mrsfixit: I don't know if all their stores do this- but my local Best Buy has bins inside the store for customers to drop off batteries for recycling.They take all kinds of batteries too. Since I go to BB often, I have found this to be a really handy way to recycle old batteries. Too bad all stores don't do this.
so, if it is an HTC One battery, you have to dump the whole phone in the bin ;)
backayonder: and the purpose of iFixit is what exactly?
I think their analysis is used by insurers - the more trouble a phone is to fix, the more you will pay to insure it against breakage, other things being equal...
Peiasdf: How is the removable battery a boon to the environment? It promotes copious consumption. People will be multiple back-up battery and never use them. When the phone is outdated all will be throw out. It is not like you can drop in a S3 battery into S4 or S4 into S5.
Integrated battery last longer because it is less affected by the environment and never really discharged. They are also more likely to be recycled with the phone than just sit in a drawer somewhere.
Who buys multiple batteries just to put them into a drawer and forget about them? You seem to trying to describe a downside that does not exist.My phone has a replaceable battery - I certainly have not bought a second battery, but if the original one starts to fade then I will, and so I will put back the day that I have to buy a new phone - big green win. And the old battery can be easily sent to a proper recycling facility.
mrsfixit: I think the removable battery is great.Most people who have cell phones do NOT have multiple batteries for them. You use the battery that's in the phone until it starts to die, then replace it.With devices with integrated batteries- you have to toss out the device.It makes no sense to throw a whole device out- one that may still work perfectly and still suit your needs- just because the battery wore out.
Maybe Samsung ought to talk up the green benefits? It would be a point that many other makes could not compete on.
Laurie Wilson: It's great to hear that the S4 is easy to repair.
Hopefully Samsung will be able to provide a better repair service than they currently offer. My S3 is currently challenging their technicians, although I am starting to suspect they are targeted on turnaround rather than whether it works or not when returned.
Three mobile have become so frustrated with Samsungs repair capabilities that they have taken themselves out of the loop and insist that customers grapple with Samsung themselves. They refuse any loan phone during the painful process no matter how many phones or how good a contract you have with them. Bear this in mind when choosing your supplier.
Interesting observation. If the repair is under warranty (i.e. the phone developed a fault, not that you dropped it), then your claim is against the supplier, it is their porblem, and they can not fob you off with the manufacturer.
gl2k: Interesting test, though pointless. Phone cameras are mainly used by persons not in the least interested in any kind of serious "photography". Any snap will be good enough.I personally know a few guys who even don't bother downloading their images from phone to PC. All they do is watching their photos on the phone screen. They would never ever care about 100% accurate sharpness, grain or whatever.Although I have to admit that it's quite a shame for a company like Sony to incorporate such a mediocre camera. If even Apple can do better, Sony should seriously consider some improvements.
"pointless test, any snap will do" to "Sony should seriously improve":I can't quite reconcile the beginning and the ending of your arguments.
BoFiS: Ugh, STOP IT, basically everything 4.3" and above is too big to hold and use in one hand...our hands have not grown in the last couple of years, why have our phones?! Also all that extra space is silly if you're just going to fill half the home screen with an even-larger clock/weather widget.
most people spend most of their time on a smartphone NOT using it as a telephone. Why sacrifice the 80% utility for the sake of your insecurities over what you think other people might think you look like the other 20% of the time when you are holding it to your face?
cinemascope: The product photos on your previews always feel like they were shot for a military fashion show, or by a german meticulous perfectionist...How about chilling out a bit?Do we really need a 100% precise topview or a close-up glimpse at the USB and HDMI ports?Check out the photos on photography blog... Much more pleasing and easy on the eye...
@alfredo_tomatoOdd - I understand what you are saying, but I see it as the polar opposite. I see the DPR perpendiular images as 'art' - they are a very specific, even iconic, minimalist house style of DPR. But in their very minimalism they give the minimum of visual information, they exclude any sense of solidity, of 3D. You have to mentally stitch together the various views to try to get the full picture of what the camera looks like in the round.Clearly there can be room for both, I would like to see a few more 'off-axis' shots.
