Researchers Created Lenses a Thousand Times Thinner To Hopefully Eliminate Ugly Smartphone Camera Bumps (gizmodo.com) 132
Camera bumps on smartphones may soon go away thanks to a team of researchers at the University of Utah who've developed a radically thin camera lens. Gizmodo reports: For comparison, the lens elements used in today's smartphone cameras, which gather and focus light onto a tiny sensor, are a few millimeters thick. It might not sound like much, but the best smartphone cameras use multiple elements, which quickly add up, resulting in a thin phone simply not having enough room to house all of them: hence the camera bump trend. But a team of electrical and computer engineering researchers at the University of Utah have succeeded in creating a new type of optical lens that measures just a few microns thick, or about a thousand times thinner and one hundred times lighter than what you'll find in smartphones today.
The lens the researchers created is actually made up of innumerable tiny microstructures, imperceptible to the human eye, and strategically positioned so that each one bends and redirects light towards a camera's sensor. When they're all working together, they produce the same results as a single curved element does. Manufacturing the lenses also required the team to develop a new fabrication process, a new polymer, and custom algorithms to calculate the shape and position of each microstructure. But the resulting lens can be completely flat, and made of lightweight plastic. If you've ever spent a day carrying around a camera with a big lens hanging off the front, you'll appreciate that benefit alone. The study has been published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The lens the researchers created is actually made up of innumerable tiny microstructures, imperceptible to the human eye, and strategically positioned so that each one bends and redirects light towards a camera's sensor. When they're all working together, they produce the same results as a single curved element does. Manufacturing the lenses also required the team to develop a new fabrication process, a new polymer, and custom algorithms to calculate the shape and position of each microstructure. But the resulting lens can be completely flat, and made of lightweight plastic. If you've ever spent a day carrying around a camera with a big lens hanging off the front, you'll appreciate that benefit alone. The study has been published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Good progress but (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Thin phones and "no bumps" are concerns of people who don't have any sort of protective case on their phones. They must buy a lot of phones, so it makes sense the phone makers would cater to them.
Re: (Score:2)
The thinner the phone, the thicker the case can be without the phone becoming unusable.
I'm quite happy with the thickness of my current phone + case, it's thinner than my previous combination. Phones don't really need to get any thinner than they are right now.
Re:Good progress but (Score:5, Insightful)
The thinner the phone, the thicker the case can be without the phone becoming unusable.
If the phone was thicker, it could also be stronger, and wouldn't need a case.
Re: (Score:2)
The thinner the phone, the thicker the case can be without the phone becoming unusable.
If the phone was thicker, it could also be stronger, and wouldn't need a case.
And it could have a bigger battery, better cooling, 3.5mm audio, and a separate charging port.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't use cases, yet I never had problems with broken phones. I have 3 fully functional phones in my drawer because I replaced my phones not because of some defect but because I wanted new features.
So let me turn your statement around on you: Protective cases are a concern of people who don't know how to handle their phone properly.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, you don't have kids, or you don't let them use your phone to play games when the batteries on their devices run down. And you don't do anything athletic. Well, Slashdot, so that's all par for the course.
Perhaps most people don't want to concern themselves with "handling their phone properly" and instead just want to shove it in a convenient pocket and not worry about its fragility?
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously, if you can't put down your $1000 glass pacifier, and you can't be asked to take care of it, I don't know what to say. It's not a child's toy. Lots of us do all sorts of athletic stuff. We're just adult enough to put our fucking phones down while we do it.
If you think your $1000 computer is a child's toy, and you don't care about breaking it, that's on you. That 100% falls under "people who don't know how to handle their phones properly".
Re: (Score:2)
I do take care of it. I put a case on it so it doesn't get damaged when I drop it. If you can go through life without ever dropping your phone, good on you! I can't.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, you put it in a case, problem solved. Much better than white glove treatment, to any reasonable person.
Re: (Score:2)
Something useful to do with your old phone: https://drmrehorst.blogspot.co... [blogspot.com]
Re: (Score:3)
I don't use cases, yet I never had problems with broken phones. I have 3 fully functional phones in my drawer because I replaced my phones not because of some defect but because I wanted new features.
