The quickest way to go out of business is to take whiners on the internet too seriously.
Z1 Compact has a 2.2 Ghz Snapdragon 800, the same large camera sensor as the Z1, 2 GB RAM....other than the screen (720p) and smaller battery (2300 mAh), it's spec for spec the same device. However, due to the smaller screen size, both of those limitations are ok. The screen looks sharp enough on 4.3", and many reviewers say it's actually a higher quality panel than the Z1s, so despite being less pixel dense it's actually better looking, and with the smaller size / lower res the battery life is actually quite good.
People forget that the Snapdragon 800 is actually quite battery efficient compared to the last generation, so in addition to getting more power, you're getting a more efficient system, which helps with the battery life. I've never had a Z1 for direct comparison, but my Z1 Compact get WAAY better battery life than my HTC One did last year.
It most certainly can be done. The iPhone does it as well, in an even smaller package. Manufacturers are just choosing not to, it's not a technical issue.
Hey, I personally like the Z1 compact and wish it had caught on more. No complaints from me about the Z1, besides the screen res which could have been 1080p just would have cost a good chunk more, so it made some sacrifices in order to get there, I wouldnt mind having "full size" flagship phones in the 5-6" range with compact versions of these devices coming out a month or two later, but 75% of people looking at the new phones will go with the more feature laden larger model as most people are used to phones of that size.
Z1 Compact has a 2.2 Ghz Snapdragon 800, the same large camera sensor as the Z1, 2 GB RAM....other than the screen (720p) and smaller battery (2300 mAh), it's spec for spec the same device. However, due to the smaller screen size, both of those limitations are ok. The screen looks sharp enough on 4.3", and many reviewers say it's actually a higher quality panel than the Z1s, so despite being less pixel dense it's actually better looking, and with the smaller size / lower res the battery life is actually quite good.
People forget that the Snapdragon 800 is actually quite battery efficient compared to the last generation, so in addition to getting more power, you're getting a more efficient system, which helps with the battery life. I've never had a Z1 for direct comparison, but my Z1 Compact get WAAY better battery life than my HTC One did last year.
It most certainly can be done. The iPhone does it as well, in an even smaller package. Manufacturers are just choosing not to, it's not a technical issue.
That's because there's some idle time in normal usage. But the point is relatively speaking, the Moto X is the last place out of those 3 phones you listed.Nobody uses their phone the way it's tested in that graph. As someone who owned and used the HTC One, the S4, and the Moto X I can tell you it lasts longer in actual, real world usage.
I think there's two issues here you keep mixing up. Ergonomics and the advantages of having a large screen. Many people are simply putting up with the loss of ergonomics or not caring at all. Believe me, my eyes do like it when I see a large screen, but my hands do not. I was playing extensively with my GS2 yesterday and while it's probably too small to read on it constantly (also the pixel density), it felt GREAT in my hands. I didn't have to constantly shift it around, and it was shaped nicely where I didn't feel like I would drop it all the time (Nexus 4).I fully disagree. These aren't just phones anymore, the larger screens are very much appreciated.
I don't really understand the rant though. There are phones like the Moto X, and Sony and HTC offer mini versions of their phones too. Is he upset that the flagship phones are not to his liking? If so he should take it up with the millions of people who are happily buying them.
Ignoring those whiners worked great for RIM.
The moto x is actually a little too big still imho. Yeah, I think pocketable is important. I wouldn't mind an even smaller iphone, like a 2.8" model. For a long time that is what I expected.
Just hold it a little closer is all you need to do. Like, a 4" iphone is the same effective size as the 4.7" moto x if you hold it like 2 inches closer.
I have a Note 3....when I go running, I put my sim into a old Sony Ericsson W510 phone (bought a sim adapter) which is 4" tall, 1.5" wide and .3" thick.
900p (1600x900 HD+) would be a great screen res for +/- 4.5 inch phones. never understood why this resolution is widely available on laptops and desktop monitors, but not on tablets and phones where it makes the most sense.
Because 1080P is a better match for video! Most smartphones of the last 2+ years capture 1080P HD video and many users play 1080P videos on the smartphones. We'll probably see the first 4K tablets within a year and we're probably a couple year aways from 4K smartphones. Of course that kind of resolution is lost on a 3.5 inch screen so it's just another factor driving up phone/screen size.
But, as has been said by others, the big driver for larger phones is customer demand. A few years ago when the first Galaxy Note came out many of the same folks that are whining here in this thread were positively foaming at the mouth about the Note. The general feeling from them was that Samsung would lose their shirt on it. Did they? No, they sold more than 10M of them and similar numbers of the newer version Notes.
The bottom line is there are some folks that are upset that the industry, and most of its customers, doesn't agree with them. Hey, if your so confident that there's this huge pent up demand for small phones be my guest and invest in a startup to make them given as Apple appear poised to abandon the smaller phones for their flagship stuff.
Brian
Then why did you vote that you disagreed with his rant?
Why stop there? Might as well make the next iPhone in the same form factor as the iPod Nano. If you hold it right up to your eyeball it looks just like an iMax screen.
99% of people won't be able to tell 1080p vs 900p given something like 350+ ppi on their screens. Just because it's a 1080p screen doesn't mean its "better" for video. That's like the argument of today's widescreen cheapcrap monitors. 1080p HD!!!! at 24 inches!!! Woohoo? It's also why we see more 16:9 monitors now instead of 16:10 which honestly would be better suited for general productivity.