Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Well, I understand why Apple goes for thinner and thinner from a Designers point of view: It just looks super futuristic and nice and even more important: It makes thicker competitors look like ugly stone phones from the last decade. And I have to admit: When I had an iPod touch of the current generation and an iPhone 5(S) next to it in my hands, I really wanted the iPhone to be more like the iPod.

I don't think Apple would design a Phone that doesn't even last a day, but I think they are taking a wrong usage for reference: An iPhone easily lasts a whole day, maybe even 2, but on moderate usage. But on heavy usage it dies faster than a polar bear in the desert... So I really would like Apple to push the battery to a point, where it lasts all day even if I'm in an low coverage area and watching movies or so. :cool:

tl:dr : yes

Agreed. I can handle my battery lasting 6 hours whilst WiFi web browsing at home, but when it dies in less than three hours of intensive 3G use whilst out and about, that isn't acceptable.
 
I would for sure. I usually have a case on my phone anyway so I've grown used to being a little thicker anyway, and the extra battery life would be fantastic
 
A swappable battery would eliminate day to day battery life issues and battery longevity. Everyone says that with a Unibody design the batteries have to be built-in, but surely there could be a slide-in battery? The SIM can be inserted, as can MicroSD cards on certain Android phones and tablets. There is no excuse.
 
It's not in Apples best financial interest to improve the battery life beyond what it already is.

After 2 years and 700 charge cycles later an iPhone will have roughly 65-70% of it's original battery capacity left.

This further drop in already piss-poor battery life will cause customers to either pay the $80 premium to Apple for a battery replacement, or give them that much more motivation to buy the latest iPhone model.

Either way lines Apples pocket.
 
It's not in Apples best financial interest to improve the battery life beyond what it already is.

After 2 years and 700 charge cycles later an iPhone will have roughly 65-70% of it's original battery capacity left.

This further drop in already piss-poor battery life will cause customers to either pay the $80 premium to Apple for a battery replacement, or give them that much more motivation to buy the latest iPhone model.

Either way lines Apples pocket.

I've done 518 cycles in 12 months :-/
 
It's not in Apples best financial interest to improve the battery life beyond what it already is.

After 2 years and 700 charge cycles later an iPhone will have roughly 65-70% of it's original battery capacity left.

This further drop in already piss-poor battery life will cause customers to either pay the $80 premium to Apple for a battery replacement, or give them that much more motivation to buy the latest iPhone model.

Either way lines Apples pocket.

Sure it is. Quality products are what sell. Not one with a handicap vs the competition. Especially when it comes to battery life, that is one of the biggest things I see people say on this forum when coming from a competing phone manufacture, "blah blah blah I liked the phone ok but the battery life was horrendous blah blah"...

Its much more profitable to sell a device that beats the competition to begin with. Apple doesn't want to repair there products either, they aren't set up well for it and its one of the least profitable areas of Apple, if its even profitable at all. Generally when you have a problem you get a warranty replacement or pay for an at cost replacement.
 
It's not in Apples best financial interest to improve the battery life beyond what it already is.

After 2 years and 700 charge cycles later an iPhone will have roughly 65-70% of it's original battery capacity left.

This further drop in already piss-poor battery life will cause customers to either pay the $80 premium to Apple for a battery replacement, or give them that much more motivation to buy the latest iPhone model.

Either way lines Apples pocket.

It's not a game. Many developers are putting their applications on Android, where you know you'll have enough battery life to use them.

To add salt in the wound, these are the same apps which are available on the iPhone, being used with a bigger screen, with a better battery, and at a higher resolution?

So who's going to bother with a dinky iPhone battery? Not me. I'm to go to the phone with the best technology.

It concerns me that you would say something like that. But what concerns me even more is that I don't have faith that Apple will be improving the battery.
 
100%. I actually don't like razer thin devices as you can't grip them.

If making it several mm wider means another however many hours I would be definitely okay with it.

Unfortunately stats are bragging rights so they need to be able to say how thin their device is this time.
 
100%. I actually don't like razer thin devices as you can't grip them.

If making it several mm wider means another however many hours I would be definitely okay with it.

Unfortunately stats are bragging rights so they need to be able to say how thin their device is this time.

If the competitors' handsets have a smaller footprint, but the iPhone 6 is thinner, then it's a meaningless stat. The smaller footprint wins every time, even if the battery life is identical. If the battery is better in the thicker yet smaller footprint device, then it wins twice.
 
I know that many people are all about stats when it comes to their devices; that's fine, and there is no problem with that.

But for me, I don't care so much about how small, thin, wide, my phone is. All I care about is that I like it, it performs well and meets or exceeds my needs and wants. So far, the iPhone has met my needs/wants.
 
For you battery lovers:

iphoneac1.jpg
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.