So let me turn your statement around on you: Protective cases are a concern of people who don't know how to handle their phone properly.
Could be. Or it could be that your use cases don't require you to use cases.
Re: (Score:2)
Fresnel lens (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure the university will argue this is different enough to be patentable.
Re: (Score:3)
A Fresnel lens is not exactly new news.
One small enough to fit in a cell phone is.
I'll give an analogy laced with plenty of sarcasm...
What's the big deal with all these batteries today? We had batteries for a long time. Oh, wait, a battery small and light enough to power a cell phone all day is a big deal. It wasn't that long ago when a cell phone was the size of a Kleenex box, very expensive, and had the talk time of a few minutes. If someone had the money then they could get one that was the size of an overnight bag and would allow for tal
Re: Fresnel lens (Score:2)
It wasn't that long ago we had cellphones that could last multiple days per charge. Even those with nickel metal batteries.
The phones were smaller, lighter and more rugged too.
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't that long ago we had cellphones that could last multiple days per charge.
My iPhone-8 can go 3 days between charges.
Like those long lasting flip-phones of yore, I use it for phone calls, texts, and an occasional photo. I don't use my phone for games or heavy browsing.
Re: (Score:3)
yes, it can only do it with the screen off, wifi off, bluetooth off and cellular radio off. In fact it will be able to do more than a week.
As soon as you start using it like the people actually use their phones 20 hours is the maximum.
The iphone 8 could be 30% thicker while still being thin but house 4 times as much battery as it houses now.
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't that long ago we had cellphones that could last multiple days per charge. Even those with nickel metal batteries.
The phones were smaller, lighter and more rugged too.
Like yesterday?
The Best Non-Smartphones [theinformr.com]
or
The 11 Best Basic Cell Phones of 2019 [lifewire.com]
Of which both the "Kyocera DuraXE" and "Samsung Convoy 3," look like solid old-school cell phones.
The other phones in those lists seemed less "old-school"... 2006'ish instead of 1996.
'
Re: (Score:2)
Fresnel lenses refract by angle of incidence, and are therefore still 3D. Metalenses refract by sub wavelength density variation, and are fully flat.
Re: (Score:2)
When I look at the picture of the lens, it looks like a bunch of concentric rings. How is this not just a nanoscale Fresnel lens?
BTW, I'd argue that Fresnel lenses work by density variation, too — the difference in density between the material and air, rather than between two materials. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
A Fresnel lens approximates a plane. The smaller the ridges, the closer it becomes to planar. These just have really, really tiny ridges, which I still consider to be a Fresnel lens even if the concentric rings are microscopic.
Diffractive lens (Score:2)
A Fresnel lens is not exactly new news.
Did not read the article, apparently. This is not a Fresnel lens.
Re: (Score:3)
This is good progress and all of that, but it does nothing to solve the problem of the even uglier notch. Wake me up when we get that one licked.
That's just around the corner as well: Samsung is working on a camera that can be inserted behind an OLED display, looking through the gaps in between the pixels: https://www.theverge.com/2019/... [theverge.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Notches are a solved problem. There are several solutions that area already shipping and have proven reliable.
One option is a pop-up camera. It can be motorized or manual. Some even have a mechanism that rotates the rear camera and pops it up, giving you the best quality selfie possible.
You might think that anything motorized or any moving part would be a weak point, but check out JerryRigEverything on YouTube. He tests phone to destruction and the cameras tend to survive longer than the rest of the phone.
Y
You just don't get it. (Score:2)
The notch is a feature!
I want my notch!
Screw the cameras! (Score:5, Interesting)
What about eyeglasses? Contact lenses? I'd love to have multi-element eyeglass lenses that are thinner and lighter than my current ones, and that have small focus levers to change the focal length.
Re:Screw the cameras! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Probably because using this material to create a tiny camera lens is much more cost effective than using this material to create eyeglass size lenses for the human eye, where weight and thickness are not as serious a concern as for cameras.
Same reason OLED screens came to phones first, and then TVs later.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably because using this material to create a tiny camera lens is much more cost effective than using this material to create eyeglass size lenses for the human eye, where weight and thickness are not as serious a concern as for cameras.
