- Oct 2, 2006
- 2,195
- 1,296
personally i think if a phone can't get you through a solid day of casual use ( occasional web browsing, email check, typical texting, occasional phone call) while leaving you with 20% towards the night, the phone hasn't been designed well at all.
companies try to use speed to market these phones, but moto has been the only one to market a phone strictly off battery life. quad core processors x LTE? cmon son that battery life reads terrible on paper what makes you think itll be difference in real life? who the hell needs a quad core processor? 3 yrs ago we got along fine with single core 1ghz processors, and that hasn't changed honestly.
these phones nowadays come with 1.5ghz dual core with super duper HD LED better than blu ray quad color 4D screens, with LTE and a measly little battery.
...and they try to give u a free battery with these phones? that admitting to selling a phone with a bad battery lol. this is the one thing i've always given credit to apple for, their PCB design is MUCH more space efficient than other manufacturers so they can maximize battery capacity. iphones consist mostly of battery and the actual logic board uses very little real estate. more companies need to follow. if moto can make a 20hr high end LTE phone why can't everyone else?
I pretty much agree with a lot of your points. It's certainly frustrating that batteries lag behind new cell phone tech. And all phones should be striving to put out razr maxx type battery life.
Regardless, I prefer the convenience of a removable battery. S3 can get decent battery life. I'd just rather pop in a new battery in case of emergency, and I wanna be able to conveniently change my battery once it inevitably starts to lose its charge after a while. I also find that my batteries get a fuller charge on an external battery charger. Its these factors that make me prefer a removable battery. I just don't see the convenience in non-removable.