Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Why I am happy downgrading from a $500 to a $75 smartphone (medium.com/n00b)
82 points by thepoet on May 21, 2015 | hide | past | favorite | 94 comments

I have the Xperia Z3C, it lasts 48 hours.

My issue with cheaper phones is: I don't mind it being slow, I don't mind it having a bad display. But I do mind the camera quality. I take a lot of pictures (multiple a day) which I treasure because it's pictures of my kids. But I hate having a camera with me, so my phone has to have a good camera. There aren't cheap phones with good cameras.

> I have the Xperia Z3C, it lasts 48 hours.

And that's likely heavy use. My Z3 lasts three or four days of moderate to light use, five days if you don't mind being at sub-20% on the final day (power saving mode). It isn't quite classic Nokia levels of battery life, but being able to charge it every few days is a massive improvement.

The Z3's camera disappoints me at times. I was trying to take a photo from a dark hotel room of the Vegas strip, and the camera was struggling to focus, and manual focus was a non-option. It was in difficult conditions, but with more control (or smarter auto-modes) it would have come out.

I like Android and would never move over to iOS because of lock-in and limited app API freedoms, but I still feel like even now Android's cameras fall behind Apple's version of the same (picture quality in bad light, speed, etc). All cameras work basically fine in good light, but in diminishing conditions is where you really "test" them.

Camera and slow (or no) OS updates are my biggest gripe with Android. Although OS upgrades are less of an issue than years ago now many of the core apps update via the Play Store.

Sometimes even decent smartphones cut on surprising camera features. The Moto G has a fixed focus, makes me regret the Nexus S...

Moto G is just about the cheapest smartphone you can buy, in USA at least. Moto G 2 has autofocus with tap to choose control point.

Cheapest but still not 75$ and the other components aren't under-powered. I didn't know the G2 was improved on this.

I have the same phone for the same reasons (and being waterproof) but it definitely doesn't last 2 days anymore. 25 hours is probably my limit, with my reasonable amount of usage.

If I'm in an area of good service (i.e. not my cement and steel coffin of workplace), my Z3c lasts 48-60 hours -- 3 "days" of use -- with ~5 hours of screen on time. I don't do much gaming on it, which probably helps.

When I'm at work though, poor reception brings me down to 30-36 hours, still pretty close to 2 days of usage though

I have the same phone, and I'm getting nowhere near what everyone else is reporting here. I wonder if my battery is shot :\

Same here. I'm sure there are some decent Chinese manufacturers with quad core phones using 8mp+ Exmor chips under $150, just haven't had time to look into it yet

You can pick up an unlocked lg g2 for $150 at best buy depending on carrier. It is an older phone, but I have been really happy with it.

I remember seeing in the past Cybershot phones with less than average specs, but a gorgeous camera.

Sign me in. Just purchased Lenovo A5000 instead of moving from iPhone 4 to iPhone 6. Why?

1) Because I feel Apple has screwed me. The iOS 8 update has turned my iPhone 4 into a brick. My phone now does everything iOS 6 did, but now it is slow as hell. In return, I get nothing new worth of mentioning besides animations (what a giant leap forward, Apple) and eye-bleeding colors. And turtle speed and constant hang-ups.

2) Apple isn't innovating anymore. They are busy adding "features." Sometimes the way iOS 8 works makes me think the whole iOS division lacks ideas about what else they want to add, so they are simply throwing stuff on the wall. It's hard to believe how dysfunctional iOS has started to be when Jobs left.

3) I still get eyebleeding idiotic colors on this Android device, but A5000 is four times cheaper than iPhone 6, and it delivers the same functionality, plus dual SIM capability for travel, and a 4000 mAh battery. (I am not associated with Lenovo, that was an impulse purchase.)

So after 6 years of having everything-Apple at home and at work, I think I am starting to leave Apple. Sad and happy at the same time.

