March 1, 2015 . Possibly the date does not tell you anything, but for those of us who have been in this Android world for many years, it is the starting point of the evolution of smartphones in terms of design . After a “disastrous”, the South Korean firm launched the, a smartphone built entirely in glass that was a turning point in the industry. The rest of the brands did not take long to assume the crystal as Default material to manufacture your terminals and, to this day, this is a minimum requirement for any high-end device.
Glass brings to smartphones what we know as premium design . It’s nice to take it, feel it in your hand and enjoy your piece of technology whose price exceeds the Minimum Interprofessional Salary, at least during the 10 minutes between You receive the mobile and you put a five-euro cover of the ‘Todo a 100’ of your neighborhood. Because you know, the glass breaks with astonishing ease, is full of prints, scratches and, well, those things that happen to glass as fragile material that is.
In my humble opinion, we have reached the point where we not only pay for a terminal that, unfortunately, as far as upgrades are concerned, will be obsolete in two years, but we also pay more for something that 1) we do not enjoy and 2) it puts at risk the integrity of our device . I am a faithful defender of aluminum and plastic, in the good sense of the word. I’m not saying we have to go back to the bad plastic that the first terminals were made of, but I do think that we should seriously reconsider whether glass is the material of choice.
The crystal has two negative points . The first is that, as we have already said, it is fragile . Anyone who has had a device made of this material can corroborate it. The second, which fits with the first, is that it is expensive to repair. I do not remember when I broke my Galaxy S7 edge and they told me that only the back part was close to 200 euros (plus the screen, which was 150). Here I have it by my side, shattered and functioning like the first day.
This absurd material is, also, the evident proof of. At first, people complained that the glass was weak, broke easily and was not worth it. However, as it became popular, opinions changed and now the crystal is the minimum that you can ask a mobile 800-900-1,000 euros . I’m sorry, but the minimum you can ask a smartphone of that price is that do not break with just looking at it or, at least, that’s how I understand it.
We have assumed that glass is a premium material when, in reality, it is one of the most fragile.
The same thing happens with glass as with all the absurd additions that manufacturers add to their terminals, such as animojis, the curved screen, their own assistants or proprietary apps that are useless. The user, in the end, is paying for something that he does not enjoy and that, therefore, is not worth it . Some people will say that their mobile phone has no case and that it does not matter, although you just have to look at the street and see that everyone uses one (I am aware that this argument is fallacious and can not be proven, but understands what I want to say).
In short, let’s stop and think a little. Are we really willing to sacrifice durability and endurance for a material that is covered by a silicone sleeve? Would not it be better to bet on aluminum or a quality plastic? Would not we be able to reduce prices and increase the useful life of the terminals, as well as lower the cost of repairing them? Everyone who judges according to their criteria.