Though it makes sense for phones to have a cheap shell that you can swap instead of the $1000 device itself taking damage. The alternative is to build insulation and bumpers into the case that you can't swap. I don't think that's better.

I tried to go caseless back when I was 22 and thought anyone would care how pretty my phone was, but it was slippery and accumulated damage for no reason. My next phone, I kept a case on it and when I sold it after a few years, it looked good as new.

I suppose something that's going to live in a case has no real need to be so beautiful. But it's also a luxury consumer good, so "we cut some corners, so it's ugly, but it's in a case anyways amiright?" isn't really the best marketing message. Also, clear cases seem quite popular for those who do want to show it off.

I just don't get what there is to show off. It's a phone. It's not like you built the thing! People are willing to address that these phones are "beautiful", whatever that means, without acknowledging that the differentiation mostly has class and not taste connotations.

Because cases can add functionality or customization that only a subset of users might want. See the "naked robotic core" idea http://5by5.tv/hypercritical/86.

Yeah it always struck me as bizarre - here is a technological marvel, beautifully crafted, polished and shiny, slim and elegant.

But you have to put it in an ugly protective case or it'll be borked inside a year.

You really don't. I haven't used a case on for more than a total of a month in the last ten years. Even with dropping my phone fairly frequently, and sometimes onto concrete from head height, I've only had one phone receive more than minor cosmetic scratches.

Whereas I lose count of the various phones I've cracked. Never had an iphone, but I've destroyed screens on Samsungs, Motorolas, at least one nexus device... Every phone I insisted on using caseless.

Perhaps I'm just clumsy :)

Low quality glass cracks more.

And I've always bought flagships, there's no reason to think the glass was low quality.

I am aware Apple have good glass, but the number of cracked iPhones I've seen inform me they aren't immune from this phenomenon.

I've gone 3 years with no case on my current phone. The screen is still unscratched and not chipped or cracked or anything. The most obvious wear and tear is actually in the paint on the back of the phone that has faded where my fingers normally comfortably position themselves.

You got extremely lucky.

I had an iPhone 6 or 6S Plus for a couple years a while back, and since then I haven’t ever needed to use a case. I just got so used to using my phone with both hands, and two phones later I’ve never needed a repair.

Of course, as soon as I post this, I’m probably going to break it. But the caseless life does exist!

Are you really marveled by your phone after you've had it for a week or so?

I think once the honeymoon gadget phase wears off, most people get over it and then prefer to protect it so that their expensive device lasts longer.

I'd rather get over it and still have the device in my pocket without needing the extra hardware to keep it in one piece.

I tried to go caseless but realized I was constantly thinking about what surface I was putting it on. Is the surface wet at this restaurant? Is it dirty? Is it slippery? Can metal slide on it? If it does inevitably fall, what will happen?

A case solved all this. And frankly I can't even recall seeing someone use their phone without a case, so it seems to be a prevailing issue.

I'm not sure what the alternative is that you seem to be pitching though, if you were.

> I can't even recall seeing someone use their phone without a case

Exactly, they're too fragile to use without some sort of case.

Which really makes the "look how thin and pretty the new device is!" something of a lie. And pointless, who cares if the phone is the thinnest ever, when it's going to live its life in a thick jacket?

I don't want to use a case. I want a phone I can buy for the way it looks and feels and use as-is.

I tried to sneak in this final question to my comment, but what other option is there for a luxury consumer gadget?

You could argue that phones should just be uglier and thicker and more rugged such that they don't need a case, but I don't think it's very palatable for a $1000 handheld to be taking damage directly for most people when the ruggedness can be outsourced to a $20 case. Nor do I think a luxury consumer gadget can see much success by sacrificing on aesthetics.

Building the case into the phone is exactly what my girlfriend's $120 Android does, and it certainly looks like it cost no more than $120 with its rubber bumpers that already look like they've been used as pencil erasers.

If you're arguing that people shouldn't care so much about the shiny marketing, it's not clear how much people do care nor what the appropriate amount of care should be. A good looking product does help you spend $1000 though.

> but what other option is there for a luxury consumer gadget?

To make something that won't fall apart the moment someone looks at it wrong?

To expect if someone sells something on its aesthetics and how compact it is, that those factors won't then both have to be compromised by the aforementioned $20 case?

Clearly you have different expectations of a $1000 device than I do.

I would imagine for a $1000 item, it wouldn't be unreasonable to have a designer try to find a way to be more rugged and still not ugly -- see for example, IBM thinkpads, though they are perhaps the other extreme

I use mine without a case. It has minor cosmetic damage in 3 years with heavy usage.

My OnePlus 7 Pro came with a "recommended" "buffer" in the box. It needs it.

Only because OnePlus design the backs of their phones to be as slippery as possible. Insanely so, even.

Yes it's so smooth. I'm glad I bought the Amber color so I can hide it behind the improved case I bought.

Cases allow personalization, are easy to wash, and frankly plastic feels nicer to hold then metal. Even without edge-to-edge screen, most people are going to add a case around the thing, so you might as well optimize by shrinking the extra borders as much as possible. Are we really sacrificing anything here? That’s an odd choice of word.

What are you saying? If they make thicker phone then case is not needed?

Yeah I don't get his logic at all. I would have purchased a case either way. At least with a thinner phone, the case isn't as unwieldy.

Thinking on this, I don’t remember cases for the original Blackberry or Palm devices. I never cased a flip phone. Or one of my candy bar phones.

Apple gets really excited to say “thinnest iPhone ever” — but then we (or at least I) slap an Otterbox on it because I want the thing to last.

At the end of the day, it’s just for marketing purposes. No one wants to buy a Jitterbug phone. People want to buy sleek and sexy. And then they surround it in rubber bumpers.

It’s really pretty stupid all the way around. I don’t think Apple would sell as many phones if they shipped with a built-in bumper. Even to people like me who require that their pocket computers be protected...

I did managed to crack the screens on both my Palm IIIx and a Nokia N73, so despite their bulky plastic cases, they weren't impervious (since the smartphone era I've also cracked only two screens - iPhone 5S and 11 Pro Max, only the former was caseless)

That perhaps if we weren't focused on thinness above all, perhaps they could be made robust enough to survive without needing a case.

Wouldn’t that be equivalent to a case you can’t remove?

The honest answer to that is - I don't know. I don't know what the big manufacturers are capable of.

That is effectively what "ruggedised" phones look like, I'll agree.