By 
The last thing struggling HTC needs is to take on the acquisition of Panasonic’s smartphone division. However, according to Japanese business rag SankeiBiz, the Taiwanese OEM is among several candidates in talks to do just that. The other frontrunner is semiconductor fabricator TSMC.
At this stage it sounds like Panasonic is merely shopping the idea around to potentially interested parties. Regardless, it’s hard to imagine how HTC could justify such a big financial move in light of falling revenues. Things are so dire at HTC that CEO Peter Chou will consider stepping down based on the success of their current One flagship.
What HTC needs to do is continue to focus on turning around their own business without the distractions of a major acquisition that, on the surface, doesn’t sound like it will have many immediate benefits. Consider it rumor or wishful thinking for now.
[via UnwiredView]
HTC needs to make phones with bigger, removable batteries, and sd card slots. These are the three features I constantly see requested in comments on every phone blog. Why won’t they listen?
Official statement from HTC:
*fingers in ears* “LALALALALALALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOUUUUUU LALALALALALA!”
HAHAHAHA!!VERY FUNNY.
because Google say not to do the sd-card thing. And phone ‘s dont last more than 2-3yrs with new models coming out.. so why bother with replaceable batteries? Like the iPhone has been doing for 5yrs now.
Problem is, Apple can afford to lose some people because their battery craps out after warranty. HTC needs every sale to count, so why alienate potential purchasers who opt not to buy because of potential battery issues?
If HTC truly wanted to turn that sinking ship around, they should have offered what people are asking for… it’s just logical in my mind.
Removable battery doesn’t matter if they just make the battery bigger. Every person I know with an SGS3 brags about the removable battery, but not one owns a second battery.
I do! And a spare battery charger for it! And I had the same for my gnex. love the convenience of not having to be connected to a wall
I don’t have a second battery. Nor have I for any of my phones.
However, I have yet to own a phone where I don’t have to replace the battery somewhere between 12-24 months old. And a user-replaceable battery is far cheaper (and more convenient) than shipping it back to Apple/HTC/LG to have it done.
At 500 charges any battery will have ~50% capacity. For many, 500 charges covers the phone lifetime. For power users like me that do not change phones every 6 months (I do after 18 months contracts), it can happen in less than a year. Its nice to spend $15 after a year and have a new battery and 100% capacity again. Also if you use to travel at work, to have a spare battery is a must. I constantly see people at the airport fighting for a power outlet…
I think having a bigger battery was important back in when the Droid Razr/Evo 3D came out… Processors weren’t as efficient, and battery life suffered. But here’s the thing: With the new Snapdragon S4 and the Snapdragon 600/800 processors, the size of the battery is no longer a big factor in determining how long a phone can last. In many reviews of the HTC One, it lasted 9-13 hours from medium/light use, and it has a 2300 mAh battery. Although having a bigger battery size would be great for anyone, it’s not longer a huge factor, especially those who has the ability to charge their phone when they are done for the day. I guess it depends on the individual’s needs.
Your entire argument is invalid… :) … The giant displays are a much much bigger drain on the battery than any other component. SAMOLED is slightly more efficient than SLCD (especially when using dark themes), but not by much.
I’m pretty sure the processor uses just as much if not more juice. Reviews say they can watch 9 hours of video on an Evo LTE. Yet if you play nba jam for 3 hours, your battery is just about hitting the danger zone.
No matter what you’re doing with your phone — playing a game, or just webbrowsing — when you check battery stats, “Screen” will always be at the top of the list by a big percentage.
yes this is true, but my question is, does processor get lumped in under “screen” because there is no processor category. And to me that’s the only thing that would explain why movie playback = 9 hours while gaming playback = 3 hours. Both with the screen being on with the same brightness. Screen on activities does not always equal screen on activities.
Processor is lumped under whatever application is using the processor.
So, for your above example, the movie playback’s total battery usage would be Screen + Movie Player. Gaming would be Screen + Game Application.
And that would work both ways correct?, screen = movie application + gaming application + facebook application?
No.
Screen is the battery used to power the screen and the backlight. That power is proportional to the brightness of the backlight, size of the screen, etc. In theory, if you leave brightness at the same level, 2 hours of screen-on should take twice the battery of 1 hour, no matter what you’re doing.
There is no processor category, because that can be divided up into, and varies by, individual applications. And some applications (games) put more strain on the CPU than others (music player, twitter), resulting in different amounts of power drain.
Ok but then that would mean the “screen” figure in the battery stats is pointless then? Because if i watch a movie for 3 hours it will say display used up most of my juice and i will have 60% battery left. But if i play a game for 3 hours it will say the display used up most of my juice but i have 10% left. In that situation the screen cant be the biggest contributor to battery drain?
Just really trying to understand here because the “in theory” situation you have stated I don’t exactly think applies to all real life situations.
It is most certainly not pointless.
Applications can run in the background, or with the screen off (like music players, email clients, etc.) So the screen usage of *ALL* applications is lumped under “screen”.
So if you watch a movie for 3 hours, it will say that display used 70%, the movie player used 20% and other misc. stuff (wifi, etc.) used the other 10% of the battery that has been used so far. That means 70% Screen, 20-25% CPU (Movie Player + email client + OS + …), and the remainder either Cell and/or WiFi radios.
If you play a game for 3 hours, the numbers will be different. The Display is probably only around 50%, the game around 45%, and misc stuff using the other 5%.
But so long as you’re doing something that has the screen on, in *MOST* situations, the screen is still going to be on the top.
Uh… Play 3 hours of any game on ANY phone, you’re in the danger zone…
Yes that’s my point its not JUST the screen, its the activity that takes place when the screen is on. So i dont think any display inefficiency is as big a deal as people make it to be
I don’t get what you’re trying to say… You said that giant displays are a bigger battery drain on the battery. The S4 has a bigger screen than the HTC One, but not by much (.3 inch). You also said that SAMOLED it slightly (but not by much) more efficient than HTC’s SLCD screen…
So with reasoning from what you said, HTC’s SLCD=Samsung’s SAMOLED (One vs S4) in efficiency
You were only talking about the CPU in ref to the battery in your original post. The unmentioned elephant in the room was the ever-increasing display size that has always eaten up most of the battery life.
You could have said that… lol
But yeah, I agree, the screen takes up a lot of battery juice, but it goes for any phone
For many people, 9-13 hours is not enough. I understand that we get used to that and for many its OK. But when you use a phone that last more than 24hs (like the Note 2 or the Rzr HD MAXX)… it is a killer feature to have IMHO.
HTC has a bad reputation about battery life. If they would launched the HTC One with a 3000mAh battery that last more than 24hs, they could get rid of that bad reputation in a second and sell a lot more phones in the process (something that HTC desperately needs to survive this year)
I actually think there a only a few amount of people who really NEEDS to have a 24-hr battery life on their phone on medium/light use. If you, or anyone else needs it, then this is obviously not a phone to consider. But for the majority who has access to a charger and has the time to charge their phone (like being at home after work), then I think this will suffice
because HTC cannot out Samsung, Samsung. There is more to a phone than, removable batteries and SD cards, why is that so hard for most people on the internet to understand.
I understand why Google is against sd cards and I don’t use one anyway, I’m just saying all I ever read in comments on this site are that people want these three things so why not give it to them? Samsung does and their phones are selling very well
A fledgling phone company probably shouldn’t acquire another fledgling phone company. Especially an irrelevant player like Panasonic.