Same reason OLED screens came to phones first, and then TVs later.
As an eyeglass wearer, I disagree and think it's the exact opposite. I don't care that much about the size or weight of the lens in my smartphone camera because I wouldn't notice and it wouldn't affect my usage of the phone. However, a lighter pair of eyeglasses would make a huge difference in my quality of living every single day of my life. Even more so for my wife who has really thick, heavy lenses that cannot be made thinner due to safety regulations.
There are several billions of eyeglass wearers in
Re: (Score:2)
Nah. You'd just have a power correction lens layer and an astigmatism correction lens layer, and bond them together at the end. And you would rotate the lens based on the astigmatism angle before you cut it to fit the eyeglasses.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's both amazing and maddening that the first thing everyone thinks of when new engineering and/or materials advances are made is "Ooh! Cooler smartphones!"
You misunderstand. They didn't make this discovery and then look for an application. They started with the goal of making a thinner smartphone camera, and the potential profit in that is what drove the research.
Re: Screw the cameras! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Came here to say exactly that.
A microstructure which produces diffraction-limited performance in the LWIR band, 8-12 micron, is going to produce shit for quality in the visible band.
You'll need to be able to generate the same microstructure pattern scaled down by a factor of 10 to 15, which is a seriously difficult engineering task.
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo. It's both amazing and maddening that the first thing everyone thinks of when new engineering and/or materials advances are made is "Ooh! Cooler smartphones!" What I wouldn't give to get the weight of my glasses lessened by even half (or more).
Dunno about that ... my progressive lenses are already pretty light. Seems like they'd be more fragile if they got much lighter? Maybe not, but that comes to mind. Not everything needs to be constantly made lighter and more ephemeral.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you're lucky. My eyes are bad enough that I can't combine the extra thinning options with some of the other options like reactives. Even with the maximum available thinning they still get dramatically thicker at the edges, which seriously restricts which frames I can use because anything too wide ends up with lenses well more than 1 cm thick at each side. I've had arguments with opticians for telling me that certain combinations o
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Glasses probably can't get much lighter than current ones because with modern light weight plastic lenses most of the weight is the frame.
If laser eye surgery could get cheaper it might be a decent alternative to glasses for a lot of people.
Re: (Score:2)
Glasses probably can't get much lighter than current ones because with modern light weight plastic lenses most of the weight is the frame.
If laser eye surgery could get cheaper it might be a decent alternative to glasses for a lot of people.
The big thing for me isn't the weight, it's the potential for on-the-fly configurability. I now need bifocals, possibly even trifocals - I'm really not looking forward to having my visual field segmented in that way. I tried progressive lenses once - the change in distortion as I moved my head was disorienting and intolerable. Contacts are great for an hour or two - then my eyes gum up and get blurry. I won't have laser surgery - I consider the risk to be too high. Laser surgery often results in night-visio
Re: (Score:3)
https://www.eyejusters.com/ [eyejusters.com]
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.eyejusters.com/
You know Slashdot is getting old when a link to a technology for dealing with presbyopia gets pasted, then modded up.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact this already happens to some extent. The optics on a cell phone camera is relatively low quality, and the sensor has so many elements that there is a fair amount of leakage. The beautiful images we see is solely a product
Re: (Score:2)
Those aren't going to make as much money as thinner cellphones.
The good news is that that money will fund the R&D to manufacture these cheaply, and later on they can be extended to other uses.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably would tear too easily when handling them, but if they had a solution for that, that could be awesome.
Particular for those few people who have to use hard lenses still.
What doesn't bother me in the least is that the camera lens on my phone is a few millimeters thick.
Re: (Score:2)
What about eyeglasses? Contact lenses? I'd love to have multi-element eyeglass lenses that are thinner and lighter than my current ones, and that have small focus levers to change the focal length.
Interesting idea, but I don't like the level part. Why not a range sensor in the frame? Let the primary focus adjust to the closest object in front of you.
Re: (Score:2)
Because when you stare out at the world while creepily hiding behind a plant [app.goo.gl], you're not focusing on the closest object in front of you.
