Skip to main content

Metal Is A Dumb Choice For Making A Smartphone

Building a smartphone out of metal introduces all sorts of compromises - not least the way that metals block the very wireless signals that are the lifeblood of a smartphone. People will tell you that the metal feels premium in the hand and that's worth the compromise.

The Verge has an article today on an NPD report that says that 75% of smartphone users and 87% of iPhone users have their phone wrapped up in a case. Personally Id say those figures are on the low side. Other than my own, I can't remember seeing an iPhone that isn't wrapped up in one sort of case or another.

HTC's Dot Case is plastic, but at least it adds some
functionality. Apple's silicon case is just awful.
So most of those users who bang on about the premium materials in their Apple and HTC smartphones never see or feel them from the moment of unboxing and installation into a case until the day they sell them to the next user, who presumably does exactly the same thing. All that effort in creating a metal design, ensuring a perfect finish, making the aerial lines look anything but ridiculous (okay, maybe no-one has managed that last one) goes out of the window the second you stick that case on it.

HTC's best phone (as far as materials and design is concerned) is the HTC One X. Nokia's all polycarbonate bodies have been superior to iPhones since the N9 arrived, and the iPhone 5C is probably the nicest iPhone in the hand ever. Samsung's thin plastic backs offer a degree of flexibility that you just don't get in most other premium smartphones, they can be removed, replaced, swapped out for ones with more features (e.g. wireless charging) or ones designed to accomodate even larger batteries.

So, enough with the 'premium build' nonsense. That metal case gives you much, much less, and chances are you'll never know it's there apart from the two minutes it takes you to unbox it.


Popular posts from this blog

F1: Robert Kubica Impresses In Renault Test Run

The car may be old but its the performance of the driver that's the story here. Robert Kubica returned to F1, after a fashion, earlier this week with an extensive test run in a 2012 Lotus Renault F1 car at Valencia.
The age of the car and the circuit were likely determined by F1's current rules which ban testing, but the reason for Kubica being in the car is far more interesting. Considered by many to be a potential World Champion and certainly one of the fastest drivers of his generation, Kubica's F1 career seemed to be over after a 2011 crash whilst driving in the Rally of Andora. His Skoda Fabia was penetrated by a guardrail in the high speed accident partially severing his right arm.
Up until last year Kubica has been competing in rallying, with the expectation that the limited movement in his repaired arm would prohibit a return to single seater racing.
So this week's test is both interesting and confusing. Interesting because Kubica completed 115 laps of the ret…

F1: Robert Kubica's Williams Test Asks More Questions Than It Answers

Comparing driver's times at a tyre evaluation test like last week's Abu Dhabi event is difficult at the best of times, but when trying to assess the performance of a driver who has been out of the sport for six years, that difficulty level is raised even higher.
On the face of it Robert Kubica's test for Williams was a success. Fastest of the three Williams drivers present the headlines look promising. However, taking into consideration the different tyres used to set those times muddies the water considerably.
Kubica ran a three lap qualifying simulation on the new 'hyper-soft' tyre - which should have given him a two-second advantage. Correcting for tyres it would appear that Kubica was significantly slower than Sergei Sorotkin - who was on the harder 'soft' tyre - and marginally quicker than Lance Stroll, the team's only contracted driver.

Stroll's family fortune currently funds Williams, so there' no chance that he will be anywhere but in a…

Panos Panay's Defence Of Microsoft Surface Hardware Sounds Eerily Familiar

This weekend I went out with my ten year old daughter to select a laptop for her school year beginning in January. The schools requirements are quite specific, requiring a Windows 10 device, with a preference for a touchscreen and a stylus. She chose a Surface Pro, after trying a large number of different options. Having seen the way I use my own Surface Pro - and tried it herself there was only ever going to be two options - and the other was a Surface Laptop.
I tell you this so that you understand I am a buyer of Microsoft's products through choice, not compulsion. I'm on my third Surface device now. 
So when Panos Panay dismissed reports of the death of the Surface hardware line, I was very interested to see exactly how strong these denials were. Especially how they reflect what has gone before. To whit: Windows 10 Mobile.
Panay claimed that Microsoft is in hardware for the long haul. Almost exactly mirroring the words of Terry Myerson, when he claimed Windows Mobile was g…