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

Apple Debuts iPhone 16e

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 857 posts

Re: Apple Debuts iPhone 16e

#81

Post by gjsman-1000 »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #76
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

However, as the iPhone 12 and 13 mini demonstrated, the people who like small phones are a very vocal but extremely small minority (only 3% of US sales were the mini). They both sold so badly, it serves as a reality check for how small voices on the internet are compared to the market.

I feel like the 12 mini was objectively a subpar device, and maybe if 13 mini had come out first (after a long hiatus of not having smaller phones), then there might have been a chance. But probably not.

You're assuming most people even read the spec sheet and knew it was inferior on paper. I assure you, most did not. Most just looked at it, decided "too small," and that's about it.

Re: Apple Debuts iPhone 16e

#83

Post by bayindirh »

LorenDB wrote: post #59
bayindirh wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally will never go back to flexible plastic screens. I used them enough in resistive touchscreens era.

I have a Razr. The touchscreen surface isn't glass (there's a TPU film on top for protection), but it's a very good experience and I rarely think about it not being glass.

I agree that the tech is not at the place where it was 25 years ago, but I fiddled with plastic screen protectors on top of these kinds of screens enough. I still use screen protectors, but glass on glass is a much better experience for me.

It's a matter of choice, and I'm not judging people who like it by any means, but I'm a bit boneheaded on these things and don't change my choices that fast. For example, I still don't think OLED is suitable for TV sized screens and laptops. I know how the color and contrast is better, but I don't want to replace my TV or laptop every three years because it develops subtle burn-ins for example. I come from CRTs, and can endure a good backlit LCD a couple of more years, esp if it has color temperature adaptive backlight.

Re: Apple Debuts iPhone 16e

#85

Post by OptionOfT »

bayindirh wrote: post #12
p_ing wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The modem might be the most interesting thing about this phone. They've spent years trying to get one out the door.

I think camera is equally interesting. Why? It uses a linear zoom like a classic lens design inside and embeds an optical 2x zoom lens into a smaller area. From the press release: > With an integrated 2x Telephoto, users have the equivalent of two cameras in one, and can zoom in with optical quality to get closer to the subject and easily frame their shot.

Isn't this the first time they have an actual zoom lens vs multiple lenses and thus CMOS?

Edit: reading below it's still unsure if they actually have a lens that moves back & forth to achieve the zoom.

Re: Apple Debuts iPhone 16e

#87

Post by arp242 »

ehsankia wrote: post #51
_gotb wrote: post #6

Oh boy, a 6.1 inch screen. "Popular". Ugh. RIP any hopes of a small SE refresh.

I feel like these comments complaining about modern screen sizes don't consider that Bezels have shrunk a ton since. Both SE 2020 and 2022 had a body size of 138.4mm x 67.3mm, which gives a diagonal of 153.9mm or 6.1 inches. The new iPhone 16e has a body of 146.7mm x 71.5mm, with a diagonal of 163.2mm, or 6.4 inches. So only 5% bigger.

My hands are too small to comfortably use the screen. Bezel size don't matter.

How about accepting that we know what we want and that we don't need you you to lecture us on our preferences? Seriously, what's wrong with you? "Oh you complained about your preference on X, but let me educate you about your preferences are wrong?"

Re: Apple Debuts iPhone 16e

#88

Post by crazygringo »

lapcat wrote: post #14

iPhone SE: $429, 4.7-inch display, 5.45 x 2.65 x 0.29, 5.09 ounces iPhone 16e: $599, 6.1-inch display, 5.78 x 2.82 x 0.31, 5.88 ounces This is a major downgrade in every way for people who want the smallest possible iPhone.

It's basically 6% longer, wider, and thicker.

I like small phones. 6% doesn't seem all that different from the current SE.

The fact that all that space seems to be going to battery life does seem nice...

Re: Apple Debuts iPhone 16e

#89

Post by llm_nerd »

jsheard wrote: post #50
Tomte wrote: post #9

Pro: action button Con(?): 60 Hz And the price hike again shows that Apple is the master of the "for just a few hundred dollars more, you can get...“ upsell to bigger iPhones.

60hz is really taking the piss at this point, if they must reserve 120hz for the Pro line then the least they could do is use 90hz further down the stack.

I have a Pro that I've set to only use 60 FPS (Accessibility / Motion / Limit Frame Rate). 120 FPS is ever so slightly smoother, but I would rather have the slightly better battery life disabling it.

Among mainstream users, people just don't care and this isn't remotely the differentiator people seem to hold it as. Similar to the micro bezel fetish, these are spec-chaser points that certain manufacturers convince people are must haves. But they really aren't.

Post reply on HN