Droid Razr teardown reveals impressive guts

By on November 11, 2011, 6:30 PM

iFix has voided yet another warranty in order to show us exactly what makes the new Droid Razr tick. To open the phone, they begin to saw the unit apart with a dozuki, but quickly realized a spudger and plastic opening tool were also reasonably effective.

Motorola has been making a come back after being set aside for years by other companies that have had a seemingly endless stream of hipper smart phones. About two years ago though, the company introduced the Droid, which turned out to be a very successful smartphone series. Back in action, the company is betting its super-identifiable Razr namesake and styling will bring back the same "wow" factor as it did in 2004. Be sure to check out our hands on review, if you have not already.

The Droid Razr packs a lot of technology into a "razr" thin form factor, so what we find inside the phone is an impressive amount of thoughtful engineering. The unit is packed tight with no room to spare, filled with EMI shielded chips, an ultra-thin 1750mAh battery, tiny ribbon cables and a lot of adhesive.

The website rates the Droid Razr a 4 out of 10 on its repairability score, a rating low enough to probably scare away all but the most confident do-it-yourselfers.

iFixit lists the inordinate number of chips found inside the unit:

  • Toshiba THGBM4G7D2GBAIE 16GB EMMC Flash Memory
  • Samsung K3PE7E700M-XGC1 4Gb LPDDR2 RAM
  • Qualcomm MDM6600 Dual-Mode Baseband/RF Transceiver
  • Qualcomm PM8028 Power Management IC
  • Avago ACPM-7868 Quad-Band Power Amplifier
  • Motorola T6VP0XBG-0001 (believed to be the LCM 2.0 LTE baseband processor)
  • Texas Instruments WL1285C Wilink 7 Bluetooth/Wi-Fi/GPS
  • Skyworks 77449 Power Amplifier Module for LTE/EUTRAN Bands XIII/XIV
  • Toshiba Y9A0A111308LA Memory Stack
  • ST Ericsson CPCAP 6556002
  • Hynix H90H1GH51JMP
  • Infineon 5726 SLU A1 H1118 3A126586
  • Bosch 2133 C3H L1ABG accelerometer

iFixit also notes some unusual design elements. The digitizer (the glass on the front) is permenantly adhered to the AMOLED LCD display, which makes breaking the digitizer an expensive accident. Also, there are a tremendous amount of chips on the system board facing the display which makes it eerily devoid of all visible circuitry on the bottom. This was done to keep the Razr slim, no doubt.

Images courtesy of iFixit. You can view the full teardown here.




User Comments: 12

Got something to say? Post a comment
princeton princeton said:

"iFixit also notes some unusual design elements. The digitizer (the glass on the front) is permenantly adhered to the AMOLED LCD display"

First of all it's not that unusual. Every Samsung Galaxy S and Galaxy S II phone is the same way. Second of all that statement is contradictory. If it's OLED based then it can't be a Liquid Crystal Display and vice versa.

Staff
Rick Rick, TechSpot Staff, said:

First of all it's not that unusual. Every Samsung Galaxy S and Galaxy S II phone is the same way. Second of all that statement is contradictory. If it's OLED based then it can't be a Liquid Crystal Display and vice versa.

Thank you for pointing out the LCD slip. I have corrected it.

I do my share of mobile phone repairs and I stand by my "unusual" statement, although I do appreciate your feedback.

spydercanopus spydercanopus said:

Compared to iPhone's SoC design, this looks oldschool... but I can't help like big boards, following the traces and cables and mapping the architecture.

PaulWuzHere PaulWuzHere said:

Nice read and summary Rick, looks like a good phone. Just wish it was with other providers.

lawfer, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Princeton said:

"iFixit also notes some unusual design elements. The digitizer (the glass on the front) is permenantly adhered to the AMOLED LCD display"

First of all it's not that unusual. Every Samsung Galaxy S and Galaxy S II phone is the same way. Second of all that statement is contradictory. If it's OLED based then it can't be a Liquid Crystal Display and vice versa.

Out of hundreds of smartphones, even a dozen would be considered unusual.

princeton princeton said:

lawfer said:

Princeton said:

"iFixit also notes some unusual design elements. The digitizer (the glass on the front) is permenantly adhered to the AMOLED LCD display"

First of all it's not that unusual. Every Samsung Galaxy S and Galaxy S II phone is the same way. Second of all that statement is contradictory. If it's OLED based then it can't be a Liquid Crystal Display and vice versa.

Out of hundreds of smartphones, even a dozen would be considered unusual.

I fully understand that it's unusual for typical displays. But every SAMOLED device on the market has the panel glued to the digitizer because the digitizer is integrated into the glass. You can't really compare the construction of LCD based touchscreen devices to OLED ones.

EDIT: Also Rick. It still says AMOLED LCD. I don't think it saved your changes when you edited the article.

lawfer, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Princeton said:

lawfer said:

Princeton said:

"iFixit also notes some unusual design elements. The digitizer (the glass on the front) is permenantly adhered to the AMOLED LCD display"

First of all it's not that unusual. Every Samsung Galaxy S and Galaxy S II phone is the same way. Second of all that statement is contradictory. If it's OLED based then it can't be a Liquid Crystal Display and vice versa.

Out of hundreds of smartphones, even a dozen would be considered unusual.

I fully understand that it's unusual for typical displays. But every SAMOLED device on the market has the panel glued to the digitizer because the digitizer is integrated into the glass. You can't really compare the construction of LCD based touchscreen devices to OLED ones.

EDIT: Also Rick. It still says AMOLED LCD. I don't think it saved your changes when you edited the article.

