A ThinkPad Phone?

I don't understand why phones have glass backs. They look and feel great but are so fragile. Gorilla glass claims notwithstanding, I can tell from personal experience that glass backs tend to shatter when dropped, even when there is a protection case on (probably because latest-gen Gorilla glass is reserved for the front, not the back). Yet every single flagship phone on the market today has a glass back: all the iPhones, the Samsung Galaxies, the Pixels. The primary reason? Wireless charging. Glass also happens to look and feel more premium, but what’s the point if you wrap it up inside a plastic case anyway? But back to wireless charging. Hard data has been hard to find, but I personally know a total of zero people who use wireless charging. Probably because there isn't that much of a value add to using a wireless mat over a cable. It’s not a materially cleaner look, given the mat itself still needs a cable snaking away to a power outlet. The only valuable use case might be that of super invested users who have several gadgets (e.g. an iPhone + Apple watch + Airpods). For these people the overnight charging situation must get fairly messy (not that the promised Airpower mat for them ever materialized). So my guess then is that less than 1% of consumers use wireless charging, while conversely, say 5% customers might be cracking their phones’ backs due to drops. So unless wireless really takes off suddenly, it seems like a barely useful technology that phone makers continue to embrace in a features arm race. Which brings me to the main point of the article: why does every phone on the market today look more or less the same, and caters to essentially the same customer segment (the one which wants a sexy but super fragile phone)? I believe there is a sizable customer segment out there that phone makers are ignoring. Let’s call it the ‘no-nonsense segment’. I present their case (ahem) for case-free phones.

You could slice and dice the no-nonsense segment many ways, but one identifier could be that this type of customer covers up their sexy sleek all-glass phone with a plastic case. Thus completely ignoring the phone designer’s original intentions (but not deliberately, only due to practicality and with a dash of regret). As per Statista, a whopping 4 in 5 US smartphone users use a case. Think about it:

Haven’t phone designers failed in their mandate if 80% customers don’t use the phone in the intended way?

Now some of you might be going: wait, the Samsung Galaxy Active series (photo below) existed for several years just for this segment and look how poorly it sold. But that was a phone that went too far: looked far worse than the regular variant (see photo below), had plasticky materials vs the sleek regular Galaxy, and cost $100 more, so customers were better off with a regular Galaxy phone plus a standard $20 case, as c|net and other reviewers noted.

Keep in mind, no-nonsense customers don’t necessarily want ugli-fied phones. Yes, there is a sub-segment of customers in there who want absolute protection and don’t mind heavy compromises on aesthetics in the bargain. That is the OtterBox crowd. The rest of us do want a pretty phone, just one that won’t break if we sneeze at it. Car designers have figured that there is a massive mid-market category between low-flung sedans (sexy but impractical) and Jeep Wrangler SUVs (over-engineered for daily use): it’s called the crossover category, and it’s now the largest category in the car industry by far. Ford is even exiting sedans, that’s how hot crossovers have become. Wish phone makers were to tap into the equivalent phone category too.

So how do you go about designing a phone which won’t need a case? The main protection a case offers is for the screen. All phones now have flush glass screens in the front. Again, for that luxurious ‘immersive’ feel that Jony Ive likes to talk about, but which means a tumble will immediately stress the poor flush mounted screen, and a likely shatter if you hit the edge. That’s why most users slap on cases that create a raised lip (immersive experience be darned). So phone designers, why don’t you start by offering off us an all-metal phone with a raised lip in the front? It won’t look as sexy as your immersive screen all-glass back phone, but that’s not real world usage anyway (for most of us). The rest of the phone can and should look exactly the same. Key features:

• Flagship specs (best RAM / processor, best cameras, etc). This is by far the biggest segment of the market today, and for good reason: we live with our phones 24x7, so most of us spend like kings to get the best. So build a variant going after this customer base
• Still looks amazing – uses high end materials like steel or aluminum, has the same design aesthetic and general focus on sleekness like the regular version would have (think iPhone 7), with just two differences: 1. Metal back instead of glass back, and 2. A raised lip to protect the front screen
• Perhaps 3.5mm headphone jack? This way phone makers could cast their net wide and re-serve a customer need that has also been ignored for flagship phones
• A tempered glass screen protector pre-installed. Many no-nonsense users get this added protection at the store or apply the protector themselves, a fairly labor-intensive process. A factory pre-installation might be appealing
• Ideally exact same price, at worse $20-$30 more (the cost of a typical case + tempered glass protector). The proposed no-nonsense variant can probably be produced at a cost close to the regular variant (glass costs more than metal, especially the Gorilla kind). And when the cost between two or more variants of a product is not too different, deliberately maintaining a single price point helps avoid buyer indecision and forces buyers to pick which variant truly fits their needs, versus fixating on the price difference. Swatch and iTunes have exemplified this approach – more on this topic in this HBR pricing essay (see part 4).

While we are dreaming, here are a couple more features that could be great but are probably not doable:

• Slightly thicker device, but therefore larger battery. Many no-nonsense segment users will probably prefer more battery life if it means a 1-2mm thicker phone. The Samsung Galaxy Active went down this path. The challenge? The bigger battery will cost more to the extent that the price point will have to be different, by say $50 or $100. And buyer psychology makes this a no-no (“I love it but won’t pay extra for it”). Unlike a visible/tangible feature like say a ‘plus’ sized screen, more battery life is one of those intangibles that no one may turn down, but no one will pay extra for either. App makers know this tragic psychology all too well – we all think thrice before spending $2 on a paid app
• Removable battery. Great for environmental sustainability / multi-year use of phones, and for power users who like to swap batteries towards end of day. The challenge: major hardware design compromises. Read here

Still, looking pretty good with the metal back, a front rim to protect the screen, and a 3.5mm jack right? I imagine the key challenge would be in designing a metal lip that holds up over time without denting too badly (the plastic/rubber used for rims on cases is obviously better at shock absorption). Perhaps one could design an otherwise-metal phone with a hybrid rim material that somehow feels rigidly put together and luxurious? I would love to see hardware designers being asked to work on this type of functional challenge, not just how to make keyboards thinner at any cost (Macbook butterfly keyboard disaster here).

So, which phone maker could try this?

• Not Apple. They are unfortunately committed too much to form over function. See Macbook keyboard snafu above, plus my last post on iOS (here)
• Lenovo? ‘The Thinkpad Phone’. Lenovo doesn’t have a meaningful smartphone presence, so this could be an awesome move for them. They might be willing to throw the marketing dollars at this to get a footing in the smartphone market
• Google? ‘Pixel Steel’. The Pixel is languishing in sales despite being amazing. Mostly to do with distribution (was only sold at Verizon or directly online till recently), but could this be a great move for Google to carve out a potentially large segment all for itself? Maybe this even replaces the regular Pixel instead of supplanting it – at least as a massive test for one generation? Else marketing gets spread too thin
• Samsung? ‘New Galaxy Active’. Samsung has clearly invested in this category for a while but without much success. Perhaps a reboot?

Readers: would you buy a phone like this? Won’t offer as much protection as a case will, but will get you 80% of the way. In turn you get to use a sleek metal phone vs one you will have to cover up in a plastic case. And this way you no longer need to envy those annoying people who don’t use a case, who evidently don’t mind breaking their phones (or are paying $200 in insurance to experience freedom from cases). 

Please share your thoughts!