I'm not speaking for the others but perhaps they are not conveying their wish properly.
I suspect that's the case, but I can't excuse people from making erroneous statements, hence my attempt at squeezing a more accurate comment out of someone that requires some rational thought, instead of just meaningless, boilerplate talking points.
I feel that the battery life is more than adequate when used reasonably.
It is, but with battery life we have created a culture of fear of not having enough of it in our smartphones because we rely on them too much. I've read many funny tweets about how anxiety of when you're phone is down to, say, 90%. There is even a term for it:
For that anxiety causing reason alone I would like the battery life to allow for at least two full days without needing a charge for the average person so that we are simply less likely to be afraid that the battery life won't make it some unexpected happens. One could argue that we need to not be so dependent on these devices that this phobia has been submitted for review for the DSM, but history shows that we can't change human behaviour, only redirect its focus.
Additionally, going with a battery size that is, say, double than the current one in usage time for the average person means that the cycle count is halted so that 250 cycles which reduces total capacity by 5% which may have happened in 1 year, would now take 2 years.
Power users (like my 400 texts/50 Instagram selfies-per-day daughter) long for more battery life but I feel they are the exception to the norm and shouldn't be catered to.
I'd argue they are being catered to, they just don't realize it. From the beginning the iPhone was said to have bad battery life and yet it was better than its competitors. So why this perception? My hypothesis is the iPhone became so much more important than other devices that the desire for it to last longer — and not even come close to being low — became strong.
What I do find is after about 8 months of daily, reasonable use and charging nightly (~250 charge cycles), the capacity of the battery starts to noticeably diminish. If battery tech can develop so the capacity can remain constant for a longer period of time, there would be much less cries for more battery life (a larger battery).
After 250 cycles it should have gone from 100% of original capacity to 95%. After 1000 cycles it should be 80%, according to Apple. I implore everyone who thinks their battery life is far worse than it should be to install an app that can test the health of the battery. If it's under 80% then get Apple to replace it for free.
In my experience, people complain a lot less about their usage life in the first half of time during their ownership than in the middle or towards the end, depending upon whether they're 1 year or 2 year upgraders. And I know a lot of iPhone users. This is the main reason 2 of my friends protect their iPhones like it's their first newborn; they sell on eBay and easily get over half of their original purchase price, which they put towards purchasing their next "newborn". Some of these guys actually pocket money because they're getting more for their used phone than what remains to be paid off on their (AT&T Value) phone plan.
Apple has continued to increase the battery life of their devices, which includes 300 charge cycles before hitting 80% of original capacity to 1000 charges.
More is better here… providing it doesn't negatively affect other areas of usability. I feel Apple has been the only company to balance this properly across all their devices.
I am not really sure my phone needs to get any thinner, I would prefer it have a bigger battery than being thinner, perfectly happy with my iphone 5s, could apple fit a much bigger battery in a phone that was as thick as this compared to what this articles suggests the 7 would be... I would prefer that.
I have a 5s and at no point have I ever thought, wow I wish my phone was thinner, but plenty of times I am running low on battery and wish it was longer or I am away from an electric supply and am already thinking about using it more strategically.
Apple we care more about battery life than thinness.
Personally my iPhone 6 is thin enough. Battery life is the first priority in my phone use. Anyone else feel the same?
This thinness aspect of the iPhone is getting too extreme. I'm sure 95% of iPhone users would prefer getting a 24 hour full use charge out of their next iPhone over reducing its thickness anymore. At some point it will be too thin to hold in your hand comfortably without it felling unstable holding it. What about adding a micro-SD slot for storage. Apple is losing its way.
I can get 24 hrs on a charge if I don't play games.
So....73% want a bigger / longer lasting battery instead of going thinner and 15% are undecided. @solipsismy@sog35 - that sure sounds like "the vast majority" to me. That makes my earlier post completely accurate since it really only said 2 things....
2. I think the vast majority of iPhone users would also opt for a bigger battery.
You can't count posts in this thread and conclude it proves what "the vast majority of iPhone users" want. Participation in this thread suffers from both selection and response biases. Even if you force a compulsory response from a truly random cross section of the forum members (as opposed to using only voluntary responses), the survey would still suffer from an arguable sampling bias due to the special interest nature of the web site: it caters to people who are particularly opinionated and tribal about Apple, rather than just someone who buys an Apple product, which I would argue constitutes the "silent" majority of Apple's customers.
