backtop


Print 35 comment(s) - last by MZperX.. on May 13 at 12:23 PM

Plastic-loathers rejoice, your new phone may be night

So far most of the leaks and renders we've seen of LG Electronics Inc.'s (KRX:066570)(KRX:066575) flagship G3 smartphone have shown a plastic-backed device, similar to LG's domestic arch-rival Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd. (KRX:005930) (KRX:005935) Galaxy S5.

But that might have changed, or perhaps there's two variants of the device -- one plastic, one with a brushed-metal back.  Top Twitter leaker @evleaks decloaked the upcoming phone in a post:
LG G3

Brushed metal or matte metal is a look that many people enjoy, both aesthetically and its better resistance to fingerprints than polished metals or glossy plastics.  HTC Corp. (TPE:2498) has earned critical praise for incorporate that design style into its first generation and second generation HTC One smartphones.  Apple, Inc.'s (AAPL) premium iPhone 5S employs a matte finish metal unibody.

Now it appears the LG G3 -- which is also is expected to pack the first quad-HD (2560x1440 pixels) display in a device headed for American shores -- will also pack a metal finish to its chassis.

Source: @evleaks on Twitter



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Drool.
By retrospooty on 5/9/2014 8:12:08 PM , Rating: 1
This G3 is starting to look like the phone of the year by a huge margin. Cant wait.




RE: Drool.
By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/2014 10:16:51 AM , Rating: 1
If people start coming out with more phones like the OnePlus One, flagship specs for ~$300, it's going to be really hard to justify on-contract phones like this.

But I agree, the G3 looks pretty killer.


RE: Drool.
By retrospooty on 5/10/2014 1:20:13 PM , Rating: 1
True... But it's still hard to find those phones and they dont work on CDMA.

Still, if those get big, the end result will be that it drives down prices for the G3's, HTC One's and GS5's and their successors. So... Cool.


RE: Drool.
By Myrandex on 5/11/2014 10:47:35 AM , Rating: 2
That's the problem with CDMA. It is a much more closed standard and usually the only phones you find that work are that carrier's phones. I have refused to support CDMA tech ever and will continue down that path.


RE: Drool.
By retrospooty on 5/11/2014 1:05:53 PM , Rating: 2
Ya, I wouldn't either at this point, I would be on T-Mo but my company pays for mine. So free CDMA beats any other possible offer, LOL. Verizon is a bit locked down on some models and slow to release updates, but I don't really care, I update my own anyhow.


RE: Drool.
By atechfan on 5/10/14, Rating: 0
RE: Drool.
By flyingpants1 on 5/10/14, Rating: 0
RE: Drool.
By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/2014 8:38:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Almost no phone has a removable battery, this argument is pretty much over IMHO.


Uhhh Samsung doesn't just outsell Apple, they outsell the top 4 smartphone sellers COMBINED.

So wrong, the majority of people have a phone with a removable battery in point of fact.


RE: Drool.
By Chaser on 5/11/2014 12:13:56 AM , Rating: 2
How about one battery with longer life? The latest gen Galaxy S5, HTC One and G2/G3 now do so no more having to carry around and swap batteries like a laptop.

Point is the battery life on these phones has improved substantially. On my G2 I can go 18-22 hours with light use, 16-18 medium and at least 14 with very high use.

With these phones the need for a swap-able battery is no longer a crisis level end of the world requirement like all the complainers used to have a **** fit about.


RE: Drool.
By Reclaimer77 on 5/11/14, Rating: 0
RE: Drool.
By karimtemple on 5/11/2014 7:20:29 PM , Rating: 2
But thinner-and-lighter is a value prop as well, so really the argument isn't Added Value vs. Nothing, it's -- all else held equal -- Removable Battery vs. Thin-And-Light. Personally, I prefer the latter.

e.g. Removable battery tablets are generally 1.6 lbs. Samsung Pro/Note 2014 and iPad Air? 1.0 lbs. Even between the usual 1.3 lbs tablet (which doesn't even have a removable battery), the difference from 1.0 lbs in-hand is astounding.

The difference isn't so dramatic on phones, but it's there. Not always, as manufacturers don't necessarily take advantage of what's afforded them by going nonremovable/unibody. But I have a 5.2" 2013 phone that's 8.9mm thick with the smallest bezel to date and a 3000mAh battery. If you think anyone could've done that in 2013 or 2014 with a removable battery, I've got a bridge to sell you.

The problem with the "batteries wear down" argument is that in two years, I will have spent two whole years with a sexier phone that's better in-hand while you waited for a part to fail. Then when our parts fail, yours costs $30 and mine includes labor (let's say I'm not a do-it-yourselfer) so it's $70 instead of $30. Congratulations on your two-year adventure to save $40. You've certainly earned it.


RE: Drool.
By retrospooty on 5/11/2014 11:05:34 PM , Rating: 2
It's really not complicated. There are different phones with different features for different needs. Some people want and or need removable battery. Going on extended business trips flying all over the place from company to company when you're in a particular town not knowing when you'll be able to plug it in, it's great to have a removable battery. Most people don't need it especially if the battery life is decent, some do so good. People can just buy the one that suits their needs and everyone's happy... except why is no one happy? people that don't want a removable battery are pissed at phones that have one. People that want one are pissed at phones that don't have them. Just but the one that suits your needs and let the OEM's keep giving us options.

is it just me or is everybody way over complicating this issue? its like complaining that your car company makes SUVs when you want a compact car. Just buy the compact car since that's what suits your needs. Simple.


RE: Drool.
By Reclaimer77 on 5/12/2014 1:47:32 PM , Rating: 2
Except there's no correlation between thin and light and batteries being replaceable or not.

