Thin vs. 3D

[A4L]

I know a lot of people are excited about the 3D feature on the new EVO but I was actually looking forward to see how thin the phone would be. I was actually disappointed to see that the phone had the same thickness as the original EVO. After seeing the advances Samsung made with how thin the Galaxy S II I am disappointed with how thick the EVO 3D is. so I ask would you rather have 3D or a thinner phone, like the Galaxy S II?

 

[lordofthereef]

I am not sure they could have made it much thinner wha with the added battery and the size of the screen. Thin is nice, but for me things are already pretty thin. I wouldn't have wanted them to give it less power for the sake of being thing though.

 

[freeza]

Its thickness doesn't bother me since it is virtually no different from the original. Had it been bigger, I would have been kind of pissed. But, I DO wish they had made it a unibody design or even an aluminum or metal battery door. The plasticy feel of the EVO sucks. I'm ready for a phone that is somewhat quality design ensured.

 

[A4L]

the thickness wasn't much of an issue with me until other comparable phones were coming out thinner. the Galaxy S II has the same size screen and is still thin so screen size has no bearing on thickness. also I don't think power would have been an issue with thinness, since Samsung was able to make a thin phone without sacrificing power, if you check the benchmark tests on the Galaxy S II it seems pretty powerful. I happen to like the feel of the EVO. but I wouldn't mind a more solid feel. dare I say it I wouldn't mind an Android phone with the physical design of an *cough* iPhone *cough*

 

[lordofthereef]

*THIS IS NOT MEANT TO SOUND SARCASTIC*
So you were happy with the size of the EVO3D, and would have been completely content ahd another company not announced another phone that is thinner? It sounds like that is what you are saying, but please do correct me if I am wrong. I am aware it is easy to 'sound' sarcastic and downright rude in a post, but I assure you this is not my intent.

It is worth noting that we are getting an increase in battery (I suppose it's arguable if it is worth the added thickness there too) as well as slightly higher resolution than the phone you are comparing it to. Also, start looking at benchmoarks once the phones launch (or at least are much closer to launch) once they are optimised for said hardware. Right now, aside from a VERY rough estimate, I don't think benchmarks are worth a whole lot.

 

[A4L]

*THIS IS NOT MEANT TO SOUND SARCASTIC*
So you were happy with the size of the EVO3D, and would have been completely content ahd another company not announced another phone that is thinner? It sounds like that is what you are saying, but please do correct me if I am wrong. I am aware it is easy to 'sound' sarcastic and downright rude in a post, but I assure you this is not my intent.

It is worth noting that we are getting an increase in battery (I suppose it's arguable if it is worth the added thickness there too) as well as slightly higher resolution than the phone you are comparing it to. Also, start looking at benchmoarks once the phones launch (or at least are much closer to launch) once they are optimised for said hardware. Right now, aside from a VERY rough estimate, I don't think benchmarks are worth a whole lot.

I was a little bothered by the size of the original EVO, but I was able to overlook that with it being clearly the best phone out. with other manufacturers having devices with VERY similar specs to the EVO 3D, I think having a thinner phone is a larger plus over one having 3D. with thinner phones being available with similar specs I may not upgrade to the EVO 3D, right off the bat.

 

[lordofthereef]

I was a little bothered by the size of the original EVO, but I was able to overlook that with it being clearly the best phone out. with other manufacturers having devices with VERY similar specs to the EVO 3D, I think having a thinner phone is a larger plus over one having 3D. with thinner phones being available with similar specs I may not upgrade to the EVO 3D, right off the bat.

I see. Fair enough

 

[Bnice]

I like my original EVO, I was just hoping it stay the same or thinner with all the bells and whistle the EVO 3D has except for the 3D feature. Really don't know how I feel about that and the two camera lens on the back just seem like to much. Plus it has a longer look not sure about that as well.

 

[GaryColeman]

The EVO 4G and 3D definitely aren't for men with princess hands. That is who the iPhones are made for.

 

[lordofthereef]

The EVO 4G and 3D definitely aren't for men with princess hands. That is who the iPhones are made for.

 

[SamuraiBigEd]

In my opinion, thin phones are nothing but a status/glam feature. What do you really benefit from it other than looking cool.

The Evo and now the 3D are what I would call relatively thin phones at .5", honestly I find anything thinner than that difficult to hold. Granted I am a close cousin to Sasquatch, but my digital dexterity is well above average and I would still much prefer a little thickness even if it hampers my cool factor.

 

[dan330]

e3d is thinner than the evo... by .02"
small but something.

there might be reason for the thicker than other phones..
daul-core...maybe for heat displacement purpose?
better quality parts are bigger? ex: GPPS
3D screens / camera are thicker?
(note: those are just guesses on my part)

the funny thing for me is... i hear everyone (including me) wanting thinner sexier phones... but once you do get the it.. most will put on big ugly thick cases on it. LOL

btw.. i have the thinnest case I can find...

it would be cool.. if htc made the e3d phone.. a little (very little) thicker with nice rubber / aluminum body that can look great and take a beating. so that no case is needed.

