The incredible shrinking handset:: Fashion demands thin, but limits remain

The oft-repeated statement-“thin is in”-like many obvious axioms, tends to mask nuance.
What exactly is this quality that appears to rule the current landscape for fashion phones?
Ask a variety of industry sources for perspective on “thin”-a somewhat elusive, qualitative attribute-and, not surprisingly, the conversation takes a variety of directions.
The over-arching concept mentioned by most is that thin is but one dimension in industrial design for consumer electronics products where modern trends demand maximum performance in a minimal footprint.
Data shows that all three dimensions of the mobile handset-height, width and depth-have been shrinking over the past few years. Yet “thinness,” or depth, appears to have attracted attention due to its contribution to the ability to hold a device or slip it into purse or pocket. There may be a psychological element as well. The other dimensions’ casual descriptors simply don’t hold similar cachet: describing a handset as “short” or “narrow” doesn’t hold the same allure as “thin.”
So what does “thin” mean in terms of actual measurements? Data from Current Analysis helps to quantify the trend.
In January 2004, handsets launched in the United States averaged about 8 cubic inches in volume, or height multiplied by width multiplied by depth. By this past spring, that figure had dropped slightly to 7.5 cubic inches. In the past six months, however, the handset has been on a crash diet-average handset volume has fallen precipitously to nearly 6.5 cubic inches. (Current Analysis’ data-see chart-took into account all handsets launched in the U.S. between January 2004 and last month, which covers nearly 500 models.)
In terms of depth, according to Current Analysis’ Avi Greengart, the “sweet spot” is 15 millimeters-less than six-tenths of an inch-if the device includes desirable features and an attractive design. Without those two attributes, thin’s attraction dissipates, he said.
Greengart acknowledged that the data on handset volume constitutes an estimate and he pointed out that design can affect one’s perception of thinness.
“The HTC PPC-6700 and Palm Treo 650 are roughly the same size, but the Treo has slimming colored strips along the side that visually break up the thickness,” the analyst said. “It is an effective optical illusion. Show the two models side-by-side and any consumer will tell you that the Treo is considerably thinner.”
‘Pantability’
Thin is part of the landscape now, in Greengart’s view, because “pantability”-his term for one of thin’s utilitarian advantages-will be hard to give up.
Data from In-Stat seems to reflect that fashion, in whatever form it takes, is either a subliminal matter for American handset consumers or that we’re reluctant to admit its role in purchasing decisions. In a recent In-Stat survey, only 4 percent of respondents said their mobile phone makes a personal statement; 50 percent said their device “helps them connect with people” while 43 percent said “it’s just a phone.” Yet Americans clearly favor stylish devices, when they’re not snapping up chubby little “free” handsets.
“Mobile phones are more a part of how we view ourselves than we care to admit,” said Bill Hughes, an analyst at In-Stat.
In Greengart’s view, focusing on landmark thin phones helps illustrate a few trends and points to a couple of vendors who have taken thin to the bank, or would like to.
As with many current handset trends, the modern era in thin began when Motorola Inc.’s Razr-“the first super-thin clamshell device,” Greengart said-launched at Cingular Wireless L.L.C. in November 2004.
According to Motorola’s Razr design team, it had marching orders to create a handset only 10 millimeters in thickness. This instigated pressure on the depth, footprint and arrangement of internal components and the thickness of external aspects such as the keypad-pressures that remain in play today. The Motorola team managed to bring the Razr in at 14 mm and, as the company is fond of reminding everyone, it has sold in excess of 50 million units worldwide in two years.
The Razr’s success focused the market on thin, a trend that Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. has attempted to capitalize on with a devotion to thinness culminating in the bar-style Trace model, which-at less than one-third of an inch thick-is the thinnest phone currently on the U.S. market, according to Current Analysis.
Samsung’s new Ultra Thin edition handsets reflect the Korean vendor’s devotion to the mobile phone’s shrinking waistline and the degree to which the company is banking on this attribute.
“Samsung is worth watching because they’re a technological innovator and fast follower,” Greengart said. “Have they overshot the market with their Ultra Thin series? Probably. But ‘ultra thin’ helps them stand out. It’s a point of differentiation.”
Samsung’s pursuit reflects the industry’s added pressure to the already intense forces driving component vendors to reduce size, thickness, footprint, power consumption and price while integrating ever-greater functionality.
“Our customers are looking to us to minimize the board area that memory and baseband components consume, while maintaining flexibility in their ability to design the handset,” said Dave Truskowski, a senior marketing manager in the mobility division at chipmaker Agere Systems, one of Samsung’s vendors for its Ultra Thin series. “Everyone is being put to task to help their handset customers deliver the thinnest designs possible.”
Though many agree that thin is not yet the market expectation for converged devices such as smart phones, that perception may be under assault by the new category of fashion-oriented, slim smart phones in what has been dubbed the “slab” form factor. Thinness clearly defined the category that has combined style, price, productivity and multimedia in one package. The Motorola Q initiated the category this past spring and was quickly joined by Nokia Corp.’s E62, the Research In Motion Ltd. BlackBerry Pearl and others.
As Greengart is quick to point out, the success of LG Electronics Co. Ltd.’s Chocolate phone-indeed many of the leading devices by vendors not slavishly embracing thinness for its own sake-establishes that fashion phones don’t depend on anorexic dimensions.
Indeed, at Motorola, thinness is discussed in terms of overall design and “grip architecture” and is simply one element in an overall effort at achieving “balance and proportion,” according to Jim Caruso, senior director of operations for the global consumer experience design group at the Schaumburg, Ill.-based handset vendor.
“Thin is an accepted trend for fashion phones,” Caruso said. “For converged devices, that’s not the expectation, because memory and battery power are two central, functional aspects of those devices.”
From a design standpoint, the proportions of a device are dictated by the display, the SIM card, the antenna and speaker technology, according to Caruso. How the device fits in a human hand is a function of the “grip architecture,” which Motorola deliberately studied as it sought an iconic design that resulted in the Razr.
Going forward, the fashion road may include thin-the new Motofone aimed at emerging markets is only 9 mm thick, or a little over one-third of an inch-but other factors are getting fresh attention. Where the Razr was a half-inch thick, its successor, the Krzr, is close to two-thirds of an inch thick. But the Krzr’s visual and tactile differentiator lies in its use of colors, materials and finishes, Caruso said.
Ultimately, said Caruso, thin’s relevance-along with the concept of the “device”-could be muted as the industry explores options in functionality.
“The communications technology of the future,” Caruso said, “could evolve into ‘distributed architecture,’ in which various functions are dispersed around the human body.”