"Definitely impressive for a user-replaceable battery." Odd comment. Seems like the writers have gotten so used to non replaceable batteries that they nearly prefer them.
Sad that a shortcoming is becoming the norm. Perhaps they should use phones with replaceable batteries and then change the comment to "Definitely impressive battery life".
@Ryan Robinson: It's not a shortcoming, it's a trade-off between getting longer battery life on a single charge or being able to swap in a second battery. The comment isn't really odd because user-replaceable batteries almost always have a shorter life than non replaceable ones #droid
@matt_mcmhn: I am not saying you are wrong (what do I know?), but Apple, the queen of non-replaceable batteries, does this to make their devices smaller - not to make them last longer. Also, if we use the iPhone 3GS as a point of comparison, the battery life on that device has not impressed anyone.
Now, on the laptop devices, maybe Apple does use larger batteries to get a better life-cycle. However, I understood they were able to accomplish this by focusing on the same combination of hardware and optimizing their system to take advantage of it. But, maybe using more space for a larger battery is part of it, too -- who knows. I am just not certain I believe that is true in the mobile phone market. #droid
@Monty: Your arguments are sort of one and the same. Making a battery smaller if it's non-replaceable is the same as saying it's more efficient per space usage.
So, if Apple chooses to use that to make it's devices smaller, and other manufacturers keep the same amount of space to increase battery life, then a replaceable battery of small stature is actually impressive.
On the iPhone 3GS topic, it might not have impressive battery life in comparison to other phones, but noone else is really doing as much web surfing/high level display work on their phone as the typical iPhone user. #droid
@Monty: I'm confused, you admit that Apple has used non-replaceable batteries to make the devices smaller... yet then confuse.
The trade-off is bigger battery = longer life smaller battery = less life.
Not replaceable = more battery in comparatively smaller enclosure
Replaceable = enclosure built to be pulled out, all the plastic = less space for battery = less life in bulkier container.
Apple used non-replaceable batteries to make the entire package smaller, with comparatively less impact on battery life, if they chose to make it user replaceable the battery life would be worse. #droid
@djdare: I admit I may be confusing even myself, so I will try to confuse myself further.
The original comment by Sean made it sound like he could not understand why it would have such great battery life with a replaceable battery. My point is that, most of what I have seen in non-replaceable batteries is not to make battery life better but making smaller product. Most of this is done by Apple who wants the sleekest products possible. I do not believe that Apple does this to increase battery size - they do it to make their devices smaller. So, Sean's comment does not make sense to at least two of us.
If someone has evidence of a phone with a non-replaceable battery that has a larger battery in it, then I would love to eat my words with some chocolate sauce. But, I have not seen it. #droid
@BaconForTheSoul: I apologize, I should have shortened my point. I am not certain I have seen a phone with a non-replaceable battery that has a larger than normal battery in it. Maybe they are out there, but I have missed it. I believe, generally, that non-replaceable batteries are to make a more attractive product, not to get better battery life. #droid
@Monty: Simple Explanation: User replaceable battery creates less space for a battery, because of the moving parts. So you have to use a smaller battery. That is why apple does it. #droid
@Eulatos: Is Apple using a larger battery in the iPhone? Do you have a link to someone who says they are? As far as I know, it is a standard cell phone size.
I also somewhat question how much larger a battery could be when it is replaceable and how much extra life that would translate to. That said, I cannot point to any example of non-replaceable batteries that are larger as a result. #droid
I don't know what it is about that shot in particular, but it looks loads better than it does in any of the other shots I've seen. Guys? Keep using this photo. #droid
@Gordonium: No, they shouldn't have. And furthermore, I move that this joke be banned henceforth on the grounds that it's appeared in every article mentioning the Droid for weeks. It's nearly as tired as "I'mma let you finish" jokes.
10/23/09
10/23/09
[xspblog.com] #droid
10/23/09
No, really, bring it, or I CUT you! #droid
10/23/09
10/23/09
Sad that a shortcoming is becoming the norm. Perhaps they should use phones with replaceable batteries and then change the comment to "Definitely impressive battery life".
10/23/09
10/23/09
Now, on the laptop devices, maybe Apple does use larger batteries to get a better life-cycle. However, I understood they were able to accomplish this by focusing on the same combination of hardware and optimizing their system to take advantage of it. But, maybe using more space for a larger battery is part of it, too -- who knows. I am just not certain I believe that is true in the mobile phone market. #droid
10/23/09
So, if Apple chooses to use that to make it's devices smaller, and other manufacturers keep the same amount of space to increase battery life, then a replaceable battery of small stature is actually impressive.
On the iPhone 3GS topic, it might not have impressive battery life in comparison to other phones, but noone else is really doing as much web surfing/high level display work on their phone as the typical iPhone user. #droid
10/23/09
The trade-off is bigger battery = longer life smaller battery = less life.
Not replaceable = more battery in comparatively smaller enclosure
Replaceable = enclosure built to be pulled out, all the plastic = less space for battery = less life in bulkier container.
Apple used non-replaceable batteries to make the entire package smaller, with comparatively less impact on battery life, if they chose to make it user replaceable the battery life would be worse. #droid
10/23/09
The original comment by Sean made it sound like he could not understand why it would have such great battery life with a replaceable battery. My point is that, most of what I have seen in non-replaceable batteries is not to make battery life better but making smaller product. Most of this is done by Apple who wants the sleekest products possible. I do not believe that Apple does this to increase battery size - they do it to make their devices smaller. So, Sean's comment does not make sense to at least two of us.
If someone has evidence of a phone with a non-replaceable battery that has a larger battery in it, then I would love to eat my words with some chocolate sauce. But, I have not seen it. #droid
10/23/09
10/23/09
10/23/09
10/23/09
I also somewhat question how much larger a battery could be when it is replaceable and how much extra life that would translate to. That said, I cannot point to any example of non-replaceable batteries that are larger as a result. #droid
10/23/09
10/23/09
10/23/09
10/23/09
All in favor?
10/23/09
10/23/09
10/23/09
10/23/09
10/24/09