I'm not saying you are wrong or right about your assertions; I'm saying that they are still just assertions supported by flimsy arguments.
All these people blindly asking for a "bigger, heavier battery" are really asking for "more usage time from a single full charge." They should be forgiven for not expressing themselves more clearly, and trying to tell Apple how to engineer their hardware.
Personally, I think Apple's future belongs to denser, more efficient batteries, multi-day fuel cells, and/or more power savings from OS optimizations. Thinking outside the thicker box, so to speak.
Fuel cells do not belong in cell phones. It's a return to disposable alkaline batteries.
The reason people are mentioning wanting a larger battery is because Apple keeps making the battery smaller, which is a consequence of energy reduction of chip die size reductions. If Apple kept the phone the same thickness since the first iPhone, the battery would last a month on standby by now. Smaller batteries mean more frequent charging, which reduces the lifecycle of the battery.
A 5mm thick phone does not have a meaningful battery size if the battery only lasts one day.
The reason people are mentioning wanting a larger battery is because Apple keeps making the battery smaller, which is a consequence of energy reduction of chip die size reductions.
Et, tu? You know this stuff can be easily looked up, right?
iPhone :: 1400 mAh = Talk Time: Up to 8 hours; Standby: Up to 250 hours; Internet Use: Up to 6 hours; Video playback: Up to 7 hours; Audio playback: Up to 24 hours.
iPhone 3G :: 1150 mAh = Talk Time: Up to 5 hours on 3G, Up to 10 hours on 2G; Standby: Up to 300 hours; Internet Use: Up to 5 hours on 3G, Up to 6 hours on Wi-Fi; Video playback: Up to 7 hours; Audio playback: Up to 24 hours.
iPhone 3GS :: 1219 mAh = Talk Time: Up to 5 hours on 3G; Up to 12 hours on 2G; Standby: Up to 300 hours; Internet Use: Up to 5 hours on 3G, Up to 9 hours on Wi-Fi; Video playback: Up to 10 hours; Audio playback: Up to 30 hours.
iPhone 4 :: 1420 mAh = Talk Time: Up to 7 hours on 3G; Up to 14 hours on 2G; Standby: Up to 300 hours Internet; Use: Up to 6 hours on 3G;, Up to 10 hours on Wi-Fi; Video playback: Up to 10 hours; Audio playback: Up to 40 hours.
iPhone 4S :: 1430 mAh = Talk time: Up to 8 hours on 3G; up to 14 hours on 2G; Standby time: Up to 200 hours; Internet use: Up to 6 hours on 3G, up to 9 hours on Wi-Fi; Video playback: Up to 10 hours; Audio playback: Up to 40 hours.
iPhone 5 :: 1440 mAh = Talk time: Up to 8 hours on 3G; Standby time: Up to 225 hours; Internet use: Up to 8 hours on 3G, up to 8 hours on LTE, up to 10 hours on Wi-Fi; Video playback: Up to 10 hours; Audio playback: Up to 40 hours.
iPhone 5C :: 1507 mAh = Talk time: Up to 10 hours on 3G; Standby time: Up to 250 hours; Internet use: Up to 8 hours on 3G, up to 10 hours on LTE, up to 10 hours on Wi-Fi; Video playback: Up to 10 hours; Audio playback: Up to 40 hours.
iPhone 5S :: 1570 mAh = Talk time: Up to 10 hours on 3G; Standby time: Up to 250 hours; Internet use: Up to 8 hours on 3G, up to 10 hours on LTE, up to 10 hours on Wi-Fi; Video playback: Up to 10 hours; Audio playback: Up to 40 hours.
iPhone 6 :: 1810 mAh = Talk time: Up to 14 hours on 3G; Standby time: Up to 10 days (250 hours); Internet use: Up to 10 hours on 3G, up to 10 hours on LTE, up to 11 hours on Wi?Fi; Video playback: Up to 11 hours; Audio playback: Up to 50 hours.
iPhone 6 Plus :: 2915 mAh = Talk time: Up to 24 hours on 3G; Standby time: Up to 16 days (384 hours); Internet use: Up to 12 hours on 3G, up to 12 hours on LTE, up to 12 hours on Wi?Fi; Video playback: Up to 14 hours; Audio playback: Up to 80 hours.