1) iPhone 4 is literally 4 generations old. You skipped the 4s, the 5, the 5s and the 6. It's as far from the current model as the 4 is from the original iPhone! You can't judge OS updates based on that. You should be happy you at least CAN update- good luck updating an old Android phone with a newer Android version, LOL. That space is a complete fiasco in my experience. There's a reason developers HATE Android development...

2) Debatable. Maybe. I have a 6+ and it works pretty fantastic, though, other than the occasional crashes.

3) The mAh of the battery does not matter, because the phone could be a power-suck, and the iPhone is fairly efficient overall. The total runtime of the phone DOES matter. Price? What else are you giving up with 1/4 the cost? My 6+ camera takes amazing photos.

4) We'll welcome you back once you become frustrated with Android. I know at least 2 people who were in the same boat and eventually came back. We all have to make the same mistakes...

Aren't you afraid, given the SuperFish scandal, they also install some bullshit crapware on their consumer phones? Yeah, I know, most vendors do, but the SuperFish was a new level of bullshit and a high security threat.

Honestly, I didn't know about it. I usually don't store anything critical on the phone so I am generally not as paranoid as I should be. I just Googled they've admitted they screwed up badly. But the point is, anything can be instead of that Lenovo - iPhone isn't doing it for me anymore as a premium phone, and by premium I mean having outstanding features or UI.

You should have bought a goddamn lumia. That thing beats android in every way.

+ i agree with what u said about iphone. Same experience.

I'm legitimately interesting: Can you give some examples of what areas you feel Lumia/Windows Phone excel? All Microsoft really drum beat about in the "social" aspects of owning a Windows Phone.

With the near release of Windows 10 (and Windows 10 Mobile) I was thinking about considering Windows Phone again (I haven't given it much thought since Windows Phone 7).

- The best keyboard. I've tried them all in all 3 major platforms, and nothing comes close.

- ClearBlack displays that do some crazy shit in sunny conditions, so you can still see the screen.

- Awesome cameras and awesome image postprocessing that sacrifices color fidelity in favor of image awesomeness.

- Lumia Cinemagraph is a killer app.

The camera is amazing, and then the postprocessing instagrams it hell? What's the point?

The thing is, the postprocessing creates awesome photos. You notice the photo is processed, but the photo comes out way better than I could have done on my own.

Ans if you don't want that, you can always use RAW in the higher end models.

I've heard great things about the battery life on windows mobile phones.


That's a serious downgrade, but I'm approaching this similarly, from way up.

I just gave my OnePlus One (beautiful, 'cheap' - the only thing against it? Really, really big) to my wife to 'upgrade' to an S6 Edge. Boy, what a mess that thing is.

No reception. Bad wifi. Battery issues. Calls are distorted, I often hear the other side in a ChipMunk-y way. And don't get me even started on this TouchWiz crap. Or 'Odin'/'Kies'/'Smart Connect'.

So, I 'upgraded' from a perfect 300EUR device to a crappy/barely working 850EUR device. There's a lesson here: Stick to devices with stock Android experience and ideally stick to a device that is properly supported by CM.

Can't take the OnePlus One away from my wife by now. I do tend to look at my Flame every now and then and have a hard time deciding which phone to carry. The beautiful or the less broken one?

> Stick to devices with stock Android experience and ideally stick to a device that is properly supported by CM.

Yeah, that is why I always bought the Nexus devices from Google. Sometimes there are issues but anything major is fixed by the next patch.

The Nexus line is good. I would own one right now if Google had updated the Nexus 5 instead of releasing the Nexus 6 (too big) and letting the 5 rot.

Keep in mind the 5 was released in Oct 2013, and did have a handful of issues at the time that they could have since fixed but haven't.

Instead wound up with a Z3 (5.2" instead of 6"). 5.2-5.3" is about as big as I'll ever go with a phone, bigger and you feel it in your pocket (I've owned a Samsung Note that I felt was bigger than I'd like).

I have only one Nexus device. A 7 (flo, the 'newer' one). I migrated that to CM quite some time ago.

