You want a longer lasting phone battery? Too bad.

[Prysin]

3 hours ago, dizmo said:

You must not use your phone that often, or on WiFi haha

 

Havent turned off 4G LTE for about 2 years.... constantly on. Never turn the phone off, just charge it when it hits 5-15% battery.

All i did was clean up the bloatware (no root) and banned certain apps from running (like google voice searching and shit)....

 

And you havent owned a Sony Xperia Z device. It is painfully obvious, so don't bother trying to argue against me.

 

Also, LTE speeds where i live hits 30-80MB/s download and around 10-20MB/s upload... so whatever i need to download downloads really fast, thus LTE transmitters doesnt need to work for extended periods of time.

 

Oh and if you want fast network speeds on Android side, only the top end Samsung and Sony phones are worth considering, as they generally have the fastest modems. There are execptions though.

[vanished]

1 hour ago, DocSwag said:

Reason 1: It makes me feel more comfortable (I get uncomfortable once my phone has under 30% ish even if they day is almost over) 

Reason 2: If, for whatever reason, I have a day much, much longer than usual I will still be able to make it through that day with no problem. It's just to be safe. There's no reason I think that you need a battery that lasts 2-3 days... if it lasts you one day then you can just charge it up during the night. Having a 2-3 day battery would only make your phone thicker and heavier and for me brings no benefit.

Also over time as the battery loses maximum capacity, one that used to give you 40% excess will now just barely last - but it will still last

54 minutes ago, FunkyFeatures said:

Gotta make the phone thinner, right? Because totally noone buys power banks and power cases...

 

I have an LG G4, it's a bit on the bigger side, but I could totally take another 3 mm of thickness so I wouldn't have to worry about smashing the camera when I put it down. Thank god I have a huge mousepad, I never dare to put it carelessly on any hard table.

And then when it's thicker, I can have a bigger battery in it. But nononono, lets make a phone paperthin, get rid of the battery completely so that people will need power banks..

 

2 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

Honestly we need larger batteries in phones and more efficient chipsets. But also more OS level optimizations.

 

All so very true and good points

[tbake0155]

My sony xperia t2 ultra, a fairly low spec phone with a reasonable battery, lasts for days and days on one charge.  I don't even leave my charger plugged in anymore because I only use it about twice a week.

 

To be fair I don't use it for games, or facebook.  I use it for a phone, to text and to cast bluetooth to my car radio.  I'm currently pretty happy.

 

If people keep buying the most expensive phones, with the highest resolution, and the most powerful processor, and the slimmest profile, what do you think the companies are going to make?

 

If people bought low spec (completely functional) phones that have the best battery life of the fleet, then perhaps the phone companies would take note.  You can grovel about the companies all you want but your true voice is ultimately your $$$.

 

 

 

BTW, if I didn't charge at 50-60% but let the battery drain, I'm sure it would last a week.  Especially since the powersave function doesn't kick in until about 30%.

[DocSwag]

1 hour ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Also over time as the battery loses maximum capacity, one that used to give you 40% excess will now just barely last - but it will still last

 

 

All so very true and good points

good point didn't even think about that.

Another good point for me since I like to keep mine for 2-3 years at a time. No point in getting a new one every year (in my opinion) since it really isn't needed.

[ShaithEatery]

I'd happily have thickness if it meant both better battery life and even a return of the physical keyboard.  IMO, the perfect form factor was the AT&T Tilt 2, if I could have this phone with current software/hardware, i'd be the happiest person alive...

[Markmjb]

I have an idea: let's all tape massive batteries to our wrists. That way you lift , you have power for your phone, and you'll have even less reason to stop walking around like a moron with that phone stuck in your hand. 

[TetraSky]

6 hours ago, dizmo said:

A large screened phone is hardly a tablet...if you'd ever tried carrying one around you'd know that.

I'd argue that you don't want/need a smartphone at all. If you don't care about the OS or features, why not just get a regular cell phone? Those things last forever.

You either have big hands or you just don't care. I have small hands, large phones are a pain to use and carry if you don't have large pockets.
And no, I do need a smartphone, it just doesn't have to be some custom variant of android OS with extra, exclusive apps that I'll most likely never touch and will just drain the battery because they are running in the background regardless.

[dizmo]

10 hours ago, VerticalDiscussions said:

It may have, but what im talking about is multi day battery life, like 4 to 5 days of moderate-heavy usage. 1-2 days of heavy usage for me, is not enough.

That's a bit unrealistic.

9 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

Dizmo your post is not technically against the rules but please stop doing that: you don't need to answer everyone sorry you missed most of the thread but that post is infuriating shit. 

I suggest using the wheel located in the middle of your mouse, it makes the page move by faster.

Or, space bar can also work to get to the bottom of the page.

