Clamshell vs. Candybar

Five years ago the juxtaposition(comparison?) as per title would not have made sense to most people, but as the penetration mobile phone usage has risen the question of the design of one's handphone becomes an important criteria for choosing one.

http://www.bwcs.com/news_detail.cfm?item=4372
The link above goes to an article from april last year, it's about some grievances of some of Nokia's shareholders about the companies phone design. They are unhappy as Nokia is still lagging behind it's competitors in phone design. Critics say that the coolest phone on the market is the Motorola RAZR.

The is more to phone design for me as a consumer than just "cool". Pricing, battery life and functionality for me takes precedence over "cool". I'm one of the so-called conservatives.

I take it as a rule that for any items man-made that the less moving parts it has the better it will last. The wear and tear of a clamshell is as one would imagine more than that of a candybar designed phone. But this however is not a iron-clad rule.

My sister did once bought a Nokia 2650, and the hinge that I thought would be the first thing that disappoint was not. It was the casing itself, the rubber covered keypad did not last. Read the reviews on this phone here.

As shown here, the family are fans of Nokia phones.

All I ask for is make phones that last, phone shouldn't be used for only a year. Imagine the trash heap of old phones if that were so. Designers should strive for a design that is timeless and that would not happen if the phone lasts for only 6 months.

What? Is there a push from management to make phone that wouldn't last? If I were a designer (which I'm not, I'm a consumer), that kind of directive would impose severe pressure on my ideals.

Servus - candybar fan.