"But it's thinner!" Meanwhile, everyone seems to want a more durable phone / more battery life. The result is cases which can easily double the total thickness of the phone just to protect it. I personally miss the OG Droid / HTC Windows Mobile phones that could take 2 years of beating and still be going strong. I'd gladly take an iPhone 7 twice as thick as the 6 if it was waterproof, droppable from 10ft, and could last 16 hours of heavy use after the battery had been abused for 2 years.
I don't think this is very in-tune with the actual buyers.
iPhones always outperform Androids in battery life in the real world IME (there are exceptions that probably break the rule, but with compromises elsewhere I'm not willing to make so I haven't bought those devices). My 6+ is living up to the "2 days" claim.
I absolutely wouldn't trade thinness, and more importantly, weight, for longer battery life.
The battery life is fine. The weight is good. The thinness allows me to add a case and still only have it be as thick as an iPhone 5.
For me, someone who actually paid for an off contract 6+, they made the right call.
Nope your argument doesn't follow from parent's point.
Parent is saying people want durability and better battery life and would gladly sacrifice thickness for it, not sacrifice all the things that iPhones have and those old Nokia's didn't.
It's a false dichotomy, either an iphone 6 plus or a nokia? Give me a break.
I'd happily take the iphone 6, add 20-40% in thickness and weight, make it more durable and have a bigger battery, and let the phone sit flat on a table (as opposed to the camera sticking out like now) without having to mess with a case.
Actually I want a more reparable phone. I'll sacrifice thickness if it means that the LCD, digitizer, motherboard and chassis could be separated by just undoing screws and cutting a seal (iPhone 3g's I took to repairing bby remaking the seal with polyurethane each time).
