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.
Thinness Doesn't Really Matter.
- Thread starter klamse25
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You don't understand what the OP is saying. They aren't saying devices shouldn't have been made thinner at all. Just making the point they are already very thin and if they were made thinner would likely become to delicate. The OP's not talking about 10 or 20 years ago, they are talking about today.
----------
They already have a phone like that by, made samsung the screen is completely bendable. Absolutely unusable gimmick.
Okay, first you said "iDevices" which does not exclude the iMac and iBook. Then you said you're talking about "iOS" which does exclude most iPods (certainly the original).
Learn how to convey your thoughts.
----------
If they could make something that could roll up into something the size of a pen and then unfold into an iPad, I'd buy it. At least if they can get it to stay rigid when unfolded.
But as it stands now, I don't see the need to go thinner with the current form factors. I'd rather have battery life
Most people cite how the iPad actually grew in thinness. The increase is not perceptible , but is enough to squeeze a 70% larger battery in there. Now imagine if they made the iPad 2 that thick anyway -- the battery life would be amazing.
Lol. I prefer the ipad 2 thinnes with 10 hours of battery life than the original ipad's thickness with 20 hours of battery life. 10 hours of battery life is much u know.
For the iphone, i'd rather have a 10 hours of battery life with the same thickness as the iphone 4s than the imaginary iphone with the thinnes of the ipod touch with the same battery life as the current iphone 4s.
I don't want it any thinner != no one wants it any thinner.
Don't assume your preferences are universal no matter what the topic.
1st: I didn't say iPad 1 thickness. I may not have made it clear, but I was referring to iPad 3 thickness. That 0.5mm increase is not perceptible, but it allowed for a 70% larger battery. I would have gladly accepted that minute increase in thickness for nearly twice as much battery. The point is Apple could have still been a class leader in thinness while simultaneously becoming the undisputed leader in battery life. But they chose not to.
2nd: That 10 hours is just basic web browsing on wifi. Imagine 10 hours of 3d or 10 hours video. There's no disadvantage to having a better battery life
What is OP talking about?
iPad 3 is thicker than iPad 2. iPad 3 is heavier than iPad 2. This is all due to the larger capacity battery. Increasing the battery life is always one of the top design goals for Apple engineers.
I am sure iPhone can be made as thin as iPod touch, and with a lousy battery life. But Apple did not do it. They've made it very heavy and solid.
Why are you complaining?
One of the things I liked about the original 10.1 inch Galaxy Tab was how slim & light it's form factor is. Sleek doesn't mean a device is structurally weak. As better, small batteries are developed we'll see thinner & lighter devices come to market, even with power hungry displays.
