I still don’t get how people manage to fuck up their phones so badly. Last five iPhones I’ve had were sold on in mint condition.
I go cycling, hiking, climbing, camping with the things in a cheap TPU case and no screen protector. They are my primary outdoor navigation device, my camera and are used for 4-6 hours a day solid. I also drop the things occasionally.
Do people put their 1000 buck investment in a pocket full of old bolts, keys and sand paper?!? I just don’t understand how you even scratch one.
Unbreakable is an exaggeration. I want something that will not break when dropped from 4 to 5 feet onto irregualar concrete. Phone are pretty good, but mine is glass front and back and I dont wrap it in a case. Have dropped it a few times and got lucky. I just dont want to rely on that luck.
Sapphire glass has also been used in premium wrist watches for ages. These watches don't scratch. And when you drop the watch on the face from table height, say, it's more likely that the mechanics inside break than the glass.
I suppose that it is more difficult to handle in production, especially when you're aiming at a large surface area. But if scanners have it, this issue does not seem to be insurmountable.
Many customers would probably pay extra if they would get a phone that's as tough as a wrist watch but does not require a case.
Having it slide across an otherwise flat surface with indeterminate grit on it usually does the trick.
Aluminium oxide, for example - it comes off as white powder on motorcycle engines - and is pretty hard stuff, the same stuff as sapphire and ruby. That can end up on surfaces via motorcycle gloves if you ride motorbikes, if not from your own bike, then grit thrown up by tyres on a wet day.
I mean, phones don't scratch easily, but they do acquire a tiny scratch or two every few months, and a bad scratch maybe once or twice a year.
As much as people sometimes react negatively to stories like this (where some technology shows early promise in a research lab), I just now realized that I actually really like this kind of popular science reporting. It's concise, includes a few interesting tidbits of materials science, and overall conveys a sense of technological hope and optimism to the reader. Of course, we all know that technologies described in articles like this are often a long ways off from commercialization, if they ever achieve that at all. But I remember a time when OLED tech was described in the exact same way in the 2000s. Here's hoping that perovskite tech eventually amounts to something.
thank you for bringing this up, it’s one of those things that younger me did not understand, i see the pessimism surrounding new technology and i want to point out to doubters that it will take longer than they expect but it will come. like you mentioned oled.
a lot goes into building and refining the production process but once it starts, oh baby pandora’s box is open.
I agree with your general feeling that new technologies need to be given a certain benefit of the doubt since by definition they are far from production... we literally don't know how or what they would be used for.
However, in this case I have a little bit too much knowledge about the field and I have to say that it's "not even wrong"... it reads like gibberish. Yes perovskites can be used to generate nano-particles which generate light on amorphous glass substrates. But the need to use lead based materials, or glass substrates, the difficulty of manufacture or the low efficiency, and so on are not advantages. They are disadvantages.
In summary this discovery takes us no closer to unbreakable phone screens for a multitude of reasons, but primarily because what breaks (cracks, shatters, scratches, yields) is the cover glass rather than for example the OLED display, which are now primarily made from/on flexible substrates anyway. It is solving some orthogonal set of problems that are not laid out in the article, and which I as an expert am unable determine after reading it without searching for the original source material.
> in this case I have a little bit too much knowledge about the field and I have to say that it's "not even wrong"... it reads like gibberish.
Good to know I guess. I should clarify that the information I get actually doesn't have anything to do with the particular topic. It could be gibberish as you say and it would still give me a sense that someone's out there trying to iterate and experimenting with new tech. That in itself is nice to know. As with OLEDs, in a lot of cases it's not gibberish. But I assume some percentage of stories like this are gibberish. It still makes me happy that people are trying push things forward and that someone cared enough to write a story about it.
Yeah, I just wish the clickbait requirement for something like "unbreakable phone screens" wasn't required to get attention. This is still basic science... it doesn't have an application yet. Pretending it does is more of a hinderance than support.
