They are already absurdly large. I didn’t notice the size of my phone until I wanted to do simple gestures like going from the bottom to the top most part with my thumb or trying to type with one hand with the keyboard in its original state.

Before it didn’t bother me and I even celebrated it, since the bigger the screen, the bigger the videos and games. But now I realize how annoying it is to use the phone as a… Well, a phone. And it looks like it’s going to get worse with flip phones and other bullshit.

At this rate, “brick” phones are going to come back, and everyone will be “delighted”.

  • 𝕽𝖚𝖆𝖎𝖉𝖍𝖗𝖎𝖌𝖍@midwest.social
    10·
    24 小时前

    I can’t hit the letters on the keyboard with my thumb and holding the phone one-handed.

    I can span an octave on a piano. I do not have small hands.

    This is the real reason why I got a foldable phone. It doesn’t help with reaching things one-handed when it’s open, but at least folded it still fits in my front pocket comfortably, and let me sit with it there.

    • pishadoot@sh.itjust.works
      3·
      1 天前

      The clothing industry doesn’t make many clothes with pockets for women because they don’t sell. Women all complain that they don’t get pockets, but then vote with their wallets.

      This is a legit example of the intended meaning of the phrase “the customer is always right.” The market supplies what customers demand, and for all the fist shaking about having nowhere to put a phone, there’s very little actual market demand for women’s clothing with pockets. Majority of demand is related to outdoor activities so you see them there.

      • tyler@programming.dev
        2·
        1 天前

        That just isn’t true. Answers in Progress on YouTube does a good video on the history of pockets in women’s clothes.

          • tyler@programming.dev
            2·
            8 小时前

            You’re right, it is basic economics. Just not in the way stated. Adding pockets costs money. Women’s clothes are often created incredibly cheaply. It has nothing to do with women not wanting pockets.

            • pishadoot@sh.itjust.works
              1·
              6 小时前

              Adding pockets costs next to nothing.

              You think this is some overlooked thing that the clothing industry never considered? That this is some secret niche that just hasn’t been filled? They don’t sell. If they did, then there would be brands or clothing lines with pockets, and marked up for the piddly cost of the manufacturing expense.

              That has NEVER HAPPENED. It’s not because the manufacturing can’t be priced adequately despite high consumer demand, it’s because for all the shouting at clouds, women, in general as a consumer demographic, do not buy pants with pockets.

        • cattywampas@lemm.eeEnglish
          3·
          1 天前

          It is true. Women’s pants with big pockets are freely available, just do a Google shopping search and you’ll see. American Eagle, Gap, Abercrombie, Forever 21, Old Navy, H&M, Ann Taylor, Dickies, Patagonia, Levi’s, and the list goes on. All these retailers sell baggy and loose pants with big pockets.

          Also worth noting, Y2K fashion is very in with younger people and you’ll see them wearing a lot of baggy pants, I’m talking JNCO baggy.

          So why aren’t big-pocketed pants the standard in women’s fashion? It’s simple: women tend to want slimmer pants. It’s just a consumer decision.

          • tyler@programming.dev
            1·
            8 小时前

            It’s not a consumer decision. Women’s clothes are often created very cheaply. Adding pockets costs money. Therefore cheap (see slimmer clothes) are created without pockets, even if women would wear them with pockets. Your own explanation actually agrees with that by stating it’s tied to the looseness of the pants. You can’t get the look on baggy pants without actually putting the pockets there. If they could they would.

            • cattywampas@lemm.eeEnglish
              1·
              7 小时前

              All clothes can be created cheaply or expensively, for any gender. Men wear skinny jeans too, just like some wear baggy jeans.

              If women want pants with bigger pockets, why would they not be produced? The majority of fashion designers are women.

              My girlfriend only wears pants with big pockets. You know why? Because she wants to, and they’re available. Same with lots of other women I know.

              This isn’t some patriarchal conspiracy to keep women sexy or sell purses and handbags. It’s just what most of the consumers want, and I don’t know why it’s so hard for people to accept that.

          • helpImTrappedOnline@lemmy.world
            6·
            1 天前

            Some women want the slimmer pants, yet all the options with pockets are baggy. Yes you need some space for a pocket, but that doesn’t mean the entire entire pant needs to be baggy.

            Men’s slim jeans are available with pockets able to accommodate a larger phone with out issue.

  • Godort@lemm.ee
    23·
    1 天前

    People use their phones primarily as media consumption devices. That means bigger screens are desirable to the public at large.

    We were well on our way to miniaturization until your phone also became a pocket computer

  • ZorsithEnglish
    6·
    1 天前

    I want a thicker phone because they’re getting too hard to hold with how thin they are, and it compromises battery size, storage capacity, durabulity, and external ports (sd card, analog audio, etc) for that thinness

  • aramis87@fedia.io
    5·
    1 天前

    The last time I bought a phone, I used versus.com’s filters to suggest different models that fit the criteria I needed, including a small form factor. I’ve been pretty happy with the resulting phone!

  • Lyra_LycanEnglish
    4·
    1 天前

    My phone is 213g, almost as heavy as the Nokia 2110 which was 236g. The current heaviest non-rugged bar-style smartphone is the Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra at 233g.


    Bricks were 500-1200g, so we’re getting there