The Galaxy S25 Edge And IPhone 17 Air Are Phones No One Asked For

Ultra-thin smartphones like the Galaxy S25 Edge and the iPhone 17 Air have that initial wow factor for some, but if we’re all going to be honest with ourselves and everyone else, these are phone designs that no one asked for.

By that, I mean there likely aren’t many people sitting around the table with friends, knocking back a few drinks, gushing over the possibility of a company manufacturing a phone so thin you could lose sight of it unless you’re looking at the screen or the back. That’s the thing with ultra-thin smartphones. While they might look appealing at first (I can admit, thin electronics do have a cool aesthetic), that’s going to wear off once you come to terms with the fact that the thinness of the phone was at the expense of battery life and durability.

The thinner phones get, the less structurally sound they’re likely to be. And if there’s anything that a large majority of consumers need, it’s certainly not a less durable smartphone. Then, of course, there’s the battery life. You could make the case that a compromise of battery life for a much thinner phone is reasonable. Provided it’s possible to charge that phone back to 100% in less than, say, 20 minutes. Because at least then, it won’t take you long to charge up your phone from a completely drained battery.

However, that isn’t something that’s possible right now. This means you have to not only live with a smaller battery capacity, but the phone doesn’t really charge any faster, either.

Ultra-thin smartphones are the next fad

This is really just my own personal opinion on the matter, but I truly think the “ultra-thin, world’s thinnest, slimmer than slim” smartphones are the next fad. At what point do we reach “too thin”? When do we take a step back and start asking ourselves why we’re willing to give up other important aspects of a phone’s design and functionality just to have a noticeably slimmer device?

I think we need to ask ourselves, how thin is too thin? You could also look at other past trends in smartphone design that have more or less died out. Some stuck around longer than others, while a few didn’t really take off to begin with. Take modular phones, for example. Modular phones were never really a big hit, even though the intention behind them was exciting. A more sustainable phone that allowed people to upgrade only what was necessary.

Fine with your phone’s battery, but want a better camera and more storage? Not a problem. Phones like Google’s failed Project Ara envisioned a phone that would allow you to pop off modules for these components. So you could, in theory, slot in a better camera module and a module with a larger storage capacity.

While Google’s modular phone dreams were never realized, other brands took a crack at a similar idea. Motorola came up with Moto Mods. These were attachments that would snap onto the back of your Motorola phone and included things like different cameras, speakers, and larger batteries. LG also tried to mimic this modular setup with the G5. LG no longer makes phones. The point is, modular phones were a trend that was more like a flash in the pan.

Smaller and smaller phones is another trend that’s died out. Remember when Sony was making the Xperia Compact? No? That’s because most people didn’t want compact phones. And likely paid no attention to devices that used their small stature as a marketing feature. Sure, ultra-thin smartphones are popular with manufacturers now. But don’t be surprised if they don’t get much thinner. Not only because I think we’re reaching the absolute edge of how thin phones can be, but who’s to say phones like the Galaxy S25 Edge will even sell well.

And if it doesn’t sell well, why would Samsung continue making devices like it?

Samsung and Apple have “sparked” a trend

While companies like Samsung and Apple battle it out for the thinnest phone when it comes to bigger brands, smaller brands are getting in on the action. Companies like Tenco have revealed their new Spark Slim. Claiming to be the world’s thinnest phone, measuring just 5.75mm. That’s thin. On top of that, the company claims there’s a 5,200mAh battery inside.

Tenco is supposed to fully reveal this phone at Mobile World Congress next week. So more details will undoubtedly be available at the show. If the battery capacity is accurate, then this might be an exception to what is likely the tradeoff for ultra-thin smartphones.

However, Tecno seems to be the only brand so far that’s shoved a big battery into this incredibly slim phone frame. Samsung’s Galaxy S25 Edge is said to have a 4,000mAh battery. A battery that’s considerably smaller in capacity and likely offers shorter battery life between charge cycles. Though, we’ll have to wait to see if that ends up being the case.

While I still think ultra-thin smartphones are the industry’s flavor of the week, there are some ways that brands could get around the issues that might pop up with devices this thin. And Apple’s iPhone 16e and iPhone 17 Air might be where brands need to look for inspiration.

The solution to battery life could be in more power-efficient components

Apple’s iPhone 16e is a good example of this. Thanks to the new C1 modem that Apple has used inside of it, the iPhone 16e now has longer battery life than any other 6.1-inch iPhone. This new power-efficient modem is the key. If Apple ends up using the same modem inside the iPhone 17 Air, then it could still end up with decent battery life. Even if it does come with a smaller battery capacity.

This still doesn’t tackle the potential issue of durability, but it could help with battery life. It’s reasonable to assume that making phones thinner would leave less room for batteries. Which, ultimately, could mean a smaller battery capacity. Save for maybe in Tenco’s case with the Spark Slim. So, using more power-efficient components, such as the C1 modem, could help to lessen the power draw and help make the batteries in these ultra-thin smartphones last longer.

On the durability side of things, I’m not so sure there’s anything that could be done to strengthen the device. Phones that are thicker than these new ultra-thin devices are already easy enough to snap in half. Some more than others. Perhaps if brands were using stronger materials to begin with, like titanium (Samsung is rumored to be using ceramic and aluminum), this could be a way to slightly improve things. But will companies do that?

Phones were already thin enough

Without dragging things on too long, I’ll get to the point of this whole piece. Phones were already thin enough. Take a look at Google’s Pixel 8 or Pixel 9 Pro. In what world were either of these phones too thick? Or any of the other phones that have more or less the same thickness, for that matter? I think the main issue is that the smartphone industry has stagnated. It has been stagnant for a while when it comes to design.

There’s not much else brands can do right now for innovation other than change the way things look or add cameras with more megapixels. Even then, there’s only so much they can do. I do think there is a place in the industry for thinner phones, but that, for me, revolves around foldables. Mainly because those get thicker when you fold them up. It makes sense to make them thinner, so they aren’t such fat slabs in your pocket.

But slab-style phones that don’t fold really don’t need to be thinner. They fit just fine in just about any pocket. They’re comfortable to hold. They’re even relatively lightweight in a lot of cases. To me, it feels like smartphone brands are just looking for an easy way to capture more attention and pull consumers away from the other guy. Which, ok, fine. That’s part of big business, after all. Ultra-thin smartphones are what they came up with, though. It feels hollow and not very inspired.

Don’t get me wrong, I think ultra-thin electronics can be cool. Ultra-thin TVs, ultra-thin monitors – these things are great. The thinner, the better, as long as they don’t compromise functionality to make this happen. These also aren’t devices that you carry around in your pocket and can easily drop. They sit stationary almost entirely. There’s less of a chance that durability is going to be a factor because of how thin they are. TVs and monitors also don’t have to worry about smaller battery capacities because there’s less space.

Because they’re plugged into an AC power source. Phones, on the other hand, need to dial things back just a bit. If they get any thinner, it’s going to be hard to see these things.