Nothing is wrong with it. There are other choices. I don't care for Ford cars. Owned one, and had nothing but problems. But I don't go on Ford forums complaining. I moved on...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Don't like iPhone 5: Skinny Teenager
- Thread starter appleattack
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Nothing is wrong with it. There are other choices. I don't care for Ford cars. Owned one, and had nothing but problems. But I don't go on Ford forums complaining. I moved on...
Samsung Galaxy S III, HTC One X & XL, Samsung Galaxy Note II & many more androids.
The two things (pathetic I know) that are making me want to return it and get a 4s (I've only ever owned a 4 previously) are
1) the rattle when you tap the upper 2/3rds of the back of the phone. It sounds cheap and fragile
2) Scrolling through photos...due to the screen change/camera aspect ratio, the photos are bloody smaller than they appear on the 4!
1) the rattle when you tap the upper 2/3rds of the back of the phone. It sounds cheap and fragile
2) Scrolling through photos...due to the screen change/camera aspect ratio, the photos are bloody smaller than they appear on the 4!
Hate to disagree with a Woody Allen fan, but...
Lighter is not a "cheap" feeling. I get the temptation to equate weight with quality, but in today's cutting edge, tech oriented world, be it electronics, cars, bicycles, sports equipment, whatever, reducing weight has become an important goal in pushing the limits of a particular object, and while I agree once upon a time, more weight could indicate higher quality, I don't think it's true in today's high tech world, with high tech materials and manufacturing processes. I suppose a phone could some day be so feather light that it just feels strange, but that wouldn't mean it's not a high quality phone.
Anybody can make something heavier at virtually no cost. Much harder to make something lighter, while retaining full functionality. Imagine, as just one way lighter is better, a feather light phone. It falls on concrete. I'd expect it to suffer far less damage than a heavier phone from the impact. A feather light phone can also be carried and held more easily.
There are generally many advantages to reducing weight, very few to increasing.
Sorry, but I have to wholeheartedly disagree. Try holding a Rolex in one hand and a Timex in the other. No further clarification is needed. Also, anyone who knows anything about the "cutting edge, tech oriented world" of electronics knows that, as quality goes up, in general, so does weight. From the "A/V Receiver Buying Guide 2012" :
"Quality components like power transformers and a well-built chassis that resists acoustic vibrations lend themselves to the weight of the receiver. So in general, a receiver's weight is still a good indication of a receiver's build quality."
In phones, quality materials in substantial quantity = weight. Reduce the thickness of the aluminum and the weight goes down. So does the structual integrity. What does this mean to the consumer? Personally, I don't drop my phone or subject it to abuse. The build quality probably won't get "tested" in those ways. However, my appreciation of the phone is diminished when it feels cheap in my hand. I always used to be astonished at the lightweight, junky-feeling Android phones that I would occasionally hold. "Nothing like the quality of my iPhone", I thought. Not with the iPhone 5, though. It feels like the throwaway phones from any low-end manufacturer.
So, we should only post here when we praise Apple? I suppose I could say the same thing - You love the iPhone 5, you own it, you're happy - move on!
I disagree. It's absurd to say aluminum feels more cheap compared to glass and vice versa.
Touché. The added context of having the phone as a development target for work paints a very different story than I assumed. So I do apologize for passing premature judgement.
Although I hope you would agree (ESPECIALLY if your opinion is that the phone is a backwards step) that in general if someone already owns a recent smartphone, a upgrade decision less than a year later should be driven by seeing something you really like, not something that you feel unsure about. If you took away the work requirements for your phone, you'd be left with a story where you tried the phone at the store, felt some misgivings, but decided to buy it anyway just to "confirm" that it wasnt as good as something you already had. I stand by my critique of that sort of behaviour.
To conclude, you are totally entitled to dislike the phone. And I am sure there will be plenty who agree. But it does come down to a matter of taste, so you're still going to have people who like the design as well, and you're both going to have to learn to be tolerant of each others opinion.
The iPhone 5 felt awkward and a little weird to me as well at first. Probably 4-5 days in I picked up my old 4S who my wife now has and it seemed weird! I understand the initial feeling the OP had and maybe it will grow on him/her as well.
You asked.
http://www.redmondpie.com/samsung-releases-galaxy-note-ii-introductory-video-highlights-all-of-its-key-features/
Galaxy Note II = 16:9 aspect ratio per the Samsung video.
I understand where you are coming from with the weight. I used to sell high end audio and own a $2,500 amp and other things. But there is a reason for that weight.. and also you are not carrying those things in your pocket. This is different. The aluminum is strong, durable AND light. It's a mobile phone. You want all those things. The decreased weight does not point to worse quality. Even though I'm still on the fence about the screen, the phone itself is the best of any iPhone yet, IMO.
I think, eventually phones will be a piece of glass (not literally) with no bezel, basically just a screen. And very light. This is another step in that direction. I am one that is NOT really a fan of the larger screen.. but the rest of the phone I like enough to try to get used to it. But I will say... With the 4 and 4S I felt like I was holding a phone that had a screen. Now with the 5, I feel like I'm closer to holding a screen and don't really feel like I'm holding a phone. Which could be good or bad, depending on your perspective. But I think it's good.
Not absurd. It's like Roger Moore playing Bond instead of Sean Connery. There's a gravitas in the 4 and 4s that is lacking in the 5.
----------
Hate to disagree with a Woody Allen fan, but...
