Razr foldable phone

[binaryhermit]

Given that the processor's somewhere between the one in the Pixel 3a ($400) and the Pixel 4 ($800) maybe $500 or $600.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

But then it's not really a Motorola Razr.

A Razr is whatever Motorola says it is.
It's their brand, they can apply it to anything.
Just like Ford can build an electric SUV and call it a Mustang.

[binaryhermit]

They've already revived the RAZR brand once. There were 2 or 3 gens of "RAZR" smartphones in the earlier part of the decade that ended around when Google integrated Motorola into their company (before selling it to Lenovo)

EDIT: In a way, I kinda miss my Droid RAZR M. 4.1-4.3 was peak Android IMO and it's all been downhill since KitKat came out. Now get off my lawn lol.

[MGlitch]

Not to be cold but why should a phone company invest in a market that shrinks every day. As the younger crowd becomes older they’re not going to have to or necessarily want to adjust backward to non smart phones.

It made some sense two decades ago to keep things simpler and even in the early days of smart phones. But the the 70s crowd is a age group that was young enough for many to adjust to smart phones.

It’s a problem that solves itself.

And to be clear I’m not saying the elderly who can’t adjust to smart phones deserve nothing just that whatever these companies put out for them isn’t going to be an amazing product it’s going to be a cheap to produce phone with very few features. And it likely won’t be something like the RAZR which has always been used as a premium line.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

Not to be cold but why should a phone company invest in a market that shrinks every day. As the younger crowd becomes older they’re not going to have to or necessarily want to adjust backward to non smart phones.

It made some sense two decades ago to keep things simpler and even in the early days of smart phones. But the the 70s crowd is a age group that was young enough for many to adjust to smart phones.

It’s a problem that solves itself.

And to be clear I’m not saying the elderly who can’t adjust to smart phones deserve nothing just that whatever these companies put out for them isn’t going to be an amazing product it’s going to be a cheap to produce phone with very few features. And it likely won’t be something like the RAZR which has always been used as a premium line.

And the cell phone plans without data are very expensive in the US.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

And the cell phone plans without data are very expensive in the US.

And nobody actually talks anymore, or most plans wouldn't have unlimited talk.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

And nobody actually talks anymore, or most plans wouldn't have unlimited talk.

Which is good for me because I mostly talk. Texting on an old-school flip phone is a PITA.

[Apache]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

A Razr is whatever Motorola says it is.
It's their brand, they can apply it to anything.
Just like Ford can build an electric SUV and call it a Mustang.

Ford has done that to the Mustang before.


Are you old enough to remember the Mustang II. In response to the gas crisis they made the Mustang a small 4 cylinder vehicle. They even changed the Horse Emblem from Galloping to Trotting. It was on a Pinto frame and even looked like the Pinto. For some reason it never sold well.
Apache

[Quoth]

Also the Fire was called the Kindle Fire, even though it's just a sort of crippled mid range general purpose Android tablet with a Kindle reader app locked in and not at all related to previous Kindles or eink devices or ereaders in general.

Microsoft Surface? One version runs real windows programs, if you add a keyboard and mouse, the other version is basically an ARM tablet with the windows phone OS.
Windows CE, Windows 95/98/Millennium, three different Windows Phone OSes, NT family (NT 3.1, 3.5, 3.51, 4.0, 2000, XP, 7, 8, 10). Really only share the word Windows!
64 bit NT 4.0 was only for Alpha
1st XP 64 bit only for a Itanium, later completely different XP 64 was for x86-64.

So nothing extraordinary about Razr. They could even have called it the StarTac
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_StarTAC
Which does seem to have been inspired by ST-TOS.
Apple OS X = OS10 was completely unrelated to OS9 and earlier. Then they stopped incrementing the major number on major releases, which should have been 11, 12 etc.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Apache

Ford has done that to the Mustang before.


Are you old enough to remember the Mustang II. In response to the gas crisis they made the Mustang a small 4 cylinder vehicle. They even changed the Horse Emblem from Galloping to Trotting. It was on a Pinto frame and even looked like the Pinto. For some reason it never sold well.
Apache

Changing the emblem was truth in advertising.

