| Author |
SONY XPERIA Rumors 2014 |
drsoran2
Joined: Oct 15, 2007
Posts: 66
From: Kassel, Germany
PM |
So basically you are saying that when Sony had waterproof phones with a removable battery they had them because it was useful for them and helped them to differentiate from others. Now they aren't doing it anymore because they don't need it and became greedier and people will buy their phones anyway and don't care?
But why is Samsung doing it? Because they are nicer?! Or did they realize that this could be a deciding factor in terms of longevity and increase their sales?
If this would be the case, wouldn't it make sense for Sony to reintroduce the removable battery and thus also strengthen their sales and be on par with Samsung?
I tend to use my phones for quite a while, longer than two years and I'm already worried about the battery life in 1-2 years. I won't change the battery myself because of the waterproofing, I'll need an expert for this.
If Samsung wouldn't be Samsung and I wouldn't hate their "design", the low RAM on the S5, the missing wireless charging and thus wear and tear and shortened phone life because of the USB cover and everything else they stand for, I would consider the phone just because it has a removable battery and Sony doesn't!
I'm happy with the Z1, especially since the 120fps and 4k mod. I don't wanna and I don't see the point of upgrading, if not for the battery life in the future... See, that's were they might catch me and that's why they are doing it and I hate that!
When my warranty draws to its close and my battery is weak, I may have to use it to get a new battery replaced for free and get at least another two years out of the phone.
|
|
|
ZappyDen
Joined: Sep 05, 2013
Posts: 89
PM |
On 2014-06-19 12:41:03, Tsepz_GP wrote:
On 2014-06-19 11:59:22, Velexas wrote:
Amazon is marketing their Fire Phone's display as the "brightest ever". This is false, the brightest smartphone "ever" is the Xperia P. 590 nits vs 935 nits on the Xperia P.
A curious fact: the Xperia P was released in 2012.
False.
The brightest smartphone display is the Nokia 701, at 1000 nits, released in 2011:
http://www.phonearena.com/new[....]of-sunlight-visibility_id21660
[ This Message was edited by: Tsepz_GP on 2014-06-19 11:43 ]
False False and yeah False
Xperia P is the brightest and Beats 701
Source-Test Factory
http://www-static.se-mc.com/b[....]ghtest-screen-Xperia-p-eng.pdf
[ This Message was edited by: ZappyDen on 2014-06-19 20:56 ] |
Velexas
Joined: Dec 01, 2012
Posts: 29
From: Portugal
PM |
On 2014-06-19 21:55:24, ZappyDen wrote:
On 2014-06-19 12:41:03, Tsepz_GP wrote:
On 2014-06-19 11:59:22, Velexas wrote:
Amazon is marketing their Fire Phone's display as the "brightest ever". This is false, the brightest smartphone "ever" is the Xperia P. 590 nits vs 935 nits on the Xperia P.
A curious fact: the Xperia P was released in 2012.
False.
The brightest smartphone display is the Nokia 701, at 1000 nits, released in 2011:
http://www.phonearena.com/new[....]of-sunlight-visibility_id21660
[ This Message was edited by: Tsepz_GP on 2014-06-19 11:43 ]
False False and yeah False
Xperia P is the brightest and Beats 701
Source-Test Factory
http://www-static.se-mc.com/b[....]ghtest-screen-Xperia-p-eng.pdf
[ This Message was edited by: ZappyDen on 2014-06-19 20:56 ]
Thank you 
All this makes me wonder: when is that reported 5" full HD JDI WRGB screen launched on a Xperia? The Xperia P deserves a worthy successor! |
miromiromi
Joined: Jul 25, 2013
Posts: 481
PM |
more proof:
http://www.gsmarena.com/sony_xperia_p-review-767p2.php
Display test 50% brightness 100% brightness
Black, cd/m2 White, cd/m2 Contrast ratio Black, cd/m2 White, cd/m2 Contrast ratio
HTC Sensation XE 0.23 172 761 0.64 484 752
Nokia 701 0.64 619 964 1.12 1022 905
LG Prada 3.0 0.19 184 993 0.81 835 1031
Sony Xperia P 0.37 340 919 1.36 1050 775 |
Ricky D
Joined: Feb 05, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: UK (living in Beijing)
PM, WWW
|
@drsoran2
I was half joking. It is useful to them for a number of reasons, the forced expiry of a device's usefulness is a small part of it.
The rest is design reasons. To have a removable cover takes more space for clips, rubber sealing, somewhere that the user can get a fingernail under it etc. This doesn't fit the current design philosophies which only need a 0.2mm thick double sided sticky piece to seal the handset and the rest of the space can be for things like a bigger battery or a slimmer profile.
Another design reason is that batteries that are removable require more internal hardware in the way of sprung contacts, battery housing and something to separate it from the rest of the electronics so they aren't all exposed. A fixed battery and sealed case needs none of this and so can be thinner or have extra space for say a dedicated DSP chip or image processing chip.
It's not ALL about greed, that's just a happy side effect.
[ This Message was edited by: Ricky D on 2014-06-20 13:54 ] I have a dig bick
You read that wrong |
nodarsixar
Joined: May 22, 2013
Posts: > 500
From: AD
PM, WWW
|
z3? .................
