Hacker News Reader

Comment by Arizhel | Hacker News Reader

If this thing really has significantly higher volumetric energy efficiency than existing Li-ion batteries, then it's already good enough to be used in cellphones, at least according to me. I don't care if it's 2.5x heavier; I want more energy storage in my phone so it lasts longer between charges. I really, really don't care if that means the phone weighs an ounce more. I'm sure the Otterbox case on it adds just as much extra weight, and I don't see many people complaining about those.

Yeah, for cars, the weight is a big issue, because that hurts fuel (well, battery charge in this case) economy significantly, and EV cars use a LOT of energy storage compared to a phone. But for phones, I don't see the problem.

As for this battery failing harder, no problem: make sure the battery is easily replaceable by users, just like the Samsung phones up to the S5.

View on HN

That's it. Some recent laptops even have metal weights inside, so the top lid wouldn't outweigh[1]. I'd rather it had a heavier battery.

1. https://habrastorage.org/files/502/9db/168/5029db1688a747518...

Apple took Air out of MacBook because laptops will get heavier.

And even more suitable for smaller devices like watches and earbuds.

> I don't care if it's 2.5x heavier; I want more energy storage in my phone so it lasts longer between charges

I'm with you on this! But I'd clarify that I want more energy in any form. I would also not mind a phone that was a few millimeters thicker. But it seems the average consumer is swayed by a very thin phone, so more weight it is.

Its a super hard topic to get more energy into a battery of similar weight and dimension.

In relation to that - it would be super easy to create a User Defending App that guns down rogue energy using Background Apps (GPS Location, homecalls every minute, etc.) but hey - all hail the mighty data kraken getting his prioritys straight.

No battery maker will keep up, with the energy demands of the surveillance industries.

> Otterbox case on it adds just as much extra weight, and I don't see many people complaining about those

Irks me that not one single phone manufacturer dares to ship a product as indestructible as an iphone in an Otterbox. Sure it would be the clunkiest handset in the store, but compare it to other phones + case, there's room to make a superior final product. But no. Apple keeps shaving millimeters and Otterbox keeps slathering them back on.

Not many phones do.

But a few have done what you suggest. At least slightly. The Galaxy s6 came in an active version that had like 30% more battery and better water resistance and a slightly tougher default shell.

I don't know how their sales were for the 2 models but I hope they were good enough to continue the trend

You can definitely buy more rugged phones. Often they lag behind in specs compared to popular flagship models, but they're not bad. For instance, I currently use a CAT S60 phone: http://www.catphones.com/en-gb/phones/s60-smartphone

After a normal day of use I'll still have 60% of battery life. It's normally water resistant down to 6 feet for 30 minutes, flipping two switches makes it water resistant down to 15 feet for 30 minutes (and it even comes with a "drying" app that helps it to dry faster by, I think, vibrating the speakers.)

This particular phone comes with FLIR imaging, which probably isn't useful to the general population...

That's fucking cool. Is that the same "CAT" that makes things like bulldozers and scoops?

It's the same CAT brand, yes, but the phone itself is developed by I think a British company.

Cool. If I had the money, that would totally be my next phone.

See the Samsung Rugby series.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com