Lighter is not a "cheap" feeling. I get the temptation to equate weight with quality, but in today's cutting edge, tech oriented world, be it electronics, cars, bicycles, sports equipment, whatever, reducing weight has become an important goal in pushing the limits of a particular object, and while I agree once upon a time, more weight could indicate higher quality, I don't think it's true in today's high tech world, with high tech materials and manufacturing processes. I suppose a phone could some day be so feather light that it just feels strange, but that wouldn't mean it's not a high quality phone.
Anybody can make something heavier at virtually no cost. Much harder to make something lighter, while retaining full functionality. Imagine, as just one way lighter is better, a feather light phone. It falls on concrete. I'd expect it to suffer far less damage than a heavier phone from the impact. A feather light phone can also be carried and held more easily.
There are generally many advantages to reducing weight, very few to increasing.
Not wanting to be part of a club that would invite me to join .....
The 4 and 4s smacks of quality that the 5 lacks and where practicality takes a back seat. There's a point of diminishing returns to where usability suffers in something too thin and light. A sudden strong wind, for instance, could easily take the 5 out of a man's hand; whereas the 4 or 4s would offer more stability.
So in otherwords, the iPhone 5. Same basic design as the 4S, they just built upon it. Put 1GB of memory in there, inproved the processor, put LTE in there and from what I have seen, the battery last just about as long as my iPhone 4 which had great battery life. Oh, and they made the screen bigger for your XL requirement.
Yes, I would like the width to be a bit wider but I can live with it. Coming from the iphone 4 it was a decent upgrade for me. Siri, voice navigation, faster processor, more ram, better cameras, LTE, better coverage (switched from AT&T to verizon), more data, less money, better speaker for speaker phone or listening to music (much louder than my iphone 4). If I could have switched my iphone 4 to Verizon I would have and waited until next year to upgrade but figured I would get the new phone now since I was switching.
Not absurd. It's like Roger Moore playing Bond instead of Sean Connery. There's a gravitas in the 4 and 4s that is lacking in the 5.
----------
Not wanting to be part of a club that would invite me to join .....
The 4 and 4s smacks of quality that the 5 lacks and where practicality takes a back seat. There's a point of diminishing returns to where usability suffers in something too thin and light. A sudden strong wind, for instance, could easily take the 5 out of a man's hand; whereas the 4 or 4s would offer more stability.
You're joking right? A strong wind?
Anyhow being lighter in mass, less damage will occur when it falls out of your hand and lands somewhere. Principle of physics.
I pray NO Android phone goes 16:9, this is the sole reason I did not get the 5. Looks like I'm either getting the GS3 or 920 when it arrives. I wanted the 5 BAD before it launched and was hoping the rumors and pics flying around on the internet were not the actual device...it was,
Funny you use Rolex vs Timex as an example. I'm into mechanical watches. There are many, MANY watches that make Rolex look cheap, that are MUCH lighter (and thinner).
A Patek Phillipe for example. A much higher end watch, which is also far lighter and thinner than any Rolex. Audemars Piguet is another higher end watch co. that uses forged carbon for some of their cases. Those watches which cost 10 times what a typical Rolex does, are extremely light, and that's kind of the point. In certain areas, where lighter is seen as desirable, and smart phones is one such area, lighter is a good thing, and, one that's costs money to produce, all else being equal. I foresee most smartphones getting lighter and lighter as technology allows while retaining the same strength and functionality. Apple is ahead of the curve on this IMO.
I would think that if you asked someone, assuming the quality, power, functionality is the same, would you rather have a heavier smartphone, laptop, etc. or a lighter one, most would say, we'll if its the same (or better) quality as the heavier one, ill take the light one. Why wouldn't you?
If weight doesn't equal quality, why would you prefer heavy to light?
Funny you use Rolex vs Timex as an example. I'm into mechanical watches. There are many, MANY watches that make Rolex look cheap, that are MUCH lighter (and thinner).
A Patek Phillipe for example. A much higher end watch, which is also far lighter and thinner than any Rolex. Audemars Piguet is another higher end watch co. that uses forged carbon for some of their cases. Those watches which cost 10 times what a typical Rolex does, are extremely light, and that's kind of the point. In certain areas, where lighter is seen as desirable, and smart phones is one such area, lighter is a good thing, and, one that's costs money to produce, all else being equal. I foresee most smartphones getting lighter and lighter as technology allows while retaining the same strength and functionality. Apple is ahead of the curve on this IMO.
I would think that if you asked someone, assuming the quality, power, functionality is the same, would you rather have a heavier smartphone, laptop, etc. or a lighter one, most would say, we'll if its the same (or better) quality as the heavier one, ill take the light one. Why wouldn't you?
The Rolex example was just that, an example. You are absolutely right, there are many more expensive watches that are lighter. I never liked the design of the Pateks, personally, I prefer Bell & Ross, which typically range up to around $200K and would be lighter than a Rolex. However, I think the analogy still holds. With something like the Patek, you are paying for style and (perceived) status. I would still bet on a Rolex over a Patek for build quality and durability any day. The Rolex case is carved from a solid chunk of metal (gold, platinum, etc) and has high quality mechanical movement pieces. It is a solid, durable, quality machine.
Like i said, I wanted to like the iPhone 5. I really didn't even think about the reduced weight until I held it in my hand. Then I instantly knew it wasn't for me. I like high quality things, that's why I buy Apple products in the first place. The iPhone 5 just doesn't feel quality.
To answer your question, I don't know why I prefer heavier. It's an aesthetic thing. A perceived quality thing. I don't know. I just do
I wish you every success with your software company.
Mainly because I can't imagine you being able to hold down a job working for someone else.
I can't imagine you being able to hold any kind of job, period. But thanks for chiming in with the most useless, irrelevant post to date.