Google OTAs are now block-based, as far as I understand. Which means that I cannot change my system and apply the update afterwards.

I have no problems of that sort with CM. So, while Nexus devices might be a good base line, I personally would still move away from official Google releases.

That said, I agree that the experience is quite nice and it sure helps to get timely updates.

Fair enough :)

Personally, I tend to worry about the fact CM sometimes bricks phone and would rather have the hassle free stock android.

You might be interested to know that the OnePlus Two is supposed to come out in the next few months.

That IS interesting, but unfortunately the OnePlus One was riddled with (software) issues in the beginning as well (aka: Early adopters suffered) and .. what's the CM status? I guess the next phone won't be an 'official' CM Inc phone anymore? If that's the case, I'd first want to see if the CM project will support that device.

I miss CM (the 'free one' - even my OnePlus One ran on CM Nightlies vs. the Cyanogen OS thing) a lot. My next device will be picked based on http://wiki.cyanogenmod.org/w/Devices

I double up - I really appreciate the power/performance/resolution/features of late-generation phone technology - but I absolutely have to have reliable SMS (OTP), Phone Calls, and Alarms. My Nokia 105 gets between 10 and 12 days on a single charge with moderate usage, and I've stretched it out to three weeks in periods of low usage. It's pretty close to indestructible - so I can toss it in my bag without worrying, and charges fast (~ Hour).

And it cost me $35.

Been doing something similar, mostly because i have a featurephone that can do HSPA and i can't be assed to get a smaller sim to fit in the smartphone.

So instead i pair one with the other via bluetooth if i can't find some wifi to use and the data itch gets me.

Been thinking of doing the "smart" stuff with a tablet and have a phone that lasts a week for calls.

When I'm making a larger purchasing decision, I like to base it on my net worth. It makes things very clear.

Let's say you have a net worth of 25k, which seems about median for a 30 year old in the US.

So you're saying, I gotta spend 2% of my financial existence on a stinkin telephone? A nearly-guaranteed depreciating asset, at that!

For some of you, that might make a lot of sense - you spend 99% of your waking lives on those things. But for me, not so much. I'll opt for the $80 Android I found on Amazon.

I personally rather spend higher percentages of my net worth building businesses and memories/experiences, not things.

I think a lot of it really depends on how often and for how long you use the phone. I spent $500+ for my iPhone 5s and I've used it for almost 2 years now with a cheap Virgin Mobile plan. I use it daily (maybe too much even) and once I upgrade from it, I'll continue to use it periodically as a testing platform for my web development. I'll probably get another year or two of use out of it for that purpose before testing for the 5s isn't worth the trouble.

And honestly I can't stand the cheap Android phones. Android is a solid OS, but the cheap devices it often appears on are just awful. It causes a lot of headaches...at least $500 worth to me at least :)

Yeah, on Virgin here too. Not being a big data user since I'm usually on desktop, I don't see the need for a fancy plan. Those monthly phone bills (on top of your Netflix, Spotify, Amazon Prime, Hulu, etc etc etc etc) are the real killers.

I've just found that for a casual user who's not looking to sport a luxury brand in my pocket, $80 Android once every 14-20 months is better than a $500 iPhone every two years.

> So you're saying, I gotta spend 2% of my financial existence on a stinkin telephone?

I choose to think of it as spending 2% of my financial existence on an internet browser, a world-wide atlas, a communication device that I use to connect to five various methods of communication, an e-mail client, an entertainment system (games, video, podcasts, music).

But I guess I'd be making the same argument if this was about cars, and not smartphones.

All those come with the $80 Android.

At some point, an iPhone becomes a minor convenience add-on / vanity / luxury choice. I'm perfectly fine with that decision, too... most people want to look successful... but not at an appreciable amount of net worth, IMHO.

Yeah, but most of us buying expensive phones are on-call and need a powerful wifi hot spot and a bunch of other things out of it.

I literally can't think of a company where you end up on-call and the expectation is you can respond in [at most] 15 minutes to an emergency/alert. That means a laptop + mobile wifi hotspot [phone] everywhere you go.