Is it in dispute, that Gorilla Glass was developed for the iPhone? There's a famous story of Steve Jobs visiting the CEO of Corning, saying they needed the stronger glass in 1 year and when told "That's impossible" responded with something like "Don't be afraid. You can do it" and other such things. Called the reality distortion field, Steve Jobs was famous for convincing people that they could do the impossible.
Corning has made chemically strengthened glasses since the 1960s.
Gorilla Glass is basically a rebrand of an old tech , 'Chemcor Glass', that was brought back off the shelf due to an apparently new need (mobile tech).
It was used initially in the 60s for windscreens in high end open cockpit race cars as well as prototype style LeMans cars.
It was scrapped for use in street cars because crash testing showed that the increased toughness of the glass actually increased passenger head trauma.
The reality distorted here is the one in your brain. Jobsian reality distortion field has mostly been like that - making people credit Apple even when they don't actually deserve.
I'd say that's "mission accomplished" by the marketing teams Apple pays(by salary or contract)to weave these webs of deception.
I really loathe the latest "Your wifi security is insecure!!!" when not using WPA 3, despite the fact the iPhone is the only device most people have today that is WPA 3 capable.
Are they claiming new glass that is tougher than existing glass, or is this 'just' a way to embed very tough LEDs into glass? As long as there's still glass in front, then it doesn't really matter how tough the LEDs/LCDs are. We don't need those to be tougher, we need the glass to be tougher.
Edit: Did I say something wrong? I legitimately don't know what the article is claiming, and is there something I'm overlooking?
> It also prevents lead ions, which are toxic, leaching out of the material. At the end of their lives, the screens would be recyclable.
"Would be recyclable" and "will be recycled" are totally different things.
I think this is a cool article, but I wish it wouldn't try to sweep the environmental and toxicity issues under the rug with statements like "would be recyclable".
Doing the right thing is expensive in many different ways; time, money, opportunity, etc.
Whenever a company exploits a process to squeeze out extra profit we all assume the newly externalized costs. All products should be recycled at the end of their life and the costs involved should be built into the price. Some states mandate a redeemable deposit for cans and bottles. Perhaps every the United States could craft a responsible recycling program that tacks an appropriate tax onto a product that reflects the cost of a recycling the worst 10% off products in a category. I gladly pay to safely dispose my household waste responsibly, why must I continue to pay for companies that cleverly escape bearing these costs? The harms have been exhaustively calculated and established. I’m sick of being terrorized by belligerent psychopaths that feel entitled to pollute and contaminate everything they set their insatiable eyes upon.
What was wrong with the plastic screens a few phones had a few years ago? My wife had a Motorola from Verizon, some kind of droid, I don't recall the specific name (droid turbo 2, maybe?). It was basically a Verizon-specific version of the Moto X, but it had a plastic screen. We put a tempered glass screen protector over the top, and it was impossible to discern that the screen itself was plastic.
Edit: Went back and found a review of that phone, and I guess reviewers hated it. The screen wasn't as bright because the AMOLED screen wasn't bonded directly to a glass front. Oh well. My wife liked it just fine.
Moreover, what happened with just putting a small border around the glass with a raised lip? I owned several generations of Droids that I seemed to drop constantly and this protected them every time. Modern phones are designed to be ultra-fragile with glass going right to the edge, so we can appreciate the elegance before we stuff them into a bulky case forever.
I agree. Apple is perhaps largely to blame for this. I am a happy iPhone customer, but I cannot deny that I don't really appreciate some of their hardware design choices. Very slippery, so the very first thing I do is put it in a case. So it doesn't matter if it's elegant and beautiful, it's in a TPU case so I don't drop it. Last time I had an iPhone that I didn't use a case for was the 4S. I still think that may have been peak iPhone in some ways.
I have a 13 Pro Max coming Monday, and guess what, sitting on my desk in front of me is the case it will go into immediately after I take it out of the package. Kinda sad. Someone said they're not as slippery as the older phones, but have sharp edges. Okay on something the size of a 4S, not so okay on something the size of a small tablet.