They originally intended the Probe to be the followup to the Mustang II but going FWD with a rebodied Mazda MX6 scared even them.
As it turned out the MX6 was a much better car than the Mustang II.

[fjtorres]

The secret to the hinge:

https://www.cnet.com/news/motorolas-...-hinge-design/

Photos and video explaining how it folds flat without creasing the screen.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by FrustratedReader

Microsoft Surface? One version runs real windows programs, if you add a keyboard and mouse, the other version is basically an ARM tablet with the windows phone OS.
Windows CE, Windows 95/98/Millennium, three different Windows Phone OSes, NT family (NT 3.1, 3.5, 3.51, 4.0, 2000, XP, 7, 8, 10). Really only share the word Windows!
64 bit NT 4.0 was only for Alpha
1st XP 64 bit only for a Itanium, later completely different XP 64 was for x86-64.

But, Microsoft called the ARM version of the surface the Microsoft Surface and the full Windows computer version of the surface the Microsoft Surface Pro. So two different devices with two different names.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by FrustratedReader

64 bit NT 4.0 was only for Alpha
1st XP 64 bit only for a Itanium, later completely different XP 64 was for x86-64.

Minor nit: Windows NT 64 bit was originally intended to run on Itanium and Alpha platforms. The Alpha version was mostly seen at Microsoft in-house and was never shipped.

And moving the GDI into kernel mode was still (IMHO) one of Microsoft's mistakes, Trading speed for security is seldom a good idea in a server OS.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by DNSB

And moving the GDI into kernel mode was still (IMHO) one of Microsoft's mistakes, Trading speed for security is seldom a good idea in a server OS.

NT 3.51 to NT 4.0. A speed improvement that was irrelevant by the time people buying NT 4.0 Workstation.
I also had the Explorer shell preview for NT3.51, which was more stable than NT4.0. We sold NT 3.51 for servers well after 1996.
NT 3.5 to NT 3.51 was caused by addition of fake APIs so that Office 95 wouldn't run on Win 3.11 (even with Win32s). So Office 95 wouldn't run on real 32bit NT 3.5, hence NT 3.51 to run Office 95! Most people I knew got a free upgrade from NT 3.5 to NT 3.51, but most were only using it for servers so didn't run Office 95 on it. Which was a hotch potch mix of 16 & 32 bit, as was Win95. Win95 was hardly more than WFWG 3.11, 32 bit drivers, VFW, the gaming API to port DOS games (Direct X), Win32S etc all bundled with the Explorer desktop. The initial version still used NetBEUI, not TCP/IP by default (actually no networking automatically) and no USB or OpenGL (on NT). NT 3.x had been the real 32 bit MS OS since 1993. Win95 sold to business held back computer security and damaged NT design and 32 bit programming. Caused most of the problems later seen on NT4.0, Win 2K (NT 5.0) and XP (NT 5.1). NT 4 even had PAE, deliberately disabled on all 32 bit versions of windows from XP to Win 10. Still works on Linux 32 bit to have more than 2G per process and more than 4G for CPU.
Then Intel cripples 64 bit Atoms by only having 2G of physical addressing!

Win NT / XP for Itanium was one of the shortest life time of support or sales of Windows? A strange HP idea implemented by Intel. Was the x86-64 extensions of AMD really invented by ex DEC Alpha designers?
Very sad the whole DEC Compaq HP debacle. HP kept all the worst bits.
DEC ARM designs went to Intel and most then sold to Marvell, who is doing well with embedded ARM (SATA chips to media players to phones) and Intel stopped with i960 and now is nowhere on embedded.

The world is mad.

[ilovejedd]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

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).

Same with my parents. I gave them Android first and they found it difficult to use so when I upgraded my iPhone, I gave them my old one. The iPhone was a lot easier for them (so much so that they both have their own iPads now). I was actually surprised they figured out how to do things on iOS that I never taught them.

Love the Razr Fold concept (and the commercial). Not so much the price. Think I'll stick to my Moto X4 for now.