LEGEND: GREEN = Increase in energy capacity or usage RED = decrease in energy capacity or usage UNDERLINE = Starting point for metric (Please let me know if I've missed an increase, decrease or staring value)
PS: Let's not forget that since the iPhone launched Apple has altered how they measure battery life, twice to make it more stringent to match real world usage.
Et, tu? You know this stuff can be easily looked up, right?
iPhone :: 1400 mAh = Talk Time: Up to 8 hours; Standby: Up to 250 hours; Internet Use: Up to 6 hours; Video playback: Up to 7 hours; Audio playback: Up to 24 hours.
iPhone 3G :: 1150 mAh = Talk Time: Up to 5 hours on 3G, Up to 10 hours on 2G; Standby: Up to 300 hours; Internet Use: Up to 5 hours on 3G, Up to 6 hours on Wi-Fi; Video playback: Up to 7 hours; Audio playback: Up to 24 hours.
iPhone 3GS :: 1219 mAh = Talk Time: Up to 5 hours on 3G; Up to 12 hours on 2G; Standby: Up to 300 hours; Internet Use: Up to 5 hours on 3G, Up to 9 hours on Wi-Fi; Video playback: Up to 10 hours; Audio playback: Up to 30 hours.
iPhone 4 :: 1420 mAh = Talk Time: Up to 7 hours on 3G; Up to 14 hours on 2G; Standby: Up to 300 hours Internet; Use: Up to 6 hours on 3G;, Up to 10 hours on Wi-Fi; Video playback: Up to 10 hours; Audio playback: Up to 40 hours.
iPhone 4S :: 1430 mAh = Talk time: Up to 8 hours on 3G; up to 14 hours on 2G; Standby time: Up to 200 hours; Internet use: Up to 6 hours on 3G, up to 9 hours on Wi-Fi; Video playback: Up to 10 hours; Audio playback: Up to 40 hours.
iPhone 5 :: 1440 mAh = Talk time: Up to 8 hours on 3G; Standby time: Up to 225 hours; Internet use: Up to 8 hours on 3G, up to 8 hours on LTE, up to 10 hours on Wi-Fi; Video playback: Up to 10 hours; Audio playback: Up to 40 hours.
iPhone 5C :: 1507 mAh = Talk time: Up to 10 hours on 3G; Standby time: Up to 250 hours; Internet use: Up to 8 hours on 3G, up to 10 hours on LTE, up to 10 hours on Wi-Fi; Video playback: Up to 10 hours; Audio playback: Up to 40 hours.
iPhone 5S :: 1570 mAh = Talk time: Up to 10 hours on 3G; Standby time: Up to 250 hours; Internet use: Up to 8 hours on 3G, up to 10 hours on LTE, up to 10 hours on Wi-Fi; Video playback: Up to 10 hours; Audio playback: Up to 40 hours.
iPhone 6 :: 1810 mAh = Talk time: Up to 14 hours on 3G; Standby time: Up to 10 days (250 hours); Internet use: Up to 10 hours on 3G, up to 10 hours on LTE, up to 11 hours on Wi?Fi; Video playback: Up to 11 hours; Audio playback: Up to 50 hours.
iPhone 6 Plus :: 2915 mAh = Talk time: Up to 24 hours on 3G; Standby time: Up to 16 days (384 hours); Internet use: Up to 12 hours on 3G, up to 12 hours on LTE, up to 12 hours on Wi?Fi; Video playback: Up to 14 hours; Audio playback: Up to 80 hours.
LEGEND:
GREEN = Increase in energy capacity or usage
RED = decrease in energy capacity or usage
UNDERLINE = Starting point for metric
(Please let me know if I've missed an increase, decrease or staring value)
PS: Let's not forget that since the iPhone launched Apple has altered how they measure battery life, twice to make it more stringent to match real world usage.
It has been proven countless times that these surveys are bunk.