"...I find them infinitely more valuable than the loose and badly lit snapshots..."Well, yes, if you put it like that. You can defend anything by comparing it to something even worse.I have no argument with the detail close up shots, and if the perpendicular shots serve a purpose then keep them.
But to illustrate what the device really looks and 'feels' like, I'll agree with you on more 3/4 shots please. After all, that is more how you would look at one in a shop, to continue your story.
I guess it has become an unquestioned house style. I say 'unquestioned' because, I assume, nobody at DPR ever asked themselves 'why?', beyond the circular "this is how we do it here".
For me, the flat-on-face shots seem to be calculated to give the minimum visual information. They are the answer to the question "How can I take a picture of this object that tells the viewer the least about it?" It specifically removes any sense of 3D.
kindofblue7: Reading these comments it seems that I am largely alone in my opinion of this camera; I think it's a great camera and it's a shame it's being discontinued. I too thought that the design was ugly when I first saw the press releases on this site last year, but I still wanted one because it was a cheap way to get into the K-mount and the quality of the sensor was on par with the K-5. After I recieved the camera and held it in my hands I began to appreciate the design and the high quality construction. I liked it so much I bought another one because I new that the camera would soon be discontinued. I bought my K-01's 3 weeks ago, so I was able to take advantage of the low price they sell for now. I hope that Pentax continues with this concept but the next camera in this line should have vast improvements to autofocus, ergonomy, and an EVF should be added.
"....but the next camera in this line should have vast improvements to autofocus, ergonomy, and an EVF should be added."
I have to admire your relentless forgiveness of those sins!
Jimmy jang Boo: I hardly think the K-01 failed because most people care more about how a camera *looks* than the images it produces. People who think that way are more interested in bling than photography. Any self respecting photographer would prefer K-01 IQ to anything m43.
IMO the K-01 didn't succeed because Pentax missed the point of why people want a mirrorless camera--which should be smaller and lighter than a DSLR. Sony succeeded with the NEX because they put a very good sensor in a small light weight body, that retained a VF and included a flip out screen. But that also entailed a whole new line of *lighter* lenses to keep the weight down.
@Andy Croweand the wonder is that nobody at Pentax Towers understood that problem!
GentlemanJim: papillon is being a bit harsh, but he does make valid points on the Pentax mis-cue in the mirrorless market. I don't know if Pentax was trying to re-define the segment with this camera, but it did lack in two key features; focus and EVF.
Looks are subjective and an objective user can look beyond to evaluate an item. The look of the camera is a secondary issue IMHO.
The focus issues have kept me away from this model - and I'm a Pentax user, but at the current price point I'm be willing to suffer through a slow focus.
"Looks are subjective and an objective user can look beyond to evaluate an item. The look of the camera is a secondary issue IMHO."Except that in this case "the look" is the camera. It is defined first and foremost by the self-conscious design statement it makes.
Cy Cheze: So the Q outlasts the Newson K-01. Pentax tried to "think outside the box" in both cases. Trouble is, the risks and costs are high, while the odds of payoff are low, in this post-camera era of smart phones.
The K-01's exterior design was never calculated to appeal to codgers, for whom a "camera" must resemble a warty reptile head.
Liquidated discount, the K-01 will be a good option for bargain hunters, with a fair chance of appreciation as a rare-bird collector's favorite. The "toy" appearance has a certain charm. It has an itervalometer.
How was this original thinking? It is just a pastiche of a traditional SLR design. It's like what a person would draw if they didn't know why an SLR was the shape it was and could not think of anything different, so they just made a bad copy of the original with a nod to all its elements, ignoring why they were there in the first place, whether they were still required.What sums up the error for me is the vestigial pentaprism hump - they took what was a classic of form-follows-function design and trashed it into retro-pastiche bereft of its underlying purpose - form-follows-history.Then they threw out all the good bits of SLR design, like an optical viewfinder, and kept all the downsides, like a bulky mirror box (with no mirror in it....).There is taking creative risks, and then there is sheer idiocy. This falls into the latter category.What a sad waste of a risk opportunity.