I love my iphone 4s and it was only a couple years back I got rid of it. I had replaced the screen multiple times, replaced the power button, replaced the ear speaker, I think it had a new home button. It was a frankenphone to say the least but I loved it for years. It could fit in your hand and you could text with only one hand. Sadly some of the apps stopped working and they began to force the new ios at the time to be able to use certain apps. So eventually, thought the phone was and still is functional is had not become obsolete.
I've been using my SE for 5 years now without a case nor a screen protector. The screen is fine, although the corners are a bit dinged from having been dropped and the back is quite scratched. Works fine, hoping to go another couple of years with it.
I had the opposite experience with my SE. I used screen protectors but never a case. Even then, I had to get the screen replaced 3 or 4 times and eventually it because irreparable because of dents in the back of the phone. I was also 21 and living it like.
I hope you can get a few more years out of your phone too!
Yeah I used the SE for years till it started failing internally. No case or screen protector, dropping it was never a concern because it was small enough to firmly hold in one hand.
Have the 12 Mini now which is the next smallest phone, but feel much less secure with it because I can't reach both the top and bottom of the screen at once with my thumb while holding it securely in one hand. Have to always be sliding up and down to reach what needs to be hit, which makes it much more likely to be dropped. Would kill for a proper small phone again.
Yes, which is why the first thing we did was put on a tempered glass screen protector. Then the surface is glass. But if it breaks, it is easily replaced.
Or, in my case, they could just make the back of the phone less smooth than a space telescope mirror so it doesn't slide off a flat table surface over the course of 20 minutes. But it looks really great in the marketing renders, so that's nice I guess.
Also, let's have brands make the back stronger so they stop breaking? Some how the screen of my phone seems to be stronger than the back, which is shattered into a thousand pieces.
For a number of years I had read how each generation of Gorrila Glass is 50% or something stronger, yet I was still experiencing broken phones.
So I did a deep dive, long story short, when Gorilla Glass makes a stronger glass, the phone makers make the screen thinner, so we are back to square one.
Fully agree with this sentiment. I already have a case on my phone that nearly doubles its thickness.
Most phones have screen protectors which more than double the thickness of the screen glass - that said, screen protectors are cool in that they are disposable in the event of scratching.
But I would much prefer a Pixel phone that's thicker if that means it has better battery life and reception. The Pixel 6a THIC.
Thickness isn’t as much of an issue as weight is. I spent a while holding the 13 pro and 13 pro max and found the pro max to just be uncomfortably heavy.
My iPhone 7 battery lasts about two hours of mixed use browsing / app use. Will get the battery replaced when the tank arrives, I’m just over Apples lack of options with regard to battery size at anything like a reasonable price.
I can't use an Ulephone on Verizon, which is the only carrier in town that can deal with gnarly mountain terrain. Very difficult cell carrier coverage situation.
Friend of mine was really happy with his Ulephone, great value if it works for you.
Ah, so same as the battery situation. New battery tech or revised software that works more efficiently? Great, we can make the battery smaller. That's all customers care about-- a thinner phone that can go in a bulky phone case!
I don't remember anybody ever complaining about the size of their phone. And although I have literally never heard it, I could in theory believe a small minority of people might want a thinner phone if competitors were able to do it.
I don't buy that the phone manufacturers couldn't work together and agree to release "thicker" phones with reasonable battery though, as they do on just about every other industry feature.
I assume it's just an excuse for them to further close the abilities of right to repair where serviceable or otherwise reasonable batteries would lead to less new phone sales. Exactly the same situation as the screens, I'm sure. Just keep quiet about these things though when marketing this.
I just wanted to second the recommendation for the pixel 4a. I do a lot of work on my phone so it ended up being a bit too small for me, but it was definitely: inexpensive, had a nice camera, and was very portable. Also Google Fi has been really helpful for someone like me who takes a lot of overseas trips, really removes the headache from having to hunt down a sim without a working phone in a foreign country.
I was thinking this too (and have the same complaint you do), but I think the parent was talking about nobody complaining about the thickness of the phone, not about the other two dimensions.
