I’m someone with relatively small hands, plus I want my phone to be on the smaller side since I prefer to use my tablet/computer/tv to watch content. But this trend where many manufacturers tend to keep futures away from smaller phones to drive people to bigger phones is driving me crazy and really makes it hard for me to buy a new phone. I can understand not having everything like maybe a periscope lens or something else that is cost etc. but not to this level. Like take Samsung for example: S24 lacks uwb, 45w, a 1440p display, has a lower amount of ram and storage. Why? Why can’t the s24 have faster charging or uwb? Why is there no 512 version and why does it have to start with 128gb storage? Is it not a flagship? It costs 949€ in my place! Why do I have to give 200€ more to get the s24+ just to get these simple features? I don’t want a bigger phone! Google does the same! No uwb, no thermometer sensor, no telephoto lens. And don’t get me started with all the software features google is keeping for the 8 pro like they don’t have the same processor. Why? Are they cheap? No they are not. I’m just really annoyed by this cause I really don’t want such a big phone.
It can’t have faster charging because it lacks the space to dissipate the thermal energy to stop it from catching on fire. If it did support 45W on paper, it would still charge slower to prevent thermal runaway. The “Ultra” models have thermal cooling systems that rival laptop computers just short of active cooling fans.
It can’t have UWB because it’s too small for the 30,000 antennae they have to jam in the phone. 4x+ for cellular, then GPS, WiFi, Bluetooth, Wireless charging, NFC, and on and on.
These phones, especially Samsung, jam so much technology in such a small package. We’re brushing up against the laws of physics.
And lets not even talk about then also expecting good cellular reception when on your lower cellular bands. Take 700MHz for example, an ideal 1/2 wavelength antenna would have to be 21cm/8.2in tall, so they have to use fractional wavelengths that further degrade performance potential, again, due to physics. (While still also supporting the fractional wavelengths of 30 other bands.) The plus and ultra models at least have space to approach more usable antennae for better reception. The tiny phones (and watches) don’t really have a chance.
Now, Google’s software feature nonsense, and the way handset manufacturers manipulate price for a few cents worth of storage increase are both downright criminal. However, the telephoto lens thing again goes back to space and reality. Telephoto cameras take up a ton of space. Look at a teardown of the S22 Ultra to see how big the camera modules are.
That’s actually an annoying point I recently observed though. The S24 ultra has a lower zoom telephoto camera than either the S22 Ultra or S23 Ultra. I think they’re trying to make up the difference with “AI” instead of real sensor/glass. Maybe it’ll get rid of the camera rattle though.
Firstly, iphone 15 has uwb. I think even the iphone 13 mini had. Secondly I think what Samsung did with the telephoto lens is that it went from a 10Mp 10x to a 50mp 5x. It wasn’t about ai, it was about megapixels. The end result I think is the same
Apple has different design tradeoffs, they use smaller camera modules than Samsung, at least compared to the last few Samsung models, for example. They also tend to use smaller batteries, and charge them slower, requiring less cooling components. They also design more of their components in-house than other manufacturers, allowing them more efficient use of space. Their RF also tends to be inferior to Samsung, trading antenna design for space. Apple also uses inferior cooling solutions, relying on software thermal throttling to cut down on the physical size of the device. The whole trade-off of what can be fit in that smaller space is something each manufacturer has to make per model.
Optical zoom will always be superior to digital from the perspective of getting focused light onto a sensor, it’s just science. Digital methods will indeed continue to improve, I’ll leave most of that philosophical debate to those more passionate about camera tech, however. They’re definitely leveraging the new coprocessor to enable better image processing, in the same way Google leveraged their ML coprocessor to improve pictures out of Pixels a few generations back. Companies think software processing of images can “work around” image quality that requires physical hardware. (Look at Samsung Moongate.) It results in images that may end up being visually pleasing, but as for image quality, that’s debatable. (Zoom in on a Samsung zoomed picture of a pine tree for example, the way it tries to contrast/filter/process the branches makes them look like some 1990s Photoshop unsharp mask filter job meant for newsprint.)
Good conversation.