Razr foldable phone

[sun surfer]

Originally Posted by tch65721

And that is a shame. It struck me while filtering through phone reviews, attempting to find something I'd actually buy that the reviewers were yammering on and on about the camera, screen, apps etc. but absolutely nothing about signal strength or voice quality, the essential attributes of a PHONE. It seems that the extraneous crap has somehow gained more importance than the intended function. It may be just me but I found that very odd.

Smart phones have become more mini tablet computers that have included as one of their apps a phone. We just call them phones still because that's what they developed from. It'd be no different than if they developed mainly from cameras and we now called them smart cameras instead.

[leebase]

The iPhone turned the "mobile phone" into a "computer in your pocket" that has a "phone app"...among many other things.

I can still remember the reviews from the first couple of years that did evaluate the iPhone along the lines of "how good of a phone and texting device".

The iPhone was never a great phone according to how phones used to be judged. Horrible battery life. Ok reception. Screen breaks when you drop it. The iPhones cameras weren't "all that" in the beginning...didn't even have a selfie cam or record video. No MMS. The list goes on.

The first iPhone was all about the browser, large screen (compared to it's contemporaries) and superior iTunes integration.

Now the camera has come to the forefront as THE feature that top phones try to distinguish themselves with. A few years ago it was "who had the largest screen".

Today there are so many choices at every imaginable price point.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

...I still use a flip phone; but then, I'm an old people

I'd still be using my StarTrek phone but it died.

https://www.engadget.com/2006/09/19/...trek-reviewed/

Grudgingly moved to a small soap bar.
And now those are getting scarce.
I just hope mine hangs on until the Razor 3c.
( "c" as in, cheap.)

[Uncle Robin]

Originally Posted by tch65721

And that is a shame. It struck me while filtering through phone reviews, attempting to find something I'd actually buy that the reviewers were yammering on and on about the camera, screen, apps etc. but absolutely nothing about signal strength or voice quality, the essential attributes of a PHONE. It seems that the extraneous crap has somehow gained more importance than the intended function. It may be just me but I found that very odd.

If you're an Android user, I strongly recommend gsmarena.com - their reviews include very detailed analyses of call strength, reception, voice quality, etc, and they are always ready to highlight a phone's failings at being an actual phone

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by Uncle Robin

If you're an Android user, I strongly recommend gsmarena.com - their reviews include very detailed analyses of call strength, reception, voice quality, etc, and they are always ready to highlight a phone's failings at being an actual phone

They review Apple phones too.

I refer to GSMArena quite a bit and while they are probably the best around, from my experience the veracity of their reviews need to be taken on board with care. They seem to be on occasion adrift; for example I have seen them rubbish a phone's camera when compared to others in the same price range but when I have seen comparisons made by users and in the few cases where I was able to do so myself, one could only assume they had a dud phone or had some sort of testing problem (in fact I have seen their comparison images where their comments do not match the images). Battery life is another area I have seen them seemingly get poor results compared to what users demonstrate they are getting. Furthermore some of the phones they rubbish have been turned out to be very popular. And, of course, quite a bit about phones tends to be subjective, including very high brand loyalty in some instances.

As far as I know "GSMArena" is "based" in Bulgaria but I get the impression (I stand to be corrected) that testing may be by a small dispersed group of people. I also get the impression they may now have a bias towards Chinese phones which I sympathise with a little in the interests of building competition but should not "flavour" reviews. The few Chinese phones I have handled and from comments from others, they may suffer in build and software quality (my opinion) but are strong in specifications.

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by 4691mls

Where I live signal strength is highly variable due to topography. I would love to find a review of current phones that actually mentioned the quality of the antenna. I don't make many phone calls (I use the phone more for emails than calls) but if I were to need to call AAA for roadside assistance it would be good to know that my phone had a decent chance.
I think most reviewers are probably based in big cities where this is not an issue.

I suspect that the well regarded names such as Samsung, Apple, Nokia, etc. are all much of a muchness. One reason I say that is that even if in the unlikely event one of them was able to design an antenna that was twice as efficient as the competition that would only result in a 3db increase in signal strength, that increase is barely perceptible. Another reason is that while we live in an urban area the immediate area around us seems to be in a coverage null from the 2 closest cellular sites, all the phones we use seem to be much of a muchness as do those of visitors if their service provider is also co-located just at those sites.

One is better off choosing the service provider that gives best coverage in the area of concern and go with GSM (if in one of the few countries where it is not the only system). Also ensure that the phone actually covers all the channels used by that provider, an international version is best if going to roam.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Barty

99% of the people who were attached to the razrs have moved on to smartphones. After all, they were at the leading edge in their time.

You may get people buying the new phone for nostalgia and the cool factor, but nobody except old people, drug dealers, and Tony Stark use flip phones anymore.

Older people deserve a decent phone. The non-smart phones available now are lousy. So I see the real Motorola Razr very much worth being brought back to life. The new version is awful. It's form is awful, the battery is awful. The folding screen is awful. The processor is awful. The price is awful. Nothing about it has any redeeming qualities.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Older people deserve a decent phone. The non-smart phones available now are lousy. So I see the real Motorola Razr very much worth being brought back to life. The new version is awful. It's form is awful, the battery is awful. The folding screen is awful. The processor is awful. The price is awful. Nothing about it has any redeeming qualities.

Maybe because it's not targeted at older folks?
The price kinda suggests it.

[leebase]

I feel the pain of those wanting quality, reasonably priced phones that aren’t smart phones. My 74 yr old mother didn’t want nor need the cost of a data plan. She stopped her old school phone in water and needed a new one.

It was difficult finding a decent phone with big buttons that didn’t cost near $200 that worked on her phone provider

[Deskisamess]

Older people deserve a decent phone.

Thank you. My MIL was changed to an android smart phone recently, and she really struggles with it. None of the flip-phone options were suitable for one reason or another. She did great with her old flip-phone, could even text with no problems.

My mom uses a cheap Trac Phone for emergencies, and to call her sister in another state. It's not used much, and even my husband and I struggle with figuring it out. It's a non-flip non-smart phone, and using it is pretty horrible.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by leebase

I feel the pain of those wanting quality, reasonably priced phones that aren’t smart phones. My 74 yr old mother didn’t want nor need the cost of a data plan. She stopped her old school phone in water and needed a new one.

It was difficult finding a decent phone with big buttons that didn’t cost near $200 that worked on her phone provider

I went through the same issue with my father several years ago. He wanted a traditional phone with big buttons, not a smart phone. He eventually learned to use an iPhone ( I got the plus size so the screen was readable). At one time, Verizon marketed a "senior" phone that had big buttons, but that was years ago.

[binaryhermit]

To be fair, the processor isn't really awful per se. The Pixel 3a's processor is lower-end, and it's fine.
But for a $1500 phone, it is indeed horrible.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by binaryhermit

To be fair, the processor isn't really awful per se. The Pixel 3a's processor is lower-end, and it's fine.
But for a $1500 phone, it is indeed horrible.

What price soap bar would it be appropriate for today?
$1000? $800? Less?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Maybe because it's not targeted at older folks?
The price kinda suggests it.

But then it's not really a Motorola Razr.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

But then it's not really a Motorola Razr.

The original was kind of expensive. It never really was a cheap phone, but a luxury one.