Seriously though there's no difference between that, and me replying to each person the moment they post. This actually creates less mess in the thread. Sorry if I have a life and wasn't able to reply right away

8 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

Well, last I checked the Snapdragon 8xx series was all about high performance. And then there came energy efficiency. Not the other way around.

 

Honestly we need larger batteries in phones and more efficient chipsets. But also more OS level optimizations.

Sort of both, though it still loses out to the Exynos. Fingers crossed for an Exynos Note6 in NA!

They're getting there. They keep adding sensors, so it's a balancing act. I think some are doing better than others, Samsung gets a lot of flak for it's bloat, yet they have some of the best battery life.

 

I think my ideal phone would be a 6"er with a 4800mah battery. Samsung could squeeze it into something around 156mm, which would be more than manageable. A few years ago I'd swear I'd never say something like that.

 

Oh, in the future, might want to just -snip- the rest of the post when replying...creates a lot less mess.

8 hours ago, DocSwag said:

Reason 1: It makes me feel more comfortable (I get uncomfortable once my phone has under 30% ish even if they day is almost over) 

Reason 2: If, for whatever reason, I have a day much, much longer than usual I will still be able to make it through that day with no problem. It's just to be safe. There's no reason I think that you need a battery that lasts 2-3 days... if it lasts you one day then you can just charge it up during the night. Having a 2-3 day battery would only make your phone thicker and heavier and for me brings no benefit.

Haha, that's the same reason my buddy uses. I thought you meant "end of day" as right before you plug it in to go to sleep, did you mean when you get home? Cuz that's different. If I'm in an area with less than ideal coverage I have to plug my phone in for the hour between work and class, so I can feel you there. I'd like to not have to do that.

 

3 hours ago, TetraSky said:

You either have big hands or you just don't care. I have small hands, large phones are a pain to use and carry if you don't have large pockets.
And no, I do need a smartphone, it just doesn't have to be some custom variant of android OS with extra, exclusive apps that I'll most likely never touch and will just drain the battery because they are running in the background regardless.

I have very average hands, I'm actually rather short. I definitely don't have big pockets though, and I wear skinny jeans...so..

Each to their own. Have you used one of them for more than a few minutes? I thought I'd hate them too, made fun of them for years, but once I got one...never going back. Makes my life a million times easier.

[VerticalDiscussions]

18 hours ago, dizmo said:

-snip-

How so? With 10000 mAh, i could get it to do so, especially with a 720p display. Well of course, heavy usage i dont mean gaming for 5 hours straight every day, but 1 hour and 30 minutes every day at least and 3 or 5 youtube videos and it could last that much.

[DeScruff]

If people really want their phones to be thinner, and don't care about battery life then why do products like the "iPhone 6s Smart Battery Case" exist?
*Hint* I don't think people are buying that $99 case just for the protection.

[rashdanml]

 

Quote

 

I'm not sure who they're surveying for those results, but it seems to be in exact and complete opposition to what we all read and hear around the forums and on the WAN show - people absolutely would accept a phone that's half a centimeter thicker in exchange for multi-day battery life!

 

We don't represent the population. The general public cares more about form over function. 

 

And: a multi-day battery life phone, with a relatively thin and attractive profile does exist. The Xperia Z# compact fits the bill just perfectly. 

[Kamil]

Did they consider taking into account the popularity of cases that people put on their phones, specifically the ones which include extra battery or wireless charging? Or the popularity of external battery banks which accomplish the same thing as a larger internal battery in a much less convenient package?

[Roawoao]

On 22/03/2016 at 7:21 AM, Doobeedoo said:

But. There needs to be a breakthrough already as far as type of batteries. On consumer level I'm hoping to see some type of new battery that can last multiple times as ones in todays phones in same size.

To have a battery that is the same size as the existing one but stores multiples the charge of the existing batteries would be extremely dangerous. So dangerous they would basically be explosively volatile. Now just imagine when knock off mfgs try to copy that hypothetical novel chemistry and make 15x capacity batteries... 

 

The only thing that might work is long distance wireless power charging using resonant transfer. Although if it is done wrong expect to get a little cooked.

[Doobeedoo]

9 minutes ago, Roawoao said:

To have a battery that is the same size as the existing one but stores multiples the charge of the existing batteries would be extremely dangerous. So dangerous they would basically be explosively volatile. Now just imagine when knock off mfgs try to copy that hypothetical novel chemistry and make 15x capacity batteries... 

 

The only thing that might work is long distance wireless power charging using resonant transfer. Although if it is done wrong expect to get a little cooked.

Dangerous, depends really. There were numerous prototypes of different types of batteries, even safer than todays, or better yet completely safe afaik. Making such type of battery as I mentioned before wouldn't mean to make it more dangerous. Maybe with current understanding and tech, making something ridiculous and dangerous yet working just to prove it can be done. Not the point. Todays batteries are dangerous though, severe overheating and boom. But entirely different type of batteries are needed for sure. 

