you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 24 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (14 children)

how do you propose removing it?

there are two options, 1) using a smaller,shittier camera, or 2) making an extremely thick phone. neither option is very “apple”, especially for a flagship model.

considering the vast majority of people use phone cases and will never notice the bump anyway, i think this whole thing is blown way out of proportion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (4 children)

    The marketing about it being an incredibly thin phone was a misstep - it just looked absurd to have such a chunky lump stuck onto it, and it felt very much like they were attempting a have cake / eat cake situation by claiming it had incredible camera stats (which werent very good) to justify the bump on an otherwise amazingly thin phone, and then that giant electronics bump had an external lens on it too.

    Had it just been an ugly phone, I doubt it would have met with anywhere near the same criticism, but all the adcopy about how thin it was overtop of photos where you could see it had a giant lump on it felt really dishonest, and if this article is accurate it may count among the biggest apple flops ever.

    (The thickness may just need to be accepted at this point. The S25 Ultra is 8.2mm, which is thinner than the Air if you include the bump. It seems like the camera wasnt the issue then, but that they hamstrung their design team with their drive for a thin phone. What elegance might even an extra millimeter of chassis space produced?)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    The marketing had nothing to do with it not selling. Pick one up, yeah it’s thin but it’s also a bar of soap to hold. Plus a ton of deal breaking trade off like less battery life and poor camera system compared to the alternative iPhone 17s/Pros.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    No thicker than very popular and successful phones from just 5 years ago. They can use the extra space for a larger battery, so they dont have to nerf performance to maintain stability in older phones. They can also use the space to restore repairability.

    But probably not for a folding phone, since making both sides that thick will probably be too much.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (3 children)

    Phones 5 years ago have lightyears worse cameras than phones today.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    But their thickness can accomidate todays cameras.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    ...no they can’t. Do you realize just how thick modern camera bumps are? Even not including the bump phones nowadays are thicker than phones 5 years ago.

    The iPhone X was 7.7mm thick. The iPhone 17 pro excluding the bump is 8.7.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago

    Damn, I keep forgetting that the iphone X was already 5 years ago. 10 years ago then. There has been so little improvements in phones in the ladt 5 years, it all just blurs together.

    I think the point is, we used to have phones that were 9mm+ thick. Iphone 4s and iphone 5c from Apple and Samsung Galaxy S3 and motorola G phones were all that thickness. They even had replacable batteries and expandable storage. Some of those were even waterproof despite all of that.

    I think the main driver of impractical thinness has been marketing, planned obselecence and cost savings.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    making an extremely thick phone

    lol how is 11mm extremely thick

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments