Droid Razr teardown reveals impressive guts

By Rick · 12 replies
Nov 11, 2011
Post New Reply
  1. 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…

    Read the whole story
  2. princeton

    princeton TS Addict Posts: 1,676

    "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.
  3. Rick

    Rick TechSpot Staff Topic Starter Posts: 4,572   +65

    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.
  4. spydercanopus

    spydercanopus TS Evangelist Posts: 856   +121

    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.
  5. PaulWuzHere

    PaulWuzHere TS Guru Posts: 271

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

    lawfer TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,270   +91

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

    princeton TS Addict Posts: 1,676

    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.
  8. lawfer

    lawfer TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,270   +91

    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. :)
  9. princeton

    princeton TS Addict Posts: 1,676

    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.
  10. gwailo247

    gwailo247 TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 2,010   +18

    Thus, having run out of worthy opponents, lawfer lawfered himself.
  11. stewi0001

    stewi0001 TS Evangelist Posts: 1,685   +1,083

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

    amstech IT Overlord Posts: 1,936   +1,101

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

    lawfer TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,270   +91

    Hahaha, I wish. ;)

    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.

    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. :)

Similar Topics

Add your comment to this article

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...