Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Motorola Razr V3 Cellphone: The trend-setter that shouldn't have existed

massmadesoul.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 131 posts

Re: Motorola Razr V3 Cellphone: The trend-setter that shouldn't have existed

#111

Post by Something1234 »

eli wrote: post #91
rb808 wrote: post #85

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?

Dumb phone or smart phone? CAT makes some rugged android phones.

I love the concept of the cat phones. There's some real cool hardware in them like an infrared camera.

Re: Motorola Razr V3 Cellphone: The trend-setter that shouldn't have existed

#112

Post by jaclaz »

IkmoIkmo wrote: post #105
ksec wrote: post #71

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.

I'm not sure the comparison is that significant. We tend to omit two aspects when we deride price changes: One is just inflation. No need to explain that. In 15 years at 3% annual inflation rates, the $500 becomes $780. Second is that the product has changed, massively. The better comparison is to a flagship phone-only, which is $30. Or to compare the iPhone to a range of products, e.g. a phone, but also a television…

Inflation does not apply usually to electronics.

A 32" inch flat panel TV costed in 2003 twice or triple what it costs today.

In 2003/2004 a Sony Ericsson P800 or P900 (among the first products that can be called "smartphone") costed more or less the same as an iPhone costs today.

Re: Motorola Razr V3 Cellphone: The trend-setter that shouldn't have existed

#113

Post by nickik »

jaclaz wrote: post #112
IkmoIkmo wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure the comparison is that significant. We tend to omit two aspects when we deride price changes: One is just inflation. No need to explain that. In 15 years at 3% annual inflation rates, the $500 becomes $780. Second is that the product has changed, massively. The better comparison is to a flagship phone-only, which is $30. Or to compare the iPhone to a range of products, e.g. a phone, but also a television…

Inflation does not apply usually to electronics. A 32" inch flat panel TV costed in 2003 twice or triple what it costs today. In 2003/2004 a Sony Ericsson P800 or P900 (among the first products that can be called "smartphone") costed more or less the same as an iPhone costs today.

That is just the absolute price. You still have the price increase of the inflation but it is off set by the decline in price form the production efficiency.

So you absolutely have to take in inflation calculations to any comparison.

Re: Motorola Razr V3 Cellphone: The trend-setter that shouldn't have existed

#114

Post by userbinator »

eitland wrote: post #55
begriffs wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a variation of that mini phone you linked to (the internals get repackaged by various manufacturers). Mine was exactly the height and width of a credit card, and not very thick. It was lovely in my pocket, so unobtrusive. Everyone thought it was a calculator. :) Had to give it up after a while because the battery was really bad. One serious call and it was toast, and the battery got worse with age. If they made…

Saw something that probably was an iPod the other day. For a few seconds I thought it was a new iPhone (can't remember seeing an iPod in years). I want a phone in that size: - Small. - With touchscreen, - With a browser - With downloadable or even uploadable apps (basic ones like maps and messaging clients would be enough, don't need games or 3d, just don't want to rely on my operator or the manufacturer to create a…

Something like this?

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/Hot-Sale-Mini-Android-Smart-...

No idea what the quality is like (probably not amazing), but the Chinese appear to still be making various rather small Android devices, including iPhone 4 clones.

Re: Motorola Razr V3 Cellphone: The trend-setter that shouldn't have existed

#115

Post by eitland »

userbinator wrote: post #114
eitland wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saw something that probably was an iPod the other day. For a few seconds I thought it was a new iPhone (can't remember seeing an iPod in years). I want a phone in that size: - Small. - With touchscreen, - With a browser - With downloadable or even uploadable apps (basic ones like maps and messaging clients would be enough, don't need games or 3d, just don't want to rely on my operator or the manufacturer to create a…

Something like this? https://www.aliexpress.com/item/Hot-Sale-Mini-Android-Smart-... No idea what the quality is like (probably not amazing), but the Chinese appear to still be making various rather small Android devices, including iPhone 4 clones.

Yep. Something like that, thanks.

Re: Motorola Razr V3 Cellphone: The trend-setter that shouldn't have existed

#116

Post by giobox »

ctdonath wrote: post #95
usrusr wrote: post #75

"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…

Don't forget the monumental flop of the Microsoft Kin. $500,000,000 on development, only 500 sold.

A little unfair to compare the Kin as failure purely on fashion accessory grounds? The device had some seriously ahead of its time cloud features, a few of which would still be interesting even today. Arguably its closest spiritual sibling was the Danger line of phones (Microsoft acquired Danger and had them work on the Kin) and those sold respectably.

I think there are many complex factors in the Kin’s failure (not the least of which was that Microsoft themselves weren’t really 100% behind the platform), but I personally wouldn’t put fashion near the top of the list. The kin hardware was serviceable at the time, but certainly wasn’t nearly as compromised by fashion concerns as some of the ridiculous Siemens Xelibri models were. The Xelibri 6 is frankly hilarious, and almost in a league of its own for bad fashion phone design.

Re: Motorola Razr V3 Cellphone: The trend-setter that shouldn't have existed

#117

Post by derefr »

eitland wrote: post #55
begriffs wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a variation of that mini phone you linked to (the internals get repackaged by various manufacturers). Mine was exactly the height and width of a credit card, and not very thick. It was lovely in my pocket, so unobtrusive. Everyone thought it was a calculator. :) Had to give it up after a while because the battery was really bad. One serious call and it was toast, and the battery got worse with age. If they made…

Saw something that probably was an iPod the other day. For a few seconds I thought it was a new iPhone (can't remember seeing an iPod in years). I want a phone in that size: - Small. - With touchscreen, - With a browser - With downloadable or even uploadable apps (basic ones like maps and messaging clients would be enough, don't need games or 3d, just don't want to rely on my operator or the manufacturer to create a…

Did you mean that it was the size of an iPod Nano (any gen except 6th)? Because a regular iPod Classic/iPod Touch is about the same size as an iPhone. But an iPod Nano would be an impressively small phone.

Re: Motorola Razr V3 Cellphone: The trend-setter that shouldn't have existed

#118

Post by matwood »

Zak wrote: post #109
matwood wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only that, but it has replaced other devices. The modern flagship cell phone is a great value when you realized it replaces the digital P&S camera, the video recorder, the music player, and for some uses the computer.

Some more (sometimes incompletely): GPS devices, scanners, portable video players, E-readers, paper books, magazines, and newspapers, credit cards, voice recorders, business cards, portable video game systems. Of course, a brand new flagship isn't necessary to perform all these functions. The 2016 model Sony I bought used for $200 in 2017 is capable of doing all these things. It even has removable storage, a headphon…

The only reason I said flagships is that it took awhile for the cameras (both still and video) to really replicate what could be had as a stand alone.

Re: Motorola Razr V3 Cellphone: The trend-setter that shouldn't have existed

#119

Post by mcculley »

I am amused that they considered the PEBL “for girls”. I had a PEBL as the last flip phone I used before switching to a BlackBerry. I appreciated that I could flip it open and start dialing or texting with one hand (it was almost as satisfying as an automatic knife in its mechanics). The PEBL fit better in a jeans pocket than the RAZR did for me.

Re: Motorola Razr V3 Cellphone: The trend-setter that shouldn't have existed

#120

Post by bookofjoe »

ksec wrote: post #71

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.

In 1996 Motorola's StarTAC phone cost $1,000. It was the world's smallest commercially available cellphone, and was the first ever clamshell/flip mobile phone. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_StarTAC
Post reply on HN