this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2025

246 points (97.3% liked)

Technology

71502 readers

3340 users here now

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

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related news or articles.
Be excellent to each other!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
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.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

L3s@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world

technopagan@lemmy.world

L4s@lemmy.world

L3s@hackingne.ws

L4s@hackingne.ws

246

Smartphones are Designed to Fail Us (and We Have to Change That) (xn--gckvb8fzb.com)

submitted 5 days ago by mesamunefire@piefed.social to c/technology@lemmy.world

78 comments fedilink hide all child comments

(page 2) 30 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] UltraBlack@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I'm honestly quite happy with my Samsung XCover 6 pro:

physical headphone jack
notification LED
removable and replaceable battery
rugged and without a screen that bends around the edge of the phone
relatively recent and quite powerful imo
some samsung's default apps are surprisingly good
two extra freely mappable physical buttons
gps and all the other stuff
dual sim
good battery life
it's an enterprise device
you can get it new for 350€, if not less

Only drawback: utterly dogshit camera. It looks to be interpolated. 50MP never looked that much like 8MP

Can't wait for this to get LOS/EOS support

[–] KingRandomGuy@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Most "50 MP" cameras are actually quad Bayer sensors (effectively worse resolution) and are usually binned 2x to approx 12 MP.

The lens on your phone likely isn't sharp enough to capture 50 MP of detail on a small sensor anyway, so the megapixel number ends up being more of a gimmick than anything.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 1 points 4 days ago

Now, if the camera isn't the reason anymore, why would you still pay $1200 for a flagship if you get essentially the same for $300?

[–] princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 5 days ago (3 children)

The global smartphone screen protectors market size was estimated at $49.73 billion in 2022and the global protective cover market was anticipated to reach $21.89 billion in that same year.

That's insane, are screen protectors really twice the market size of phone cases??

[–] scintilla@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 4 days ago

Screen protectors need to be changed way more often than a good case and they are usually similar is prices so this makes sense to me.

[–] propitiouspanda@lemmy.cafe 2 points 5 days ago

You only need 1 case, but screen protectors can crack if you can believe that.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] bieren@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 days ago (4 children)

Fucking lights bulbs are designed to fail and we are okay with it. Why would anything change with phones.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

I mean phone durability has become a lot better. I use my iPhone 14 Pro without a case, and I have dropped it a few times and more than once it has flown across the room. Just last Saturday it fell on concrete from like 4 feet high. It’s good as new.

It is also the consumer who is mostly at fault anyways. There are many durable phones out there, none of them sell like the shiny sleek phone. Do people really want devices that are more durable? If so, why aren’t they buying them?

[–] throwawayacc0430@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Do people really want devices that are more durable? If so, why aren’t they buying them?

Because the compromise is either:

Bad updates, and buggy software, possibly unpatched vulnerbilities. Usually only 1-2 years of security updates (Blackview, Ulephone, Dogee)

Bad Specs. (Samsung Galaxy XCover)

[–] Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

It’s not a compromise, it’s a reflection of the fact that most people don’t care about these durable devices so they don’t sell well and thus they can’t be supported very well or for very long. This is just a reality of the market.

[–] throwawayacc0430@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 days ago (2 children)

So there goes the feedback loop.

Nobody wants them because of the downsides, manufacturers then interpret those data as "rugged devices are not popular", repeat...

[–] Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 days ago

Samsung used to have rugged mainline Galaxy phones. Guess what? They didn’t sell well so they don’t make them anymore.

Mass market doesn’t want this, is that simple. The people who want it are over represented online. It’s a similar case with people who want small phones, why do you think they don’t make them anymore? Because hardly anyone buys them.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

How much money would you pay for this dream rugged smartphone of yours?

[–] throwawayacc0430@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

I'd say like a $100-200 (USD) Premium, at most. Basically, if a phone is $500, I'd at most pay $700 for a ruggedized version of it with all the same specs, features, and updates. I don't mind the thickness as long as its not too thick like a brick. Any more expensive and nah, that aint for me.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

I think this highlight the problem with this approach. $500 MSRP would likely not be cost effective for a phone manufacturer to invest in the design, construction, inventory of replacement parts, and multi-year long support of the rugged and long lasting phone. An important part of the premise of the author is that the phone lasts a long time, and your stated desire for long software support.