Sure they may SAY they would sacrifice thinnest for longer battery. But do they show them how thick? Do they give them an actual model that they can use or feel? Hell no. So how the hell can you make any type of conclusion? You cant. You dont think Apple pours MILLIIONS of dollars in research to figure out the idea thickness and battery combination? Not to mention a dozen other considerations? Of course they do. To make it a simplistic choice of either thickness or battery life is assine.
Because the phone is marginally thicker this year does not mean it wont be thinner next year. Apple is on a two year metal case cycle so a significantly thinner phone was not in the cards this year.
Again Apple has a ton of user data. Much more than you have or any survey can provide. They know what the hell they are doing.
There is no way on earth people wanting more battery life is bunk. One of the main reasons Apple was able to make the iPhone 6 thinner is because they increased the surface area of the phone. Also when we talk about how thick the iPhone is are we taking about the case or do we include the fact the camera protrudes from the back? At 6.9mm even if they decreased the size by 0.9mm it would be hard to notice any difference because most put a case on their phone.
I appreciate a thin phone as much as the next person, however most would take better battery life over a size decrease of less than a millimeter. Making a phone thinner because the surface area increased isn't exactly a massive jump in innovation. The proof it's going to slightly increase this year.
Et, tu? You know this stuff can be easily looked up, right?
But the battery is generally physically smaller in each generation. Whenever the battery tech is improved, Apple uses that improvement to make the battery physically smaller. Honestly I'm quite surprised someone with your esteem is being this pedantic about something such as battery life. People complain about battery life (as proven by several surveys) and yet Apple still keeps shrinking the physical dimensions of the battery to satisfy Johnny's OCD. It's diminishing returns, when does it stop, when we're at a negative thickness?
They're pointless no matter who makes them. This is the new version of the digital camera megapixel race - except with even less benefit for the user. How gullible must one be to be seduced by a feature that provides no appreciable benefit other than a printed spec?
I was thinking outside the box, to do something that no other cellphone maker does. Why not make one with different integrated radios entirely for use in the US (due to regulations and such) that isn't densely populated. Take for instance HAM radios. Couldn't it be possible to score a bit of that bandwidth for iPhone use in remote areas? I'm not saying that's possible, I'm just trying to think outside the box. Everyone tells me to get a sat-phone and just be done with it. Now if only Apple would make one of those that's ruggedized! There are those of us who love the iPhone but don't love it's leash on populated centers. I'd love to see them do something absolutely no one else is doing by incorporating those other radios into the works. I'm sure they could get the FCC to see their way given their sway. There's my two cents, which isn't worth much these days.
Neither shortwave nor satellite tech is going to solve your problem. A satellite phone would give you voice connectivity but at a great cost with few features. Have you considered moving, lol?
But the battery is generally physically smaller in each generation. Whenever the battery tech is improved, Apple uses that improvement to make the battery physically smaller. Honestly I'm quite surprised someone with your esteem is being this pedantic about something such as battery life. People complain about battery life (as proven by several surveys) and yet Apple still keeps shrinking the physical dimensions of the battery to satisfy Johnny's OCD. It's diminishing returns, when does it stop, when we're at a negative thickness?
1) I'm being pedantic when you're saying people literally want a larger volume battery, not a battery that has more energy for a given volume, or a longer lasting device? Really?!
2) You say they keep reducing the physical volume of the batteries and yet I see zero proof to that effect. Where are these iPhone battery dimensions that you claim as proof that the physical volume is shrinking. Just looking at the iFixit teardowns it sure looks like the iPhone 3G battery is considerably physically smaller in size than the iPhone 6 battery. What seems to have been reduced considerably is the logic board.
3) I'm going to address this point again: You're actually arguing that when "People complain about battery life…" they are literally complaining about the "physical dimensions of the battery," not the Watt hours or hours of use they can get out of it. For ****'s sake, man! Just because it's Labor Day it doesn't mean that the brain has to shut down completely.
The hard limit on iPhone/iPad thickness is the headphone jack and the Lightning connector. Unless Apple decides to do away with the jack and make everyone use Bluetooth headphones (and gets Square to redesign their hardware) or decides to eliminate physical syncing of any kind and moves to wifi-only sync, neither device will shrink below the physical limitations imposed by those components. At least, not on the bottom; I suppose it could taper towards the top but then you run into imaging limitations with the camera.
