Even if it isn't as high-capacity, a longer-lasting and safer battery over a thinner smartphone isn't a _bad_ trade-off, specially considering chips and screens get more efficient. This might have more market than stationary batteries.
There could be a market for power tools, where having more batteries of lower capacity for the same price can be desirable.
Also maybe for hybrid vehicles.
For people who wear slimmer-fitting clothing, this matters. Also, it’s more about the weight: you want a phone light enough that holding it up isn’t tedious.
(There are lighter alternatives, but I bought the steam deck specifically to financially support Valve's Linux gaming efforts)
10 years ago we already had the tech for smaller phones (and yes the battery life was fine, 1-2 days typical). Just check out any flagship from the 2010-2015 era, e.g. https://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_i9500_galaxy_s4-5125.php
If people actually care about slim, light phones... why has almost every company stopped making them?
It’s not the sole factor. But ceteris paribus, most consumer prefer a thinner, lighter phone.
Not as much of an issue with loose men's chinos, but definitely an issue with standard slim men's jeans, as well as with a slimmer-cut chino.
And if you want to see if a fatter phone is easier to hold, that's what cases are for. You don't need them to make the phone fatter.
In reality, most thin phones aren't all that thin anyways once people put a protective case on them, as many (most?) people do.
I just commented on this last night, in fact. Wife's phone half out of her pocket, and it's a smaller iphone than my brick of a 1+, but my phone sits midway down my thigh in my pocket.
I make no judgement on the pants people wear (or don't).
E-waste laws at some point will become inevitable, so planned obsolescence will be under scrutiny. Devices will have to have a minimum design life etc. Moreover, user-replaceable batteries—whether long life or high capacity—are likely to be mandatory as a result of such legislation.
My old Nokia used to have a replaceable battery which also served as the back of the phone, a quick release button meant the battery could be replaced within seconds.
Manufacturers can't use the argument that it can't be done because it was common practice with Nokia 20 years ago. Nowadays more modern design practices will make that even easier to implement.
The problem is water resistance. Your old Nokia (except the indestructible 3310) was dead if you managed to let it fall into water, most phones up until the end of the headphone jack had the same problem - and secure-boot stuff has made it virtually impossible to recover data if the phone doesn't boot up any more.
Water resistance and non-sealed phones don't really mix, unless you're going for really bulky things like the CAT lineup or Samsung's Active Tab series.
Sealing a battery compartment in a way that doesn't hinder replacement is a solved problem, they do it to diving watches that are actually waterproof at depth, not merely water resistant.
And phones cannot be completely sealed. That's why none are really waterproof (and warranty doesn't cover water damage). The biggest issues are speakers and microphones, getting the sound through and keeping the water out requires some compromises. Then there is the port(s), SIM tray, buttons, barometer,... By comparison, a battery cover is easy.
They do exist, but usually (at least for Samsung and CAT, I owned both brands) come at the cost of flimsy backplanes that come loose when falling and/or are prone to break off the tiny snaps when you need to access the SD/SIM card or battery.
For me, that they come loose when falling is actually a feature. The energy of the fall has to go somewhere, and having that back cover and sometimes battery fly off means that energy is not dissipated elsewhere where it could be more damaging.
Right, splash resistance through to full hermetic sealing is well developed engineering, so it's a non issue. That's not to say one has to go to extremes for a phone. For example, there's no reason why a phone cannot be constructed in a modular fashion where the key electronics is essentially sealed against the ingress of moisture and its peripheral connections, jack, mic, speakers, battery connectors are part of the case.
For maintenance, simply snap out the electronics and put it in a new case. Similarly, jacks are easily made waterproof with connections going through hermetic seals. Diaphragms on mics and speakers can actually be part of the seal and so on. Compromises can be made to suit the circumstances, and none of this is complicated manufacturing.
Making phones more robust against the environment makes sense, it would not only extend their life but dovetail neatly into Right-to-Repair laws—laws which I reckon will eventually become inevitable.
Phone manufacturers will be dragged kicking and screaming but they've already had it too good for too long at customers' expense.
Otherwise agreed, I'm very happy with form factor of 5-10 year old phones.
In the article it says, that they are using a "patented Prussian blue". Isn't CATL also using Prussian blue in their first generation sodium batteries?
The fact it supports more cycles and tolerates a broader temperature range than Lithium counts points towards safety too. Lithium isn't happy above like 30 Celsius, which a fast charging portable device can _easily_ reach.
Sounds pretty bad for people living in warmer climates then, as they tend to be above 30 celsius anyway. ;)
As a data point, the ambient temperature right now where I live is 33°C. I just walked home from a quick grocery trip a couple of blocks away. And that's not an atypical temperature (at least for the warmer months of the year; we're supposed to be in the colder months now, but the climate's been all wonky lately).
If my phone's battery didn't like ambient temperatures above 30°C, it would have failed long ago. There's no air conditioning in the street.
I don't think the battery is a big block of pure sodium. That would be unsafe.
The battery electrolyte contains sodium ions, but the same is true of salt water and Gatorade.
I think the industrial source of their sodium is sodium hydoxide, a common industrial feedstock. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_hydroxide
Seems like sodium is better "hidden" in the cathode/anode so it won't react witth the air so quickly as lithium when battery innards are exposed.
Also it's my understanding that neither sodium batteries nor li-ion batteries have metallic sodium/lithium in them (besides small amounts which build up in heavily used li-ion cells or something).