This is likely a money loser for a phone manufacturer from day one. My guess is that this phone would likely have to cost $2000 to $3000 for a chance to be economically viable. The biggest expenses are going to be on the human labor parts of a staff to provide the regular software updates, maintaining humans that run the manufacturing lines for the replacement parts, and the repair staff to effect the repairs over time for customers. Considering the only time the phone manufacturer gets money is from the initial sale of the phone, they have to price it high enough to cover many years of these support operations.

At the higher, more realistic, phone sale price it likely drops the number of potential customers so low to not even pay for the initial design and tooling to be created.

This is likely why no manufacturer makes this theoretical phone.

[–] amotio@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

I have had few phones over the years, few of them I damaged by using them in bad conditions, mainly on construction sites.

As far I can remember I have never cracked the screen. Phones are and always were fragile, its a piece of condensed technology, with large glass screen. What do people expect from glass dropped from 1m? Just take care of your shit.

It always amazes me how can people cary their phones in back pocket or just throw it in the bag with keys or other sharp objects.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

The article is disappointing. It appears author of that article only has one narrow view and assumes the rest of the world has the same.

They buy the most fragile and aesthetically pleasing phones, and complain they are fragile. They advocate for manufacturers to stop making fragile aesthetically pleasing phones, and only make rugged or repairable phones instead. They make an inference that phones should be repairable like cars with accessible parts and non-proprietary tools, but they appear to not know that today's cars have difficulty getting replacement parts and absolutely contain mechanical and electronic proprietary tools to repair the cars.

Mr/Ms author, if you want a phone that doesn't break so easily when dropped, you can buy such a thing right now. Something like CAT phones:

... or other ruggedized Android phones.

I think the last time I dropped a phone an broke the screen on it was maybe 2007. I don't even use phone cases. If your particular use case has you dropping your phone more, buy one that exists and is designed to take those kind of conditions. There's no shame in that, but don't advocate for an entire industry shift because of just your own use case.

Smartphones/technology are still incredibly young in the grand scheme of things. Each of the new generation of devices that comes out adds more functionality for features that people want. Until that stops, it doesn't make sense to try to switch everyone to a "buy it for life" approach. My Commodore 64 computer still works, and is very easy to service, however I wouldn't have wanted technology to stop back then just because its a sturdy built machine. Today I have the paper thin laptops with 8 hours of battery and high speed CPUs are not as rugged or repairable as my venerable C64, but I'm quite glad to have the fragile laptop instead.

[–] Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Theres this pervasive mentality in online spaces that completely disregards the consumer’s role in all of the design choices of products. They completely ignore that it is the consumer who signaled they wanted this and continue to signal they want this by buying more of the same. Corporations cannot create desires, they only fulfill them. Consumers have demonstrated they want sleek devices that are easy to operate and last only as long as they are not outclassed by next thing. The alternative of course is coming to the realization that consumers prefer convenience and novelty than durability above anything else but once you realize that you become elitist and that’s a big no no. So it must be the corporations fault!

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

You also ignore the role marketing has to play in convincing people that they need those things. Most people don't need an SUV, let alone a truck, yet I see plenty of people driving these, and even thinking they're safer than sedans. But they cost more money, which means more profit, and why would it be surprising that people who sell something with a relatively inelastic market want to maximize profit dollars per sale?

[–] Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Is the marketing department putting a gun to your head to force you to buy anything?

I have worked in marketing, and I have a very good, almost academic understanding of it. One of the fundamental rules of marketing is that you cannot create a desire for a product, you can only create products that satisfy a desire. The big trucks are not there because the corporations forced the people to buy them, they are there because the people wanted to buy them and monkeys that we are as soon as we see many big trucks we also want one. There are small trucks in the market. They don’t sell as well as the big trucks. It’s simple free market dynamics and I really hate this pov because it makes it seem as though the corporations dictate what people want when it has always been the other way around.