The cheaper phones tend to have worse reception. In my office, I used to only get Edge due to the thick walls. My Nexus 6 has no trouble getting to LTE.

If you are on call, your company should be paying for your phone.

They would if I wanted to have a company phone.

I don't want a company phone and have to juggle two phones.

Your comment made me think of something I've experienced with recent iPhones. I have a 5S, my wife has a 5C, and oftentimes she will get reception when I get none, even though we are sitting side by side. I'm not sure why the newer, higher-end phone gets worse reception, but it does in my case.

Yeah, if its the same provider I'm surprised. But yeah, the quality of the reception varies b/t phone lines I've noticed which is annoying.

"We deserve a smartphone that can last a whole day without charging"

I claim that any recent smartphone can work up to two days including a few hours of browsing and doing calls, once you disable all (unnecessary) background synchronizations, forcing the hardware awake. At least this is my experience for the Nexus 4.

But reading that the authors phone "used to die with 6–8 hours of moderate usage or sometimes even before that", it seems he had much higher expectations than me. I don't expect a phone to work in "active" mode with screen on for so many hours. I expect it to consume just little power when screen is off and few background synchronizations run, and do not care much about consumption when the screen is on. If you need 8 hours (that is 1/3 day) of screen-on time then maybe your expectations are too high on a smartphone? Additionally you would probably stumble over a power socket in the meantime.

So by not using it as a smartphone, the battery will last longer? Well yeah.

My bic lasts years when I don't use it too.

My argument was that the expectations are maybe too high, asking for a "a smartphone that can last a whole day without charging", but using it 1/3+ day.

For me that is like saying "When can we have a car that drives 2000km? It usually stops for me after 1000km."

Why tether yourself to the power grid when low power CPUs and screens mean you don't have to?

I have a Nexus 5 I've had for, well, going on a year and half now, and with the exception of the battery (which for me lasts most of the day), it has been an exceptional phone. For only $400ish (bought full retail through Google), it has met or surpasses my ROI. It is still as fast today as when I bought it. I am always up to date with the latest version of Android. It rarely crashes or even hiccups. I am very satisfied with it. I am a little sad that the Nexus 6 cost so much more, but even if it was the same price as the Nexus 5, I currently have no need to upgrade my phone. I plan on using this as long as it will go, which I'm guessing might be another year or two, maybe even longer.

> "Waiting for Android updates is frustrating" > "₹ 30000 for a phone that cannot even last 2 years is not value for money for me" > "Why not try an iPhone once? Let’s just say I need a mobile for Android app development"

Most of author's arguments are very Android specific. I haven't seen the first two issues I quoted with either iOS or Windows phone.

I would say that the title should be "Why I am happy downgrading from a $500 to a $75 Android "

I downgraded too, also from a Sony Xperia to a $70 Blu Life Advance 4.0. It's got a crappy camera and screen, but it handles tethering 4g, music, can run apps and browse the internet. And dual sim + unlocked. I really can't imagine spending $500 - $700 on a phone again, the cheap end is improving all the time.


... TLDR; I don't care about photo quality.

I'm an admitted phone-hopper, and while my preferred platform is Windows Phone, I've had to give that up for Android so I don't have to carry two devices. I've had everything from basic phones up through flagships, and I've found the best battery life and balance of features/price to be (unsurprisingly) in the mid-range.

I was using a Nexus 4 for a while, but when my wife's phone died I gave her that and got a 2014 Moto G. So far I'm very happy with it, especially given I only paid $150 for it with no contract. It's not quite as snappy as the Nexus 4 was, but the screen is a bit nicer, the battery lasts a bit longer (usually at ~60% when I put it on the charger before bed), and the camera is definitely better. It has a few quirks, things I've seen on many Motorola phones (the earpiece doubles as a loudspeaker, and it randomly switches volume during a call; the ambient light sensor sometimes stops working so I end up with an extremely bright screen at night). But overall I feel I've gotten my money's worth and then some.

