Originally Posted by mugwump
This entire tangent demonstrates that touch screen devices are at least 36% thicker than non touch screen devices, and even that with reduced battery to achieve it.
And this, children, is how you use a logical fallacy of the informal type "ignorantio elenchi". Peppered with a healthy dose of ignorance, generalization becomes a nice package-deal fallacy, or possibly a hasty generalization.
No, mugwump. Adding a touchscreen doesn't increase significantly the power drain on the battery, nor does it require a lot of extra chips and controllers.
No, the fact that there aren't thinner touchscreen devices doesn't demonstrate that they can't exist, it's just a statement of fact, not a cause-effect. And it's almost impossible you're seriously pretending to prove that all touch-screen devices must be at least 36% thicker than non-touch-screen by using two devices provided, almost at random, in a forum post.
Really. It's almost too much obvious bait to take it (I'm weak, I'll admit it).
The reason touchscreens haven't found their way into thinner phones has nothing to do with them making the devices much thicker (as has been repeated and is adequately documented if you care to search for it, touchscreen capabilities don't add more than a 1mm to thickness for the screen overlay itself and there's enough space for a touchscreen controller chip in most modern phones, even thinner ones).
Touchscreens haven't appeared in thinner phones yet because of several reasons, not all of them technical:
-The thinnest phones are still marketed as luxury items. Usually with a minimalistic look and preferrably with a gimmicky way of opening them. They are NOT PDAs, nor are they smartphones, as a general rule. PDAs are only used to brag among geeks, whereas thin phones are marketed as fashion statements. Marketing an ultra-thin phone right now as a PDA would stain (to the marketers' eyes) both markets.
-Touchscreen phones are, usually, smartphones and this, as a market, still has to take off. So far it's been a shoddy market, with shoddy offerings, that doesn't appeal to the masses (as PDAs really didn't). In the same way that ultrathin wristwatches originally were luxury items and weren't expected to have many features. Actually they revelled in their lack of features. Minimalism always goes well with fashion design.
-Ultra-thin and fully-featured are still two completely different market segments and until they start to merge thinness won't be a priority. There are even old Palms that are incredibly thin compared to current smartphones and they fell into disuse because they didn't feel sturdy. The thickest components are already there (speakers, microphones, backlight, BATTERY) but phone companies are (smartly) pacing their own releases. By keeping these as two different market segments they ensure lots of models until they are forced to make a first luxury smartphone that is ultrathin, followed some time after by more and more commoditized (cheaper) versions, initially uglier.
The reason there aren't ultrathin touchscreen phones is pure marketing. Nothing else. As is traditional until a single company decides to plunge forward the others will continue to market this as different segments. Thinking that there is even one really leading-edge product, technologically speaking, in the market is delluding yourself. Technologies are squeezed until the majority demands improvements and I don't really see the masses demanding ultrathin PDAs (call them smartphones if you want, they see PDAs, which most are already biased against). Relatedly, using older technology that is not focused on size but on features makes devices cheaper on the whole (touchscreens may not be thick, but they're not free either, and adding them adds to the price of the product)
And please, try to not make this gross generalizations. If you had a solid argument it was completely destroyed by it.