Hacker News Reader

Comment by agumonkey | Hacker News Reader

I don't think it's true. Some manufacturers did produce less thin phones, both for better resistance and longer battery life. Nobody bought them. Maybe you're right and it's the web that influences people into buying these or maybe people just want to buy the latest and "most bestest" (whatever the metric is, nowadays its thin and pixel density ... people are into 4K now, 8K is coming too)

View on HN

> Nobody bought them.

Because those phones lacked many other features that people ALSO wanted.

Fair point maybe they were cut from other features. I'm only quoting a few thin articles about the massive sales of thin but fragile devices.

I'd love to see different proportions and design decisions, I'm sure there are sweet spots

Indeed. This was the same fallacy that killed keyboard slider phones. Sure, their sales were poor... but the reason why is because they generally came out 8 months later than the non-keyboard version without improved hardware. So by the time each keyboard phone generation came out, there was already newer hardware with newer features on the market.

I remember when the Motorola Droid took this strategy... at the time, Android (and in particular Motorola's Android skin) was quite a bit behind iOS UX-wise. Although I guess you could ask why it didn't dominate among Android users.

The thing is, everyone wants to protect their $600 “investment”. So if you make the phone bigger so that it’s more rugged, people will still put it in a case to protect the housing. So now the rugged phone is just massive and no one wants to carry it.

Now, if the rugged bits of the phone were easily and cheaply swapped, that would probably make it more appealing. But I can buy a new case for my phone for $10, so it’s hard for the rugged version to compete effectively.

If you want decent software support, you have to go with whatever the manufacturers consider fashionable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com