I do miss my Lumia 925, and I'm looking forward to sampling whatever Windows 10 Mobile devices come out over the next year. But I'm more than satisfied with my budget phone.

Just like with Chrome, Google keeps bloating and bloating. Nexus 6 doesn't last even 4 hours for me. It just sits silently in my pocket and dies without much fanfare. I have basic Google apps, Facebook, Twitter, and a few more. I don't do anything, and when I look at battery breakdown, it's Gmail and Inbox that use more than 20% of the power. Every time I need to go outside of home for more than a couple of hours, I get anxious as I know my phone will give up on me and I don't like carrying power reserves, cables, and all that we shouldn't be doing in 2015!

In general, Android keeps disappointing as there are such idiotic problems that I wonder if Android engineers actually use Android phones in real life. For example, taking videos since day one is a huge pain. You start shooting a video, and then you start cursing shortly after, because background apps kill video quality. How hard is to get this simple thing - shooting videos is a CPU-intensive job, pause everything else until the video is done? This is one of the many issues, I just recently struggled with shooting videos and decided to buy a camcorder again to use for the more formal events and use the phone only spontaneously.

I use a Galaxy S (the first version), purchased 4 or 5 years ago, can't remember. Upgraded it to KitKat with a custom build (MacKay) a year ago, was happily using Froyo before that.

I love it's small footprint and plastic back. It's kidproof, verified by my two test engineers here in various incidents. Changed it's battery once, lasts almost two days based on my usage.

For the last three years, I'm trying hard to justify buying a new phone based on my use case and can't come up with a good reason. I shrinked my usage to email mostly. Twitter is so time consuming, I'm happy that my phone can't keep up with it's basic hardware requirements so I gave up using it 2 years ago. Same story with Facebook and other popular apps. Staying long on a not up-to-date hardware trims your excess device usage and makes it hard to have a reason for upgrade.

I was about to buy Xperia Z3 Compact for its smaller size and long battery life but turned down by glass back and lack of physical home button. I guess I'll shop for a second hand Galaxy S if this one dies on me.

Android got a lot slower lately, so I'm hesitant to go to a cheaper phone.

I switched from a $550 two-year-old Android phone that has become unusably slow to a new $200 phone that is snappy and quick, network permitting.

I really think the age of the phone has more to do with the speed than the price (and I suspect this has more to do with software than hardware going bad.)

I am on a Moto X, but also had a Moto G as a backup phone. If you want to do basic stuff (call, e-mail, calendar, IM), the G is easily fast enough and can be had for little.

(The only problematic app seems to be Facebook, which is a bit hard on the 1GB RAM.)

It may sound like Flintstone, but after using 3 different feature phones for 6 years, and then 4 different (mid to high end) smartphones in the next 6 years (till now), I found no better "phone" than Nokia 1100 ($35). the reasons-

1. You would have to charge it twice in a week, at most. Mostly I ended up charging it once/week. It would actually run longer with low battery warning than today's most smartphones' whole charge cycle.

2. It was convenient to hold, small enough to lose in any kind of pockets. At least I never had to take the phone in to account when buying pants, which I need to do now, for smartphones.

3. The phone would last forever, only you would have to change the battery in every two years.

4. It was rock solid. You could use it as alternative to stone to hit something.

5. After all, there is no more satisfying communication method than voice call. And there is no more satisfying game than snakes.

I wish I could buy a Nokia 1100. Today's Nokia feature phones are sensitive, fragile, bulky and they stop working in couple of years.

I still have and am using my 1100. Since I am still using the original battery the life is down to about a week. If I buy a random battery off the net, chances are it will be crap. You, of course, can't get original batteries anymore.

The 1100 is the most popular cell phone in the known universe:


This post is the reason why Apple is doomed on the longer run. Yes, expensive cute phones sell a lot early on. But no one sees value in spending that kind of cash every two years, for very little value in return.

This is basically the repeat of the desktop market in the 90's and early 2000s. Except that we now have Android instead of Windows as the dominant alternative.