NO |
Tizzo
Joined: Oct 16, 2012
Posts: 240
PM |
^no that's just a concept! http://www.androidjs.org/sony-xperia-z3-concept-teaser/ |
itsjustJOH
Joined: Jul 23, 2012
Posts: > 500
PM |
|
RandomCarpet
Joined: Sep 08, 2003
Posts: 202
From: Bulgaria
PM |
On 2014-06-19 21:29:35, drsoran2 wrote:
So basically you are saying that when Sony had waterproof phones with a removable battery they had them because it was useful for them and helped them to differentiate from others. Now they aren't doing it anymore because they don't need it and became greedier and people will buy their phones anyway and don't care?
But why is Samsung doing it? Because they are nicer?! Or did they realize that this could be a deciding factor in terms of longevity and increase their sales?
If this would be the case, wouldn't it make sense for Sony to reintroduce the removable battery and thus also strengthen their sales and be on par with Samsung?
I tend to use my phones for quite a while, longer than two years and I'm already worried about the battery life in 1-2 years. I won't change the battery myself because of the waterproofing, I'll need an expert for this.
If Samsung wouldn't be Samsung and I wouldn't hate their "design", the low RAM on the S5, the missing wireless charging and thus wear and tear and shortened phone life because of the USB cover and everything else they stand for, I would consider the phone just because it has a removable battery and Sony doesn't!
I'm happy with the Z1, especially since the 120fps and 4k mod. I don't wanna and I don't see the point of upgrading, if not for the battery life in the future... See, that's were they might catch me and that's why they are doing it and I hate that!
When my warranty draws to its close and my battery is weak, I may have to use it to get a new battery replaced for free and get at least another two years out of the phone.
I still have my Xperia X10 mini (with built-in battery), which I bought in July 2010. I have been using it with my secondary SIM card (as a second phone) for some time now and its battery is still going strong. It's hard to tell what percentage of the original capacity is still available, but the phone needs recharging once each 4-5 days - I use it only for some calls and very few text messages.
Samsung does not make phones with built-in batteries for two reasons:
1. Replaceable batteries and the devices using them are a tiny bit cheaper to produce.
2. When a built-in battery catches fire, the probability for damage to other components of the device is statistically a bit higher than when a replaceable battery catches fire. As you might have heard there were (isolated) reports of Galaxy S, S2 and S3 devices catching fire and even exploding, due to problems with their batteries. |
drsoran2
Joined: Oct 15, 2007
Posts: 66
From: Kassel, Germany
PM |
The story of your x10 mini battery is actually quite encouraging for me. But I think it also depends on how you use your phone. If you use it often, you need to charge it more often too and thus the wear is higher.
I'm just not used to built in batteries, starting with my first cell phone in 2001 (Ericsson T65) up to the Galaxy S2 which I had before the XZ (was exchanged for Z1 because of lifting back cover), all of them had removable batteries. |
XperiaJunkie
Joined: Dec 13, 2012
Posts: > 500
From: Parts Unknown
PM, WWW
|
I know this isn't a rumour but it would be interesting to know how Sony, being a major partner are being advertised around the world during this year's FIFA World Cup. For example here in England they are advertising different Xperia Smartphone models (Mainly Z2 and Z1 Compact with a Smartband) during every advertising brake plus back in the TV studios there are two Xperia Z2 tablets (one black one white) blatantly on show. Are any other countries see the same level of advertising?
[ This Message was edited by: XperiaJunkie on 2014-06-23 18:26 ] I'm so happy 'cause today
I've found my friends ...
They're in my head
|
Tsepz_GP
Joined: Dec 27, 2006
Posts: > 500
From: Johannesburg, South Africa
PM |
They've been advertising the Z2 with Smartband mainly, now and then Z1 Compact, no other Sony phone, I've still seen more Galaxy S5 ads, it's like Nike vs Adidas, Adidas is the official sponsor, but Nike cash in quite a lot to by finding loopholes e.g. Not mentioning the WC. They also advertise some Sony 4K TV, but Samsung are pushing the Curved 4K TV and LG have some other 4K TV and both advertise during the ads in half time.
Phone: iPhone 15 Pro Max Black Ti 512GB
Tablet: iPad Pro 11” 2020 Space Gray 256GB
Watch: Series 3 Nike Edition Space Gray
Droid: Huawei Mate 40 Pro 256GB |
-XYZ
Joined: Jul 26, 2012
Posts: > 500
PM |
Fairly standard procedure when it comes to Advertising.
LG and Samsung just have more money, and as such they can dump more money into promoting hardware.
Lower margins on their TV's are covered up by smartphone sales, and they can effectively price Sony out of the market, even if objective quality isn't up to scratch.
This has been going on for ages, and is why the Bravia division are going to be/have been/should be spun off, as a subsidiary. |
nodarsixar
Joined: May 22, 2013
Posts: > 500
From: AD
PM, WWW
|
Xperia Z2 Ultra?
http://www.digi-wo.com/thread-18862-1-1.html
NO |
-XYZ
Joined: Jul 26, 2012
Posts: > 500
PM |
Bro.....do you even try?
That looks like a bog standard Z-ultra to me. I mean its running the Xperia Jelly Bean Launcher for goodness' sake. |
|
|
Posted: 2014-06-19 21:29
