91–100 of 131 posts
As an aside & question - I hate this slim, light goal. What I want is a thick phone with a battery that can stand heavy use for at least 24 hours (preferably changeable), and doesn't really need a case. To me it doesn't make sense to see this obsession with tiny phones that most people put cases on. To be fair, the Razr 3 had good battery life and couldn't have a case, but in this world: Anyone have suggestions?
As an aside & question - I hate this slim, light goal. What I want is a thick phone with a battery that can stand heavy use for at least 24 hours (preferably changeable), and doesn't really need a case. To me it doesn't make sense to see this obsession with tiny phones that most people put cases on. To be fair, the Razr 3 had good battery life and couldn't have a case, but in this world: Anyone have suggestions?
- AGM X2
- Doogee S60
- Zebra TC75x
have large battery capacity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I used an old-style phone a few years back. Some things I had forgotten about: - syncing contacts to the phone is near impossible - typing on t9 is slowwwww - setting up MMS etc is a PITA - no apps even for things like driving directions, simple web searches, voice recordings, Spotify
Can you not copy contacts to Sim and then copy to the new phone? I remember doing that with multiple dummy phones before I bought my first smart phone.
In 2003, industry best selling and flagship Razr cost $500 In 2018, Apple's flagship iPhone cost ( starts ) $999. I still don't know what to make of those "numbers". A lot fo jobs outside of Tech Sector had lower salary now in real terms than in 2003, and housing price are many times of those in 2003.
Ok, but the new iPhone has a huge screen, great browser, email, 64gb ram, > a million apps, 40x the radio bands, 30x the resolution, 3x the battery, 100x the speed, video, and more.
"The RAZR was the first phone to recognize that cellphones [...] were on the tipping point to becoming fashion accessories" Meanwhile, Siemens bet (and lost) a whole sub-brand of absurd design experiments on the idea of phones becoming fashion accessories. Xelibri had all the boldness and cluelessness of a teenager getting killed climbing up a power line pole to impress the girls. Xelibri were truly "phones that shou…
Either way, Sony and Nokia had decent speed, but motorola was like molasses, which is a shame as they weren't too bad to dev for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nokia has revamped its classic phones https://www.nokia.com/en_int/phones/classic-phones
They are not the same. Even though Nokia is infamous for not being able to produce a solid smartphone platform that would actually attract app developers, their feature phones (and Sony Ericsson's, too) were always known for having more finished, polished and faster UX when compared to competition like Siemens and Motorola. The Nokia-branded feature phones produced during Microsoft's ownership and ones produced curre…
But the platform was actually getting quite good before the burning platforms memo thanks to PIPS and Qt, oh well.
As an aside & question - I hate this slim, light goal. What I want is a thick phone with a battery that can stand heavy use for at least 24 hours (preferably changeable), and doesn't really need a case. To me it doesn't make sense to see this obsession with tiny phones that most people put cases on. To be fair, the Razr 3 had good battery life and couldn't have a case, but in this world: Anyone have suggestions?
Both are going to be badly scratched up if dropped on or dragged across a rough surface. A cheap aftermarket case, though, is much easier to replace than the backside of a phone. In other words, a replaceable case has many of the same benefits as a replaceable battery.
Reading this makes me wince at the monoculture. I can imagine the meetings; "You mean women are a major part of the mobile phone market? And they spend money on high quality design? And some men like pink too? Oh, and you are saying some women don't? Here, let me write this down, this stuff is out there."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In 2003, for most people, the flagship Razr cost £99, or nothing. You were paying £20 or £30 a month for mobile service in a contract that gave you a new phone every 12 months. No benefit or discount for not taking an upgrade when it was available.
And 80% of the monthly fee was for the phone, not the service. Plans without a bundled phone are much cheaper.
And were not widely available at the time...