Even though it never broke when I let it slip, I don’t miss my old blackberry. I can so do so much more with my iPhone today that I am ok with it being less sturdy.
For instance, I don't believe that durability and large screens are mutually exclusive. Consider a popular phone accessory that is a rubber case. I've been using one to protect my (then) $800 glass piece, and it's totally fine after many drops. In fact, I don't know of people who use such cases and have problems with screen damages. All because it adds an extra impact-absorbing bevel on each side, including above the screen (so the screen isn't hitting the floor even if the phone falls face-first). What's the problem for manufacturers to add such a padding layer? Everyone is dropping battery replaceability anyway.
(Also: rubber cases improve grip, so the phone won't slip out of your hand or your pocket that easily.)
I feel it's like there is some influential person in the industry who strongly believes that what the customers really want is to get intimate with their phones, to caress their glass surface - that's why there should be no bevel, and if you can't make it all from glass, then make the rest from aluminium. Well, I for one don't want to get touchy-feely with my phone, I want it to stand a decent chance of not breaking when it hits something.
There exist phones with fat rubberized shells. They sell terribly and have mostly been driven out of the market.
And no, devices like the Cat S60 don't really count. They are abandoned basically the moment they leave the factory. It's questionable if you'll see a software update on that device, like ever.
Some of us would like a bulky rubber phone when we're hiking along a rocky stream and a svelte phone when it's in our pocket every day. I can add a protective case to a thin phone much more easily than I can disassemble a bulky phone.
My pet peeve is casual usage at home. I want to admire my phone's design sometimes without risking to shatter it on my tiled floor. <sighs>
Guess every one of us has that "spoiled consumer" part in them.
Customization! Users can customize the color of the padding layer. Personally, I do not see any advantage of phone manufacturers providing it over users buying it from third party manufacturers. Most of the shops (in US at least) would also stock the cases along with the phones.
> I want it to stand a decent chance of not breaking when it hits something. Very simple. Get a case.
Sooooo many people whose display gets wrecked or walk around for years with ever increasing shattered lines and therefore severely decreased robustness and lifetime, just because they didn't get the rubber thing in the first week after they got it[0]. As long as you got yours, right?
I mean, really you should be arguing the disadvantage of the manufacturer including a €1 piece of molded rubber with a €600 purchase. They also put a plastic screen protector on it, right? (at least my S4 came with one, already applied, just below another more loose sticky packaging foil that came off after a day or two).
Make it boring black, just for protection until someone picks their cute custom case.
A great analogy is another fragile fashion item worn daily are glasses. Ignoring the cheaper below-€100 models (nothing wrong with those, just not for this example), but if you get a model over, say, €350 (let alone approaching the price of a smartphone), you expect it to come with a damn case. I might honestly get up and leave if they had the nerve to charge me for it (boy, do I ever hate upselling) And glasses don't even break if you drop them (because they're not made of glass, in case those of you blessed with perfect eyesight were wondering).
I also find it weird how most laptops don't come with a basic reinforced cloth+zipper bag.
One time it didn't make sense was a small frying pan that came with a cloth bag. Still not sure what was the point of that. But if a manufacturer of €40 frying pans can do it, even if there's no real reason for it ...
Seriously, benefit of the doubt is over.
They do all of this because don't want smartphones to last very long and try their hardest to put the blame on the owner (which they want to be "consumers", but you don't "consume" cooking utensils and eyewear either), trying to hide that they're manufactured this way.
It's wasteful and frankly I have heard enough of the idea that buyers don't want to pay for quality. Because the non-quality is overpriced and the quality is unavailable to choose for. Why wouldn't I pay 3x the price for something that lasts 4x as long (or usually much better even), and the nerve to push that on the consumer instead of the manufacturer even daring to offer this planned obsolescence shit.
[0] I tend to default to "no" if someone tries to upsell to me after an large purchase. Because my smart-decision-making juice is usually depleted for the day and I'm out of spoons. The times I give in, I end up with suboptimal useless crap. Even the smartphone case I got the very same day turned out to be all manners of "just wrong".
If anyone knows a smartphone with that style of physical keyboard, rugged style, and good battery please tell me.
I'll trash my cheap, thin piece of plastic and buy one instantly!
Point us to a design principle (or anything), that proves these two are mutually exclusive. Defeatist attitude brings nothing to this discussion. What are you looking for, commiseration?