Hacker News Reader

Comment by technoslut | Hacker News Reader

I consider this curious excuses.

>Gruber describes the jewelry or fine watch-like quality very well. But I don't wear jewelry or fine watches.

Being like jewelry isn't jewelry. The reference is to the build quality.

>but there's something about old original Motorola Droids that are at this point beaten up and worn that have a really nice aged, aesthetic weight to them.

No tech device is resistant to get beaten up. This is why there is a very healthy iPhone case market.

>Maybe it's more that I don't want to feel that precious about these objects.

These are phones. They are supposed to serve your purpose and not the other way around.

View on HN

Hm. For what am I making excuses, if I may ask?

> Being like jewelry isn't jewelry. The reference is to the build quality.

Build quality of this level is inherently luxurious, IMO.

> No tech device is resistant to get beaten up. This is why there is a very healthy iPhone case market.

I think you missed my point? Which was that I prefer objects that wear well to objects you must protect with cases that sort of defeat the purpose of having something of such high aesthetic quality.

> These are phones. They are supposed to serve your purpose and not the other way around.

I agree. That's why I want a phone I'm not afraid to scratch or dent, or I have to protect with a case (see above).

>Build quality of this level is inherently luxurious, IMO.

I don't know what that means. If you're saying that all smartphones at this level are luxurious then why do you care that the term 'jewelry' is being thrown around?

>Which was that I prefer objects that wear well to objects you must protect with cases that sort of defeat the purpose of having something of such high aesthetic quality.

Your point makes less sense to me. When has metal been lees durable than plastic? Metals traditionally dent and plastic cracks. I view the latter as being far worse.

> I don't know what that means. If you're saying that all smartphones at this level are luxurious then why do you care that the term 'jewelry' is being thrown around?

Sorry, I'll try to explain more clearly. I'm saying the build quality of Apple products, especially iPhones, is far higher than that of other phones, and is in that respect inherently luxurious. So luxurious, in fact, that it's only natural to be afraid of damage.

> Your point makes less sense to me. When has metal been lees durable than plastic? Metals traditionally dent and plastic cracks. I view the latter as being far worse.

It's not about the material. It's about what the wear does to the aesthetic quality of the phone. To use a different example, compare a jeep to a BMW. I'm not afraid of aesthetic damage to the jeep, because it's built for that, and built in such a way as to wear the damage well. Not so for the BMW. (Car analogies always work, right?)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com