Besides, there's a point where it becomes *too* thin to hold comfortably.
Besides, there's a point where it becomes *too* thin to hold comfortably.
There absolutely an upper and lower limit to how heavy, light, thin, angled, wide, tall a smartphone can be, but based on the iPod Touch I don't think Apple has yet reached that with the iPhone. The first thing I can see going is the headphone jack since it has a 3.5mm diameter, while Lightning is 1.4mm thickness. Personally, I'd like to see Lightning replaced with USB-C as it's a better connector, but USB-C is thicker, so unless the USB-IF comes out with USB-D(?) that is smaller and reversible I don't see that happening. Also, I'd like to see induction changing happen next year, but that will affect engineering as it affects where components can be placed and takes up space that could go to the battery for a given internal volume of an iPhone. Not that it's a big deal to plug in an iDevice, but it would be more convenient if that wasn't the primary way in which to charge the device. Perhaps a single Lightning port (or something like it) could replace the 3.5mm headphone jack when they move to induction that could work. My BT headphones last for many days but it's still annoying to plug in, mostly because of micro-USB.
Besides, there's a point where it becomes *too* thin to hold comfortably.
There absolutely an upper and lower limit to how heavy, light, thin, angled, wide, tall a smartphone can be, but based on the iPod Touch I don't think Apple has yet reached that with the iPhone. The first thing I can see going is the headphone jack since it has a 3.5mm diameter, while Lightning is 1.4mm thickness. Personally, I'd like to see Lightning replaced with USB-C as it's a better connector, but USB-C is thicker, so unless the USB-IF comes out with USB-D(?) that is smaller and reversible I don't see that happening. Also, I'd like to see induction changing happen next year, but that will affect engineering as it affects where components can be placed and takes up space that could go to the battery for a given internal volume of an iPhone. Not that it's a big deal to plug in an iDevice, but it would be more convenient if that wasn't the primary way in which to charge the device. Perhaps a single Lightning port (or something like it) could replace the 3.5mm headphone jack when they move to induction that could work. My BT headphones last for many days but it's still annoying to plug in, mostly because of micro-USB.
I can imagine a future where there are no more ports on these mobile devices.
If a port of some sort is needed then the user will pair a dongle wirelessly that has ports. Otherwise charging, headphone audio, syncing, etc happens wirelessly.
If that ever happens another benefit in addition to gaining space by removing ports would be a totally sealed device that is even more dust proof and waterproof.
I can imagine a future where there are no more ports on these mobile devices.
If a port of some sort is needed then the user will pair a dongle wirelessly that has ports. Otherwise charging, headphone audio, syncing, etc happens wirelessly.
If that ever happens another benefit in addition to gaining space by removing ports would be a totally sealed device that is even more dust proof and waterproof.
I think it's definitely going to happen, the question is when. If in 2016 Apple wanted to get rid of both the Lightning port and headphone jack, which I assume would then include BT headphones, and perhaps bring back the included dock for the setup, that could push its adoption and acceptance very quickly. The one issue is that initial syncing. How many here are using 802.11ac yet? I've been on it for years and yet I know many that are still on 802.11n, and even some people who are in the technology field who hadn't heard of 802.11ac as of this year, untilI I mentioned it. What would be the iTunes syncing speeds via 802.11ac (and 802.11n) as compared to the current USB connection? My guess is we're not close enough to "pull the plug" on the both the headphone and data ports just yet, but they probably could do just the headphone jack if they provided BT headphones with each iPhone.
There absolutely an upper and lower limit to how heavy, light, thin, angled, wide, tall a smartphone can be, but based on the iPod Touch I don't think Apple has yet reached that with the iPhone. The first thing I can see going is the headphone jack since it has a 3.5mm diameter, while Lightning is 1.4mm thickness. Personally, I'd like to see Lightning replaced with USB-C as it's a better connector, but USB-C is thicker, so unless the USB-IF comes out with USB-D(?) that is smaller and reversible I don't see that happening. Also, I'd like to see induction changing happen next year, but that will affect engineering as it affects where components can be placed and takes up space that could go to the battery for a given internal volume of an iPhone. Not that it's a big deal to plug in an iDevice, but it would be more convenient if that wasn't the primary way in which to charge the device. Perhaps a single Lightning port (or something like it) could replace the 3.5mm headphone jack when they move to induction that could work. My BT headphones last for many days but it's still annoying to plug in, mostly because of micro-USB.