Public masturbation of 946416 (Score:2)
Z^-1
Re:Sexual assault by Shannon Jacobs (Score:2)
You're slipping, Shannon Jacobs. Waiting until 2:27 pm to assault people on the Internet? Did your real-life assaults run long?
Public masturbation of 946416 (Score:2)
Z^-2
A few microns thick. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The lens is never exposed in camera phones. There is always a bit of glass over it to resist scratches and shattering.
Ugly? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thermal IR? (Score:4, Informative)
PNAS paper says that the lenses work at 8-12 micron wavelengths That's the thermal IR. Fine, but optical is 0.4 to 0.7 microns (give or take). Am I missing something? Not there yet.
Fresnel Lens or ZOne plate? (Score:3)
Isn't this just oa Fresnel lens or a Zone plate? Presumably the mid IR requirement is so it can be fabbed in a long wavelength region to avoid having to have sub visible wavelength feature sizes (needed for a Zone plate).
Re: (Score:3)
Zone plate would limit you to one color and cost a lot of intensity. According to the journal article, it is a Multilevel Diffractive Lens (MDL), and the authors distinguish it from a Fresnel lens, claiming it is 100x thinner and corrected for the entire bandwidth, unlike a Fresnel lens. The MDLs use subwavelength scattering elements, but I don't fully understand how it works.
Re: (Score:2)
This sounds like what Canon has been doing with multi-layer diffractive optical elements [canon-europe.com] for 19 years. It's not a single Fresnel element, for obvious reasons, but it's still fundamentally a Fresnel lens.
With the diffraction patterns at subwavelength sizes, that might require some additional complexity, but it's still fundamentally an evolution of the same underlying Fresnel lens concept, unless I'm missing something.
It's also worth noting that those early MDL lenses would have fallen out of patent protect
Re: (Score:2)
Err... MDO Lenses. MDL lens would be redundant.
Re: (Score:2)
PNAS paper says that the lenses work at 8-12 micron wavelengths That's the thermal IR. Fine, but optical is 0.4 to 0.7 microns (give or take). Am I missing something? Not there yet.
Morticians need not apply.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about cell phones, except in the reporters mind, but rather night vision goggles and such.
Modern smartphone designs are idiotic (Score:5, Insightful)
There's no reason for notches or camera bumps. Make the damn housing bigger - problem solved. Better yet, use the extra space for more battery.
I swear, I just want to smack the moron who came up with the foolhardy notion that real estate inside a smartphone is somehow limited. A few extra mm isn't going to make or break whether it fits in your pocket, and ironically, most people end up adding a bunch of extra bulk to their phones anyway, by putting a protective case on them.
Re: (Score:2)
Lol. Riight. (Score:2)
No. They just follow the path of a company that follows the path of its head from before it got decapitated. Sorry, its *iHead*.
There is nobody who prefers shorter battery life and lack of functionality.
Except for the crowd of mentally ill, that voluntarily removes the gears, brakes, mudguards and half the handlebar from their neon bicycllery because they are so afraid that freedom and power might overwhelm them, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
I am with you but probably the smartphone makers did their market research on what most people will prefer to buy.
Thin smartphones are a consumers best friend.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There came a point where the trend was no longer driven by ergonomics, but by psychology; particularly the psychology of making a sale.
In the showroom a flagship phone has to look and feel impressive, and to do that it has to be *different*. It doesn't matter if the novelty fades away after a few uses, or even detracts from the usability of the phone. A better device is a failure if people don't buy it.
Re: (Score:3)
Did you miss the last 40 years (yes, it's been that long) of ever smaller and thinner cell phones? Apparently real estate is limited, for consumers, because the cell phones that sell are the smaller ones.
Cell phone I had 20 years ago complete with telescoping antenna was way smaller than the one I have now. That phone fit comfortably in my pocket. This one sure as heck does not.
First it was vehicle mounted phones.. Then we got those briefcase sized ones.. Then it was the bricks with a rubber antenna... And you know the rest.... From flip phones to the current batch.. The general trend has been ever thinner and mostly smaller.. Although I will concede that the current smart phones are a bit larger than some of the flip phones of the past (star-tac)
History lessons are not really relevant to present day issues.