I think you're giving the mass consumer a fair bit too much credit. People still stand in lines to buy the 6, which is something like the 11th generation (if you count all the intermediate minor-rev phones).

Why? Apparently so they can have it before everyone else...for 48 hours...

(iPhone 5S/Ting user, bought 'em used for my wife and I a few weeks after the 6 came out and a bunch of people dumped their "obsolete" 5Ss. So I agree with you in philosophy, but disagree that enough people think like that to "doom Apple")

You don't see people stand in lines for other smartphones because they are not released as mass media events. And the crowds would be to large to work as a queue. Those phones are selling all the time, hence no need for the queue.

Queue's are needed when you need some kind of a priority based selection.

I agree the queueing is unnecessary, border on insane. However, the fact that many of the people queued up (whether literally or figuratively) to buy the 6 were using their perfectly good 5S to pass the time is some amount of evidence that people do see some value in buying expensive phones every year or two and Apple isn't doomed.

Very little return? I can't imagine a device that I use more or is more personal than my smartphone. I've regretted buying sub-par devices in the past but I've never regretted spending more. I usually hold on for 3 years before I replace a device; that's a long time. It's a long time to have something cheap.

Not sure about this. People have been saying this since 2012, but iPhones are now stronger than ever. There's a reason why Coca-cola can sell their products for more than generic store brand.

Probably since 2008, to be honest. Every week brings a new "And this is why Apple are doomed" crank out of the woodwork in direct contradiction to the fiscal facts.

Apple could take -just- their profits from 2014Q4 ($18bn), burn $10M a day, and it would still take -nearly 5 years- before they were done with just that lump of cash.

But... the article is about an Android user complaining about an Android phone.

I've a low-end Xperia which I use almost entirely for calling and texting - no apps, no browsing, disabled WiFi and data transfer. The battery lasts a week :) and I don't get any annoying notifications or waste time on pointless apps. I'm planning to get a "dumbphone" with small screen and physical keyboard, but I can't find one with an incoming calls blacklist which is a must for me. Other than that, I'll happily throw my smartphone away and never use one again.

I have a Samsung Galaxy S5... I seriously hate that sometimes the dialer app crashes or freezes when I'm receiving a call (and I end up being unable to answer that cal).

I mean, seriously... THE DIALER APP?!?!?! Even a $10 Nokia has a stable dialer...

So basically the argument here boils down to, "I should have gotten an iPhone instead"? Because it seems to solve all of the named problems.

We can build phones that last us a few days on a charge already. We have all the technology we need. The problem is we (both customers and OEMs):

1) don't really want a slower/more efficient processor (like Cortex A7/A53)

2) don't really want a smaller ~4.5" screen

3) don't really want a 960x540 or 800x480 resolution

If we could build a "premium" phone with those specs (for instance the same resolution, but a much newer and more efficient display technology) we could make them last even more than these low-end phones where we typically find these specs.

And the biggest factor of all: we don't want to give up on our easy to use development environments using countless layers of abstraction making software that is horribly inefficient even though the target is a battery operated device.

The screen is something you can't get around but the CPUs are insanely powerful for the kind of work a typical phone is doing.

Agreed. It's hard to look at this S6 and NOT shake your head. 8 cores. 3GB of memory. And it does a fraction (in terms of use cases covered) of a laptop with a full blown desktop OS.

What.. for? What use case on a phone requires so much silicone? I am fine with ~beefy~ handsets to - I don't know - support multi tasking between a couple of applications. But this? I feel I miss the entire target market (again). It seems I don't understand how you're expected to use your phone to actually require all these resources.

How do we (and the OEMs) know that there isn't a large enough subset of customers that want these things? I'm guessing many customers would accept a weaker processor and lower-resolution screen in exchange for more battery life if the phone's marketing emphasized the battery life over the processor and screen specs. And while we're at it, why not go all the way to a Cortex A5?

I'd like to know as well.