I had a Samsung Galaxy S4, I think? Back when they still had removable batteries... Anyways, the phone was too tall to fit comfortably in my pocket, would dig into my hip and end up partially under my seat belt while driving. Eventually, the damn thing ended up bent, about inch from the top of the screen. Glass didn't break or crack, but the phone sorta looked like a bendy straw, mostly straightened if you looked at it on edge from the side. Still worked perfectly fine for quite a while with that bend, though. Definitely was too thin for my casual use.
Id prefer a slightly thicker phone with a slightly smaller screen, the better to actually fit in my pants pocket.
I had the Galaxy S3 and loved it back then. I’ve converted from android somewhat recently (was a major advocate before, but now have moved away from all Google products) and have found the iPhone SE 2020 to be perfect. Small enough for my pocket, works great, and still has probably 4+ years of full software updates. You might even be able to find a sale since they’re over a year old now
This hasn’t been true for a while. The iPhone hit peak thinness a while ago and they have been getting thicker every year. The battery life on the latest iPhones is much better this year than last.
And on weight, I find the 13 pro to be ok but the 13 pro max was too much. So what they have now is the limit of what I want the weight to be.
The fact that iPhones wobble like a cheap table because the camera protrudes with the lack of a 3.5 jack is pretty crazy im my mind. I dont like cases (will throw a sacrifice glass on the screen) but I feel they could add some thickness. And i'd go 2x as thick and as for an android like the first keyboard slide of the Motorolo Droids.
Give me a notched phone roughly the size of a SE, ~2x as thick with a slide keyboard and i will go back to android... basicly bring back the moto droid line!!
I actually like the bump because it raises the phone off the table slightly so I can grip it better. I never use the phone on the table anyway so it's no issue.
But a phone with a thickness that makes the camera flush should only give you more grip surface, I can only think of the scenario of trying to pick up a penny or dime from a counter where I need to use my finger nails the air gap would be slightly helpful.
> I never use the phone on the table anyway so it's no issue.
Just like when Apple never seemed to test how left handed people use phones, no issue to you isn't really the point.
I noticed with the first generation Gorilla Glass I could do anything with it. I could put my phone in my pocket with keys and coins no problem. Then the next phone I got and my house key scratched it the very first day.
My wild theory was the key was an aluminum (alloy) and it corroded creating corundum since there was no way a key could scratch the screen. I was just trying to console myself that I wasn't stupid and careless there were bigger forces at play.
Why would any manufacturer want an unbreakable screen? The market for screen replacements is huge - they would likely face class action suits from third party repair shops, and would lose revenue themselves from the sale of replacement screens.
I just put a glass screen protector on my phone and a thin plastic case that goes round the back. I drop it reasonably regularly and I've never had a broken screen, it's a Samsung A series. I guess it costs about £10 for the case and glass layer, but that's not much
While there are more sophisticated models in this space, for something of a budget oriented phone (which i'll probably use until the battery degrades, seeing as unfortunately it doesn't have a removable one), it's both usable and feels rugged enough.
No longer do i have to worry much about things like dust/sand or even splashes of water and such. It actually fell once from about 1.5 meters out of my pocket and on stone bricks, while i was doing pull ups. I'm sure that the situation would have been worse if it had landed screen down, but even after landing on its corner, there was no visible damage afterwards.
Plus, after using it for a while, i've found that the larger form factor doesn't bother me in the slightest, so i'm not exactly sure why modern phones are so obsessed with being thing. Then again, i also enjoy the form factor of ThinkPads, while there are people out there who call them ugly and too bulky.
My old Nokia 900 slipped from my pocket years ago as I climbed through a roof hatch, fell 25ft and exploded on the concrete floor. I collected the body, the sim, sim holder, SD card, SD holder, bezel, battery and battery cover and put all the pieces back together. It powered up and worked 100%, despite some cosmetic crinkle in the bezel.
This year alone, I have had 3 phones slip or drop 2-3 ft(< 1m), from my pocket or hand, onto carpet and sand, and all came up with cracked glass, one with a screen that no longer lit up.
