26 replies to this topic

[joemailey]

Something that bugged me when the iPhone 5 came out.
When the iPhone 5 came out they made it 18% thinner than the 4/4s.

It bugged me because I think the the 4/4s is thin enough. I used a Samsung s3 for a day not that long ago and it was also pretty thin.

So what would you prefer? even slimmer phones or a bigger better longer lasting battery?

Personally I would have preferred apple made the battery 18% fatter than making the phone 18% thinner.

Manufactures seem to focus on making everything thin/slim now days in the phone market, but surely the first manufacture to produce a phone with great battery life would sell loads. I have to charge my phone at work, charge it at home and if I'm not going to be home until late, I have to charge it whilst I'm driving around in the car. Its either that or I make sure I don't use it as often if I'm out and about for the day.

How come a phone not lasting a day has become so acceptable to everyone now? Not to mention one of the best selling things about a blackberry was the battery life, so if someone could make a decent looking phone with a decent battery, it would be pretty good seller.

[Intrinsica]

joemailey, on 04 January 2013 - 15:49, said:

How come a phone not lasting a day has become so acceptable to everyone now? Not to mention one of the best selling things about a blackberry was the battery life, so if someone could make a decent looking phone with a decent battery, it would be pretty good seller.

Because we understand that we don't have phones anymore, we have mini computers. I've not heard of a laptop's battery lasting 24 hours, so in my mind the phone is one up on that.

I agree that a longer lasting battery would be great, but that's a limit of battery technology. However, I do see your point about using the space to provide a bigger battery instead of making the phone slimmer.

For me, my galaxy 3's battery life is fine.

[joemailey]

I was merely getting at how manufactures seem to make phones slimmer yet keep battery life the same?
So surely there using some form of technology to make batteries smaller but keep the same power.

So instead of going slimmer how about they use the space they free up and increase the battery life a bit.

As for the laptop argument, the battery life has always been pretty poor on those from the beginning, where as phones started out with great battery life, yet we some how have just accepted/sacrificed whatever is dished out.

To me the only thing phone manufactures have left to do with phones is sort out the battery life, they pretty much have all the features we need now. So battery life would be the missing piece of the puzzle.

Smartphones are meant to allow you to be mobile, but at the rate we're going we can be mobile as long as we're next to power source. Any amount of game playing, browsing, video watching and you battery starts to disappear rapidly.

[Draconian Guppy]

Agree on making phones ridiculously slim... IMO the 4/4s have a sweet spot in thinness. I would much rather they put a bigger batter and keep the iphone 4 thickness in the 5. IMO this thickness is sorta like e-penis, let's brag about having the thinnest apparatus

[joemailey]

Draconian Guppy, on 04 January 2013 - 16:05, said:

Agree on making phones ridiculously slim... IMO the 4/4s have a sweet spot in thinness. I would much rather they put a bigger batter and keep the iphone 4 thickness in the 5. IMO this thickness is sorta like e-penis, let's brag about having the thinnest apparatus

Yea that's what I think too, its just at the stage where manufactures want to brag about I have the slimmest phone, how about they brag about having the best battery life

[Intrinsica]

joemailey, on 04 January 2013 - 16:03, said:

As for the laptop argument, the battery life has always been pretty poor on those from the beginning, where as phones started out with great battery life, yet we some how have just accepted/sacrificed whatever is dished out.

Because you don't have a phone anymore, you have a mini computer! You can't compare the battery life of a Nokia 3330 with the battery life of the Galaxy S3, they're completely different devices. You may as well compare a toaster's ability to toast bread with a dishwasher's ability to do the same task.

[Draconian Guppy]

joemailey, on 04 January 2013 - 16:07, said:

Yea that's what I think too, its just at the stage where manufactures want to brag about I have the slimmest phone, how about they brag about having the best battery life

I think motorola does that with the moto razr HD, it has a humongous battery IIRC.

@ intrinsica, I think you're missing the point! We don't want slimmer phones with slimmer (Ergo smaller capacity) batteries! Keep the same thickness and use for bigger battery

[joemailey]

Intrinsica, on 04 January 2013 - 16:08, said:

Because you don't have a phone anymore, you have a mini computer! You can't compare the battery life of a Nokia 3330 with the battery life of the Galaxy S3, they're completely different devices. You may as well compare a toaster's ability to toast bread with a dishwasher's ability to do the same task.

You are still missing my main point, technically its a smartPHONE. Mini computer is tablet, laptop, netbook.
I know what my smartphone does and I know we have to accept the battery life is going to be worse.

My point is why have we just carried along with phones getting thinner and sacrificing the battery life in the process. Your basically saying thats just how it is battery life won't be the same, technology isn't there etc. I'm not asking for 5 days battery life like a 3330.

I don't care if the phones a mini computer, I understand we won't get the same battery life as basic phone. But you aren't registering my point.

Batteries get slimmer with slimmer phones, slimmer phones keep the same battery life as there previous model. that 18% slimmest would of provided a nice battery increase for the iPhone 5. So why couldn't they just increase the battery life instead of playing the I have the thinnest device competition.