Maverick_: my second post on this. Why do we need 1080P on a 4.7" screen? What's the purpose except bragging right. I have a Samsung Galaxy Note II with 5.5" screen in brilliant 720P Superamoled and I wouldn't want my resolution to increase at all. It will only shrink down all content.
Keep 1080 for TVs and 720 for smartphones. Stop this madness!
odd how HTC have called time on the megapixel race for camera sensors, and then gone full throttle down that same megapixel race on the screens.
peevee1: Apple went "glass back", asians copied. Apple went aluminum back, asians copy that too. Pathetic. But at least they move from their usual all-plastic junk.
HTC Legend - aluminium, 2010HTC One S - aluminium, 2012 earlyApple iPhone 5 - aluminium 2012 late
Anyway, who gives a sh!t about NIV (not invented here) attitudes? Apple are quite happy to snap up the best of whatever they see and combine it into their own designs, likewise other manufacturers, and amen to that, else we would all be left to choose between good ideas, each on a different phone.
JJonasL: If the UK high street want to reverse their decline they should reconsider their opening hours. Outside London, shops close at 5pm or 5.30pm. People with a full time job and money to spend who need to buy something during the weekdays can't shop at the high street. If shops stayed open until 6 or 7pm they would be able to attract more retail sales. And why open at 9am? How much sales is generated between 9 and 10am?
Having worked in retail I can sympathise with your comments, but you also have to think of the people who work in the shops. I remember a letter to The Times from a lady railing against Sunday Trading, since she had a family and valued family time at the weekend. Sunday Lunch was sacrsanct, and was tantamount to a human right.
What a breath of fresh air, thought I, toiling away on Sundays, missing my family.
I read on...Her point was, therefore, how ridiculous that shops closed at 4pm on a Sunday, scarcely enough time to digest her lunch, having to leave the third course half eaten before rushing her retail therapy. Outrage!
The thing is, there are only so many people ready to work stupid hours. Mostly young singles with no family commitment. And by their nature the staff turnover is higher, not great for building and retaining the expertise. So you end up with lots of spotty youths who don't know photography and don't know how to deal with people. Remind you of any shops?
plevyadophy: Hmm, my thoughts on all of this:
(1) Jessops were great around the time I got my first digital camera (1999/2000) and up until a few years ago. The flagship store on New Oxford Street, London, was a REAL camera store with downstairs selling medium format cams and other serious items and upstairs having the used cameras and part-exchange section.
Then shareholders got greedy and .....
( 2) they started buying up as many indpedentant high-street cam stores as they could, closed down the used cameras section (that's always a sign to me that a store/company will lose it's real expertise and just become the stack em high sell em cheap LiDL of the camera world), reduced the availability of high-end cams and started to sell the cheap tacky frames and stuff that Boots or Woolworths used to sell. And of course they grew and grew and grew and no doubt kept many a greedy shareholder happy.
(3) Now it seems that they have turnt from predator to prey. Some may say that it's karma/justice.
Wonder why they got rid of second-hand? Franchised car dealers love second-hand - if the customer wants that particular car then they can't buy it anywhere else, whereas all the brand new stuff, test drive locally, buy online. Shortsighted?
How soon before Amazon is forced to open city-centre 'showrooms' where customers can come to touch the goods and get some expert service before placing their order? I guess they will wait until the last firm running the old "try it here, buy it elsewhere" business model finally goes to the wall.
crisotunity: I picked up a small camera at 12:30 today. The manager at the Jessops in central London was as creepy and pushy as they come trying to sell me a 50GBP 3-year insurance. I practically threatened to walk out of the shop without the camera and he still wouldn't stop. This was out and out fraudulent behaviour - the guy basically made sure that there is no coming back for this retailer. He might as well set fire to the store. This is why the high street is on its knees. I'm sorry for the staff who don't deserve this, but the company obviously promoted the bullies. The good retailers (John Lewis, Apple,etc) are still making mad cash and don't blame Amazon for their own idiocy.
Why was it fraudulent behaviour? Pushy, maybe, but clearly Jessops needed to push for every penny it could get. Insurance products are not backed by the retailer, just in case they go bust, so I don't see what was fraudulent about trying to sell it, even if he knew the company was going insolvent (which I doubt he would actually know, whatever he might suspect).