You do have a point, but i also recall some of the older phones also being fragile back in the day. If i recall correctly, the first mobile phone that i had was a Nokia 5110: https://www.gsmarena.com/nokia_5110-7.php
From the outside, it looked like it should be pretty tough, yet when it fell off of a table and on the floor (not even hardwood, i think it was linoleum), it just straight up died.
I bet that the thicker plastic frames of those old phones still absorb impacts better than most of the modern thin ones, yet a proper rubberized frame/case will almost always be even better.
Plus, IP68 (which was described in IEC 60529 in 2001, a few years after that first phone came out) now being available in consumer hardware at an affordable price point is pretty nice!
So it's mostly a matter of supporting the manufacturers who create the devices that you actually want. Maybe shopping around for a phone with a removable battery AND the aforementioned ruggedness would be a good move on my part.
“Stronger” is a term than can mean a couple of things. The two main properties of “strength” are hardness and break resistance. The problem is that usually, when you you increase hardness, you make the glass less resistant to breaking. The glass becomes more brittle. Phone makers have to balance those two properties when designing their phones.
Making glass thinner would actually make it less likely to break as it allows a little more flex to the glass. Making it thinner might compromise some other property of the glass so I’m not sure why they don’t use super thin glass.
I think some day there is a possibility of going without the glass. And the whole display is simply a Plastic OLED but with a scratch resistance layer on top. Unfortunately it make the screen "feels" a little less luxurious.
I consider last couple of iPhone screens unbreakable, but they scratch at a whiff of a wind. 1 week of use and it’s already badly scratched. Not really visible with normal use tho.
How is that possible? I've never used a screen protector, never used a case, and the only screen-related problem I've had was when someone else knocked my phone out of my hand. Do you live in a rock tumbler...?
Depends on your tolerance for scratches. All modern screens get these micro scratches which are visible with the screen off in the light, but go away with the screen on. Those scratches show up within days of perfectly normal use but the majority of people don’t even notice or care.
For me the resistance to breaking and scratching is more than sufficient and has been for a while. As someone who grew up using PDAs with plastic resistive screens, I haven't scratched a phone screen since 2011, let alone broken one. What I want is folding screens with good scratch resistance.
114 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 120 ms ] thread[0] https://youtu.be/wfWMs_0wd_g
https://youtube.com/channel/UCnFP0IU4gpnmcLnVzDLUtfw
I go cycling, hiking, climbing, camping with the things in a cheap TPU case and no screen protector. They are my primary outdoor navigation device, my camera and are used for 4-6 hours a day solid. I also drop the things occasionally.
Do people put their 1000 buck investment in a pocket full of old bolts, keys and sand paper?!? I just don’t understand how you even scratch one.
Apple tried to use sapphire glass for phone screens around 2014, but only succeeded in driving their sapphire maker into bankruptcy.
I suppose that it is more difficult to handle in production, especially when you're aiming at a large surface area. But if scanners have it, this issue does not seem to be insurmountable.
Many customers would probably pay extra if they would get a phone that's as tough as a wrist watch but does not require a case.
Which is why I have a phone sold by Caterpillar, Inc.[1]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVPku-xItv8
Maybe you mean on the back, where sometimes they use cheaper glass?
Aluminium oxide, for example - it comes off as white powder on motorcycle engines - and is pretty hard stuff, the same stuff as sapphire and ruby. That can end up on surfaces via motorcycle gloves if you ride motorbikes, if not from your own bike, then grit thrown up by tyres on a wet day.
I mean, phones don't scratch easily, but they do acquire a tiny scratch or two every few months, and a bad scratch maybe once or twice a year.
a lot goes into building and refining the production process but once it starts, oh baby pandora’s box is open.
However, in this case I have a little bit too much knowledge about the field and I have to say that it's "not even wrong"... it reads like gibberish. Yes perovskites can be used to generate nano-particles which generate light on amorphous glass substrates. But the need to use lead based materials, or glass substrates, the difficulty of manufacture or the low efficiency, and so on are not advantages. They are disadvantages.
