this post was submitted on 27 Dec 2025
393 points (96.5% liked)

Technology

78003 readers
2530 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 111 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (5 children)

Assuming he's right (and boy, being sued by apple is a huge boost to his credibility), they're keeping the stupid camera bump thing from the air???

[–] scratchee@feddit.uk 83 points 18 hours ago

The camera bump sure isn’t going away for a folding phone. cameras have fundamental volume requirements to maintain quality, if they don’t think they can justify making the normal iPhone thick enough to enclose the camera then there’s no way in hell they’ll think the folding phones doubled width can include it, if anything you’d expect it to be more prominent on a folding model

[–] aeronmelon@lemmy.world 21 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

It does not surprise me that the Air is literally the folding phone without the second screen.

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 2 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

It slightly does me, given that the Air was (apparently) a huge commercial flop. You'd think they'd revisit the soundly mocked design instead of recycling it, or at least change it? The renders may very well be overstating it, of course, but still it's an odd feature to carry over.

[–] warm@kbin.earth 19 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

It was a flop because no one really wants thinner phones, they are harder to use. The iPhone Air was also extremely overpriced and missing basic features a phone a quarter of the price has.

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 4 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

Yes, those are all great points that make up a good portion of why they should probably revisit the design.

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 3 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Or maybe stop trying to make expensive electronics as thin as possible.

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Thin is fine. But you should use that newly free space for a bigger battery. It fits better in people's hands that way too.

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 1 points 8 hours ago

Exactly, and it's easier to make them user serviceable that way too.

I've never understood the desire to make $1k+ electronics super thin, but then again I step on things a lot. I guess the fragility could be a form of planned obsolescence.

[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 26 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (5 children)

how do you propose removing it?

there are two options, 1) using a smaller,shittier camera, or 2) making an extremely thick phone. neither option is very “apple”, especially for a flagship model.

considering the vast majority of people use phone cases and will never notice the bump anyway, i think this whole thing is blown way out of proportion.

[–] SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works 5 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

No thicker than very popular and successful phones from just 5 years ago. They can use the extra space for a larger battery, so they dont have to nerf performance to maintain stability in older phones. They can also use the space to restore repairability.

But probably not for a folding phone, since making both sides that thick will probably be too much.

[–] fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Phones 5 years ago have lightyears worse cameras than phones today.

[–] SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

But their thickness can accomidate todays cameras.

[–] fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

...no they can’t. Do you realize just how thick modern camera bumps are? Even not including the bump phones nowadays are thicker than phones 5 years ago.

The iPhone X was 7.7mm thick. The iPhone 17 pro excluding the bump is 8.7.

[–] SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 hours ago

Damn, I keep forgetting that the iphone X was already 5 years ago. 10 years ago then. There has been so little improvements in phones in the ladt 5 years, it all just blurs together.

I think the point is, we used to have phones that were 9mm+ thick. Iphone 4s and iphone 5c from Apple and Samsung Galaxy S3 and motorola G phones were all that thickness. They even had replacable batteries and expandable storage. Some of those were even waterproof despite all of that.

I think the main driver of impractical thinness has been marketing, planned obselecence and cost savings.

[–] 0x0@infosec.pub 9 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

making an extremely thick phone

lol how is 11mm extremely thick

[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world -3 points 6 hours ago (1 children)
[–] 0x0@infosec.pub 1 points 1 hour ago

You said so yourself.

If phone cases make the bump (and perceived problem) disappear, everyone must be using extremely thick phones already.

You can't have both, not that I agree with 11mm being extremely thick anyway, case or not.

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 13 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (3 children)

The marketing about it being an incredibly thin phone was a misstep - it just looked absurd to have such a chunky lump stuck onto it, and it felt very much like they were attempting a have cake / eat cake situation by claiming it had incredible camera stats (which werent very good) to justify the bump on an otherwise amazingly thin phone, and then that giant electronics bump had an external lens on it too.

Had it just been an ugly phone, I doubt it would have met with anywhere near the same criticism, but all the adcopy about how thin it was overtop of photos where you could see it had a giant lump on it felt really dishonest, and if this article is accurate it may count among the biggest apple flops ever.

(The thickness may just need to be accepted at this point. The S25 Ultra is 8.2mm, which is thinner than the Air if you include the bump. It seems like the camera wasnt the issue then, but that they hamstrung their design team with their drive for a thin phone. What elegance might even an extra millimeter of chassis space produced?)

[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago

are you talking about the Air? last time i checked all iphone models have a camera bump.

[–] SARGE@startrek.website 12 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

What elegance might even an extra millimeter of chassis space produced?

People really don't seem to understand that in the electronics world, one single millimeter can make worlds of difference.

You absolutely can cram so much more stuff in "dumber" electronics, but phones are even more constricted in design, because they need to send and receive signals of different types, so feedback and signal noise are concerns.

Adding in even slightly more space allows for much better design, because you have more tolerances to reduce signal noise. It allows dozens of wires for camera sensors to route better. A 20% longer battery life. Heck, just being slightly more ergonomic and less droppable is a bonus to slightly thicker phones.

I didn't even consider signal noise until I got into fpv drones and rc stuff, it can mame a ton of difference if you have a single wire 2mm out of place. (and crash your drone because the motor interfered with your antenna)

Thiner≠better.

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 1 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

Wildly appropriate username here. Also, 100% correct.

[–] QuarterSwede@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago

The marketing had nothing to do with it not selling. Pick one up, yeah it’s thin but it’s also a bar of soap to hold. Plus a ton of deal breaking trade off like less battery life and poor camera system compared to the alternative iPhone 17s/Pros.

[–] frizzo@piefed.social -1 points 10 hours ago

Lol "extremely thick phone". Get that apple boot, you got it to your gills this time. Only when it's razor thin and cuts the hands of the unworthy will then your lust be satisfied.

[–] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 6 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

I mean, being stupid thin is something that a foldable phone has to be, so that it ends up being normal-ish thickness when folded. So it tracks that they'd design it like their ultra-thin phone.

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 9 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

But it's not stupid thin, it's got a giant lump on it?

[–] warm@kbin.earth 11 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

Thinness should be defined by it's thickest point.

[–] JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz 6 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

No no is clearly the thinnest iPhone ever, just look at it, can't see anything wrong calling it that. So thin. Amazing, how can apple do such a marvel of engineering.

[–] warm@kbin.earth 2 points 6 hours ago

I know better cameras demand more space, but you cant claim your phone is thin with them. Not that I think thin phones are useful, pointless gimmick.

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 5 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

5.6 - 9 - 5.6
hip - waist - bust

If it's good enough for girls it's good enough for phones