulls off and the battery pops out, like all of my phones used to do back in the day. I assume that’s so they can more easily keep these phones in use, as they can pull out a failing battery and pop a new one in without having to send the phone sent off for servicing.
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.
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
Screws are an incredible wonder. Itty bits of metal with fine threading to attach two things? And we just produce like billions of the things? Truly amazing.
I’d love to have a phone with 8 screws and a gasket in the back cover instead of the fixed plastic latches that the Fairphone and others have. Easily more water tolerant and love the industrial feel.
When I opened up my pixel to replace its screen I was able to replace the lining with a fresh one. Seems like that should be possible with a removable battery as well, no?
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?
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.
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’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.
Well, there’s another change that made it more viable - back then people had spare batteries cause they needed them. Now most devices will last a full day of normal use, so the ‘average user’ doesn’t care much about swapping batteries.
My gripe was physical keyboards. Until they basically disappeared entirely, I tried to buy exclusively devices with physical keyboards. I liked my T-Mobile Sidekick except it could stand to be thinner.
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
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
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 only problem is the charging circuit could do with more isolation. When using wired earphones and charging from a wall socket there is some feedback onto the earphones.
I think it is because the EU listened to the people. This is what you get when elected representatives are not bankrolled by big business, and are allowed to enact legislation that doesn’t only benefit one side.
The EU has politicians that manage to legislate against the interests of gigantic tech corporations because European tech corporations are far smaller, and thus have much less leverage. Even if the US political system was significantly less corrupt, they’d probably still have issues to legislate against them.
Recently switched from a certain predatory fruity phone to a phone from a certain Dutch manufacturer that has removable battery and replaceable parts. At some point, it got water damaged, and the charging circuit stopped working. While I’m waiting for the replacement part to arrive, I can continue using it by charging the battery with a bench power supply. Feels good man!
The EU, despite (valid) criticisms and pravacy mis-steps, is right now the only large, powerful organization fighting for consumer rights. I wish I, as an American, could support them, because the laws the EU is passing benefit me as well.
They also had keyboards that worked well and there was even real competition for on-screen keyboards until Google bought out and dissolved the best keyboard because they really want your ducking typing data.
Add comment