In summary this discovery takes us no closer to unbreakable phone screens for a multitude of reasons, but primarily because what breaks (cracks, shatters, scratches, yields) is the cover glass rather than for example the OLED display, which are now primarily made from/on flexible substrates anyway. It is solving some orthogonal set of problems that are not laid out in the article, and which I as an expert am unable determine after reading it without searching for the original source material.
Good to know I guess. I should clarify that the information I get actually doesn't have anything to do with the particular topic. It could be gibberish as you say and it would still give me a sense that someone's out there trying to iterate and experimenting with new tech. That in itself is nice to know. As with OLEDs, in a lot of cases it's not gibberish. But I assume some percentage of stories like this are gibberish. It still makes me happy that people are trying push things forward and that someone cared enough to write a story about it.
This editorial seems very Apple centric, not generic science centric.
Gorilla Glass 1 released in 2006, iPhone 1 released summer of 2007.
Gorilla Glass is basically a rebrand of an old tech , 'Chemcor Glass', that was brought back off the shelf due to an apparently new need (mobile tech).
It was used initially in the 60s for windscreens in high end open cockpit race cars as well as prototype style LeMans cars.
It was scrapped for use in street cars because crash testing showed that the increased toughness of the glass actually increased passenger head trauma.
I really loathe the latest "Your wifi security is insecure!!!" when not using WPA 3, despite the fact the iPhone is the only device most people have today that is WPA 3 capable.
Edit: Did I say something wrong? I legitimately don't know what the article is claiming, and is there something I'm overlooking?
"Would be recyclable" and "will be recycled" are totally different things.
I think this is a cool article, but I wish it wouldn't try to sweep the environmental and toxicity issues under the rug with statements like "would be recyclable".
Whenever a company exploits a process to squeeze out extra profit we all assume the newly externalized costs. All products should be recycled at the end of their life and the costs involved should be built into the price. Some states mandate a redeemable deposit for cans and bottles. Perhaps every the United States could craft a responsible recycling program that tacks an appropriate tax onto a product that reflects the cost of a recycling the worst 10% off products in a category. I gladly pay to safely dispose my household waste responsibly, why must I continue to pay for companies that cleverly escape bearing these costs? The harms have been exhaustively calculated and established. I’m sick of being terrorized by belligerent psychopaths that feel entitled to pollute and contaminate everything they set their insatiable eyes upon.
Edit: Went back and found a review of that phone, and I guess reviewers hated it. The screen wasn't as bright because the AMOLED screen wasn't bonded directly to a glass front. Oh well. My wife liked it just fine.
I have a 13 Pro Max coming Monday, and guess what, sitting on my desk in front of me is the case it will go into immediately after I take it out of the package. Kinda sad. Someone said they're not as slippery as the older phones, but have sharp edges. Okay on something the size of a 4S, not so okay on something the size of a small tablet.
I hope you can get a few more years out of your phone too!
Have the 12 Mini now which is the next smallest phone, but feel much less secure with it because I can't reach both the top and bottom of the screen at once with my thumb while holding it securely in one hand. Have to always be sliding up and down to reach what needs to be hit, which makes it much more likely to be dropped. Would kill for a proper small phone again.
So I did a deep dive, long story short, when Gorilla Glass makes a stronger glass, the phone makers make the screen thinner, so we are back to square one.
Most phones have screen protectors which more than double the thickness of the screen glass - that said, screen protectors are cool in that they are disposable in the event of scratching.
But I would much prefer a Pixel phone that's thicker if that means it has better battery life and reception. The Pixel 6a THIC.
Complaining about phones getting thinner is a bit odd when iPhones haven’t gotten thinner in ~5 years.
6.8” display, 20.8mm thick, 492 grams, 13,200mAh battery.
https://m.ulefone.com/power-armor-13.html?PageName=specs
My iPhone 7 battery lasts about two hours of mixed use browsing / app use. Will get the battery replaced when the tank arrives, I’m just over Apples lack of options with regard to battery size at anything like a reasonable price.
Friend of mine was really happy with his Ulephone, great value if it works for you.