 

[freeza]

e3d is thinner than the evo... by .02"
small but something.

there might be reason for the thicker than other phones..
daul-core...maybe for heat displacement purpose?
better quality parts are bigger? ex: GPPS
3D screens / camera are thicker?
(note: those are just guesses on my part)

the funny thing for me is... i hear everyone (including me) wanting thinner sexier phones... but once you do get the it.. most will put on big ugly thick cases on it. LOL

btw.. i have the thinnest case I can find...

it would be cool.. if htc made the e3d phone.. a little (very little) thicker with nice rubber / aluminum body that can look great and take a beating. so that no case is needed.

Agreed. Use high quality materials so that cases aren't needed!

 

[lordofthereef]

Agreed. Use high quality materials so that cases aren't needed!

IDK about this. I always got cases to keep scratches and dings away. It's pretty tough to dot hat with materials. Apple got close with the all glass (mostly) design, but then again the achilles heel is dropping on a corner and potentially having both the front and back spiderweb. Realistically, unless you are using a beefy case, the phone isn't going to be all that protected from any real impact. Another aspect is thickkness. If you make just about any material thin enough, no matter how high quality, it won't stand up to as much abuse as if it were thicker. In a time where we demand thinner and thinner phones, this become really tough to implement, I would think.

 

[alcohol]

I know a lot of people are excited about the 3D feature on the new EVO but I was actually looking forward to see how thin the phone would be. I was actually disappointed to see that the phone had the same thickness as the original EVO. After seeing the advances Samsung made with how thin the Galaxy S II I am disappointed with how thick the EVO 3D is. so I ask would you rather have 3D or a thinner phone, like the Galaxy S II?

What is the obsession with thinness? Who cares?

 

[lordofthereef]

What is the obsession with thinness? Who cares?

Well, the OP for one, but clearly there is a market where "thinner is better". Look at TVs. I have a two year old LCD, which I still consider thin, but the TVs rolling out now are less than half as thick. The industry gives people what they want if they can. I don't think they much care WHY they want it.

 

[SamuraiBigEd]

I can see the benefit of the thin tv, lighter and easier to hang and less visually imposing on the wall. My Samsung 46" LCD (first 1080p they made) sticks out a good 10" from the wall, my newer Sharp 46" is about 7", and the new Samsung will be about 1".

The thin phone is harder to hold on to, period.

 

[dan330]

yes.. i agree.. there is a limit in both directions...

there is too thin..
and there is too thick..

 

[lordofthereef]

Honestly, I have seen very few TVs mounted on the wall. That said, I see where you are coming from I suppose. I have seen some of the thin TVs and would beg to differ about weight though. I do agree that 10" is thick though. I haven't measured mine but it certainly isnt that thick. I'd reckon closer to 6. FWIW, I don't find thinner phones harder to hold though. As long as the footprint is the same I find them to be pretty similar. A lot more depends on the actual contour of the phone, for me anyway.

 

[SamuraiBigEd]

Honestly, I have seen very few TVs mounted on the wall. That said, I see where you are coming from I suppose. I have seen some of the thin TVs and would beg to differ about weight though. I do agree that 10" is thick though. I haven't measured mine but it certainly isnt that thick. I'd reckon closer to 6. FWIW, I don't find thinner phones harder to hold though. As long as the footprint is the same I find them to be pretty similar. A lot more depends on the actual contour of the phone, for me anyway.

My Samsung weighs over 80 lbs., a 46" 9000 series Samsung is 48.5 lbs. The tv itself is about 7", the remainder is the wall mount bracket. I know an A/V company in Austin that hangs the 9000's with industrial grade Velcro!

 

[JunBringer]

I don't care about 3D or thickness really. I always end up getting a larger battery for my devices anyways

 

[paintmoonsred]

I am fine with the thinness of the evo 3d, like someone said, its even a tiny bit thinner than the original evo, which to ME seems pretty thin already. Idk if I would even be comfortable with something thinner, I'd feel like I might snap it in half!

 

[Roq]

Being thin in general is a good thing, and I think the evo is at level that we can consider "thin". If you use how thin the device is for a selling point, it makes me wonder what the phone is lacking.

 

[lordofthereef]

My Samsung weighs over 80 lbs., a 46" 9000 series Samsung is 48.5 lbs. The tv itself is about 7", the remainder is the wall mount bracket. I know an A/V company in Austin that hangs the 9000's with industrial grade Velcro!

That's a heavy tv! Anyway, my point was, and still is, that the thinness factor is more of a bragging right. Clearly you were able to hang your behemoth, so it can be done. It's just cooler to say you did it with velcro!

 

[SamuraiBigEd]

That's a heavy tv! Anyway, my point was, and still is, that the thinness factor is more of a bragging right. Clearly you were able to hang your behemoth, so it can be done. It's just cooler to say you did it with velcro!

LOL, like I said, first 1080p LCD Samsung made (boy am I regretting that purchase, not even upgradeable).

Things are always cooler with Velcro!