Lol then again, my point still stands: out of hundreds of smartphones, even a dozen would be considered unusual. What I see in your first comment is a simple converse error. Just because the context of the story is about an specific OLED device, the author's subjectivity should not be tied to the context, and therefore should not be used to make conclusions, unless the author's opinion is evidently tied to the context.

It is clear the author of this article never specified whether it was unusual on phones with OLED or LCD; he explicitly mentioned it was an unusual design choice... as in general. And, since we both agree that it is unusual for typical displays (e.i. in general), then I think you've indirectly proved my point.

princeton princeton said:

lawfer said:

Princeton said:

lawfer said:

Princeton said:

"iFixit also notes some unusual design elements. The digitizer (the glass on the front) is permenantly adhered to the AMOLED LCD display"

First of all it's not that unusual. Every Samsung Galaxy S and Galaxy S II phone is the same way. Second of all that statement is contradictory. If it's OLED based then it can't be a Liquid Crystal Display and vice versa.

Out of hundreds of smartphones, even a dozen would be considered unusual.

I fully understand that it's unusual for typical displays. But every SAMOLED device on the market has the panel glued to the digitizer because the digitizer is integrated into the glass. You can't really compare the construction of LCD based touchscreen devices to OLED ones.

EDIT: Also Rick. It still says AMOLED LCD. I don't think it saved your changes when you edited the article.

Lol then again, my point still stands: out of hundreds of smartphones, even a dozen would be considered unusual. What I see in your first comment is a simple converse error. Just because the context of the story is about an specific OLED device, the author's subjectivity should not be tied to the context, and therefore should not be used to make conclusions, unless the author's opinion is evidently tied to the context.

It is clear the author of this article never specified whether it was unusual on phones with OLED or LCD; he explicitly mentioned it was an unusual design choice... as in general. And, since we both agree that it is unusual for typical displays (e.i. in general), then I think you've indirectly proved my point.

You didn't need to prove your point. It was already factual and nobody debated that. I just pointed out that there is a reason why they do it. I'm glad you're happy that you've succeeding in proving a point that was not debated or denied.

gwailo247, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

Princeton said:

You didn't need to prove your point. It was already factual and nobody debated that. I just pointed out that there is a reason why they do it. I'm glad you're happy that you've succeeding in proving a point that was not debated or denied.

Thus, having run out of worthy opponents, lawfer lawfered himself.

stewi0001 stewi0001 said:

I'm just happy that Verizon was nice enough to exchange my bionic (which I had for less than a month) for the razr

amstech amstech, TechSpot Enthusiast, said:

Lol why a teardown on something you can get the specs too?

lawfer, TechSpot Paladin, said:

gwailo247 said:

Princeton said:

You didn't need to prove your point. It was already factual and nobody debated that. I just pointed out that there is a reason why they do it. I'm glad you're happy that you've succeeding in proving a point that was not debated or denied.

Thus, having run out of worthy opponents, lawfer lawfered himself.

Hahaha, I wish.

Princeton said:

lawfer said:

Princeton said:

lawfer said:

Princeton said:

"iFixit also notes some unusual design elements. The digitizer (the glass on the front) is permenantly adhered to the AMOLED LCD display"

First of all it's not that unusual. Every Samsung Galaxy S and Galaxy S II phone is the same way. Second of all that statement is contradictory. If it's OLED based then it can't be a Liquid Crystal Display and vice versa.

Out of hundreds of smartphones, even a dozen would be considered unusual.

I fully understand that it's unusual for typical displays. But every SAMOLED device on the market has the panel glued to the digitizer because the digitizer is integrated into the glass. You can't really compare the construction of LCD based touchscreen devices to OLED ones.

EDIT: Also Rick. It still says AMOLED LCD. I don't think it saved your changes when you edited the article.

Lol then again, my point still stands: out of hundreds of smartphones, even a dozen would be considered unusual. What I see in your first comment is a simple converse error. Just because the context of the story is about an specific OLED device, the author's subjectivity should not be tied to the context, and therefore should not be used to make conclusions, unless the author's opinion is evidently tied to the context.

It is clear the author of this article never specified whether it was unusual on phones with OLED or LCD; he explicitly mentioned it was an unusual design choice... as in general. And, since we both agree that it is unusual for typical displays (e.i. in general), then I think you've indirectly proved my point.

You didn't need to prove your point. It was already factual and nobody debated that. I just pointed out that there is a reason why they do it. I'm glad you're happy that you've succeeding in proving a point that was not debated or denied.

Sorry for the late response, but Skyrim hasn't been of help lately....

Anyway, indeed, my first point was factual. But not evident. Oh, I also had a second point, too.

But every SAMOLED device on the market has the panel glued to the digitizer because the digitizer is integrated into the glass. You can't really compare the construction of LCD based touchscreen devices to OLED ones.

Here you are providing the reasoning behind your first comment. My <i>second</i> point was that the author never specificied whether he considered this phone's design unusual for a OLED or LCD device, and therefore your initial point, which stated that it was unusual due to a series of (OLED) devices using a similar production (and the statement which states you can't compare LCD and OLED)... is not quite right.

All my <i>second</i> point did was prove to you he wasn't specifically talking about the unusuality of the Razr in the family of OLED smartphones, but the unusual construction as a device. And since your point was that the author was, inadvertently, comparing the Razr's construction with other OLED phones, proving to you that he was <i>not</i> talking specifically about OLEDs construction as a whole, was crucial to show you why my <i>first</i> point still stands (and therefore applies to the reasoning in your second comment), as opposed to explain why it is factual.

So you got it twisted, mate.

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.