Originally Posted by Zero4549
I can't speak for others, but I personally am not trying to make the point that durability is not valued. What I am
saying is that said durability comes at a cost, and in this case, the benefits do not justify those costs.
This seems as good a starting point as any.
Do you know what the material costs are for producing the most popular smartphones? Do you know how they are priced and purchased? Do you know how dramatically different the end product is / can be when something like plastic is produced in-house or with an in-house recipe instead of accepting what is offered on the market at that moment? I'm going to go out on a limb and say you don't know the answer to any of these. Stating that the benefits of longer phone service life do not justify the "costs" of making the phone more durable is both wrong and arguably laughable: longer-lived phones mean less maintenance/replacement costs for the manufacturer (good for OEM) and more time on a contract (good for carrier/provider).
The military doesn't issue weapons that have 5 inches of dense foam covering them. Certainly it would be more durable. It would make the impact from recoil more comfortable, it would act as a flotation device, could double as a pillow so your gun is just that much closer to you at all times, and it would more reliably survive a vehicle crash/explosion.
No. The military instead issues a set of requirements (criteria) that a weapon must meet. Once it has a pool of competitors who all meet that criteria, they are tested to validate that they do in fact meet said criteria. Then they are tested against one another. At no point does .mil think "You know, we could add foam to these weapons and make them even better," because the criteria has already been set from the start.
In any case, this is is completely irrelevant toward a discussion of smartphones; We the Consumer are not a government entity issuing requests that vendors have a financial interest in competing for. We are a large population of individuals with apparently too little patience to pressure manufacturers into giving in to our wants rather than take what they give and lament when they don't.
Your example is silly for a number of reasons, not the least of which being it's anecdotal: I can use my own ex as a counterexample of a single, relatively benign (< 1m) drop that shattered the screen while in a case
. The fact that this subject is being brought up Samsung, and that it's spoken of so frequently among consumers, and that there's such a business boom in phone protection methods is more than ample 'anecdotal' evidence that phone durability is a concern for people. Any guess what the most common answer would be to the question of "Are you confident in your phone's durability?"
The answer, quite frankly, is no.
We can do better. Manufacturers like Oppo, Fujitsu, and Panasonic have already proven it. It's in the consumer's best interest to add Samsung, Motorola, and others to that list so that smartphone durability becomes the norm rather than a rare and exclusive feature.