1113
Why the hell did that stop
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2024
1113 points (100.0% liked)
memes
10307 readers
1469 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
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.