40mm Apple Watch Series 5 Features New Battery Design, 10% More Capacity

[ksec]

i wish the iPhone would get thinner again... i prefered the thickness of the iPhone 7 compared to the X.

Same here, I actually prefer the thickness of iPhone 6, which was the thinnest iPhone if I remember correctly. But even that is 6.9mm, iPad Touch were 6.1mm and iPad Pro at sub 6mm, both feels much much better holding it.

Hopefully with many small battery tech improvement down the road we could have thinner iPhone without compromise on battery.

 

[JulianL]

Same here, I actually prefer the thickness of iPhone 6, which was the thinnest iPhone if I remember correctly. But even that is 6.9mm, iPad Touch were 6.1mm and iPad Pro at sub 6mm, both feels much much better holding it.

Hopefully with many small battery tech improvement down the road we could have thinner iPhone without compromise on battery.

Might that not just mean that the camera bump gets even bigger (projects out further from the back of the phone)?

With phone manufacturers trying to differentiate themselves by packing in the best possible camera(s) are there some basic laws of optics that are requiring certain physical depths for the camera to get focal lengths vs aperture vs sensor size vs whatever? Back in the old days the in-phone cameras were much lower spec so maybe didn't need as much depth to get everything right.

I'm not stating a position by the way, it's a genuine question. I'm not a photography enthusiast and I know precisely nothing about camera lenses, optics etc. I would however be very interested in thoughts on this from people who do actually understand what physical constraints current best-of-breed camera optics might unavoidably put on the future thickness of phones.

 

[Yakibomb]

i wish the iPhone would get thinner again... i prefered the thickness of the iPhone 7 compared to the X.

Not to sound like a Jonny fanboy, but IMO the X is almost perfectly weighted (if anything just a little too tall)

 

[ksec]

Might that not just mean that the camera bump gets even bigger (projects out further from the back of the phone)?

With phone manufacturers trying to differentiate themselves by packing in the best possible camera(s) are there some basic laws of optics that are requiring certain physical depths for the camera to get focal lengths vs aperture vs sensor size vs whatever? Back in the old days the in-phone cameras were much lower spec so maybe didn't need as much depth to get everything right.

I'm not stating a position by the way, it's a genuine question. I'm not a photography enthusiast and I know precisely nothing about camera lenses, optics etc. I would however be very interested in thoughts on this from people who do actually understand what physical constraints current best-of-breed camera optics might unavoidably put on the future thickness of phones.

There are quite a few way to solve this, but it is all about trade offs. You have have lens that fit in along side the phone aka periscope cameras, but that takes up more space inside the phone, and you have a much smaller sensor if it as into sub 6mm thick. Not to mention about cost.

You could also add more camera with fixed lens, but more Camera to stitch the images means more processing power.

Or put it in another way, would you pay an additional $100 - $200 dollar for an iPhone with no bump?

 

[NufSaid]

I can confirm that battery life is superb on the watch.....only after updating to iOS 13.1....odd but true

 

[DeepIn2U]

Personally don’t like the always on display. I would’ve upgraded if it had the normal display but bigger battery. I could get a couple of days out of a charge.

agreed.

I’m thinking this metal enclosure is a way for Apple to reduce battery from popping up/off the screen!

 

[haddy]

It’s mentioned somewhere that you CAN turn off always on display, though it is called something else in the Watch App.

Or you could just buy a discounted S4