[Doobeedoo]

9 minutes ago, Roawoao said:

To have a battery that is the same size as the existing one but stores multiples the charge of the existing batteries would be extremely dangerous. So dangerous they would basically be explosively volatile. Now just imagine when knock off mfgs try to copy that hypothetical novel chemistry and make 15x capacity batteries... 

 

The only thing that might work is long distance wireless power charging using resonant transfer. Although if it is done wrong expect to get a little cooked.

Dangerous, depends really. There were numerous prototypes of different types of batteries, even safer than todays, or better yet completely safe afaik. Making such type of battery as I mentioned before wouldn't mean to make it more dangerous. Maybe with current understanding and tech, making something ridiculous and dangerous yet working just to prove it can be done. Not the point. Todays batteries are dangerous though, severe overheating and boom. But entirely different type of batteries are needed for sure. 

[Roawoao]

10 minutes ago, Doobeedoo said:

Dangerous, depends really. There were numerous prototypes of different types of batteries, even safer than todays, or better yet completely safe afaik. Making such type of battery as I mentioned before wouldn't mean to make it more dangerous. Maybe with current understanding and tech, making something ridiculous and dangerous yet working just to prove it can be done. Not the point. Todays batteries are dangerous though, severe overheating and boom. But entirely different type of batteries are needed for sure. 

Safer less fire prone batteries are also lower energy density. LiFePo4 has a better safety profile but is lower density than existing chemistries.

 

Prototypes that never make it to market either were unreliable or impossible to mass produce. (There is no such thing as a completely safe energy storage device) Making anything store 5x the energy in the same space will greatly increase the risk of explosion it is just a simple matter of energy per unit volume and what happens when all that energy tries to escape rapidly. Imagine if I made a novel sandwich contain 10x the chemical energy via chemical modification and you put a match to it. 

 

There is no reality bending magic the laws of physics cannot be bent with future technology this is why Moore's law is dead as well you just can't beat physics. This is why there are always claims of faster charging, safer batteries, higher capacity, ... but never all at once. At best you can hope for small tiny improvements not multiple times better. Long distance wireless charging is how the battery life problem will be solved for most.

[Godlygamer23]

On 3/21/2016 at 2:44 PM, Ryan_Vickers said:

I'm not sure who they're surveying for those results, but it seems to be in exact and complete opposition to what we all read and hear around the forums and on the WAN show - people absolutely would accept a phone that's half a centimeter thicker in exchange for multi-day battery life!

You're comparing a tech forum to the shear number of people buying smartphones. This forum might be okay with a thicker phone with additional battery life, but others might not.

[Doobeedoo]

2 hours ago, Roawoao said:

Safer less fire prone batteries are also lower energy density. LiFePo4 has a better safety profile but is lower density than existing chemistries.

 

Prototypes that never make it to market either were unreliable or impossible to mass produce. (There is no such thing as a completely safe energy storage device) Making anything store 5x the energy in the same space will greatly increase the risk of explosion it is just a simple matter of energy per unit volume and what happens when all that energy tries to escape rapidly. Imagine if I made a novel sandwich contain 10x the chemical energy via chemical modification and you put a match to it. 

 

There is no reality bending magic the laws of physics cannot be bent with future technology this is why Moore's law is dead as well you just can't beat physics. This is why there are always claims of faster charging, safer batteries, higher capacity, ... but never all at once. At best you can hope for small tiny improvements not multiple times better. Long distance wireless charging is how the battery life problem will be solved for most.

I understand storing more energy in smaller capacity is greater risk. But saying it like that and applying it to current batteries tech would mean that we currently have ultimate battery, battery type that can't get any better. That would be saying we won't get some new type of battery with like same physical size but greater energy storage ever. I doubt it really. I mean I don't propose something nuclear like.

[suicidalfranco]

meanwhile this is a thing and i love it

hope they do the same for  G5

[PillowSmoke]

It's kinda a 50/50 story, because yes a bigger battery is going to yield you longer battery life, but if you also consider that having more power efficient parts, and a more power efficient os along with app optimizations those are equally important.

[handymanshandle]

On 3/21/2016 at 1:51 PM, huilun02 said:

More reason to love my G4

Oh you need to head back to charge your fancy phone? Lemme just swap out my 3000mAh battery right here

Battery Banks do exist, while a little more cumbersome than just swapping out a battery for a fresh one still an option.

Either way in most cases my Galaxy S6 can get through about 3 hours and 30 minutes of SoT which isn't great but a little better than my Moto G 2014's 2 hours and 25 minutes (or so). 