Phones now fit into wrist watches yet people still WANT to carry around sheets of glass so wide they barely fit into pockets because they want capabilities that big screens provide.
The first thing a majority of iPhone users do upon purchasing the latest iteration of thei
Re: (Score:2)
Did you miss the last 40 years (yes, it's been that long) of ever smaller and thinner cell phones? Apparently real estate is limited, for consumers, because the cell phones that sell are the smaller ones.
It's interesting that when cellphones were used to speak to people or communicate by SMS, the trend was for ever smaller phones. Now that the screen is the key to usability, the larger the better whereas very small phones (the comically small phones that cost buttons from Chinese sites) are favoured for smuggling into prisons.
TL;DR The success of iPhone/Android is that you can't put it up your butt
Re: (Score:2)
TL;DR The success of iPhone/Android is that you can't put it up your butt
I am quite confident that if I visit one of the larger Pr0n-sites I will be able to prove you wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Pocket real estate is limited, but not as limited as smartphone manufacturers seem to believe. I didn't buy a thinner phone than my last phone because I wanted a thinner phone, I did it because the phone with the specs and price I wanted was thinner than the phone it replaced. Thickness was not one of my primary criteria. I'd rather have had more battery life. That was not on offer.
Smartphone manufacturers have moved beyond asking us what we want, and now they're telling us.
Re: (Score:2)
Better info (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the real source, hidden several levels deep under terrible reporting: https://www.pnas.org/content/e... [pnas.org]
Abstract:
We experimentally demonstrate imaging in the long-wave infrared (LWIR) spectral band (8 m to 12 m) using a single polymer flat lens based upon multilevel diffractive optics. The device thickness is only 10 m, and chromatic aberrations are corrected over the entire LWIR band with one surface. Due to the drastic reduction in device thickness, we are able to utilize polymers with absorption in the LWIR, allowing for inexpensive manufacturing via imprint lithography. The weight of our lens is less than 100 times those of comparable refractive lenses. We fabricated and characterized 2 different flat lenses. Even with about 25% absorption losses, experiments show that our flat polymer lenses obtain good imaging with field of view of 35 and angular resolution less than 0.013. The flat lenses were characterized with 2 different commercial LWIR image sensors. Finally, we show that, by using lossless, higher-refractive-index materials like silicon, focusing efficiencies in excess of 70% can be achieved over the entire LWIR band. Our results firmly establish the potential for lightweight, ultrathin, broadband lenses for high-quality imaging in the LWIR band.
tl;dr:
* it looks like a fresnel, but it's based on diffraction and corrects for chromatic aberrations in a single lens
* they're targeting long-wave IR (thermal cameras), not visible-spectrum phone cameras
* for people working on advanced optics, they sure did take a terrible picture of their prototype
So 10 meters thick and 90X as heavy (Score:2)
"The device thickness is only 10 m ...
The weight of our lens is less than 100 times those of comparable refractive lenses."
I hope their lenses are better than their writing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The actual linked article says 10 micrometers, not meters. Slashdot's lack of Unicode support strikes again... even the μ and μ HTML entities don't work here.
Granted, "weight that is over 100 times less than ..." (from the significance statement) and "weight ... is less than 100 times that of ..." (from the abstract) are both rather problematic. At least the second version is a true statement, albeit not as impressive as it could have been given the data. Negative 99 times the weight would
Re: So 10 meters thick and 90X as heavy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, this could have been fixed if it were noticed in the preview. The problem is that if you just naively copy & paste the original abstract, using the proper HTML entities, Slashdot silently ignores them leaving you with "10 m". (Without entities you would get something like "10 Âm".) It's an easy issue to overlook. Even a careful proofreader will tend to focus on the parts that were written from scratch, not the parts that were pasted in.
Lens causes a bump? (Score:3)
No, the lens does not cause the bump. ...
The thickness of current phones is just fine.
It is the obsession with thinness that is causing the bump
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The markets are limited by what features manufacturers make available, not from what consumers wish for.
