[pdimitar]

Sounds like a great and interesting engineering problem to work on.

The corporations still will not work on it though, for the exact reasons your parent commenter outlined.

I for one I am not convinced that we have to choose between swappable batteries and water-proof devices. I say we can have both -- but nobody in the business wants to figure it out, for obvious reasons.

[stephen_g]

You've misidentified the trade-off - it's not a choice between swappable batteries or waterproof devices - obviously either swappable or non-swappable devices can be designed to be waterproof.

The trade-off is usually size and complexity. You need more space for the seals (gaskets, O-rings etc.), and then latching mechanisms to hold covers on while applying the correct amount of pressure (and uniform pressure) on the gaskets.

That's not an especially hard an engineering problem, it just necessarily takes up more space so you end up with a bulkier device, which people tend not to like as much unless they really value being able to swap the battery.

[LorenPechtel]

It becomes an engineering problem when you are trying to make it small and light.

I recently replaced the battery in my chest strap heart rate monitor. And I found I was lucky--turns out the seal had slipped and it hadn't been waterproof since the last battery change.

And I think the sealing mechanism probably increases the device volume by 50%. As a chest strap that's not a big deal.

[xandrius]

I still have to this as an option by any manufacturer.

[dghlsakjg]

We don't have to choose. Those phones exist, they just don't sell well. Here's one you've never heard of: https://www.samsung.com/uk/smartphones/others/galaxy-xcover7...

We have to choose between swappable batteries, waterproofness, and compactness. most people are more concerned with waterproofness and compactness, and are perfectly happy to have a phone where the battery is not field serviceable.

Resealable waterproof cases that don't require adhesives are less reliable and bulkier. Nobody really wants a waterproof phone, with a replaceable battery, that has an o-ring seal that can be defeated by a cat hair.

The phones do exist, but you have to go looking for them.

[numpad0]

There's another one on Verizon USA right now[1]. Same story: heavy, bulky, anyone who asks for it don't commit to it.

By the way, I was really surprised to learn that US Army special operations guys just procure whatever latest models of Galaxy S2x in a marginally special plastic case that clips onto a flip-down chest mount. If that's all they need for parachute jumping and covert operations as far as physical reliability is concerned, surely I am not going to need any more hardening for my daily uses.

On the other hand, I sometimes see these seriously rugged phones seriously beaten up appearing in used markets with warehouse or heavy industrial factory style damages. Clearly that's where IP56 protection is actually required and proven.

1: https://www.techradar.com/pro/phone-communications/kyocera-d...

[pdimitar]

I wouldn't mind a Galaxy Xcover at all by the way, but here's one more war the corporations push people away from these devices: lack of software updates.

:(

[mjevans]

How about:

Waterproof phone* (excluding contacts for the battery and 3.5mm audio ports, which can be submerged without long term damage), and

Waterproofed battery* (safe to submerge, refuses to discharge unsafely).

I, personally, would also sacrifice compactness for robustness. I don't rock climb, but make a phone that can survive a tumble of multiple 10 meter drops and rolls and twists down a rock face. It must still be able to call EMS. That spec sounds bullet-proof enough to survive my relative's young kids worst antics.

[dghlsakjg]

The kind of phone you have described is called a 'tough phone', and typically marketed for industrial users.

I already linked to one that comes pretty close to what you want.

[Iulioh]

Yeah, now give me one with modern high end hardware.

That's the problem with these "niche" phones. Another example is Fairphone.

I don't necessarily have a problem with spending more, my problem is the fact that they compromise on things they could not compromise.

See Framework, they did it right.

[numpad0]

The bottom line is you're not putting money where your mouth is. Real rugged devices can't have top notch performance because waterproofing and expanding wider operating temperature require insulation and therefore performance reduction but that's not important.

The very core of the problem is you - not personally but the vast majority would-be rugged phone buyers - just don't buy rugged phones, nor take it outdoors. People who'd demand rugged phones would just buy the latest and greatest iPhone, maybe with a case with reward points, and that covers almost every single use cases.

If there had been demand at all, the level of performance possible in a ruggedized phone will be the benchmark, and current high end will be considered over the top models with compromised ruggedness, but the reality isn't working that way at all.

[LorenPechtel]

And note that it comes down to what threat level it actually faces. I take my perfectly ordinary smartphone into the wilderness. It's never going to tumble down a rock face both because you'll never find me on one but because I have it lanyarded to me. It's fallen a few times, but the lanyard has kept it from hitting the ground.

You have to balance the cost of it being rugged vs the expected chance of the ruggedness keeping it from being damaged. And for most people the tradeoff isn't worth it.

[voxic11]

This seems to have pretty modern high end hardware https://www.techradar.com/pro/phone-communications/kyocera-d...

Sadly seems to be only available through Verizon though.

[Iulioh]

Calling it middle range would be a compliment

[JohnFen]

> I am not convinced that we have to choose between swappable batteries and water-proof devices. I say we can have both

Of course we can have both. They used to exist and were reasonably common. The reason for nonswappable batteries now has exactly nothing to do with waterproofing and everything to do with cost-cutting.

[tourmalinetaco]

The corporate excuse before was “no one would buy a brick”, now the excuse is “no one would buy a non-waterproof phone”. We have the technology to make a user-replaceable phone with modern parts, just look at the Fairphone.

[shiroiushi]

You don't have to look at obscure stuff like that either; just look at the highly popular Samsung Galaxy S5. It was waterproof, had a headphone jack, and an easily replaced battery. And this came out 10 years ago, in 2014.

[numpad0]

I suspect the excuse is more like "it'll be nice if we had to warranty replace fewer water damaged phones" than it being a major selling point. Some places rain a lot, and not everyone sort trousers and purses by rain resistance.

[dns_snek]

Did any manufacturer ever replace water-damaged devices under warranty if they weren't advertised as being water resistant?

I've literally never heard of that happening, and even those that are advertised as water-resistant usually don't cover water damage under warranty.

[ryandrake]

How in the world did "waterproof" become a must-have feature for phones? What the hell are y'all doing with your phones? I've never once dropped my phone in the ocean or a pool, or the toilet, or anything like that. The thing is very expensive, and I treat it carefully and delicately. Who are these people constantly submerging their phones to the point where manufacturers all decided to pay the engineering costs and tradeoffs needed to make their phones waterproof!?