[Roawoao]

8 hours ago, Doobeedoo said:

I understand storing more energy in smaller capacity is greater risk. But saying it like that and applying it to current batteries tech would mean that we currently have ultimate battery, battery type that can't get any better. That would be saying we won't get some new type of battery with like same physical size but greater energy storage ever. I doubt it really. I mean I don't propose something nuclear like.

No we don't have the ultimate battery and it can get better just not 2x better. There is no reality breaking scaling that is going to provide integer multiple improvements in battery performance without some trade off in another aspect. Chemically speaking there are only so many elements/compounds useful in batteries. 

 

Maybe the ultimate long life battery will be a biological glucose to electricity system as you can store a ton of energy in a fairly stable carbon based system (a super efficient fuel cell would work too) or just living implants that run directly off glucose. But electrochemical batteries that don't use respiration have many physical limitations. However these are more like fuel cells than batteries and are far away from practical use given how crappy fuel cell chargers are and how early we are into synthetic biology.

 

In terms of the actual consumer end result is likely going to be long range wireless charging then it doesn't matter really how big your phone battery is as you could have a local wireless power network running off a fat battery pack or just the room beaming power. (Don't expect it to charge a car like this though as those systems have FoD/Organic material detection and more constrained mechanically to prevent microwave cooking you)(Transmitting a few watts here or there is fine but transmitting kilowatts (an integer multiple) is dangerous)

[Doobeedoo]

40 minutes ago, Roawoao said:

No we don't have the ultimate battery and it can get better just not 2x better. There is no reality breaking scaling that is going to provide integer multiple improvements in battery performance without some trade off in another aspect. Chemically speaking there are only so many elements/compounds useful in batteries. 

 

Maybe the ultimate long life battery will be a biological glucose to electricity system as you can store a ton of energy in a fairly stable carbon based system (a super efficient fuel cell would work too) or just living implants that run directly off glucose. But electrochemical batteries that don't use respiration have many physical limitations. However these are more like fuel cells than batteries and are far away from practical use given how crappy fuel cell chargers are and how early we are into synthetic biology.

 

In terms of the actual consumer end result is likely going to be long range wireless charging then it doesn't matter really how big your phone battery is as you could have a local wireless power network running off a fat battery pack or just the room beaming power. (Don't expect it to charge a car like this though as those systems have FoD/Organic material detection and more constrained mechanically to prevent microwave cooking you)(Transmitting a few watts here or there is fine but transmitting kilowatts (an integer multiple) is dangerous)

I've read some about long range wireless charging, for sure that will come for smartphones initially I'd say. But how would it work where ever you go, cause it will be stationary. At least in start like for home over certain distance. So inductive charging, magnetic resonance. Well either way, can't wait to see what will come out and how it will be.

[Roawoao]

Just now, Doobeedoo said:

I've read some about long range wireless charging, for sure that will come for smartphones initially I'd say. But how would it work where ever you go, cause it will be stationary. At least in start like for home over certain distance. So inductive charging, magnetic resonance. Well either way, can't wait to see what will come out and how it will be.

It is in early development there are already demos at techshows with it working inside rooms. For portable use you could just have a miniaturized transmitter powered by a battery bank. It will likely work within a few feet at least so that is good enough for a portable system. Stationary ones can beam power to a singular room.

 

Inductive charging is not good at distance but resonant transfer is capable of longer distance transmission. These have the potential to eliminate the need for a large battery in your phone and could create bubble of wireless charging powered by the wall or a larger battery. Most people already carry around battery banks but if you could eliminate the short cable between the two then that would be a killer application of the wireless power tech that is being developed.

 

 

 

 

Seems to work and is probably pretty close to commercial use in a few years. Not sure if they have it in a small enough yet. The company seems pretty like a legit startup.

http://www.energous.com/transmitters/

 

 

 

[Doobeedoo]

10 minutes ago, Roawoao said:

It is in early development there are already demos at techshows with it working inside rooms. For portable use you could just have a miniaturized transmitter powered by a battery bank. It will likely work within a few feet at least so that is good enough for a portable system. Stationary ones can beam power to a singular room.

 

Inductive charging is not good at distance but resonant transfer is capable of longer distance transmission. These have the potential to eliminate the need for a large battery in your phone and could create bubble of wireless charging powered by the wall or a larger battery. Most people already carry around battery banks but if you could eliminate the short cable between the two then that would be a killer application of the wireless power tech that is being developed.

 

 

 

 

Seems to work and is probably pretty close to commercial use in a few years. Not sure if they have it in a small enough yet. The company seems pretty like a legit startup.

http://www.energous.com/transmitters/

 

 

 

Yeah, something like this will be neat. Wireless power banks on the go and so called stationary in home. Now just to see how fast it charges I guess.