[1]https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/motorola-moto-g-power-2022
I don't remember anybody ever complaining about the size of their phone. And although I have literally never heard it, I could in theory believe a small minority of people might want a thinner phone if competitors were able to do it.
I don't buy that the phone manufacturers couldn't work together and agree to release "thicker" phones with reasonable battery though, as they do on just about every other industry feature.
I assume it's just an excuse for them to further close the abilities of right to repair where serviceable or otherwise reasonable batteries would lead to less new phone sales. Exactly the same situation as the screens, I'm sure. Just keep quiet about these things though when marketing this.
Got to keep people spending money.
The 16:9 Galaxy S6 was 5.1 inches. The S22 has a 6.2 inch diagonal screen, despite being wider by only a millimeter than the S6.
While mid-rangers have been getting larger, only the actual display has grown larger on the flagships, and not the chassis.
Id prefer a slightly thicker phone with a slightly smaller screen, the better to actually fit in my pants pocket.
And on weight, I find the 13 pro to be ok but the 13 pro max was too much. So what they have now is the limit of what I want the weight to be.
Give me a notched phone roughly the size of a SE, ~2x as thick with a slide keyboard and i will go back to android... basicly bring back the moto droid line!!
> I never use the phone on the table anyway so it's no issue.
Just like when Apple never seemed to test how left handed people use phones, no issue to you isn't really the point.
It's the best phone I've ever had.
With a 512GB SD card, and a built-in fat battery, I never have to worry about running out either of storage or power. It's liberating.
And the camera is good enough that the storage does fill up.
The casing should simply be built in so the cool coloring, texture or material the phone offers can actually be seen
My wild theory was the key was an aluminum (alloy) and it corroded creating corundum since there was no way a key could scratch the screen. I was just trying to console myself that I wasn't stupid and careless there were bigger forces at play.
I picked it up dreading a shattered display but there wasn't a scratch on it. The steel bezel was damaged though.
Gorilla glass 1 with the thickness they used was indeed awesome.
While there are more sophisticated models in this space, for something of a budget oriented phone (which i'll probably use until the battery degrades, seeing as unfortunately it doesn't have a removable one), it's both usable and feels rugged enough.
No longer do i have to worry much about things like dust/sand or even splashes of water and such. It actually fell once from about 1.5 meters out of my pocket and on stone bricks, while i was doing pull ups. I'm sure that the situation would have been worse if it had landed screen down, but even after landing on its corner, there was no visible damage afterwards.
Plus, after using it for a while, i've found that the larger form factor doesn't bother me in the slightest, so i'm not exactly sure why modern phones are so obsessed with being thing. Then again, i also enjoy the form factor of ThinkPads, while there are people out there who call them ugly and too bulky.
This year alone, I have had 3 phones slip or drop 2-3 ft(< 1m), from my pocket or hand, onto carpet and sand, and all came up with cracked glass, one with a screen that no longer lit up.
Elegant fragility is the engineered intention, IMO For truth in advertising, they should rebrand it "Fragile Flower Glass"©.
From the outside, it looked like it should be pretty tough, yet when it fell off of a table and on the floor (not even hardwood, i think it was linoleum), it just straight up died.
I bet that the thicker plastic frames of those old phones still absorb impacts better than most of the modern thin ones, yet a proper rubberized frame/case will almost always be even better.
Plus, IP68 (which was described in IEC 60529 in 2001, a few years after that first phone came out) now being available in consumer hardware at an affordable price point is pretty nice!
So it's mostly a matter of supporting the manufacturers who create the devices that you actually want. Maybe shopping around for a phone with a removable battery AND the aforementioned ruggedness would be a good move on my part.
Making glass thinner would actually make it less likely to break as it allows a little more flex to the glass. Making it thinner might compromise some other property of the glass so I’m not sure why they don’t use super thin glass.
It's not awful - but scratches are there.
They want customers to keep paying to repair those screens and backs and keep buying new phones more often.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrowetting#:~:text=Elect....
https://www.flexenable.com/technology/flexible-olcd/
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266081727_Electrowe...