USB-C is much closer to lightning than it is 3.5mm headphones, it shouldn't be a limiting factor.
Comments
I suspect that's the case, but I can't excuse people from making erroneous statements, hence my attempt at squeezing a more accurate comment out of someone that requires some rational thought, instead of just meaningless, boilerplate talking points.
It is, but with battery life we have created a culture of fear of not having enough of it in our smartphones because we rely on them too much. I've read many funny tweets about how anxiety of when you're phone is down to, say, 90%. There is even a term for it:
For that anxiety causing reason alone I would like the battery life to allow for at least two full days without needing a charge for the average person so that we are simply less likely to be afraid that the battery life won't make it some unexpected happens. One could argue that we need to not be so dependent on these devices that this phobia has been submitted for review for the DSM, but history shows that we can't change human behaviour, only redirect its focus.
Additionally, going with a battery size that is, say, double than the current one in usage time for the average person means that the cycle count is halted so that 250 cycles which reduces total capacity by 5% which may have happened in 1 year, would now take 2 years.
I'd argue they are being catered to, they just don't realize it. From the beginning the iPhone was said to have bad battery life and yet it was better than its competitors. So why this perception? My hypothesis is the iPhone became so much more important than other devices that the desire for it to last longer — and not even come close to being low — became strong.
After 250 cycles it should have gone from 100% of original capacity to 95%. After 1000 cycles it should be 80%, according to Apple. I implore everyone who thinks their battery life is far worse than it should be to install an app that can test the health of the battery. If it's under 80% then get Apple to replace it for free.
Apple has continued to increase the battery life of their devices, which includes 300 charge cycles before hitting 80% of original capacity to 1000 charges.
More is better here… providing it doesn't negatively affect other areas of usability. I feel Apple has been the only company to balance this properly across all their devices.
Here's an example of a poorly balanced device:
Apple we care more about battery life than thinness.
Personally my iPhone 6 is thin enough. Battery life is the first priority in my phone use. Anyone else feel the same?
I can get 24 hrs on a charge if I don't play games.
No micro SD and Apple isn't losing its way.
Those that don't have the talent to produce something complain on the interwebs.
1. Many will still put a case on it regardless of a "sport version"
2. They're always working on improved battery. I guess they aren't innovating fast enough for you.
3. Antenna is fine. Coverage depends on the towers and how many users are connected to those towers.
4. < 10% of users ever open up a PC/Mac.
5. A small percentage carries extra stuff for their iPhones. Get a different laptop if the one port MacBook is too limited.
Inkling can't do anything but complain. It's getting tiresome.
By the way, by going thinner, they also improve the components in it otherwise it can't go thinner with the same components as the previous model.
You can't count posts in this thread and conclude it proves what "the vast majority of iPhone users" want. Participation in this thread suffers from both selection and response biases. Even if you force a compulsory response from a truly random cross section of the forum members (as opposed to using only voluntary responses), the survey would still suffer from an arguable sampling bias due to the special interest nature of the web site: it caters to people who are particularly opinionated and tribal about Apple, rather than just someone who buys an Apple product, which I would argue constitutes the "silent" majority of Apple's customers.
I'm not saying you are wrong or right about your assertions; I'm saying that they are still just assertions supported by flimsy arguments.
Fuel cells do not belong in cell phones. It's a return to disposable alkaline batteries.
The reason people are mentioning wanting a larger battery is because Apple keeps making the battery smaller, which is a consequence of energy reduction of chip die size reductions. If Apple kept the phone the same thickness since the first iPhone, the battery would last a month on standby by now. Smaller batteries mean more frequent charging, which reduces the lifecycle of the battery.
A 5mm thick phone does not have a meaningful battery size if the battery only lasts one day.
Et, tu? You know this stuff can be easily looked up, right?