I don't know who started that talking point, but it's completely invalid. There's no logical reason why a phone would be bulkier or thicker simply by allowing the user to replace his battery.


RE: Drool.
By atechfan on 5/12/2014 12:07:48 PM , Rating: 2
Why are reclaimer and I getting rated down for wanting to be able to replace our battery?


RE: Drool.
By Reclaimer77 on 5/12/2014 1:42:32 PM , Rating: 2
I kinda consider it being a badge of honor here, so don't let it get to you.

The rating system is basically there for people too stupid to debate you intellectually, since you cannot post AND vote on the same subject.

Or those so cowardly they create alternate accounts so they can vote you down after losing an argument straight up.

Either way, I consider it a victory.


RE: Drool.
By atechfan on 5/12/2014 2:00:29 PM , Rating: 2
Well, you've probably guessed by now I'm not too cowardly to argue.

I'm not particularly worried about the downrating, just curious that such a seemingly non-controversial stance was rated down. I fully expect some of the other things I say to get down rated.


RE: Drool.
By retrospooty on 5/12/2014 2:24:03 PM , Rating: 2
"just curious that such a seemingly non-controversial stance was rated down"

I have often wondered that myself. It must be the same type of bottom feeders that think every phone made should be designed for them. If it doesn't have the features I personally want it must be poorly designed. If it has features I personally don't need, its "just a gimmick" and/or "hype".


RE: Drool.
By teldar on 5/11/2014 9:43:02 AM , Rating: 2
Battery life...
Huge battery is great and all until you go hunting and your phone continuously searches for a signal all day. I do like being able to swap out a larger battery and after market back, but I do have to say the 12000mWh external bettery does a nice job as well.

The nicest thing about replaceable battery is that the original battery doesn't last two years. More like 1.25. So it is nice to swap out the old battery after a year or so and make it to the 2 years to upgrade again.


RE: Drool.
By flyingpants1 on 5/11/2014 6:07:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Point is the battery life on these phones has improved substantially. On my G2 I can go 18-22 hours with light use, 16-18 medium and at least 14 with very high use.


You're just making up numbers. This isn't how you test battery life.


RE: Drool.
By retrospooty on 5/11/2014 10:54:46 PM , Rating: 2
dude, look it up. The g2 is the best of the best and battery life for last year's phones. Anandtech got 23.5 hours on a phone call. I saw one review that got actually more than 24. the best web browsing time too. It was at or near the top and every single test, and overall the best by a good margin.


RE: Drool.
By flyingpants1 on 5/10/2014 8:52:36 PM , Rating: 2
Or a plastic M8 with bigger 3200mAh battery.


RE: Drool.
By atechfan on 5/10/2014 9:49:18 PM , Rating: 2
Cost isn't really an object to me if it has what I want. I'm willing to spend a bit extra for the qualities I'm looking for. I'd also be willing to spend extra for a sapphire screen. Much harder ,and more shatter and scratch resistant, than Gorilla Glass. Surely there is a market for a premium phone that is truly premium, rather than the current "luxury phones" that have ancient specs in a gold and diamond-studded shell.

The removable battery isn't just about how long I can use a phone on a charge, but also ease of replacement when the battery no longer holds a charge for long. No matter what people think about Samsung phones from any other point of view, I cannot fault them for being one of the few keeping the replaceable battery alive.


RE: Drool.
By atechfan on 5/10/2014 10:07:35 PM , Rating: 2
Forgot to mention this. Yes, I know there is Vertu. They offer some of what I mentioned, such as the titanium frame and the sapphire screen. I even like the angular design. But Vertu is Android only. Strike one for me. Strike two is the small screen. And strike three, the poor specs and camera.


RE: Drool.
By bug77 on 5/11/2014 5:51:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Almost no phone has a removable battery, this argument is pretty much over IMHO.


SGS5 has a removable battery (and is waterproof on top of that). It alone destroys the myth that phones with non removable batteries have larger batteries or that they are slimmer. They're just meant to stop you from replacing a battery for cheap.


RE: Drool.
By flyingpants1 on 5/11/2014 5:59:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
SGS5 has a removable battery (and is waterproof on top of that).


Yes, they're the one company that does this. Who cares. They also use AMOLED - I'm just not interested anymore.

quote:

It alone destroys the myth that phones with non removable batteries have larger batteries or that they are slimmer. They're just meant to stop you from replacing a battery for cheap.


That's not a myth, it's physics. The S5 is 2800mAh was released like 6 months after the LG G2 (3000mAh). Battery casing and that type of stuff requires extra space. Also look up "step design" 3D batteries.

It's the way things are going. I don't like it either. But at this point, I would be happy with a ~9.5mm 3800mAh phone with 64GB of internal storage.


RE: Drool.
By bug77 on 5/12/2014 4:34:24 AM , Rating: 2
I'll see your physics and raise you a geometry.
The SGS5 is 142x72.5x8.1 mm and the G2 is 138.5x70.9x8.9 mm. That is 83,389.5 cubic mm vs 87,394.9 cubic mm, respectively (please note the SGS5 is the slimmer phone). The G2 has 7% more battery capacity for 5% more bulk. I just don't see where making the battery non-removable has any advantages.
Moreover, the SGS5 packs a microSD slot, a barometer, a heart rate monitor and waterproofing; the G2 packs a radio.


RE: Drool.
By Myrandex on 5/11/2014 10:48:12 AM , Rating: 2
The LG Quantum had a metal back plate that was removable.


"Google fired a shot heard 'round the world, and now a second American company has answered the call to defend the rights of the Chinese people." -- Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.)














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki