The more pertinent question, if you step back for a moment, is why the hell are we sacrificing everything for thinner phones and edge-to-edge displays only to then ship them with a more or less mandatory case to stick in.
I tried to go caseless back when I was 22 and thought anyone would care how pretty my phone was, but it was slippery and accumulated damage for no reason. My next phone, I kept a case on it and when I sold it after a few years, it looked good as new.
I suppose something that's going to live in a case has no real need to be so beautiful. But it's also a luxury consumer good, so "we cut some corners, so it's ugly, but it's in a case anyways amiright?" isn't really the best marketing message. Also, clear cases seem quite popular for those who do want to show it off.
But you have to put it in an ugly protective case or it'll be borked inside a year.
Of course, as soon as I post this, I’m probably going to break it. But the caseless life does exist!
Perhaps I'm just clumsy :)
I am aware Apple have good glass, but the number of cracked iPhones I've seen inform me they aren't immune from this phenomenon.
I think once the honeymoon gadget phase wears off, most people get over it and then prefer to protect it so that their expensive device lasts longer.
A case solved all this. And frankly I can't even recall seeing someone use their phone without a case, so it seems to be a prevailing issue.
I'm not sure what the alternative is that you seem to be pitching though, if you were.
Exactly, they're too fragile to use without some sort of case.
Which really makes the "look how thin and pretty the new device is!" something of a lie. And pointless, who cares if the phone is the thinnest ever, when it's going to live its life in a thick jacket?
I don't want to use a case. I want a phone I can buy for the way it looks and feels and use as-is.
You could argue that phones should just be uglier and thicker and more rugged such that they don't need a case, but I don't think it's very palatable for a $1000 handheld to be taking damage directly for most people when the ruggedness can be outsourced to a $20 case. Nor do I think a luxury consumer gadget can see much success by sacrificing on aesthetics.
Building the case into the phone is exactly what my girlfriend's $120 Android does, and it certainly looks like it cost no more than $120 with its rubber bumpers that already look like they've been used as pencil erasers.
If you're arguing that people shouldn't care so much about the shiny marketing, it's not clear how much people do care nor what the appropriate amount of care should be. A good looking product does help you spend $1000 though.
To make something that won't fall apart the moment someone looks at it wrong?
To expect if someone sells something on its aesthetics and how compact it is, that those factors won't then both have to be compromised by the aforementioned $20 case?
Clearly you have different expectations of a $1000 device than I do.
Apple gets really excited to say “thinnest iPhone ever” — but then we (or at least I) slap an Otterbox on it because I want the thing to last.
At the end of the day, it’s just for marketing purposes. No one wants to buy a Jitterbug phone. People want to buy sleek and sexy. And then they surround it in rubber bumpers.
It’s really pretty stupid all the way around. I don’t think Apple would sell as many phones if they shipped with a built-in bumper. Even to people like me who require that their pocket computers be protected...
That is effectively what "ruggedised" phones look like, I'll agree.