The real disconnect is that you as an individual are alienated from the wants of the mass market, and this is all too common in online communities because guess what? People who spend time on discussion boards online do not think like the average person. Thankfully as barriers to entry dissolve even in markets like car manufacturing which used to be huge, we start getting more diversity of products, some of them tailored to niche buyers like yourself. But you cannot ask that these products be supported at the same level as the product that 80% of the people want, you have to live with the tradeoffs.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

So what you're saying is that marketing provides a sober, unbiased presentatiin of the benefits and drawbacks of the products they're trying to sell, and people make rational, informed decisions? No, like you said, most people behave little better than monkeys, and marketing caters to that, further skewing the norms and pushing people to buy things based on perceived benefits while ignoring the real drawbacks. Next you'll tell me the prescription opioid epidemic wasn't exacerbated by the claims that the new opioids were less addictive and pharmaceutical companies incentivizing doctors to prescribe them more than necessary, a lot of words that boil down to 'marketing'.

[–] Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Comparing opioids to a truck or a phone is wild. I guess if opioids was something you could just walk into a store and buy without a prescription you would be somewhat right but that hasn’t been the case in a long time. The situation you describe is more about physical availability than mental availability which I think is more to the point of what we are discussing here but sure I can concede that rugged phones being less visible than the sleeker phones leads to them being purchased less often. But again, Samsung once had a mainline galaxy phone that was rugged and it didn’t do well, so maybe people really don’t want an ugly brick of a phone and want what is more aesthetically pleasant.

Let me put it this way, if you do not trust that people can make good purchase decisions. Why do we allow people to make any decisions at all? Much less participate in things so important like democracy?

Your line of thinking, that of removing completely the responsibility of the individual in a free market dynamic will necessarily take you to one or two conclusions depending on what you value more: we accept that the masses will not necessarily make the best choices available but they are absolutely free to make said choices, or that we should divide society between enlightened and non enlightened and the enlightened will dictate how the non enlightened will live because obviously these monkeys need guidance in order to make good decisions.

I flip flop between one or the other, but I always settle in the former because I can’t guarantee that I won’t be lumped with the monkeys.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I don't remove responsibility from the people, but don't pretend that companies don't spend piles of cash on marketing when it has absolutely no influence on their customers' purchasing decisions. Also, don't pretend that marketing isn't pandering to appeal and not function.

[–] Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago

I’m not pretending anything, I never stated that marketing pretends to present products as they factually are. Look selling a product that no one wants is really fricking hard, no matter how much budget you have. So in order for something to sell well, people most have already wanted it. It must solve a problem, increase productivity or just fill the daddy shaped holes in their hearts, but they must want it and they cannot be truly manipulated into buying it unless you flat out lie, which is not really a good model on which to build a long term company on.

All I’m saying is that if marketing convinces people to buy a shiny poop they are in all the freedom to do so. But marketing never had the ability to manipulate people into buying something for which there is no desire. The shiny poop might fulfill some inner desire of the masses, who cares? They wanted it, they got it.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 0 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Smartphones are fragile without a case. They should have one, and maybe manufacturers should make that clearer, but a world where removable cases didn't exist would just mean that the case you get is the one that the manufacturer chooses for you and permanently attaches to the smartphone. Less options for you.

Just get a case.

I am also more than willing to carry a slightly thicker device if it means greater durability and easier repairability.

Me too. It's why I have a case.

And I am certain many others would gladly trade their bulky, overpriced cases and bumpers for a sturdier device that inherently provides the protection we now have to purchase separately.

If you want a built-in case, you can get them. There is a whole collection of "ruggedized" smartphones from various manufacturers in China that are large, usually have a hefty battery, and have shielding built into the device.

Look at Doogee for one such manufacturer.

https://www.doogee.com/

Oukitel for another:

https://oukitel.com/

Ulefone for another:

https://www.ulefone.com/

Personally, I think that the built-in case isn't very interesting relative to a removable case, but the large battery might be, depending upon your needs.

EDIT: A number of manufacturers will even make official cases for their phones, if you can tolerate a removable case and just want something endorsed by the manufacturer.

Apple, for example:

https://www.apple.com/shop/iphone/accessories/cases-protection

Or Google:

https://store.google.com/product/pixel_8_phone_case?hl=en-US

[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

They don't have to be fragile, though. I have several old, cheap smartphones that didn't need a case and weren't bulky by the standards of the day. Even now all they would need is a new battery (easily replaceable btw) and they would work as good as new.

load more comments