this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2025
644 points (95.1% liked)

Technology

68244 readers
4284 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 6) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

We can, there's just less demand for them. Sony was among the last holdouts for small phones with their compact series, but they stopped because they were their worst selling models.

Even Apple stopped selling their small SE model (that was basically iPhone 5 sized) despite it being the cheapest iPhone to get your hands on, because it sold terribly.

Small phones is something the tech community says it cares about, but the market has proven that the average person doesn't care. Same as the headphone jack and microSD slot.

I don't like it either, but phone companies aren't deliberately leaving money on the table. If they thought small phones would sell gangbusters, they'd bring them back.

[–] Tronn4@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Porn. Next question

[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I miss the times when I found 5" phones big. Now they just seem small because everything else is pushing 7"

[–] kamen@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You have to also consider that when 5" was big, bezels were big too. With today's thin bezels the same physical size that used to hold 5" could probably hold 5.5".

[–] moonbunny@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

It also used to be commonplace to have a physical home button below the screen on a number of flagship devices, along with the camera being positioned separate from the screen.

I feel like that could bring us closer to a modern equivalent of 6” screens in the same body

[–] rimjob_rainer@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 month ago

I was small phone enjoyer until my Sony Z3 Compact. I really liked it, but after it died, I tried bigger phones and I couldn't go back.

[–] thatradomguy@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

They suck and also the higher capacity batteries take up too much space now.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] catHerder93@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Even for the government you need apps nowadays. Yes you can try doing things in person but wait times aren't reasonable. I've been trying to get a dumb phone for myself but still find I need a smartphone for specific apps a couple of times a month...

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] randon31415@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Put it on a badge and make it so when you push on it, you say who you want call and it calls them.

Also make the badge the starfleet logo.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] twocupsofsugar@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

people like larger phones because they like social media. For people in developing countries a cell phone is their only personal computer so for them having larger screen more preferable. People just like larger phones. I loath them because I don't have pockets. I could probably live with a dumb phone, but mobile banking, and maps are too useful of a feature for me to live without out. tbh unless your a power user or gamer there really isn't much of a reason to upgrade your cellphone anyway

[–] tal@lemmy.today 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I loath them because I don't have pockets

This is especially an issue for women, who often have more form-fitting clothing that either doesn't have pockets or have very small ones that don't work for phones.

I think that the usual solution for "women carrying things" is that many are gonna carry a purse -- if someone's pre-menopause, they're gonna need pads or tampons anyway, so can put it in there. Problem is that the phone breaks this. Even if women have a purse, women don't always carry their purse all around the office or house or whatever, but don't want to miss calls.

My mother got a fanny pack just for her phone (which isn't even all that large).

At one point in the past, it used to be common for women to wear a bag on a belt accessible through a slit in their skirt.

https://pieceworkmagazine.com/a-brief-history-of-the-pocket-in-womens-fashion/

The first examples of pockets began to be inserted into men’s clothing at the end of the 1600s. Before this construction development, illustrations show that men used small pouches, which hung from a belt around the waist. These separate pouches could be concealed inside of a coat or tunic. The words pouch and pocket are related, through the Middle English/Northern French word pouche, originally describing a small bag.

For women, pockets remained an accessory that tied around the waist and was accessed through an opening in a skirt’s seam. The full skirts of the 1700s allowed these pockets to be easily hidden.

The shift by women to pants kinda killed that option.

I think that the solution is gonna be some women's clothier figuring out how to make an appealing way of carrying a phone.

Lara Croft runs around with thigh holsters. That way, the carrying system is clearly distinct from the body, doesn't mess with the body silhouette, which I assume is why women don't want male-style large pocket, non-form-fitting clothing. So maybe something like that would work. Dunno how much of a chafing issue that is.

1000009168

EDIT: Drop bags are kinda in the neighborhood of what I'm thinking of too, though I'm thinking lower-slung and smaller:

1000009167

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›