Examples, from the phone market, are:
1. Many prefer keyboards, and loath typing on touch screens. However, the market is now 99% touch screen simply because phones with keyboards are virtually non existent.
2. Where are the phones that held a charge for 3 or more days? RIM's Blackberry did that. But the sweeping rise of the iPhone and Android with larger screens, and tens of thousands of apps killed the BB
Re: (Score:2)
"1. Many prefer keyboards, and loath typing on touch screens. However, the market is now 99% touch screen simply because phones with keyboards are virtually non existent."
The sliding keyboard phones I had tended to wear out quickly. They keys would literally* come off of the keyboard and the interconnect between the two haves had a tendency to fail, taking out the LCD and/or the digitizer.
*The last one I had, an LG, the keycaps were thin separate squares with nothing but the flimsy plastic b
Re: (Score:2)
I had a Windows CE phone right before Android came along.
It had a very good keyboard that was a pleasure to use. WinCE itself sucked big time though.
When Android came along, I chose a phone with a sliding keyboard, the Motorola something or other. The keyboard was very bad. I could not press it with my fingers, and had to use a finger nail for it to take.
Switched to touch screens from then on, not by choice, but being forced to. Still loath typing on that tiny error prone contraption.
Actually, it's way too thin. (Score:3)
Everyone is putting protective casings on their phones and carries a power bank with them. ...
Maybe that should be a sign
Re: (Score:2)
But if it allows cameras with the same sensor to be thinner than current designs, it could also allow for cameras with larger sensors to be as thin as current designs. In theory, metamaterial lenses could result in DSLRs you can slip in a pocket. Which would be amazing.
Wider interest (Score:2)
Anorexia is mental illness. (Score:3)
And when it becomes suicidal, people are usually put into a mental hospital.
I think we have reached that point now.
And ... (Score:2)
From TF(Gizmodo)A:
The lens the researchers created is actually made up of innumerable tiny microstructures, imperceptible to the human eye, and strategically positioned so that each one bends and redirects light towards a camera's sensor. When they're all working together, they produce the same results as a single curved element does.
Eliminating big lenses is not always a benefit (Score:2)
I used to use a pocket-sized point-and-shoot camera. Some colleagues whom I showed my best photos to suggested that I should get a DSLR, and I didn't want to commit myself because I was already having problems with camera shake, and I expected a much heavier camera to exacerbate those problems.
However, when I did try out a DSLR it turned out that the greater moment of inertia more
Re: (Score:2)
Given a 300mm lens is multiple lenses along with focus motors and a floating element to allow image stabilisation this could allow a 300mm lens the size of a 50mm lens, giving you adequate heft in a far more usable form.
It could far more easily give you lower optical quality too, but I'd take a small cheap light fast 500mm with lower IQ than the $20k 18kg 3 foot long alternative.
cool, but image quality is crap (Score:2)
The movies of the human indoors and at night look terrible compared to what can be achieved with a cheap phone lens and sensor.
We don't give a shit (Score:3)
We have large battery covers on them anyway because the idiotic 'thinner' movement doesn't leave any place for a decent battery inside.
Is this new? (Score:2)
bigger battery (Score:2)
a 1 millimeter thicker battery could also solve it. And give us power for a full day's use.
Marketing Disguised as Demand Response (Score:2)
Seriously. Almost no one is bothered by "the notch" or "the bump". This is their way of solving a problem that pretty much no one has. "Wow, isn't this bump UGLY? Gosh... if only some AMAZING phone company were to get rid of this UGLY ATROCIOUS bump, right? Well we did it! Isn't your life better! No more bump!!"
99% of people out there would be happier with their next smartphone if it were cheaper, had at least the same battery life, and/or had a variety of form factors-- small, medium, and large. It's not t
an an alternative solution (Score:2)
I'll be more impressed when they (Score:2)
create a phone that:
Is NOT paper thin
Has an SD card slot
Has a headphone jack
You can easily install a custom ROM to
You don't have to resort to Kingroot or other questionable apps to get root access to your own phone
Won't shatter to pieces if you look at it the wrong way.
All of the other frivolous bullshit is just that: bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
..oh yes, a battery that you can remove and replace without tools.