[Intrinsica]

Draconian Guppy, on 04 January 2013 - 16:13, said:

@ intrinsica, I think you're missing the point! We don't want slimmer phones with slimmer (Ergo smaller capacity) batteries! Keep the same thickness and use for bigger battery

I didn't miss that point, but I'd already covered it in my first post when I said that I agree that rather than the manufacturers saying, "we've got all this free space, let's make it thinner" they should say, "we've got all this free space, let's put a larger battery in there."

The point I was clarifying was that you cannot look at the battery life of a phone from 10/20 years ago and say, "now why doesn't my smartphone have that same battery life?"

[joemailey]

Intrinsica, on 04 January 2013 - 16:17, said:

I didn't miss that point, but I'd already covered it in my first post when I said that I agree that rather than the manufacturers saying, "we've got all this free space, let's make it thinner" they should say, "we've got all this free space, let's put a larger battery in there."

The point I was clarifying was that you cannot look at the battery life of a phone from 10/20 years ago and say, "now why doesn't my smartphone have that same battery life?"

I was merely using the old phones as the starting ground/bench mark of where battery life was to where it has end up in the phone market and what we have accepted without question. Its clear battery life can be improved. I was never asking the why isn't it the same as old phones. was merely just a bench mark of what was and what is now.

It was never a "why don't I get 5 days battery life like I use to post" more a why have we accepted such bad battery life for the I have the thinnest device competition and why manufactures have decided to neglect battery life for thinness.

[Intrinsica]

joemailey, on 04 January 2013 - 16:42, said:

I was merely using the old phones as the starting ground/bench mark of where battery life was to where it has end up in the phone market and what we have accepted without question.

And you don't see how it's wrong to use an old phone's battery life as a bench mark for smartphone batteries? Right, I'm off to toast that bread in the dishwasher. If I use my toaster as a benchmark, it should be done in a few minutes...

To clarify, we're in agreement with one another about the overall issue. As I've said in two posts now, I agree that rather than saying, "here's a lot of free space, let's make the device thinner" they should be saying, "here's a lot of free space, let's put a larger battery in there." Where we're differing is in the idea of using an old phone's battery life as a comparison for smartphones. It just doesn't work like that.

Batteries have not changed much between the Nokia 3330 and the Galaxy S3. What has changed is the devices that consume more power than they used to. Indeed, the Samsung Galaxy S3 has a 900mAh battery whereas the Nokias 3330 had an 850mAh battery. The battery is larger on the S3, but because of what the device does compared to the 3330 it doesn't last as long.

That's all I'm trying to point out. I agree with you in your overall point, but you can't compare phones of 20 years ago with a smartphone.

[Chris Rollason]

Intrinsica, on 04 January 2013 - 16:17, said:

The point I was clarifying was that you cannot look at the battery life of a phone from 10/20 years ago and say, "now why doesn't my smartphone have that same battery life?"

My point would be kind of why not?

My girlfriend has the Nokia X2 (well it has 3g on it and she can surf the net on it), which I believe is still current, her battery lasts over a week.
I have a Nokia Lumia 710 whose battery lasts less than 24 hours, with most things turned off.

When we go away to (photograph) a festival for three days at a time, I'm quickly uncontactable (even by the festival organiser). So basically I need to use an old phone in those circumstances. I have got a 2nd battery now for my Lumia (third party bigger capacity). But some phones, you can't change the battery.

Given my phone has my schedule and other things I need to run my life, I'd be much happier with a thicker phone and longer battery life.

Given how phones are getting bigger in the other two dimension (hight and width), why the obsession with making the depth as small as possible.

[Intrinsica]

Ok, I give up. I think it's silly that my S3 cannot survive for a month without needing a recharge. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go and check on my toast. It looks a bit soggy.

[alwaysonacoffebreak]

I think I'm a lucky one with my Lumia 800, with heavy browsing, music and metrotube it usually lasts up to 2 days. That's all I expect for it to be honest and that's all fine, everything under that, meh, no thanks, not a fan of charging every night.

[Draconian Guppy]

Intrinsica, on 04 January 2013 - 16:57, said:

That's all I'm trying to point out. I agree with you in your overall point, but you can't compare phones of 20 years ago with a smartphone.

Chris Rollason, on 04 January 2013 - 17:16, said:

My point would be kind of why not?

My girlfriend has the Nokia X2 (well it has 3g on it and she can surf the net on it), which I believe is still current, her battery lasts over a week.
I have a Nokia Lumia 710 whose battery lasts less than 24 hours, with most things turned off.

Man, browsing in 3G assrapes batteries, show me hard numbers that it lasts over a week, adequately rendering webpages on 3g!

Intrinsica, on 04 January 2013 - 17:21, said:

Ok, I give up. I think it's silly that my S3 cannot survive for a month without needing a recharge. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go and check on my toast. It looks a bit soggy.

You may not be excused, put your toast in the dryer! ( following you comparisons ).

alwaysonacoffebreak, on 04 January 2013 - 18:34, said:

I think I'm a lucky one with my Lumia 800, with heavy browsing, music and metrotube it usually lasts up to 2 days. That's all I expect for it to be honest and that's all fine, everything under that, meh, no thanks, not a fan of charging every night.