Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Lee
To me it is definitely a step back. New technology shouldn't lose features...
|
I agree. They talk about trends, and yes, thinner is nice, but who honestly cares if a phone is shaved of one or two measly mm of thickness? (According to HTC's website, the Diamond Pro is only 1mm thinner than the Tytn II). The idea behind
these types of phones is to have them as feature-rich and functionally flexible as possible.
I mean, you can't simply look at trends that cover an entire industry; you have to take a close look at the people who buy these specific types of phones. They're not the RAZR crowd. They're the "I-want-it-all" crowd, otherwise, they'd buy something else.
And if battery life is a concern - and I know there's a balance - well, you could achieve better results with a phone that's a bit thicker, because slightly more room could possibly allow for a larger, higher capacity battery. But since the battery capacity is the same in both the D-Pro and the Tytn II, then I wonder if both batteries are exactly the same size? If so, then they didn't apply the "thinner trend" to the battery. Instead, they sacrificed bands to shave off barely 1mm. But because the battery capacities are the same, battery life couldn't have been too much of an issue in the D-Pro when considering the Tytn II with its seven bands and other features along with its battery life. And if that's not good enough, someone can always utilize a car charger and/or slap in another battery (they're thin and small) which is easy enough to do; but a user can't slap in more bands.
With all that in mind, if you MUST choose between features/capability vs. 1mm less of plastic, what would you, as the buyer of this type of device, really choose? Naturally, you're going to choose the features. That's what we spend $700-$1000 for, plus whatever else on top of that to customize it with software and accessories.
Perhaps a good portion of people won't travel overseas, but for those who do, as nice as the Diamonds may be in other ways, they won't be an option. That will equate to lost sales for HTC.
So let's simplify this even more. This is not just a do-it-all-device. This is a phone, first and foremost. That's what we buy these things for, to begin with. We need to communicate, and the cellular spectrum is growing. So that part of the phone is where manufacturer's need to focus, primarily. More bands, please. You don't know where I'll be even a day from now, and I need to keep in touch with people. If I take my phone somewhere and it doesn't work, then what good is everything else it offers?
And the following is fascinating to me:
Quote:
Originally Posted by efjay
As posted on another forum, the SE Xperia has quad-band GSM and tri-band 3G and is slimmer than the touch pro. And its made by HTC with the same Qualcomm chipset. So how did they manage to do it on the X1 but not on their own flagship phone?
|
On the Sony Ericsson website, the X1 is 1mm thinner than HTC's D-Pro, and they indeed show it to have quad-GSM. But according to the specs, the X1 doesn't just have three bands of 3.5G, but
four bands. That's eight bands total. Along with WiFi, BT, GPS, and everything else.
Hmmm... So is HTC being entirely forthright, or just making some excuses for something? All things considered above, one has to wonder a little.
So as it stands, I suppose I'll either stick with my 7-band Tytn II or go buy a Sony X1. At least I know those have-it-all-phones will work no matter where I go.