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

iPhone Air

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

811–820 of 1001 posts

Re: iPhone Air

#811

Post by monegator »

arcane23 wrote: post #593
jdprgm wrote: post #187

Can someone that is actually interested in this explain the appeal? Thin on its own I get but thin with a giant bump 100% defeats the whole point for me. Seems clear at this point there is little hope of them engineering their way into thin cameras.

Doubt most people want it as thin as possible. This is just the phone industry running out of ideas and trying to tell people what they actually need. There's not much left to "fix" on mobile phones, and no real important features to add. Lacking that, they need something to sell the phones with, so they're going for these strange "improvements". It needs to be something that has some wow factor so they can lead with…

> no real important features to add

Niche, but (true) satellite communication. If i understand correctly what we have in the pixel 9/10 is not nearly as useful as having a garmin, never mind the fact that it works basically in europe and US only

Re: iPhone Air

#812

Post by pllbnk »

jdprgm wrote: post #187

Can someone that is actually interested in this explain the appeal? Thin on its own I get but thin with a giant bump 100% defeats the whole point for me. Seems clear at this point there is little hope of them engineering their way into thin cameras.

Even more annoyingly, the bump is non-uniform with lens extruding even further from the entire bump. I have been annoyed by this design ever since they started with it. The last phone the design of which brought joy for me was my OnePlus 3T - thin and light. It also had the camera bump though which I would gladly sacrifice even if it meant a lower quality camera. On the other hand, I suppose they could just insert a thicker battery and make the whole phone a bit thicker but remove the bump.

Re: iPhone Air

#813

Post by sneak »

One of these that has no camera would be cool. Alternately, a thicker phone with more battery and no camera bump. Either would be fine.

This is the worst of both worlds.

Re: iPhone Air

#814

Post by rldjbpin »

hear me out: they make a slim phone, just to develop the supply chain around a foldable display to finally release a folding phone that is a sandwich of the air!

/s

Re: iPhone Air

#815

Post by rifty »

SoKamil wrote: post #799
rifty wrote: post #651

The 16e is 167 grams, where the Air is 165 grams. It feels like the Air is to the 16e what the Pro is to the standard titled iPhone — the expensive version. Which makes the marketing feel a bit incongruent with what we've gotten here. It's not noticeably more lightweight than what is currently offered, it's less featureful than the 17, but more expensive than the 17 (albeit perhaps prettier). It seems like engineerin…

Footprint to weight ratio is an important factor. S25 Edge weights 163g but it felt noticeably lighter in hand than other phones with similar weight.

Definitely. I think many larger screen buyers of iPhonee will be happy there is the option to trade off the extra battery they used to get by default with a large screen for now less weight.

It's just odd to me that despite its price it feels closer to a superthin upscaled e, rather than a superthin upscaled 17 or instead being extralight. Now I imagine they didn't have a lot of weight to lose given how optimized for weight phone components were already. The Air branding just had me hoping they had a bigger engineering statement to make than what they did.

Re: iPhone Air

#816

Post by gehsty »

phplovesong wrote: post #740

When a phone costs north of 1000USD something is terribly wrong. 99% of "modern" phone use is basically (doom) scrolling, browsing the web, using core apps (like maps) for directions, taking pictures and finally communicating with whatsapp and making the odd/rare old school phone call. This should not require spending 1000-1500USD on a phone. Im doing all of the above with a iPhone SE for what i paid like 300-350USD…

People pay for how they look (which is fine) not what they do.

Re: iPhone Air

#817

Post by scrollop »

arcane23 wrote: post #593
jdprgm wrote: post #187

Can someone that is actually interested in this explain the appeal? Thin on its own I get but thin with a giant bump 100% defeats the whole point for me. Seems clear at this point there is little hope of them engineering their way into thin cameras.

Doubt most people want it as thin as possible. This is just the phone industry running out of ideas and trying to tell people what they actually need. There's not much left to "fix" on mobile phones, and no real important features to add. Lacking that, they need something to sell the phones with, so they're going for these strange "improvements". It needs to be something that has some wow factor so they can lead with…

3d holographic displays, IR keyboards, powerful local llm (so more powerful), Silent-Speech Interface (SSI), more powerful cameras (better than mirrorless cameras, 3d, multi focal length in one image etc).

Oh, there's a LOT that can be improved.

Re: iPhone Air

#818

Post by flashyhuckle »

powersnail wrote: post #722

I sincerely hope that apple will consider making a phone with a worse camera that is flatter. As someone who rarely takes photos, and never photos of importance, the bump is just a dead weight to me. My dream phone has a body like iPhone 12 mini (which I currently use) without the protruding camera. As long as it runs all the common communication apps reliably, I'm happy. I'll pay $100 more than the standard body ver…

You might want to check the 16e. It has 16 insides (without magsafe and uwb chip), with screen from 14 and not very protruding (although still) but good camera. Its also cheaper than base model iphone.

Re: iPhone Air

#819

Post by bapak »

phplovesong wrote: post #740

When a phone costs north of 1000USD something is terribly wrong. 99% of "modern" phone use is basically (doom) scrolling, browsing the web, using core apps (like maps) for directions, taking pictures and finally communicating with whatsapp and making the odd/rare old school phone call. This should not require spending 1000-1500USD on a phone. Im doing all of the above with a iPhone SE for what i paid like 300-350USD…

You can hate Apple for it, but the phone costs $1000+ because people will buy it. Apple has been proven right year after year since 2017 (iPhone X)

You can still do everything you mentioned on a $150 phone, which exists in parts of the world. If anything, one could complain that the $150 phone still takes pictures worse than an iPhone 5

Re: iPhone Air

#820

Post by bapak »

johanyc wrote: post #666
rifty wrote: post #651

The 16e is 167 grams, where the Air is 165 grams. It feels like the Air is to the 16e what the Pro is to the standard titled iPhone — the expensive version. Which makes the marketing feel a bit incongruent with what we've gotten here. It's not noticeably more lightweight than what is currently offered, it's less featureful than the 17, but more expensive than the 17 (albeit perhaps prettier). It seems like engineerin…

It's also a bit weird that iPhone Air being an Air is more expensive. MacBook Air and iPad Air are the cheaper options in contrast

Not weird.

iPhone E, iPhone, iPhone Air, iPhone Pro

There's no MacBook E and MacBook non-air, so the order matches.

Post reply on HN