GREEN = Increase in energy capacity or usage
RED = decrease in energy capacity or usage
UNDERLINE = Starting point for metric
(Please let me know if I've missed an increase, decrease or staring value)
PS: Let's not forget that since the iPhone launched Apple has altered how they measure battery life, twice to make it more stringent to match real world usage.
Et, tu? You know this stuff can be easily looked up, right?
GREEN = Increase in energy capacity or usage
RED = decrease in energy capacity or usage
UNDERLINE = Starting point for metric
(Please let me know if I've missed an increase, decrease or staring value)
PS: Let's not forget that since the iPhone launched Apple has altered how they measure battery life, twice to make it more stringent to match real world usage.
Nicely done.
It has been proven countless times that these surveys are bunk.
Sure they may SAY they would sacrifice thinnest for longer battery. But do they show them how thick? Do they give them an actual model that they can use or feel? Hell no. So how the hell can you make any type of conclusion? You cant. You dont think Apple pours MILLIIONS of dollars in research to figure out the idea thickness and battery combination? Not to mention a dozen other considerations? Of course they do. To make it a simplistic choice of either thickness or battery life is assine.
Because the phone is marginally thicker this year does not mean it wont be thinner next year. Apple is on a two year metal case cycle so a significantly thinner phone was not in the cards this year.
Again Apple has a ton of user data. Much more than you have or any survey can provide. They know what the hell they are doing.
There is no way on earth people wanting more battery life is bunk. One of the main reasons Apple was able to make the iPhone 6 thinner is because they increased the surface area of the phone. Also when we talk about how thick the iPhone is are we taking about the case or do we include the fact the camera protrudes from the back? At 6.9mm even if they decreased the size by 0.9mm it would be hard to notice any difference because most put a case on their phone.
I appreciate a thin phone as much as the next person, however most would take better battery life over a size decrease of less than a millimeter. Making a phone thinner because the surface area increased isn't exactly a massive jump in innovation. The proof it's going to slightly increase this year.
But the battery is generally physically smaller in each generation. Whenever the battery tech is improved, Apple uses that improvement to make the battery physically smaller. Honestly I'm quite surprised someone with your esteem is being this pedantic about something such as battery life. People complain about battery life (as proven by several surveys) and yet Apple still keeps shrinking the physical dimensions of the battery to satisfy Johnny's OCD. It's diminishing returns, when does it stop, when we're at a negative thickness?
4K smartphone displays are coming. Just ask Sony.
http://www.sonymobile.com/global-en/products/phones/xperia-z5-premium/
They're pointless no matter who makes them. This is the new version of the digital camera megapixel race - except with even less benefit for the user. How gullible must one be to be seduced by a feature that provides no appreciable benefit other than a printed spec?
I was thinking outside the box, to do something that no other cellphone maker does. Why not make one with different integrated radios entirely for use in the US (due to regulations and such) that isn't densely populated. Take for instance HAM radios. Couldn't it be possible to score a bit of that bandwidth for iPhone use in remote areas? I'm not saying that's possible, I'm just trying to think outside the box. Everyone tells me to get a sat-phone and just be done with it. Now if only Apple would make one of those that's ruggedized! There are those of us who love the iPhone but don't love it's leash on populated centers. I'd love to see them do something absolutely no one else is doing by incorporating those other radios into the works. I'm sure they could get the FCC to see their way given their sway. There's my two cents, which isn't worth much these days.
Neither shortwave nor satellite tech is going to solve your problem. A satellite phone would give you voice connectivity but at a great cost with few features. Have you considered moving, lol?
1) I'm being pedantic when you're saying people literally want a larger volume battery, not a battery that has more energy for a given volume, or a longer lasting device? Really?!
2) You say they keep reducing the physical volume of the batteries and yet I see zero proof to that effect. Where are these iPhone battery dimensions that you claim as proof that the physical volume is shrinking. Just looking at the iFixit teardowns it sure looks like the iPhone 3G battery is considerably physically smaller in size than the iPhone 6 battery. What seems to have been reduced considerably is the logic board.
3) I'm going to address this point again: You're actually arguing that when "People complain about battery life…" they are literally complaining about the "physical dimensions of the battery," not the Watt hours or hours of use they can get out of it. For ****'s sake, man! Just because it's Labor Day it doesn't mean that the brain has to shut down completely.
