• Warl0k3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Assuming he’s right (and boy, being sued by apple is a huge boost to his credibility), they’re keeping the stupid camera bump thing from the air???

    • scratchee@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      The camera bump sure isn’t going away for a folding phone. cameras have fundamental volume requirements to maintain quality, if they don’t think they can justify making the normal iPhone thick enough to enclose the camera then there’s no way in hell they’ll think the folding phones doubled width can include it, if anything you’d expect it to be more prominent on a folding model

  • w3dd1e@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    I like the idea of a foldable phone but what I really want is a phone that folds enough to fit in my women’s pants pockets.

    • Cloudstash@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Or perhaps just get a pair of pants that doesn’t suck? Designing a phone around womens complete lack of self awareness seems not so good, it’s way to volatile.

      • w3dd1e@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        I can see you don’t spent much time with women.

        Women aren’t choosing pants with shitty pockets intentionally.

        • Cloudstash@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          That’s the result of women choosing it over and over again…If women got to their senses and actually started NOT buying that junk, what do you think all the big mega corps producing tons and tons of clothes will do? Continue producing same shit clothes or adapting the factories to new, more reasonable clothes?

          • w3dd1e@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            You’re wrong about why women’s clothes don’t have pockets. Women were never given a choice to buy clothing with pockets.

            Initially, pockets were not accessible in women’s clothing due to the layers they were required to wear. After the suffragette movement when liberated women began to wear pants, designers intentionally kept pockets small to prop up the purse industry.

            Handbags are one of the most profitable items in the fashion industry.

            • Cloudstash@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              Yes, but again, which year do we exist in now? Not 1850, 1920, 1600, 1500, ill give you that much. Yikes, even the amount of freedom male commoners have today was far from a way of living in the old non-existant times. With the same historically prisioner mindset, you and me would probably not even be allowed on the net, thats reserved for the noble.

            • Cloudstash@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              Or again, atop buying clothes cause its the fashion… Easy as that. Stop trying to dress lile pornstars and guess what, suddenly women will have functional clothes like mean, instead of the stupid clothing that mainly hog the market today.