[jerrya]

I've seen too many dropped and broken screens on phones to desire a really thin smartphone, that is, until the standard warranty covers screen damage for a minimal (if any) charge.

I've been very pleased with my Nexus One. Haven't dropped it often, but dropped it often enough to be very pleased with how HTC designed and built it (with a metal chassis).

In a real sense, bragging that your phone is thin, without giving me coverage for breaking the screen is a disfeature. An unbenefit. A risk factor.

[2muchcoffeeman]

What does thin have to do with breaking the screen?

"featuring a chassis with a stainless steel core and woven kevlar on the back."

I like how they are using nice materials.

[jerrya]

It's my perception a thin chassis will subject the screen to more flexing. Maybe that's a good thing. Maybe I'd prefer the modern screens flex than be subject to a rigid shock.

But the point is, I don't know, and the manufacturers neither make it clear which screen is more durable to shock, nor do they take the risk away.

So they offer me something that is of neglible value: thinness. Why do I want a thinner phone? My Nexus One ain't that fat, and neither are the various iPhones. WHY do I want a thinner phone? The manufacturers have not made the benefits of a thinner phone clear to me, but I sure am aware of the risks and costs of breaking a phone screen.

If the manufacturers really want to demonstrate that a thinner phone is less resistant to screen breaks, they should warrant the screen for breakage.

Otherwise, I just perceive they are asking me to pay for a non-feature, a style point more valuable to them and the press than to me.

[nodata]

Thinner phones will be bought by people who want to upgrade from their old fat phones. If you're going to buy a thinner phone, why not buy the thinnest?

[BuddhaSource]

So in short Thin -- > chances of breaking more

Hmm only some test can answer this.