The hard limit on iPhone/iPad thickness is the headphone jack and the Lightning connector. Unless Apple decides to do away with the jack and make everyone use Bluetooth headphones (and gets Square to redesign their hardware) or decides to eliminate physical syncing of any kind and moves to wifi-only sync, neither device will shrink below the physical limitations imposed by those components. At least, not on the bottom; I suppose it could taper towards the top but then you run into imaging limitations with the camera.
Besides, there's a point where it becomes *too* thin to hold comfortably.
There absolutely an upper and lower limit to how heavy, light, thin, angled, wide, tall a smartphone can be, but based on the iPod Touch I don't think Apple has yet reached that with the iPhone. The first thing I can see going is the headphone jack since it has a 3.5mm diameter, while Lightning is 1.4mm thickness. Personally, I'd like to see Lightning replaced with USB-C as it's a better connector, but USB-C is thicker, so unless the USB-IF comes out with USB-D(?) that is smaller and reversible I don't see that happening. Also, I'd like to see induction changing happen next year, but that will affect engineering as it affects where components can be placed and takes up space that could go to the battery for a given internal volume of an iPhone. Not that it's a big deal to plug in an iDevice, but it would be more convenient if that wasn't the primary way in which to charge the device. Perhaps a single Lightning port (or something like it) could replace the 3.5mm headphone jack when they move to induction that could work. My BT headphones last for many days but it's still annoying to plug in, mostly because of micro-USB.
Besides, there's a point where it becomes *too* thin to hold comfortably.
There absolutely an upper and lower limit to how heavy, light, thin, angled, wide, tall a smartphone can be, but based on the iPod Touch I don't think Apple has yet reached that with the iPhone. The first thing I can see going is the headphone jack since it has a 3.5mm diameter, while Lightning is 1.4mm thickness. Personally, I'd like to see Lightning replaced with USB-C as it's a better connector, but USB-C is thicker, so unless the USB-IF comes out with USB-D(?) that is smaller and reversible I don't see that happening. Also, I'd like to see induction changing happen next year, but that will affect engineering as it affects where components can be placed and takes up space that could go to the battery for a given internal volume of an iPhone. Not that it's a big deal to plug in an iDevice, but it would be more convenient if that wasn't the primary way in which to charge the device. Perhaps a single Lightning port (or something like it) could replace the 3.5mm headphone jack when they move to induction that could work. My BT headphones last for many days but it's still annoying to plug in, mostly because of micro-USB.
I can imagine a future where there are no more ports on these mobile devices.
If a port of some sort is needed then the user will pair a dongle wirelessly that has ports. Otherwise charging, headphone audio, syncing, etc happens wirelessly.
If that ever happens another benefit in addition to gaining space by removing ports would be a totally sealed device that is even more dust proof and waterproof.
I think it's definitely going to happen, the question is when. If in 2016 Apple wanted to get rid of both the Lightning port and headphone jack, which I assume would then include BT headphones, and perhaps bring back the included dock for the setup, that could push its adoption and acceptance very quickly. The one issue is that initial syncing. How many here are using 802.11ac yet? I've been on it for years and yet I know many that are still on 802.11n, and even some people who are in the technology field who hadn't heard of 802.11ac as of this year, untilI I mentioned it. What would be the iTunes syncing speeds via 802.11ac (and 802.11n) as compared to the current USB connection? My guess is we're not close enough to "pull the plug" on the both the headphone and data ports just yet, but they probably could do just the headphone jack if they provided BT headphones with each iPhone.
Apple is still working on getting to 1K display! The + has 1K but the 4.7" is using 720p or 3/4K display.
4K display for iPhone will be in 10 years if not longer!
Apple just does what to change display resolutions since iPhone 4!
326ppi is the standard since 2010?
Apple is still working on getting to 1K display! The + has 1K but the 4.7" is using 720p or 3/4K display.
4K display for iPhone will be in 10 years if not longer!
Apple just does what to change display resolutions since iPhone 4!
326ppi is the standard since 2010?
And where is the problem with that?
USB-C is much closer to lightning than it is 3.5mm headphones, it shouldn't be a limiting factor.
I don't know what that means.