I remember seeing some data about iPhone battery life over the generations. Apple has basically held it steady - as the processors and screens have improved, the power efficiency has improved just enough to hold battery life constant.

The exception to this was the 6+ which due to it's larger size, had a fair bit more battery life.

Personally, I'd love a phone with 6+ battery life or better in the 5S form-factor. I don't need or want a large screen - that's why I have tablets and laptops.

That's the one, thanks. I'd love to see some of the research that determined 'x'.

I bet there's a Chinese or Indian OEM that has this niche covered.

Edit: http://www.dailytech.com/Eton+Thundergod+Packs+5000+mAh+Batt...

"The Eton Thundergod packs a bigger battery that allows it to nearly match Lenovo's promises in talk time, while delivering a thinner, more powerful device The Thundergod's battery weighs in at 5,000 mAh -- good enough for 21 hours of 3G/4G talk time or a whopping 46 days (1,100 hours) of standby time. Literally, you can go days without charging this monster."

But does that phone actually exist? I can't find anything other than regurgitated press releases from early 2014.

I really really want a 3,7" display and 960x540 is more then enough for me, really. I am carrying around a HTC One and it's nice, but i couldn't care less if the phone had no FullHD screen.

The problem is that almost all high end smartphones (in terms of build quality, etc.) also have huge screens and are too big. And the cheaper phones have a terrible quality. Not sure about the Moto E, though.

Sony Z3C.

I get 48 hours, and the size is perfect if you don't want a bigger phone. I've had lots bad Sony experiences in the past, but this is a good product.

What is your usage model to get the 48hrs? I will be lucky to get 6 hours our of my Samsung S4. If it is really that good, this might be my next phone.

Not heavy use, but I'm not shutting anything off.

Here's a link for the Z3C benchmark, which reflects my experience[1]. It benchmarks 2 hours longer than the Samsung S5 in continual use, or roughly doubles the Nexus 5 life.

Here's a screenshot of my batter usage after a day at work[2]

[1] http://www.phonearena.com/news/Sony-Xperia-Z3-Compact-batter...

[2] https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/156715/Screenshot_2015-0...

I have a Samsung Galaxy S4 mini that fits 2 out of the three requirements, and battery life absolutely sucks. Especially the standby battery life.

New flagships have much better battery with big screens and faster SoC's.

My OnePlus One happily lasts me 36hrs and that's with regular to heavy usage. On moderate usage I could easily get two days out of it.

Even though it's great value, it still costs around $400

The camera of the OPO doesn't make that phone justice :/

That last comment didn't make sense. Why throw in the iPhone mention for no reason?

I believe that iPhones have a reputation for better power management and therefore better (or at least more consistent) battery life, hence the iPhone mention.

On a side note, because there are more of them, there are also more options for external battery cases, just as there were extended battery options for some of the more popular Android phones when removable batteries were standard.

>Moto E image taken from its review on The Guardian

That link back to the Guardian gives him any rights to use the image. In fact he's probably making it easier for the rights holder to track him down now that he has linked to the page.

Not that I think the Guardian would care... but still. Don't use other peoples images without permission.

For battery life: why not just bought an external battery like this: http://www.aukey.com/product/dual-usb-external-battery-pb014...?

Problem solved...

The issues with an external battery are: Phones tend to die when you're using them. This means you're either constantly plugging/unplugging, or you have a cable hanging out of your pocket all the time. My LG G3 can easily drawn than a smaller battery can supply, so it'll still go dead. A big enough battery is a large, heavy thing. It will monopolize a pocket or small purse.

From a strictly emotional standpoint, the idea that I must carry a separate battery if I plan to be away from a charger all day is just stupid.

For battery life: why not buy an external battery like this: http://www.aukey.com/product/dual-usb-external-battery-pb014...?

Problem solved...

Because that's not convenient? It's like bigger than the phone itself, you cannot really stuff that into your pocket anymore.

using nothing but moto g's these days. Good enough and doesn't matter if it gets lost

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact